NFL Collusion

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Looking back I always laugh that when players wanted FA then the owners wanted a cap to "counter/balance it". The players should have never agreed to that. The cap incredibly benefits the owners and hinders the players imo.

The cap has a floor, so I would say the cap benefits the "fringe roster" players and hinders high-caliber superstar players

It's kind of the same, except exaggerated in the NBA because of roster sizes. The cap there does artificially limit the biggest superstars to supermax contracts whereas they would probably get paid a lot more, but it also makes third-rate role players get a lot of money they otherwise probably wouldn't in a free market.

NBA has guaranteed contracts & it's trash. Players taking games off, bad contracts, overpaying for flash in the pan talent.

Originally posted by the_dynasty:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Looking back I always laugh that when players wanted FA then the owners wanted a cap to "counter/balance it". The players should have never agreed to that. The cap incredibly benefits the owners and hinders the players imo.

The cap has a floor, so I would say the cap benefits the "fringe roster" players and hinders high-caliber superstar players

It's kind of the same, except exaggerated in the NBA because of roster sizes. The cap there does artificially limit the biggest superstars to supermax contracts whereas they would probably get paid a lot more, but it also makes third-rate role players get a lot of money they otherwise probably wouldn't in a free market.

This is true, but from the owners perspective they all bank massive money because of it. Dare I say if there was no cap an owner like Jerry Jones would spend 600 million a year if it meant he won a SB and all the good players would want to go there etc.(At least when he was younger) Other owners get mad because they cant compete with that and have zero desire to other than turning a profit on their investment. I get the pros and cons of a cap, but no cap was better.

I am a Yankee fan and this was how George Steinbrenner was back in the day. He just wanted to win year after year if he could and flat out said I make plenty of money in my other businesses, this is my passion etc. His son dgaf and is about maximizing profit. I sure do miss George!

Originally posted by Heed49er:
NBA has guaranteed contracts & it's trash. Players taking games off, bad contracts, overpaying for flash in the pan talent.

I'm indifferent about guaranteed contracts. I guess if that happened it would match what most players actually get vs the BS number teams and agents flaunt upon signing etc. A good contract and CBA would have all this accounted for.

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
This is true, but from the owners perspective they all bank massive money because of it. Dare I say if there was no cap an owner like Jerry Jones would spend 600 million a year if it meant he won a SB and all the good players would want to go there etc.(At least when he was younger) Other owners get mad because they cant compete with that and have zero desire to other than turning a profit on their investment. I get the pros and cons of a cap, but no cap was better.

I am a Yankee fan and this was how George Steinbrenner was back in the day. He just wanted to win year after year if he could and flat out said I make plenty of money in my other businesses, this is my passion etc. His son dgaf and is about maximizing profit. I sure do miss George!

I disagree...if you have no cap, it becomes a pocket arms race. Look at the MLB nowadays. Pirates or A's cant compete with Dodgers in spending.

This will mean many owners won't be able to compete at all with someone like Steve Balmer (NBA) or Jerry, so then why bother at all ? Just like A's or Marlins you don't compete so then just reap the benefits of $$$ coming in.

No, if you have no cap, turn off the revenue sharing too. Make it purely about $$$. Do it like soccer leagues in europe. Yeah, half the league will die off and most teams will be feeder farm clubs that pay players peanuts and each player's dream would be to come to the BIG team because then they'll get paid.

But I think this is the players' worst nightmare. Lol. Because then the profits of role mid and low tier players would really plummet. Especially in a league like the NBA.

Originally posted by the_dynasty:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
This is true, but from the owners perspective they all bank massive money because of it. Dare I say if there was no cap an owner like Jerry Jones would spend 600 million a year if it meant he won a SB and all the good players would want to go there etc.(At least when he was younger) Other owners get mad because they cant compete with that and have zero desire to other than turning a profit on their investment. I get the pros and cons of a cap, but no cap was better.

I am a Yankee fan and this was how George Steinbrenner was back in the day. He just wanted to win year after year if he could and flat out said I make plenty of money in my other businesses, this is my passion etc. His son dgaf and is about maximizing profit. I sure do miss George!

I disagree...if you have no cap, it becomes a pocket arms race. Look at the MLB nowadays. Pirates or A's cant compete with Dodgers in spending.

This will mean many owners won't be able to compete at all with someone like Steve Balmer (NBA) or Jerry, so then why bother at all ? Just like A's or Marlins you don't compete so then just reap the benefits of $$$ coming in.

No, if you have no cap, turn off the revenue sharing too. Make it purely about $$$. Do it like soccer leagues in europe. Yeah, half the league will die off and most teams will be feeder farm clubs that pay players peanuts and each player's dream would be to come to the BIG team because then they'll get paid.

