Uncapped in 2010 & Lockout in 2011

by MuleTrain on Mar 24, 2009 3:03 PM CDT Comment 10 comments

Two interesting reads on CNNSI.com today. The first by Don Banks discusses the uncapped 2010 season and what it means. The 2nd by Peter King on their satellite deal worth a billion bucks per year!

To paraphrase the articles: The owners seem to have most of the leverage with the upcoming CBA negotiations. The uncapped season next year won't be the spending bonanza some (including me) thought it would be. This coming season's final four won't be able to sign anyone until they lose someone. The next 4 playoff teams will have salary restrictions on who they sign. Also, teams get to use an extra franchise or transition tag next year. Teams are using those more to keep the good players off the market. With 32 extra tags out there, good players probably won't hit the market.

And the biggest thing is that the players would need 6 years of NFL service(instead of 4) to be unrestricted. That means there'll be lots of restricted free agents out there instead of unrestricted. In the NFL, RFAs don't get the mega-deals. UFA's do. Add it all up and there doesn't seem to be a huge league-wide spending spree in the future.

Peter King talks about the 1 billion dollar per year DirectTV deal that goes from 2011-2014. If there's a lockout the NFL will still get PAID according to the deal. The owners will get paid, while the players get nothing in the event of a lockout.

So putting this all together...channeling my inner conspiracy theorist...maybe the Bears are going cheap now and will again next season to build up their bank accounts because ownership KNOWS there will be no 2011 season.

1 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I did a little math and that ends up being

31.25 million per team per season. That isn’t as much as I thought. Also, if you assume the average ticket price is $100 and there are 70,000 tickets sold per game, that adds up to 7 million. I know average tickets could be more or less depending on the team.

They must be making a lot of money of the TV contracts with Fox and CBS.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 24, 2009 3:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

x's 8 of course for the tickets = 56 million

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 24, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thus the Bears saving money now

31 million is nice…real nice. They also are off the hook for 100million in player salaries. Plus no teams related operating expenses…no training camp to pay for, no hotels, charter flights, pro scouting. So is the 31 million enough? Don’t know. But the Bears do know. And maybe they’re saving money now because of it.

by MuleTrain on Mar 24, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought I heard that the average nfl team profitted about 20-30 million.

Some teams lose money. Since it is a business, teams should have the right to make money. They spend 100s of millions of dollars and must pay out of pocket if their is a loss. The team should earn and make money. How much, is a question, but these guys are business owners and think about stuff like that. So I’m sure they want to be pretty close to as high as possible. The best situation is when you have a competitive owner. They’ll spend to win, i.e. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

This is a really good article on where the money goes:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2008/10/nfl_tickets_where_does_the_mon.html

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 25, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, remember that they were getting 700 million a year previously, so it is really about 10 million a year raise per team.

It isn’t like this is new money, just a raise. I’ll take that kind of raise though!!

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 25, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point was they'll get paid even if there's a lockout,

which is not true for their network deals. And obviously they’ll get no gate receipts. This is more evidence that the owners will lock out the players in 2011. The players, collectively, probably won’t have the financial resources to weather a long lockout like the owners do. I think the Bears make plenty of money. I don’t begrudge that fact. But they are 7th in operating income (Operating Income is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.) at 33.7 million. They make enough money to not hold out on spending on good and/or better players than they currently have. If Cincy or Jax or Oakland are 20 million under the salary cap cause they’re in smaller markets and need to save some dough…I completely understand.

The Bears are in 1 of the biggest markets, and make a ton of money. They should be investing that money into better players on the field. Instead, it’s my belief, that they are saving money because they know a lockout is coming. The 30mil from DirectTV is alot, but not enough to stay in the black. There will probably be no 2011 season and the Bears management will be financially set with little motivation to strike an owner-unfriendly deal with the players. Just my humble opinion.

by MuleTrain on Mar 25, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We also have a "new stadium"

Maybe some of that money is going there. Who knows where it all goes. I’m sure they make money, but honestly to me 25-30 million isn’t that much considering how much of a liability a franchise is if they lose money one year. To drop 700 million on a team, I would expect some profit in return, besides the teams assessed value.

Think about it, if you make 20 million a year and then sign two FA’s for 15 million, you only make 5 million. That isn’t that fair to me. Maybe they save to put some money in their own pockets.

The team is playoff caliber, they aren’t putting trash on the field (Detroit, Oakland, Kansas City, Buffalo, etc.)

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 25, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And yes they have the advantage in negotiations.

That is good in my opinion.

I would love to see them get a rookie salary cap so guys like Briggs, Urlacher, Harris and other proven players can get bigger checks than the top 5 rookies. The vets earned it. Rookies have proven nothing. Also, the #1 pick would be more valuable if it wasn’t such a financial liability. It would actually get you something in a trade if you wanted to move out of it.

I would also like to see 17 games a season. That would bring the league more money and therefore the players more. It would also likely put several games a year in other countries. For football to grow it must be globally. The US is tapped out. The more money the league earns through jersey sales and foreign TV contracts, etc. the more the teams will have to pay players. The players get a guaranteed percentage, so they would see that money.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Mar 25, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

My posts might come as anti-owner. But that’s not the case at all. I just don’t want to see a lockout. I don’t want to have a lost season. The evidence above points to the likelihood of a lockout in 2011 and thus no 2011 season (or a shortened one). What the hell would I do all fall?

by MuleTrain on Mar 26, 2009 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs