NFL Owners Opt Out Of CBA....What It Really Means
Yes, the sky is falling, cats and dogs are living together, left is right and right is left. The NFL Owners have done exactly what everyone thought they were going to do, voting unanimously to opt out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since the announcement there has been alot of talk, complete BS is more accurate, about what it means for the NFL now and in the immediate future. There are several fine articles, like HERE and HERE .
What I want to do is combine the best of the best information here so we all know what it means when we hear the term "Uncapped Year" or when a work stoppage could possibly happen.

Let's start by saying this. Today's news has absolutely no effect on football in 2008 or 2009. Even if there is no agreement reached between now and next spring there would be football in 2010. The earliest any type of work stoppage could happen is 2011 and it would be a Lockout by the owners, not a strike by the players.
So, we are good through 2009 with the current system, and are looking at an "uncapped season" in 2010. What the hell does that mean, anyway? Many people think the players would love that. Money would flow like never before and players will reap the benefits of owners who simply cannot help themselves when the competitive juices start flowing.
That might be partially true, but the League and NFLPA were smart to put in place contingencies that protect the best interests of the League from those who run it. While there would be no salary cap, other restriction would be put in place that makes movement by players even harder than it is right now --
1. Free Agency Requirements Raised From 4 to 6 Years -- As Peter King explains, players who usually get the right to become free agents after 4 years of service would now be required to have 6 years --
Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned.Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.
Pat Kirwin from NFL.com adds even more examples --
Let's start with the Tennessee Titans. They lost defensive ends Travis LaBoy (Arizona) and Antwan Odom (Cincinnati) as well as guard Jacob Bell (St. Louis). The three players signed for a combined total of $87.5 million ($32 million guaranteed). If the extension on time to free agency was in place, none of these players would have been free. All of them had just four years of service and would have remained Titans for upwards of two more years. The Titans would have probably changed their draft strategy and not gone after defensive linemen Jason Jones or William Hayes and could have taken a receiver or a corner.Other players that never would have seen a big payday: Michael Turner, who signed a $34.5 million deal ($15 million guaranteed) with Atlanta, would still be LaDainian Tomlinson's backup in San Diego; Gibril Wilson would still be a Giant; D.J. Hackett a Seahawk.
No way players will like being restricted for 2 extra seasons. As it is players want contracts to be shorter and shorter in hopes of getting an extra payday during their career.
2. Three 'Franchise'-type Tags Instead Of One -- Right now teams can designate one player each year as a "Franchise" player(average of top-5 salaries at position) or "Transition" player(average of top-10 salaries at position), restricting his ability to negotiate with other teams. Should the League go uncapped in 2010 and 2011 each team would have access to 1-Franchise Tag and 2-Transition Tags. Not only would a player have to wait 6 years just to get to Free Agency, they would have a much greater likelihood of getting restricted even further with one of these tags. Kirwin talks about this a bit further -
If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.
Of course, with an extra 2 years before players even get to that point would keep teams from over-using this stipulation. And think about it, the average NFL career is over in 3.5 years.
3. Top 8 Teams Will Be Restricted -- Some people are worried about the NFL becoming like Major League Baseball with 3 or 4 teams at the high end of the salary scale making it hard for small market teams to compete. In a way, it is the exact opposite. Another stipulation severely restricts the teams that finish with the Top 8 records. Once again we join Peter King --
If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free-agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency. And I can tell you from talking to a few traditionally good teams at the league meetings last week, they're not happy about it.
Essentially teams would get punished for winning. Think about a team like Indianapolis, a team that manages their finances but also doesn't worry about spending money on a particular free agent when the need arises. The system would punish them, hamper their ability to make a move in Free Agency for no other reason than their Win/Loss record the year before. Meanwhile other teams could spend what they wanted.
None of the options above really benefit the players. Some of them don't benefit the teams and owners that have done a great job in the current system. The NFL has done a great job in positioning itself as this country's #1 sport in terms of popularity and finances. Wisely, the men that run the League, that helped it ascend to this point, put in place protective measures to avoid the "worst case scenario". To put it simply, an uncapped year doesn't help anyone - players, owners or fans.
What will happen? In my honest opinion both sides know what is at stake. They have the next year or so to get something done. There will be dooms-day talk from both sides and things will look bleak at times. In the end, cooler heads will prevail, the same cooler-heads that have shaped this League into the powerhouse it is today.
3 recs |
56 comments
Comments
Thanks Guru
This is a great piece. Numbers will be spinning in my dead for a while. This will take some time to digest. I am sure glad we have X-man to figure this out for us.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. - Emerson
by firstfan on
May 20, 2008 11:41 AM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Whew... I think...