But I think this is the players' worst nightmare. Lol. Because then the profits of role mid and low tier players would really plummet. Especially in a league like the NBA.

The way todays game is pretty much all that matters is who strikes gold on a franchise qb and that makes them competitive for 10-15 years otherwise it's mostly just parity. Sure some teams draft way better for stretches, but that has always been the key. Now when a team drafts well they can barely retain most of that talent. So some (like me lol) would argue the game was better in many ways before the cap era.

While you are correct some owners simply could not compete financially with other owners the truth is most of them can. So I think revenue sharing should remain to keep owners in check as you suggested, but the counter to that thought is why cant Jerry spend $600 million on his team is he so chooses? Fans would ask their own billionaire ownership why they aren't as dedicated etc. (Exactly what used to happen back in the day in NFL and MLB)

In the end these guys aren't billionaire's for being fiscally irresponsible, they know how to manage their assets etc so I don't think it would be anything crazy or to the point they damage their own product. Aside that I stand by my opinion that a salary cap limits players and puts more money in owners pockets.

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by the_dynasty:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
This is true, but from the owners perspective they all bank massive money because of it. Dare I say if there was no cap an owner like Jerry Jones would spend 600 million a year if it meant he won a SB and all the good players would want to go there etc.(At least when he was younger) Other owners get mad because they cant compete with that and have zero desire to other than turning a profit on their investment. I get the pros and cons of a cap, but no cap was better.

I am a Yankee fan and this was how George Steinbrenner was back in the day. He just wanted to win year after year if he could and flat out said I make plenty of money in my other businesses, this is my passion etc. His son dgaf and is about maximizing profit. I sure do miss George!

I disagree...if you have no cap, it becomes a pocket arms race. Look at the MLB nowadays. Pirates or A's cant compete with Dodgers in spending.

This will mean many owners won't be able to compete at all with someone like Steve Balmer (NBA) or Jerry, so then why bother at all ? Just like A's or Marlins you don't compete so then just reap the benefits of $$$ coming in.

No, if you have no cap, turn off the revenue sharing too. Make it purely about $$$. Do it like soccer leagues in europe. Yeah, half the league will die off and most teams will be feeder farm clubs that pay players peanuts and each player's dream would be to come to the BIG team because then they'll get paid.

But I think this is the players' worst nightmare. Lol. Because then the profits of role mid and low tier players would really plummet. Especially in a league like the NBA.

The way todays game is pretty much all that matters is who strikes gold on a franchise qb and that makes them competitive for 10-15 years otherwise it's mostly just parity. Sure some teams draft way better for stretches, but that has always been the key. Now when a team drafts well they can barely retain most of that talent. So some (like me lol) would argue the game was better in many ways before the cap era.

While you are correct some owners simply could not compete financially with other owners the truth is most of them can. So I think revenue sharing should remain to keep owners in check as you suggested, but the counter to that thought is why cant Jerry spend $600 million on his team is he so chooses? Fans would ask their own billionaire ownership why they aren't as dedicated etc. (Exactly what used to happen back in the day in NFL and MLB)

In the end these guys aren't billionaire's for being fiscally irresponsible, they know how to manage their assets etc so I don't think it would be anything crazy or to the point they damage their own product. Aside that I stand by my opinion that a salary cap limits players and puts more money in owners pockets.

The heart of the matter is that the NFL is a "joint venture" (franchise) among a group of people who have agreed to to create a product that is dependent on fan interest across all markets to make that venture profitable and sustainable. To that goal, the NFL has been successful. A large part of that success is due to the salary cap that prevents maverick owners, like George Steinbrenner and Eddie DeBartolo, from destroying the competitive balance in the league such as has been done in MLB.

In the meantime, BECAUSE a competitive balance has been maintained and fan interest high, the desire for the product has attracted advertisers to buy time at a rate that the amount of money available to pay players has skyrocketed. The median salary is now just under $900,000/yr. quite a tidy sum for men who have likely not achieved a college degree. With the latest NFL/ESPN deal, those salaries will continue to an even higher level. In the next five years, the median salary will rise to well over $1,000,000 year.

All this because the franchise rules have been set to assure a salable product across the nation.

Originally posted by dj43:
The heart of the matter is that the NFL is a "joint venture" (franchise) among a group of people who have agreed to to create a product that is dependent on fan interest across all markets to make that venture profitable and sustainable. To that goal, the NFL has been successful. A large part of that success is due to the salary cap that prevents maverick owners, like George Steinbrenner and Eddie DeBartolo, from destroying the competitive balance in the league such as has been done in MLB.

