How much trouble COULD we be in?

[44deisel44]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:

HAAAAHAAAAA

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

I posted this in another thread:

http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread...8&page=5&pp=10

I calculate that without a new CBA, we'd be able to get our cap number down to about $98.5M. With the expected number to be $95M, we'd still have to shave off a few million. This would mean cutting a couple core players and would prevent us from signing any free agents or extensions for our current players. So I think we could survive without a new CBA but it might not be pretty.

I'm figuring pretty similar numbers. Ramifications would be:

- We'd be forced to live with Lavar, whether GW wants to or not.
- We'd surely lose Ryan Clark and Robert Royal to free agency.
- The $98 million means we have to cut $3 million just to get under cap. But we'd still have to get down low enough to sign our draft picks.

I think we're already sure to jettison Ramsey, Noble, Bowen, and Raymer.
If this CBA doomsday scenario came to fruition, I think you can say goodbye to John Hall as well. Thrash and Sellers become cut possibilities as well.

[44deisel44]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm figuring pretty similar numbers. Ramifications would be:

- We'd be forced to live with Lavar, whether GW wants to or not.
- We'd surely lose Ryan Clark and Robert Royal to free agency.
- The $98 million means we have to cut $3 million just to get under cap. But we'd still have to get down low enough to sign our draft picks.

I think we're already sure to jettison Ramsey, Noble, Bowen, and Raymer.
If this CBA doomsday scenario came to fruition, I think you can say goodbye to John Hall as well. Thrash and Sellers become cut possibilities as well.

Depends on when CBA is reached for Lavar.....B4 his bonus deadline(I think its June 20th or so) we will keep him and spread it over next couple years. If not, better to release him. All that you mentioned are gone anyway i think. We will do fine in either case. Just add Harris to that list as well.

[44deisel44]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:

STILL FUNNY TAF.......HAHAHAHA(sorry...laughing out loud)

[dmek25]

too much wouldve, couldve ,shouldve, for this discussion.a wait to the deadline until continuing this seems appropriate

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Big C

uncapped would suck, it would turn into baseball and rich teams would just buy all the plaers. i understand we are the richest team, but just would make the league so unexciting

It was plenty exciting for us back in the 80's!

[70Chip]

At this point any speculation form the league or the players is sabre rattling. The clock is ticking, though. TAFKAS funny with the BOC thing, HAW HAW!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!!....there, there's my vague contribution to this thread :thumb:

hey, i put my pants on just like you do, one leg at a time. the only difference is, i make gold records.

[bedlamVR]

It has got me wondering what teams are holding the agreement back . Is it the likes of the rich clubs holding on to thier money, which is the general perception, and Dan Synders thought to be the top of that list because since her took over the skins have been able to generate the highest revenue of the NFL despite having one of the highest levels of club debt because we paid for our own stadium etc .

Or are the teams holding it back the likes of Bidwells who dont give two hoot about the team and see owning a football team as a get rich scheme . The owners who are continually gripping about the big clubs and treatening to move at the drop of a hat squeezing their communities and fans for more $. Are they the ones holding the bigger clubs to ransom. They have the least to loose a lock out/strike will hurt the big teams the most, especially the skins, and they will always be able to blame the bigger teams because the big earners are always seen as "evil"

[Gmanc711]

I know people say the "NFL will suck" if its uncapped, but I dont think it will. First of all, I want a new CBA. I love the team we have now, and dont want to see it "blown up". We have too many core players to have to get rid of guys, and the team chemistry we have right now is somthing we havent seen in years. That being said, just on the state of the NFL as a whole if its Uncapped....


....The NFL Playoffs are god-awful when you put in all this parity. The playoffs this year were horrible overall (the skins were the only reason it was exciting for me. If they dont make it, its really boring cause the games sucked). When you look at baseball, yeah, theres a ton of teams that are basically written off cause they have shitty owners, but how freaking awsome are the baseball playoffs? They are some of the best in sports because of the lack of cap. The rivalries are made IN the playoffs, and thats what makes it so exciting. The Redskins would be one of the teams in the playoffs year in and year out because we have a good owner who is willing to make us competitive. The NFL playoffs as a whole have been shitty since the cap was instituted, and every year its a new team doing their thing, theres all new playoff teams, and its just not as fun. I'd rather see the playoffs year in and year out being alot of the same teams, buliding those awsome rivalries and close games. Like I said, I want the CBA to get signed, because were already in great shape to make a run, and I'd like to see a cap, but I'm just saying...things wont be all bad if it goes uncapped and turns into somthing like baseball. You'll see those great teams start to rise again, things will be much more competitive at the top of the league...it wont be a league of mediocrity and then just one or two great teams. Anyone understand what I'm saying?

In addition, If I'm Dan Snyder I am pissed off about revenue sharing. Why should a team who chooses to keep their stadium called "Ralph Wilson Stadium" for example, get money from a team who essencially sold out ( and I wish our stadium was still called Jack Kent Cooke), and took the money. That is the teams decision, so why should another team who dosent make the same decision have to share revenue? Just my take on the subject. :headbange

[hurrykaine]

I have a question about what happens if you're over the cap. If we are indeed headed for an uncapped 2007 and beyond, what's the penalty for violating the league cap rules in 2006? We lose draft picks? Snyder pays fines worth a couple of million to the league? Snyder could afford this.

So what? Screw one year's draft, pay the fines, and sign all the free agents you want in the uncapped year. Just asking...is this even possible?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I
In addition, If I'm Dan Snyder I am pissed off about revenue sharing. Why should a team who chooses to keep their stadium called "Ralph Wilson Stadium" for example, get money from a team who essencially sold out ( and I wish our stadium was still called Jack Kent Cooke), and took the money. That is the teams decision, so why should another team who dosent make the same decision have to share revenue? Just my take on the subject. :headbange

That's what I'm thinking as well. Why should the bigger market teams be penalized for their finanical success? I think it's just an excuse to say the smaller market teams have no chance at success because they're in a smaller market.

I don't want to see our team stripped this year, but I enjoyed how things were in the 80's without a salary cap. The Redskins core group was always there - and any changes to personnel was gradual. A coach generally had plenty of time to work with his players, because there wasn't a fear of having somebody and losing them in a couple of years.

[sandtrapjack]

For one there will be a salary cap because there is really no going back. NFLPA President Gene Upshaw has stated publicly, and I quote "If a new CBA or a CBA extension is not agreed upon which would force the 2007 season to be an uncapped year, there will be a players lockout and strike". Just ask the NHL had that worked out for them.

But according to the press the sticking point with the CBA right now is NOT the salary cap. All teams are in favor of the cap. The sticking point is the handling of team revenues.

There was even a proposal on the board call the "Jacksonville-Pittsburgh Plan". Created by the owners of the Jags and Steelers, it calls for all NFL teams to share 12% of their revenues into one big "pot", then the NFL will distribute 3% of that TOTAL pot back amongst the 32 NFL franchises. After all would be said and done a teams "net" contribution to the league would be 5%. That plan is supposed to help these other teams in smaller markets compete finacially with teams like the Redskins etc... like when a team needs a new stadium, some of these funds would help with that.

But the real sticking point right now is revenues and how those revenues are going to be shared with the players. Owners are reluctant to share thier considerable revenues with thier team AND the league. It only makes sense that these revenues be shared with the players.

If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

When you look at baseball, yeah, theres a ton of teams that are basically written off cause they have shitty owners, but how freaking awsome are the baseball playoffs?

um, how about totally not awesome. outside of sox-yanks they're not even worth turning on at all. I'd prefer NOT to emulate that.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins

That seems weird and anti-competitive, i thought the players wanted more, but the plan was to justs extended revenue sharing into other areas like naming rights and take that money to divide among 32 teams (including ones that refuse to sell naming rights :P) and all the players would benefit from a larger % of the newly increased yearly revenue.