It’s still hard to figure out, but i refusse to get stressed by something thats more than 2 years away.
I just hope the cap stays – that waa what make me go from european soccer to football…
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on
May 20, 2008 12:13 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
we will see
But I dont care right now to tell the truth. I love football but, honestly I could not give a crap between the fight of Billionaires and Millionaires. They dont live in reality unless they lose their loot and have to live like us.
by broncfanstuckinsd on
May 20, 2008 12:24 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
hmm.. I dont see my previous comment here. I'll repost..
Anyone know what an owner lockout would do? I dont recall ever seeing on in another sport.
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 12:35 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
It happened...
in the NBA a few years ago. The Owners can simply “Lock” the players out, tell them to stay home.
-TSG
www.milehighreport.com
by John Bena (aka TheSportsGuru) on
May 20, 2008 12:38 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh yea...how badly did it affect the NBA?
I guess I need to keep up on my recent history, eh? I just do not like the thought of an entire year without football. Or even a few games.
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:17 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Three Words....
Not….Gonna…Happen….
-TSG
www.milehighreport.com
by John Bena (aka TheSportsGuru) on
May 20, 2008 1:22 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ok, I will accept that then.
Is it safe to assume that the deal will just be renegotiated to give the players less than 60% of the revenues? If so, I would like to hear a guestamate of the amount the NFLPA will agree too. I mean we can’t be talking about 2-3% right? We’re talking 50% or less right?
Sorry for asking so many questions, but this story really intrigues me as it has since it was brought up in a fanpost by MattR several weeks ago.
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:28 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe the fanpost wasn't written by MattR, but it was somewhere on MHR...can't seem to find it now. lol
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:31 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It was in the "Question" fanpost by "The 4th Amigo"
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 1:32 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Now I am thinking of one that was written a few weeks back.
Let me go find it. :)
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:34 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmm, now I am curious
And you have to ignore all the random comments made during the draft weekend :)
It might not have been from me, but someone posted about how the old CBA gave the players about 65% of total revenue. When it was extended, the players agreed to a smaller percentage (59% I think), but the pool of total revenue was expanded to include local advertising and other things. (These additional revenues generally vary from team to team depending on the market)
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 1:46 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's interesting. Man, the NFL really bowed down to the
holy NFLPA for many years didn’t they? Glad the Owners are fighting back. I think 50/50 is perfectly fair. It’s important to keep the balance equal so the NFL can be as successful as it can be.
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 2:20 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I couldn't find it, so maybe I am just a fool. ;)
I know this story was talked about on MHR several weeks ago, but I cant find the thread. lol
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:41 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who is the bigger fool?
The fool or the fool who follows him? :-)
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 1:52 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good summary
I think the most important date is the end of the 2009 season. There will be real trouble if the NFL gets into an uncapped year and teams start signing free agents based on the lack of a cap. That is going to be very hard to undo, even if the existing structure for 2010 is unfavorable for everybody.
I also think the owners are willing to lock the players out and go with replacement players again if necessary.
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 1:40 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe I should start training and getting back into shape...I would love to be a scrub!
Perhaps Crazy Al is intent on doing just what you mentioned. Making it harder for the NFL to undue what it has done. Remember, his faders have been an afterthought since the salary cap was instituted, maybe he blames it for his teams utter failure. Look in the mirror Al!
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 1:44 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Look, you are a Donkey fan......
so its in your nature to spit ridiculous venom at Al, but your comment that….
“his faders have been an afterthought since the salary cap was instituted”
is completely baseless. Its only been 5 seasons since the 2002 SB loss. Spit that venom buddy, but try and keep it at least somewhat based in reality.
Also, Al deserves a lot of credit for the state of the league and its great success, especially when discussing the CBA. We have been through this on a previous post, so I will not rehash the subject, but your venom is misplaced in this instance, even for a Donkey fan.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 20, 2008 4:09 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You really want me to shore up my "baseless" claim as you call it?
Please see the chart below(I love charts):

As you can see the Oakland Raiders are perennial LOSERS for the past FIFTEEN YEARS. Even the Chargers are better than the Raiders. You hold onto that single Super Bowl LOSS forever, cause I for one would never try to tout a Super Bowl DEBACLE as a success. The Broncos are perennial WINNERS and that is proven by their overall domination of the AFC West for the past several DECADES.
Oh and by the way, the Raiders have burned through EIGHT coaches in 15 years. There’s a model for success. Crazy Al strikes again!
I should have taken the chart all the way back to 1975, just to show you how complete the domination of the Broncos over this division. Why don’t you try backing up your random venom with some factoids buddy. ;)
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 4:51 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh and btw, I choose 1992, because that was right around when the
Free Agency era started. I wasn’t sure of the year, but I figured 1992 was pretty close.
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 4:53 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I see a mistake I made on the chart. 1997, Oakland did not T2nd, they T4th. ;) opps!
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 4:57 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Both teams have the same amount of division titles.......
and the Raiders had a three year stretch of domination. Again, the Donkeys may have had the better overall record and success ‘during this time frame’, but to call the Raiders an afterthought is plainly false. I understand your bitterness though, concidering the Donkeys were a missed OT field goal away from being swept last season. I also love how Donkey fans like to consider only the parts of their franchises history that support their arguments, but again, thats understandable too. It would not fly in a debate competition, but does when your on your own fan site surrounded by like minded individuals.
NEXT!!
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 20, 2008 11:05 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually, there is too much info on that chart
The salary cap began in 1994. And since the quote in question had to do with the Raiders relevance in the salary cap era, it seems reasonable to only include info from that period. Wouldn’t ya say?
The more accurate quote from Zappa would have been that the Raiders are “mostly an afterthought”, which is absolutely true (Six of 14 years with a cap, Oakland has had five wins or less)
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 11:48 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again.......
The Raiders have been terrible the past five seasons, but to attribute the last five seasons to the entire salary cap era is ridiculous.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 22, 2008 10:35 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't attribute it to the entire salary cap era. I went all the way back
to 1992! The faders had three or four good seasons out of 15. 15!!! The Broncos have had maybe 3 or 4 bad seasons…that’s the point I was trying to make man. ;)
by Zappa on
May 22, 2008 11:33 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In fact...
...only six losing seasons dating back to 1975 (for the Broncos). We have had a “consistent” winning program. A losing year like last year is almost unheard of for our team.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 22, 2008 1:38 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But in the end.......
All that matters is SB titles…....
I love this argument, cause it trumps all others when speaking with Donkey fans. The Truth is the Truth. The Donkeys have had a real nice run, but the overall excellence of the Raiders, exemplified by three titles and SB appearances in four decades (only matched by the Steelers) says it all. Wins mean nothing w/o trophies to back them up and make them worth while. All you need to do is win one more before the Raiders get another, and this argument goes away. However, #7 and TD aren’t coming out of retirement any time soon, so I’m pretty sure the Raiders are sitting pretty.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 22, 2008 4:27 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lol! Overall Excellence?
You mean excellence/cheating in the 60’s and 70’s for two Super bowl titles. Luck of an NFL strike in 82 for another Super Bowl title. And then 3 decades of medocracy?
Raiders ARE sitting pretty…ripe for another #1 overall draft choice. See, you are currently experiencing what I call the “Euphoria” period for Raider fans as described in one of my past blogs. Pretty soon you will start to feel anxiety as you realize McFadden is still not under contract. We are still about a month or two away from the denial you still start feeling. But feel free to read up on what I wrote. It describes you a T I think. :)
by Zappa on
May 22, 2008 5:00 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually.....
I am always blindly optimistic when it comes to the Raiders, and I freely admit that. Even when the Raider playoff hopes have been dashed, and all hope lost the past five seasons, I am still optimistic and hopeful for the future. Thats the beauty of my fanaticism, it never diminishes, cause thats what The Raider Nation is all about. Besides, its hard to slip out of this ‘euphonious state’ any time soon, especially with all the young talent on my team, and the looming MNF game against the Donkeys on opening night. On the contrary, my excitement and fervor only grows by the day as the season approaches.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 23, 2008 12:11 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Touche. I took would have undying devotion even
during times of despair. Hope is never lost when true fanaticism burns deeply in your heart. I’ll be at that game against the faders with my fader fan of a brother. He will watch in despair as the Broncos establish their dominance over the AFC West once again!
If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08
MHR's Bronco History
by Zappa on
May 23, 2008 8:12 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yea...the Broncos won a Super Bowl one of the years they
didn’t win the division. I’ll take that over a Division Title and a Super Bowl blowout any day.
Just like you to focus on the ONE THING that the faders can even come close to comparing too with the Broncos over this stretch. Nevermind the fact that the Broncos 41 more games during that stretch..that is almost 3 full seasons of wins more. In just 15 years! lol
NEXT!
by Zappa on
May 21, 2008 10:38 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You try and turn my comment around.....unsuccessfully.....