In the meantime, BECAUSE a competitive balance has been maintained and fan interest high, the desire for the product has attracted advertisers to buy time at a rate that the amount of money available to pay players has skyrocketed. The median salary is now just under $900,000/yr. quite a tidy sum for men who have likely not achieved a college degree. With the latest NFL/ESPN deal, those salaries will continue to an even higher level. In the next five years, the median salary will rise to well over $1,000,000 year.

All this because the franchise rules have been set to assure a salable product across the nation.

Excellent points and tangentially mentioned in the report. Lots of fully guaranteed contracts all of the sudden will wreck the product.

I read the 51 page report carefully and suspect those beating the collusion drum haven't. I certainly don't take Florio the entertainer seriously in this.

The report's conclusion is pretty obviously correct.

Do the conspiracy guys realize the NFPLA's whole argument was basically that Wilson and Murray (and 500+ others) would have gotten fully guaranteed contracts if not for the infamous nothingburger of a meeting?

TL;DR… The NFL was stupid for bringing fully guaranteed contracts up the way they did in the meeting, but no one at the meeting even bothered to discuss it because there are 31 teams who already knew fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea because they aren't the moronic Browns, have never wanted to be the Browns, and don't want to be the Browns.

I think the NFPLA would have been better off suing on behalf of every Browns player not named Watson… on the grounds that the Browns are so incredibly stupid that the only reason they wouldn't be doing the dumbest possible thing and giving everyone a guaranteed contract is because the shadowy league men won't allow it.

The TL;DR of the TL;DR is… Everyone knows the Browns are "The Browns" and do "The Browns" things.

Originally posted by Midbay:

Originally posted by dj43:
The heart of the matter is that the NFL is a "joint venture" (franchise) among a group of people who have agreed to to create a product that is dependent on fan interest across all markets to make that venture profitable and sustainable. To that goal, the NFL has been successful. A large part of that success is due to the salary cap that prevents maverick owners, like George Steinbrenner and Eddie DeBartolo, from destroying the competitive balance in the league such as has been done in MLB.

In the meantime, BECAUSE a competitive balance has been maintained and fan interest high, the desire for the product has attracted advertisers to buy time at a rate that the amount of money available to pay players has skyrocketed. The median salary is now just under $900,000/yr. quite a tidy sum for men who have likely not achieved a college degree. With the latest NFL/ESPN deal, those salaries will continue to an even higher level. In the next five years, the median salary will rise to well over $1,000,000 year.

All this because the franchise rules have been set to assure a salable product across the nation.

Excellent points and tangentially mentioned in the report. Lots of fully guaranteed contracts all of the sudden will wreck the product.

I read the 51 page report carefully and suspect those beating the collusion drum haven't. I certainly don't take Florio the entertainer seriously in this.

The report's conclusion is pretty obviously correct.

Do the conspiracy guys realize the NFPLA's whole argument was basically that Wilson and Murray (and 500+ others) would have gotten fully guaranteed contracts if not for the infamous nothingburger of a meeting?

TL;DR… The NFL was stupid for bringing fully guaranteed contracts up the way they did in the meeting, but no one at the meeting even bothered to discuss it because there are 31 teams who already knew fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea because they aren't the moronic Browns, have never wanted to be the Browns, and don't want to be the Browns.

I think the NFPLA would have been better off suing on behalf of every Browns player not named Watson… on the grounds that the Browns are so incredibly stupid that the only reason they wouldn't be doing the dumbest possible thing and giving everyone a guaranteed contract is because the shadowy league men won't allow it.

The TL;DR of the TL;DR is… Everyone knows the Browns are "The Browns" and do "The Browns" things.

...and of course, Jimmy Haslam has shown himself to be the stupid version of a maverick owner that thinks he can get around franchise rules. I'm quite certain he will not be invited to tea with the rest of the gang next time they meet.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Midbay:

Originally posted by dj43:
The heart of the matter is that the NFL is a "joint venture" (franchise) among a group of people who have agreed to to create a product that is dependent on fan interest across all markets to make that venture profitable and sustainable. To that goal, the NFL has been successful. A large part of that success is due to the salary cap that prevents maverick owners, like George Steinbrenner and Eddie DeBartolo, from destroying the competitive balance in the league such as has been done in MLB.

In the meantime, BECAUSE a competitive balance has been maintained and fan interest high, the desire for the product has attracted advertisers to buy time at a rate that the amount of money available to pay players has skyrocketed. The median salary is now just under $900,000/yr. quite a tidy sum for men who have likely not achieved a college degree. With the latest NFL/ESPN deal, those salaries will continue to an even higher level. In the next five years, the median salary will rise to well over $1,000,000 year.

All this because the franchise rules have been set to assure a salable product across the nation.

Excellent points and tangentially mentioned in the report. Lots of fully guaranteed contracts all of the sudden will wreck the product.

I read the 51 page report carefully and suspect those beating the collusion drum haven't. I certainly don't take Florio the entertainer seriously in this.

The report's conclusion is pretty obviously correct.

Do the conspiracy guys realize the NFPLA's whole argument was basically that Wilson and Murray (and 500+ others) would have gotten fully guaranteed contracts if not for the infamous nothingburger of a meeting?

TL;DR… The NFL was stupid for bringing fully guaranteed contracts up the way they did in the meeting, but no one at the meeting even bothered to discuss it because there are 31 teams who already knew fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea because they aren't the moronic Browns, have never wanted to be the Browns, and don't want to be the Browns.

I think the NFPLA would have been better off suing on behalf of every Browns player not named Watson… on the grounds that the Browns are so incredibly stupid that the only reason they wouldn't be doing the dumbest possible thing and giving everyone a guaranteed contract is because the shadowy league men won't allow it.

The TL;DR of the TL;DR is… Everyone knows the Browns are "The Browns" and do "The Browns" things.

...and of course, Jimmy Haslam has shown himself to be the stupid version of a maverick owner that thinks he can get around franchise rules. I'm quite certain he will not be invited to tea with the rest of the gang next time they meet.

not collusion , but ...........

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by the_dynasty:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
This is true, but from the owners perspective they all bank massive money because of it. Dare I say if there was no cap an owner like Jerry Jones would spend 600 million a year if it meant he won a SB and all the good players would want to go there etc.(At least when he was younger) Other owners get mad because they cant compete with that and have zero desire to other than turning a profit on their investment. I get the pros and cons of a cap, but no cap was better.

I am a Yankee fan and this was how George Steinbrenner was back in the day. He just wanted to win year after year if he could and flat out said I make plenty of money in my other businesses, this is my passion etc. His son dgaf and is about maximizing profit. I sure do miss George!

I disagree...if you have no cap, it becomes a pocket arms race. Look at the MLB nowadays. Pirates or A's cant compete with Dodgers in spending.

This will mean many owners won't be able to compete at all with someone like Steve Balmer (NBA) or Jerry, so then why bother at all ? Just like A's or Marlins you don't compete so then just reap the benefits of $$$ coming in.

No, if you have no cap, turn off the revenue sharing too. Make it purely about $$$. Do it like soccer leagues in europe. Yeah, half the league will die off and most teams will be feeder farm clubs that pay players peanuts and each player's dream would be to come to the BIG team because then they'll get paid.

But I think this is the players' worst nightmare. Lol. Because then the profits of role mid and low tier players would really plummet. Especially in a league like the NBA.

The way todays game is pretty much all that matters is who strikes gold on a franchise qb and that makes them competitive for 10-15 years otherwise it's mostly just parity. Sure some teams draft way better for stretches, but that has always been the key. Now when a team drafts well they can barely retain most of that talent. So some (like me lol) would argue the game was better in many ways before the cap era.

While you are correct some owners simply could not compete financially with other owners the truth is most of them can. So I think revenue sharing should remain to keep owners in check as you suggested, but the counter to that thought is why cant Jerry spend $600 million on his team is he so chooses? Fans would ask their own billionaire ownership why they aren't as dedicated etc. (Exactly what used to happen back in the day in NFL and MLB)

In the end these guys aren't billionaire's for being fiscally irresponsible, they know how to manage their assets etc so I don't think it would be anything crazy or to the point they damage their own product. Aside that I stand by my opinion that a salary cap limits players and puts more money in owners pockets.

The heart of the matter is that the NFL is a "joint venture" (franchise) among a group of people who have agreed to to create a product that is dependent on fan interest across all markets to make that venture profitable and sustainable. To that goal, the NFL has been successful. A large part of that success is due to the salary cap that prevents maverick owners, like George Steinbrenner and Eddie DeBartolo, from destroying the competitive balance in the league such as has been done in MLB.

In the meantime, BECAUSE a competitive balance has been maintained and fan interest high, the desire for the product has attracted advertisers to buy time at a rate that the amount of money available to pay players has skyrocketed. The median salary is now just under $900,000/yr. quite a tidy sum for men who have likely not achieved a college degree. With the latest NFL/ESPN deal, those salaries will continue to an even higher level. In the next five years, the median salary will rise to well over $1,000,000 year.

All this because the franchise rules have been set to assure a salable product across the nation.

meh, It was a better product back in the day. Now even redzone has commercials, evven though you already have to pay for it.