Earlier in the day, we pointed out a statement from Todd Archer’s article regarding the negotiations between the Cowboys and cornerback Terence Newman.
“If NFL owners opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement at their spring meeting today in Atlanta, contracts done afterward would have to follow more stringent salary-cap rules set up for 2010 and beyond,” Archer writes.
The truth, however, is that there’s no magic to the timing of the opt out. Now that the owners have pulled the plug two years early on the CBA, 2009 will be the last year with a salary cap, and 2010 will have no salary cap, but likewise will have certain specific restrictions applicable to free agency.
And so now all contracts — those negotiated yesterday, today, and tomorrow — will become part of the overall picture that each front office much consider when attempting to comply with the applicable salary cap rules. This includes contracts signed even before the 2006 CBA extension, when no one knew that 2006 might be the last capped year, or that 2009 might be the last capped year, too.
Moving forward, NFL front offices will have to come up with contracts that comply with the 2008 cap rules, the rules of the last capped year in 2009, and the realities of the uncapped year. They’ll also have to account for the presently unknown terms of an extension, if an extension is eventually reached.
In other words, it’s got the potential to be a huge mess for every NFL, and it likely makes the league more willing to head to the uncapped year in 2010 after they wade through the bigger mess, which will be the last capped year.
And it all begins in less than ten months.
Tick. Tock.
_2.gif)






May 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Tick. Tock.”, indeed.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
It seems strange that contracts signed now would have to comply retroactivly with regulations that have yet to be determined. That would be like making a particular type of tackle illegal, and then going back in time and assessing penalities to all those people who performed that particular type of tackle. The only thing I hate about the CBA is the clause that allows for franchising players. It’s not used in the manner under which it was supposed to be, get rid of it. Keep the cap.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
AND they must account for the fact that there may be a NEW salary cap, whether it be higher or lower than they previously thought.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
This should work wonders for the contract negotiations of this year’s crop of 1st round draft picks, especially the top 10-15.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I can’t wait for the first 7 year, $350 million contract given to a QB.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Just pay the man…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“It seems strange that contracts signed now would have to comply retroactivly with regulations that have yet to be determined.”
There’s no retroactive compliance. All deals that extend beyond 2009 have been subject to the 30% rule. No existing contracts have increases of more than 30% from ‘09 to ‘10 or beyond. They just have to stay that way (ie no creating cap room by converting salary to signing bonus since that would make the year to year increase to large).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 20th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I wrote the immediately proceeding without checking and it wasn’t accurate. The CBA does permit for contracts to exceed the 30% rule going into the uncapped year if the CBA is ended early. So, contracts signed before the vote was taken (ie those of Newman, Barner, and Ryan) do not have to be in compliance with the 30% rule while those signed from Tuesday afternoon on do have to be.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated