The Owners Math Doesn't Make Sense

nice find, thanks AB.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
nice find, thanks AB.

no prob.

At first I was with the owners, but this is BS. They want a less cap, yet signed players to big deals before lockout. Makes no sense.

Im with the players on this one, and Goodell should keep his ass out of it.

Quote:
Redskins owner Dan Snyder wrote $36 million worth of checks to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last season to "free up'' cap room for the future. He didn't take $36 million out of potential profit to agree to a salary cap that would prohibit him from signing top free agents.

how is this f**king retard an owner of a professional football team.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
nice find, thanks AB.

no prob.

At first I was with the owners, but this is BS. They want a less cap, yet signed players to big deals before lockout. Makes no sense.

Im with the players on this one, and Goodell should keep his ass out of it.

Not that I'm siding with the owners but I'd argue that the reason they have a cap is to keep the owners from signing baseball, KG esque contracts (before the NBA got maximum contracts).

This isn't anything new. It doesn't matter how bad player contracts get or bad of shape the league is in unless the owners take actions with caps and ceilings player costs will rise. Just look at the draft. No one wants to pay that kind of money to an unproven guy yet still that number one slot increases dramatically each year.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
nice find, thanks AB.

no prob.

At first I was with the owners, but this is BS. They want a less cap, yet signed players to big deals before lockout. Makes no sense.

Im with the players on this one, and Goodell should keep his ass out of it.

Not that I'm siding with the owners but I'd argue that the reason they have a cap is to keep the owners from signing baseball, KG esque contracts (before the NBA got maximum contracts).

This isn't anything new. It doesn't matter how bad player contracts get or bad of shape the league is in unless the owners take actions with caps and ceilings player costs will rise. Just look at the draft. No one wants to pay that kind of money to an unproven guy yet still that number one slot increases dramatically each year.

to me this makes no sense, the Broncos, Packers, Raiders, and others signed players to big deal prior to the lockout, and yet want a lower cap, and the 2011 salaries wont match the cap, which means player cuts and salary cuts.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
nice find, thanks AB.

no prob.

At first I was with the owners, but this is BS. They want a less cap, yet signed players to big deals before lockout. Makes no sense.

Im with the players on this one, and Goodell should keep his ass out of it.

Not that I'm siding with the owners but I'd argue that the reason they have a cap is to keep the owners from signing baseball, KG esque contracts (before the NBA got maximum contracts).

This isn't anything new. It doesn't matter how bad player contracts get or bad of shape the league is in unless the owners take actions with caps and ceilings player costs will rise. Just look at the draft. No one wants to pay that kind of money to an unproven guy yet still that number one slot increases dramatically each year.

to me this makes no sense, the Broncos, Packers, Raiders, and others signed players to big deal prior to the lockout, and yet want a lower cap, and the 2011 salaries wont match the cap, which means player cuts and salary cuts.

You have to understand that these guys want to win. It makes financial sense to them to put up a good product. If you want to win you have to pay the market price for a player, and every time a player gets signed that price tag goes up. If player salaries went down there would be collusion because it goes against the nature of the business of sports.

You see this all of the time. NBA owners are b*tching about their financial situation yet Darko is getting a 20 million dollar contract. Owners really do have to protect themselves from themselves.

Doesn't make any sense. Just like the owners complain about the rookies salaries increasing every year, yet they are the one's who are increasing the rookies salary. The owners and agents dictate that not the union or the players.

Originally posted by lamontb:
Doesn't make any sense. Just like the owners complain about the rookies salaries increasing every year, yet they are the one's who are increasing the rookies salary. The owners and agents dictate that not the union or the players.

True enough....




... BUT...


Suppose the Owners decided to "hold the line" on rookie salaries and, for the sake of argument, pay them exactly what the same pick got from the previous year (with allowances for QB's, who make more money). As an easy example, the first player taken is a Quarterback in two consecutive years, and the second player an Offesive Tackle. The teams drafting them the second year offer them the the exact same compensation package as the previous year's teams did. Same $$$, # of years, incentives, etc.

Can you say "collusion"?

Imagine how bad it would be if they offered LESS?

tjd: "Just look at the draft. No one wants to pay that kind of money to an unproven guy yet still that number one slot increases dramatically each year."

As I understand it, part of the players proposal is a rookie salary cap system that limits these huge payouts to un-proven players. The players feel huge contracts for un-proven players hurt veterans' chances at better contracts. So, I think the players are actually on your side in this.

I don't believe the player's proposal included a rookie salary cap - that has been coming from the owners. A large percentage of the players in the league have 4 years or less of experience, so a rookie cap affects a large amount of those in the player's union. I think the union does have some sympathy to a rookie cap, but I believe that it is the owner's pushing it.

Originally posted by socal9er42:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Doesn't make any sense. Just like the owners complain about the rookies salaries increasing every year, yet they are the one's who are increasing the rookies salary. The owners and agents dictate that not the union or the players.

True enough....




... BUT...


Suppose the Owners decided to "hold the line" on rookie salaries and, for the sake of argument, pay them exactly what the same pick got from the previous year (with allowances for QB's, who make more money). As an easy example, the first player taken is a Quarterback in two consecutive years, and the second player an Offesive Tackle. The teams drafting them the second year offer them the the exact same compensation package as the previous year's teams did. Same $$$, # of years, incentives, etc.

Can you say "collusion"?

Imagine how bad it would be if they offered LESS?

Good points. They would have many agents pissed off but at the end of the day if they really wanted to impose power and will on the system they could. Simply put you tell the agent that we are not paying the 1st pick 60 million guaranteed take it or leave it. Either you take it or you don't play. Just like Crabtree was trying to break the system so can the owners.

But at the end of the day that would just lead to more infighting b/c guys like Al Davis, Dan Synder, and Jerry Jones would probably say oh well and break the bank for their players. Plus they do set aside rookie pool more allocated to each team. Then you will have the NFLPA saying where is that extra money going that you guys are keeping. Leading to more beef.

Originally posted by fryet:
I don't believe the player's proposal included a rookie salary cap - that has been coming from the owners. A large percentage of the players in the league have 4 years or less of experience, so a rookie cap affects a large amount of those in the player's union. I think the union does have some sympathy to a rookie cap, but I believe that it is the owner's pushing it.

According to reports the two sides have agreed on a rookie salary scale.

"According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap." From Jason Cole, Yahoo Sports

This is a huge shift from the Upshaw days when players understood that rookie salaries pushed vets salaries higher. With the cap, perhaps this is no longer a sticking point.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by fryet:
I don't believe the player's proposal included a rookie salary cap - that has been coming from the owners. A large percentage of the players in the league have 4 years or less of experience, so a rookie cap affects a large amount of those in the player's union. I think the union does have some sympathy to a rookie cap, but I believe that it is the owner's pushing it.

According to reports the two sides have agreed on a rookie salary scale.

"According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap." From Jason Cole, Yahoo Sports

This is a huge shift from the Upshaw days when players understood that rookie salaries pushed vets salaries higher. With the cap, perhaps this is no longer a sticking point.

Upshaw was a push over and work more for the owners then the players IIRC

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by fryet:
I don't believe the player's proposal included a rookie salary cap - that has been coming from the owners. A large percentage of the players in the league have 4 years or less of experience, so a rookie cap affects a large amount of those in the player's union. I think the union does have some sympathy to a rookie cap, but I believe that it is the owner's pushing it.

According to reports the two sides have agreed on a rookie salary scale.

"According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap." From Jason Cole, Yahoo Sports

This is a huge shift from the Upshaw days when players understood that rookie salaries pushed vets salaries higher. With the cap, perhaps this is no longer a sticking point.

Upshaw was a push over and work more for the owners then the players IIRC

Rookie salaries pushed vets salaries every year. Sign a rookie for more money than any vet is making and every proficient vet automatically jumps the next contract. Upshaw recognized that and would not endorse the owners idea for a rookie salary cap without including some mechanism to raise vet income. That is not being in the pocket of owners. The players did quite well during Upshaw's time as union boss, so I don't know where you get the idea he was a push over. Any facts about this would be appreciated.