You see, you point out the two year period of success that is the high point of your franchise. The Raiders still have more SB titles, and again, thats all that really matters time frame or no time frame. For all those victories, the Raiders still had as many division titles during that stretch, and still have more SB titles. So, keep pointing out that ONE THING, cause it just reminds me that the Donkeys will never have Elway or TD back, and they have never won a SB w/o them. Now thats a stat for ya! Enjoy!
NEXT!!
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 22, 2008 10:39 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually...
I see 7 seasons where the Broncos won at least ten games, the faders have just four. Not only that, but four of those seasons the Broncos won 12 or more games, the faders only one. Out of those four 12+ win seasons, the Broncos won 13 or more 3 times…the faders? ZERO seasons of 13 or more wins.
Another fact. The faders have had EIGHT seasons where they finished under .500, eleven if you count 8-8 seasons as well. The Broncos, well, they had 3 seasons under .500…two of which were 7-9 seasons. The Broncos also had 3 seasons where they finished 8-8.
As for Super Bowl titles…faders 3-2, Broncos 2-4. We are just won Super Bowl victory to putting that argument to rest permanently. Oh and btw, the Broncos are much closer to that next Super Bowl Title than Crazy Al’s faders are. Cutler IS a franchise QB…JaMarcus is an unproven second year QB.
by Zappa on
May 22, 2008 11:39 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What?
All I see since Elway and TD left is dominance over oak and better records.
You keep chosing different time frames. Well, without Elway and TD we’ve dominated the raiders. With TD and Elway we have more SB appearences and wins. If you want to live in the era of football going back over 30 years or more that’s ok. I’ll take a team that’s been winning for the last few decades over one from the Jurrasic period.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 22, 2008 1:43 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually...the Broncos have been winning over the past
three decades. You’d have to go beyond that to find the last time the fader nation could realistically call itself great. Back when my parents were young!
by Zappa on
May 22, 2008 2:11 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That was my point.
Perhaps I should have placed a greater emphasis on the word “over”, as in:
“If you want to live in the era of football going back over 30 years or more…”
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 22, 2008 3:00 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know...I thought I read:
over 20 years. dur dur dur. I have an excuse today though…a migrane all day is really wearing me down. I need a TD-like power nap.
by Zappa on
May 22, 2008 3:34 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again.......
I can appreciate the Donkeys recent success, but in the end all that matters is this fundamental fact….
Raiders SB Titles 3 > Donkey SB Titles 2
Wins are great, but in the end mean nothing if not backed up by a title.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 22, 2008 4:31 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't agree.
SB titles decades in the past don’t do anything for me if my team is dwelling in the basement during my lifetime. I’ll take a team that rarely has a losing season, has been to more SBs recently, and has won more SBs recently. I don’t sit in front of the tv or buy tickets to watch 30 year old games.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by hoosierteacher on
May 23, 2008 4:32 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BSPN Classic?
I personally cant get enough of watching Madden and the Raiders crush the Vikes, and Tom Flores make history wining two SB titles as a Latino American.
They show 78 a lot too, for all the Donkey fans looking for happy history.
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 23, 2008 12:04 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The 30% rule
Another quirk is that with 2009 as the final capped year, any new contracts or extensions that go beyond 2009 are subject to the 30% rule. This means that the salary cannot have an annual increase of more than 30% of the 2009 salary. I don’t think this should affect any of this year’s rookie class since they generally get a big bonus and low salaries. It will be more of a factor in extensions and in the free agent market next year. For example, Boss Bailey’s contract would be invalid if it was signed tomorrow since his salary jumps from a bit under $1 million in 2009 to $2.4 million in 2010. (His $2 million bonus in 2009 would count as a signing bonus and not as salary if it is guaranteed as reported)
Also, 2009 is gonna be very tricky for the front office people due to the way incentives are counted. All incentives are classified as likely to be earned (LTBE) or not likely to be earned (NLTBE). Normally, LTBE count against this year’s cap and NLTBE count against next year’s cap if they are reached. If a LTBE is not reached, the team gets a cap credit the next year (I think Denver got a total credit of $660K this offseason). Since there is no cap in 2010, NLTBE incentives earned in 2009 will immediately count against the 2009 cap and a team will get credit as soon as a LTBE becomes impossible to earn. This means that a team’s salary cap in 2009 could be moving from week to week even if the team is not making any transactions. (But that is for 2009)
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 3:01 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
The Sports Guru states.......
“In the end, cooler heads will prevail, the same cooler-heads that have shaped this League into the powerhouse it is today.”
Ahem…...thank you Al Davis…...We may need your talents once again very soon to help save the game we all love from lockout disaster. We will see.
