PDA

View Full Version : Vikings and the CBA



IbleedPURPLEandGOLD
03-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Which do you think is better for the Vikings, a new CBA, a extension of the current CBA, or no new CBA? Advantages? Disadvantages?

singersp
03-01-2006, 01:04 PM
Vikings prefer labor stability over a short-term gain

The team has an eye on the big picture of the stalled CBA talks, even though it could clean up in free agency with no extension.

Mark Craig, Star Tribune
Last update: March 01, 2006 – 1:02 AM

The Vikings prefer long-term league stability to instant gratification, which is why Rob Brzezinski, their vice president of football operations, said the team is still holding out hope that the NFL's collective bargaining agreement can be extended by today's 3 p.m. deadline.

"It's the best thing for the league, and something that we're in support of," Brzezinski said Tuesday morning. "A labor extension is good for the long-term competitive balance of the league."

The CBA doesn't expire until after the 2007 season, but without an extension, this will be the last year with a salary cap. Talks broke off between the league and the NFL Players Association on Tuesday afternoon. The NFL said no new discussions were scheduled as of Tuesday night.

The Vikings have a league-high $24.1 million of cap space.

That and more restrictive cap rules governing contracts signed in 2006 puts the Vikings in the best position of all 32 teams if there is no CBA extension heading into the scheduled start of free agency on Friday.

However, without a salary cap in 2007 and possibly beyond, the Vikings would be on the other end of the competitive spectrum as one of the lowest revenue-generating teams.

There were indications of progress toward an extension Tuesday afternoon until talks broke off. Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, sounded discouraged afterward.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw told the Associated Press. "There's no reason to continue meeting.

"We're too far apart on our economics and too far apart on revenue sharing -- the ball is in their court. We'll go to the uncapped year, there won't be an extension."

The league said Friday's scheduled start of free agency will not be moved back.

According to ESPN.com, the sides differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players. The NFLPA is asking for 60 percent, and the league's offer was 56.2.

Only three other teams -- Arizona ($23.6 million), Green Bay ($20.7) and Cleveland ($20.1) -- have at least $20 million of cap space. Several teams are over the cap. Some will have to make significant roster cuts to get under the projected $95 million cap, creating an even bigger pool of talent for the Vikings to shop from.

An extension, on the other hand, would provide instant cap relief because it would raise the salary cap to $105 million or more.

"If there isn't a labor extension," Brzezinski said, "it would be a significant short-term competitive advantage for the Vikings."

On the other hand, few teams would suffer more over the long haul without a salary cap than the Vikings. Forbes magazine ranked them as the least valuable franchise in the league last year. The Vikings also are among the lowest revenue-generating teams because of the Metrodome, and they have no deal in place for a new stadium.

Brzezinski, however, said owner Zygi Wilf is willing to spend to the limits of the cap.

"Zygi has indicated to us that he will give us the resources we need to build a championship football team," Brzezinski said. "That's his goal."

Running back, offensive line, linebacker and kicker are among the team's priorities in free agency and the draft.

It's possible the Vikings could be in the running for some of the top free-agent running backs such as Edgerrin James and MVP Shaun Alexander. Or some of the top free-agent linemen such as LeCharles Bentley of New Orleans and Philadelphia's Jon Runyan.

Or how would Adam Vinatieri look in purple? Vinatieri, who kicked game-winning field goals in two of the past four Super Bowls, is available because the Patriots decided not to put their franchise tag on him.

NFL owners were scheduled to discuss the CBA via conference call at 5 p.m. Tuesday. Wilf declined to comment through a team spokesman.

Vikings prefer labor stability over a short-term gain (http://www.startribune.com/510/story/277030.html)

Del Rio
03-01-2006, 01:12 PM
Upshaw said yesterday he was schedueled to be there until Friday and he was going home, so he said that is an indication of just how far apart the two sides are.

There is no way in hell it gets done. The Vikings will have an opportunity to have the biggest offseason in our history.

Short term great Long term bad, we don't really have a choice though.

VIKINGinGEORGIA
03-01-2006, 01:25 PM
Just wondering. We are way under the cap. So, doe this give us an advantage? In what ways does it hurt?

singersp
03-01-2006, 01:29 PM
This might help answer your question;

Vikings prefer labor stability over a short-term gain (http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=326458#326458)

NordicNed
03-01-2006, 01:33 PM
Not sure of the total in's and outs of the CBA, but from what I understand.

The CBA, puts teams on an even level of how much they can spend each year on their teams roster.

This way someone willing to spend alot of money, or has the meens to, can't run away with all the great talent out there, while the owner with less money or resources can't compete with someone likt that..

It should be like that. Keeps teams more comeptative.

Down side..

You don't see the long term players that much anymore like in the old days, when a player was drafted and would spend a whole career with a team.

I hate to say it, and wouldn't want to be labeled that way but, we have an owener who is filthy rich, and if there was no CBA that could easily turn into a big plus for a team like ours....Wilf could buy a winning team like aLa Steinbrener of the Yankees....

But personaly, I'de rather see the CBA stay in place.....

Del Rio
03-01-2006, 01:39 PM
One of the biggest results if they dont get it done today, is a ton of big name free agents become available.

In addition there is this information

"However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for March 2 to try to resolve them.

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.

Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said "internal "

Ltrey33
03-01-2006, 02:55 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

Upshaw said yesterday he was schedueled to be there until Friday and he was going home, so he said that is an indication of just how far apart the two sides are.

There is no way in hell it gets done. The Vikings will have an opportunity to have the biggest offseason in our history.

Short term great Long term bad, we don't really have a choice though.

I agree Del. Either way we're screwed down the road, so we might as well make the best of it while we can. I say spend, spend and spend some more, because with an uncapped 2007 season we're gonna be up shitcreek.

On another note, Mike Greenberg was reading off a list of names today on Mike & Mike of guys that might be cut to free up space. Here are some guys I remember: Terrell Owens, Lavar Arrington, Will Shields, Warrick Dunn, Domanick Davis, Brett Favre, Chris Mcallister, DAUNTE CULPEPPER, and a few others too.

Ltrey33
03-01-2006, 03:15 PM
I'd post that in here....it seems to be where most of the conversation about the CBA is going on.

http://www.purplepride.org/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=326492#326492

aceclown
03-01-2006, 04:00 PM
"VIKINGinGEORGIA" wrote:

Just wondering. We are way under the cap. So, doe this give us an advantage? In what ways does it hurt?

read the article before you ask questions.

However, without a salary cap in 2007 and possibly beyond, the Vikings would be on the other end of the competitive spectrum as one of the lowest revenue-generating teams.

Del Rio
03-01-2006, 04:05 PM
I don't think people really understand just how big this is.

"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."


There are rumors that the Redskins will be playing with 20 rookies on their roster.

The Falcons may be forced to let Dunn walk......

This is pretty damn big.

There are going to be some great players out there for the taking, and who is sitting in the best position to get whoever they want? The Minnesota Vikings.

PackSux!
03-01-2006, 04:07 PM
The Vikings also are among the lowest revenue-generating teams because of the Metrodome, and they have no deal in place for a new stadium.


If we could get this done we would be good in the long term also.

PackSux!
03-01-2006, 04:09 PM
On another note, Mike Greenberg was reading off a list of names today on Mike & Mike of guys that might be cut to free up space. Here are some guys I remember: Terrell Owens, Lavar Arrington, Will Shields, Warrick Dunn, Domanick Davis, Brett Favre, Chris Mcallister, DAUNTE CULPEPPER, and a few others too.





Watched that also this morning and yes either dunn or davis would be great to get without giving up anything besides a little bit of cash. Dunn would be huge in our new offense.

tjohnson
03-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Just heard Mortensen on Sportscenter. He said the Vikes are one of two or three teams in excellent position right now b/c they're so far under the salary cap. Should be interesting.

Del Rio
03-01-2006, 04:15 PM
I don't think Culpepper belongs on that list, in fact I have no idea why he would say something like that.

Yes we will be able to seriously play the market.

One team that may be able to do some extreem damage would be the Texans, if they could manage a trade with the #1 that allows them to free up some cap space then they could improve their entire team in Free agency.

The Vikings are sitting on the top right now though, also the packers are close behind. There is speculation that Favre may stay now that the Packers could make some serious noise in FA.

cajunvike
03-01-2006, 04:22 PM
"Del Rio" wrote:

I don't think people really understand just how big this is.

"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."


There are rumors that the Redskins will be playing with 20 rookies on their roster.

The Falcons may be forced to let Dunn walk......

This is pretty gol 'darnit big.

There are going to be some great players out there for the taking, and who is sitting in the best position to get whoever they want? The Minnesota Vikings.

Can we get a few Super Bowl titles out of it??? Maybe even up our record at 4-4 before the other teams catch up??? :lol:

Del Rio
03-01-2006, 04:25 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

I don't think people really understand just how big this is.

"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."


There are rumors that the Redskins will be playing with 20 rookies on their roster.

The Falcons may be forced to let Dunn walk......

This is pretty gol 'darnit big.

There are going to be some great players out there for the taking, and who is sitting in the best position to get whoever they want? The Minnesota Vikings.

Can we get a few Super Bowl titles out of it??? Maybe even up our record at 4-4 before the other teams catch up??? :lol:

Maybe one or two, kick them while they are down lol. Actually after this season (if this happens) I think the NFL will be so big of a joke that it wont be worth watching anymore.

How in the hell can you wait this long to attempt a deal? I think they actually want the NFL to have no cap, and that is why they have dragged their feet this many years.

PackSux!
03-01-2006, 04:27 PM
Well i am glad we have a filthy rich owner now instead of that cheap ass McCombs.

whackthepack
03-01-2006, 04:27 PM
One of the things that made the NFL as popular as it is today was the revenue sharing between the owners, it gave every team a chance to compete and you did not have the biggest markets dominating every year. If the 5 greedy owners that do not want to share revenue from stadiums and marketing have their way it will lead the small market or small revenue markets to a position where it will be hard to keep their own players and sign good free agents.

If the greedy owners can not learn from Major league baseball and the NBA that they have to have an even playing field to have a successful product and league, then the NFL might be heading the same way as Major league Baseball and the NBA. The popularity of baseball and basketball has been dropping for years, and their rating reflect it. Those leagues do not seem to care because there is to much money to be made now, but in 15 years when the numbers are still dropping and the they can not get the big TV contracts and their attendance is pathetic it will be to late. I do not care to go to NBA games anymore, last NBA season the last 2 games I went to the T-wolves mailed it in and got their asses kicked, and you could see that they did not care.

I never want to see guaranteed contracts in the NFL and I want to see continued revenue sharing as it will keep the league competitive and keep the fans knowing that they can win it all any year.

jhirchak1
03-01-2006, 04:29 PM
With Green Bay being so far under the cap like us, I don't see them cutting Favre either.

Vikes
03-01-2006, 04:35 PM
I say we go for it. I'm tired of thinking every year we got something special then get exposed.

snowinapril
03-01-2006, 05:07 PM
SAVING PENNIES FOR A RAINY DAY

Red wasn't so bad after all, NOT. Thanks anyway Red, for being a cheap ass.

whackthepack
03-01-2006, 06:30 PM
According to ESPN.com, the sides differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players. The NFLPA is asking for 60 percent, and the league's offer was 56.2.


The 60% & the 56.2% is the minimum that a team can spend, not the cap limit. Here is an article on what the cap max limits are, so the players are receiving the higher amount with most teams. Some teams like the Vikings have stayed on the lower side of the cap.



The Cap is determined through a complicated calculation system. The Cap is based on income that the teams earn during a League Year. A percentage of that income, termed Defined Gross Revenues (DGR), is allocated for player expenditures. The DGR is based on ticket sales, merchandise sales, and broadcasts. The DGR is divided equally amongst all 32 teams.

For all of you nerds out there, here is the actual mathematical calculation:

Projected DGR x CBA Percentage = Players Share DGR

Players Share minus Projected League wide Benefits =
Amount Available for Player Salaries

Amount Available for Player Salaries / Number of Teams =
Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team

The CBA Percentages were agreed upon in the 1998 and 2001 extension to the CBA are as follows:

1998-2001 63%
2002 64%
2003 64.25%
2004 64.75%
2005 65.5%
2006 64.5%
2007 Uncapped Year


NOTE: Minimum Team Salary (MTS) is 56% for the remainder of the CBA. If a team does not allocate at least 56%, then the players on the team roster for that year will be directly paid the shortage.

Also, allow me to take a brief aside to address the status of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement. One of the current disagreements between some of the larger market owners and some of the smaller market owners is declaring what falls under the DGR. Large market owners (like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder) would like to see additional revenue added to the existing DGR. Naturally, this would increase the size of the DGR, which would also -- assuming that the CBA percentages remain in line with what they are under the current CBA -- increase the salary cap. Meanwhile, smaller market owners like Buffalo's Ralph Wilson worry about the competitive fairness of allowing this to happen. It is disagreements like this between the NFL owners themselves (prior to even going into negotiations with the NFLPA) that could cause a delay in re-upping the existing CBA.

Ddawg84
03-01-2006, 07:12 PM
I am scared... cause yeah I really want all the players that we could possibly get this offseason. But at the same time, I don't wan't a ton of our good players leaving the next year, cause we can't pay them for the long haul. I love the twins and I hope they do awesome this year... but with no salary cap, until we get that new stadium, we turn into them. EXCEPT WE CAN'T RELY ON PITCHING.... oh man, I am so nervous... about this. I hate you Jerry Jones... and I know you are lickin your chops right now!!!!

singersp
03-02-2006, 01:36 AM
"Del Rio" wrote:

I don't think Culpepper belongs on that list, in fact I have no idea why he would say something like that.

Yes we will be able to seriously play the market.

One team that may be able to do some extreem damage would be the Texans, if they could manage a trade with the #1 that allows them to free up some cap space then they could improve their entire team in Free agency.

The Vikings are sitting on the top right now though, also the packers are close behind. There is speculation that Favre may stay now that the Packers could make some serious noise in FA.

My take on it is that's why Favres been putting off his decision until he's sees what GB free agency moves are.

If they get him some protection on the line & bolster their receiving corps, I think he'll stay.

If it looks like he'll take a pounding again, he'll probably call it quits.

audioghost
03-02-2006, 02:06 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:

"Del Rio" wrote:

I don't think people really understand just how big this is.

"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."


There are rumors that the Redskins will be playing with 20 rookies on their roster.

The Falcons may be forced to let Dunn walk......

This is pretty gol 'darnit big.

There are going to be some great players out there for the taking, and who is sitting in the best position to get whoever they want? The Minnesota Vikings.

Can we get a few Super Bowl titles out of it??? Maybe even up our record at 4-4 before the other teams catch up??? :lol:


All I know is that it is FINALLY our time to shine! Rod Brzyznski is a savior....a cap WIZARD! We gotta take advantage of this....