A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers

[hawaiiansteel]

Re: A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers

If a market decideds to build itself by sharing revenues, it is much different from the Government doing this.

I agree that if the revenue sharing is gone I'm done. I grew up a Padres fan. It just gets old.

I know what you mean, I grew up a Pirates fan. It really does get old rebuilding every year watching your best players sign bigger contracts elsewhere.

[SteelCrazy]

Re: A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers

Ruling bars owners from ending pool

The NFL Players Association won a decision Monday from Special Master Stephen Burbank that will prevent league owners from dismantling the supplemental revenue sharing (SRS) pool in 2010, as management had planned. The pool was valued at $210 million in 2009 and $220 million for 2010.

Burbank rejected an interpretation from the NFL Management Council that an owners resolution in March 2006 determined the supplemental revenue sharing pool was only required during years in which the NFL was operating under a salary cap.

The league notified its member clubs and the NFLPA in December that the supplemental program which funded approximately 8-to-12 lower revenue clubs would no longer be in effect in 2010, the final and uncapped year of the labor agreement that was reached between owners and players in 2006.

"...We find no explicit distinction between capped and uncapped years or between capped years and The Final League Year," Burbank wrote in his ruling, which ESPN acquired Monday night.

Burbank agreed that the labor agreement required the union's approval of any changes made to the supplemental revenue sharing pool.

"The Special Master basically rejected every single argument that management made and regardless of how the league characterizes the decision, this is a victory for players, for low revenue clubs and the fans," said Jeffrey Kessler, the lead counsel for the union in the case.

The league said it would appeal Burbank's decision to the presiding U.S. District Court Judge, David Doty.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, "Today's decision involves a small sliver of the NFL's overall commitment to revenue sharing. The NFL for decades has shared more than 80 percent of league and club revenues. In the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement that expires in 2011, the NFL clubs also agreed to a small percentage of additional revenue sharing because of the new CBA's significantly increased salary cap. The agreement calls for no salary cap in 2010 and that additional piece of revenue sharing to which the clubs had agreed in 2006 is therefore no longer required in our view. Although the Special Master disagreed with our interpretation on that issue, we are hopeful that Judge Doty, who will look at the issue anew, will see it differently."

Kessler said that the ruling, if upheld, should motivate low-revenue clubs to participate in spending on its own players and potential free agents, regardless of whether those free agents are restricted by any means allowed in an uncapped year.

"These clubs can now budget for beyond 2010," said Kessler. "The union was concerned about their incentive to spend with an uncapped year and a looming lockout by the owners in 2011. [Management] can try to diminish the value of the supplemental pool but it represents a significant dollar amount for those affected clubs. This means a more vibrant outlook for players, teams and fans and now we'll monitor how the market behaves."

The New York Times reported that another negotiating session between management and the union is scheduled to be held this week in an effort to reach a new labor agreement. However, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell conceded in an interview Sunday with the NFL Network that he expects the league to operate in 2010 with an uncapped year.

Asked if the ruling would only further exacerbate their dealings with management, Kessler replied, "I think my view and the view of the union is we hope the parties can come together on a new CBA. If this ruling helps, that's great. If not, we hopefully can find something else that is agreeable. Everyone wants to make a deal. We just have to figure out how to get there."

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750[/url]

[hawaiiansteel]

Re: A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers

Post-salary cap, teams will proceed at their own peril

Posted by Mike Florio (PFT) on February 1, 2010 11:00 PM ET

We've received several questions over the past few weeks regarding the operation of player contracts after the evaporation of the salary cap.

And the answer to all questions is simple -- once the cap goes away, any further rules relating to the operation of the salary cap will hinge upon the collective bargaining process.

As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello explains it, there will be no "transition rules" unless and until the league and the NFLPA agree to such measures via collective bargaining. Thus, any team that decides to sign players to big-money deals will be assuming that risk that, eventually, they'll have to scramble for cap space, if/when a cap is reapplied.

This reality could cause some teams to be even more cautious when it comes to spending money in 2010.

Meanwhile, existing contracts can be dumped by trading or cutting players with no cap consequences in 2010. Presumably, there would be no lingering ramifications in future years covered by the deals, subject again to the collective bargaining process.

So, basically, the removal of the salary cap will plunge the entire player payroll system into uncertainty, and there will be no clear answers until the league and the union reach an accord regarding the next compensation scheme.

[Oviedo]

Re: A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers

understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

I understand their desire to earn more, but do not agree with them. Jerry Jones entered a league with revenue sharing...he knew that. He has no right to expect that to change. It is like buying a house next to a garbage dump then expecting the city to move the dump.

Problem is Jones is now trying to figure out how to pay for "his Taj Mahal." This is really about paying for stadiums or protecting revenues you get from sweetheart stadium deals and not sharing that. Unfortunately for the Steelers they are in a city that has a very liberal government who sees every business as a potential cash cow and therefore their stadium deal pales in comparison to other teams.

This is why not selling the Steelers to the billionaire who wanted to buy them will hurt the team. Someone who is a outside of football billionaire doesn't need to make a dime on his sports operations and he is still a billionaire. That lets him spend like crazy to "buy" titles for reputation and ego purposes because at the end of the day they are still billionaires.

Unfortunately for the Rooney's their net wealth and income is primarily based on the Steelers. Not a level playing field.