On another note, one of the things that a lot of people are talking about is the owners unhappiness with rookie compensation. From what has been reported, most owners want to shift the massive amount of revenue given to rookie draft picks to proven veterans. Makes sense really. Constant escalation on a yearly basis has left 1st round picks with better contracts than pro bowl veterans at the same positions. Does not really make sense, so I can understand this part of the owners argument.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 20, 2008 4:01 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You would think the vets would support a rookie cap
Every dollar given to a rookie is one that a vet won’t get. And the veterans are the ones who actually get to vote on any new CBA.
by MattR on
May 20, 2008 4:10 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I dont believe
in breaking the bank on a first round draft choice who has plaed zero downs in the NFL over a vet who has proven to be a good player. The NFL has to address this.
by broncfanstuckinsd on
May 20, 2008 4:20 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
First you have an overweight QB, now an overweight WR. What's the deal
in Oakland? I know the city isn’t known for its food, but dang! ;)
by Zappa on
May 20, 2008 5:02 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I hate Oakland
but I am having hard time ripping them as they deserve. It is just they SUCK so bad, and make HORRIBLE offseason moves. especially this year. I am willing to bet Kiffin is fired no later than by the time the raiders finish another stellar 4-12
by broncfanstuckinsd on
May 20, 2008 6:56 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's easy to make off season predictions.........
that no one will remember once the season starts. Thats OK though, Monday Night is fast approaching, and bragging rights will remain in Oakland, where they have been since the Raiders defeated the Donkeys in the last meeting.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 20, 2008 11:14 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll be there on Monday Night Football...
the Raiders will resume their role of bottom feeding laughingstocks
by Zappa on
May 21, 2008 10:40 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ROFL!!!
I know your kidding about J Money, but its true that Javon is not in peak condition. However, coming off a knee injury and with months left to prepare for the season and get his weight down (only about 5-10 lbs), I am not worried quite yet. I also think Kiff, who was the one to start this whole Javon is overweight thing, was just trying to motivate Javon, and it will probably work too. Kiff is a super motivator, maybe not a winner yet, but a good motivator and sponsor of competition, definitely.
OakFoSho
S&BP > Mile High Mules ............ Like Sharks? http://mvn.com/nhl-sharks/
by 0akFoSho on
May 20, 2008 11:10 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OakFoSho
You are doing a good job of stating your point without rancor or emotion with no basis. I must hand it to you for coming to this site knowing your team is for the most part hated here. I enjoy your posts as long as they remain respectful and well thought out. You know, you would have made a pretty fair Bronco fan if you hadn’t gone over to the dark side.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. - Emerson
by firstfan on
May 21, 2008 12:30 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He may try and get in his head
But it will not work. If he could not get motivated with Favre and a good Packer team, then became a cancer in Denver when he could not get the ball, just what do you think will happen if and when he can not get the ball in Oakland? Russell will be staring and playing 60 minutes in an NFL game for the first time and dont even think there will not be growing pains. His OL is not the best when it comes to pass protection. Plus if Walker is the best WR the Raiders have its gonna be a long season when her knee starts acting up again. It will happen. Then best thing offensively Oak has is Justin Vargas. I dont put McFadden in there until he can prove he can hold onto the ball. I smile because its gonna be a long year for Oakland and KC!
by broncfanstuckinsd on
May 21, 2008 11:26 AM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lockout
the nhl just had one in 2004-5. the lockout lasted 1 full season, and the owners came away with: a minimum and maximum “hard” salary cap-completely tied to revenues, horrible rule changes designed to attract non-fans and a better tv contract, buyout of player contracts not counted against the cap, revenue sharing, a player escrow account, 2-way arbitration, and various cost control measures regarding qualifying offers and entry-level contracts.
the players received a much higher mimimum salary contract, earlier unrestricted free-agency(eventually 4 years earlier), and some guaranteed money provisions. they definitely got the shorter end here.
the owners were to blame for the escalating salaries, so they ended up legislating themselves, but this did help the parity in the league. so did the revenue sharing, although some teams still can’t afford the lowered maximum salary cap. but the hard cap was the main thing here, as they have a weak tv contract-which is everything. of course, this is a different animal from what the nfl is pondering. they seek a bigger share of the enormous wealth of revenues, as the nhl needed to control costs as related to their smaller revenue-they rolled back salaries 24% across the board. they were losing money, the nfl teams are not, as far as i know. this sounds to me like they just want a bigger slice of the growing pie, as the cap continues to rise every year, right? is there a minimum cap for nfl teams? if so, are any of them really losing money? i’m not sure i buy that
by davecheffy on
May 20, 2008 5:01 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs




























