So, here’s the reality of what’s at stake between the owners and players, and for all of us as fans, with the owners’ decision to opt out of the current CBA early. If there is no extension of the current CBA or a new agreement negotiated by March 2010, there will be a draft in 2010, but the salary cap goes away for the season and veteran players will need six years of service to become unrestricted free agents rather than four. And if the spring of 2011 rolls around without a new deal, there will be no CBA at all, and although the league maintains that there would be another draft in 2011, the legality of holding a draft under those circumstances is debatable. In other words, the NFL would be facing complete anarchy. It is assumed but not a given that, with no rules to play by, the owners would choose to lock the players out, and there would be no football in 2011 until one side or the other cries uncle.What happens if, during an interim period in the spring of 2011 with negotiations ongoing but no deal in place, one of the league’s wealthier owners — let’s say a Daniel Snyder or a Jerry Jones — chooses to sign the 10 or 15 best players coming out of college to contracts, even if a deal is eventually struck and the draft reinstated? Anarchy is right around the corner, guys, and it’s time somebody gets serious about it, right now.
So basically, if the athletes who play the sport and the venerable men who fund it via their checkbooks don't agree on compensation for the next however long, we could be looking at not only missing part or all of a season, but also losing the draft entirely.
I have little to no knowledge of the specifics of the current CBA, nor do I have an understanding of how difficult (or not) organizing a new one would be. I do know, however, that athletes in America are historically firm in their requests (demands?) for compensation. Personally, I wish that the cap on an athelete's salary was maybe a couple million dollars per year (and even that makes me sick). I read that article and it pissed me off pretty bad. We all know how simple it's going to be for the owners and players to come to a consensus... right. The majority of the players realistically have all the money they'll probably ever need, whereas the owners will be losing a ton of money closing the doors for even a few games. They'll make no revenue, and eventually have to buckle and pay the players even more money.
So, haters of the Staff pick, just imagine Stafford going for 100 mil to the Lions instead, because money is the only thing keeping players out of the rosters of the owners with the deepest pockets.
What do you think? I saw this and figured it was a prime topic for discussion, plus I wanted to get something in now that I'm settled in GA with nothing to do. Guess I have a reason to root for Staff now...