The playuers rejected the Owners offer of some financials

[Caveman_Nick]

Not because it wouldn't help the negotiations

[Bronco Billy]

Not because it wouldn't help the negotiations

 

So the players and the NFLPA lied to us all about being offered financials? Who could have guessed?

 

The players need to be able to scrutinize profits listed as profits and profits that may be masquerading as expenses, such as salary paid to the owner or his family members, and payments to companies owned by the owner’s family.

 

Why is this, exactly? The division of revenues is based upon gross revenues. What the owners do with their share is none of the players' damned business, just as how each player distributes his income is none of the owners business.

 

Imagine the uproar if the owners wanted to see itemized details of how each player spent their money.

[nuke'em ttg]

So the players and the NFLPA lied to us all about being offered financials? Who could have guessed?

 

The players need to be able to scrutinize profits listed as profits and profits that may be masquerading as expenses, such as salary paid to the owner or his family members, and payments to companies owned by the owner's family.

 

Why is this, exactly? The division of revenues is based upon gross revenues. What the owners do with their share is none of the players' damned business, just as how each player distributes his income is none of the owners business.

 

Imagine the uproar if the owners wanted to see itemized details of how each player spent their money.

 

These prima donnas have gone to far they're over paid and i don't give a rats azs if they may get hurt. i've worked hurt it seems my whole workin life and had to make changes ta do what i can, these f'rs and their homes,cars, bling and bullchit need a reality check. f'n coughsuffers

[Savage Beatings]

Why is this, exactly? The division of revenues is based upon gross revenues. What the owners do with their share is none of the players' damned business, just as how each player distributes his income is none of the owners business.

 

Well, I understand WHY they asked for it... to verify or refute the claims of the owners as to their profitability. The only way to know how profitable the owners are would be to see that kind of detailed information. But in the end, it seems now to have been a bad-faith request anyway.

[Bronco Billy]

Well, I understand WHY they asked for it... to verify or refute the claims of the owners as to their profitability. The only way to know how profitable the owners are would be to see that kind of detailed information. But in the end, it seems now to have been a bad-faith request anyway.

 

I understand why they asked for it also. But the players are also making the claim that they wil be underpaid under the new agreement. So let's see what they spend their money on, since they claim that they need to make more. That sword can cut both ways, and I have a feeling that the players would end up coming out on the losing end. It's one thing to pay a flunky nephew $100K to mow the lawn and another to blow $100K in strip clubs or on bling.

 

Again, I want to make my position clear - I don't give a horse's patoot what either side spends their money on once it's divvied up. It's their money to do with as they please, and neither side owes itemized financials to the other side. It is completely irrelevant in the argument at hand.

[Ursa Majoris]

Again, I want to make my position clear - I don't give a horse's patoot what either side spends their money on once it's divvied up. It's their money to do with as they please, and neither side owes itemized financials to the other side. It is completely irrelevant in the argument at hand.

You are right in principle but if owners are pleading reduced profits as a reason to reduce the players' split of the gross income and to peel off extra money before the split takes place, then the reasons for the reduced profits ought to be known to both sides.

 

This was, IMO, a PR error by the players, as the column makes plain. The column also makes plain the reasons the proffered financials were insufficient on which to base a judgment on the owners' claims.

[Bronco Billy]

You are right in principle but if owners are pleading reduced profits as a reason to reduce the players' split of the gross income and to peel off extra money before the split takes place, then the reasons for the reduced profits ought to be known to both sides.

 

If the players were partners, I'd agree with you. In fact, the owners would then have a legal obligation to provide this information. The players aren't partners, they are employees. As such, the owners have absolutely no obligation to provide any financials to them unless it has been written into an employment contract like a CBA. That the owners are offering the financials that they have to date is nothing short of amazing.

 

And here we are back at the same old tired argument again that has been hashed over so many times.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

If the players were partners, I'd agree with you. In fact, the owners would then have a legal obligation to provide this information. The players aren't partners, they are employees. As such, the owners have absolutely no obligation to provide any financials to them unless it has been written into an employment contract like a CBA. That the owners are offering the financials that they have to date is nothing short of amazing.

 

And here we are back at the same old tired argument again that has been hashed over so many times.

First, I'd like to state that what we have here is two sets of thoroughly unpleasant, greedy toads.

 

Second, it's impossible to ignore the fact that although they are technically employees, the players are far different employees to you, me and pretty much everyone else on these boards. It's a question of clout, is all. These private businesses have chosen (perhaps foolishly) to set a precedent of a gross income split with their employees. Now that they are trying to roll that back, it's not surprising that the players are reacting badly. The players may well suspect, for instance, that some of the "reduced profit" is actually being squirreled away by e.g. paying relatives large sums, some percentage of which is funneled back to the owner through the back door.

 

After the $4 billion owner "insurance" fiasco, there is obviously zero trust left.

[Bronco Billy]

Here's a snapshot of one NFL team's issues. It's an article from the Packer website. Now, before anyone accuses the Packers of prevaricating please remember that the Packers' books are a matter of public record since they are a publicly held company. Also remember that player costs go beyond simply the salary cap numbers and would include taxes on the team related to payroll, unemployment insurance, etc.

 

Link

 

Finances Show Profit, But Troubling Trends Remain

By Mike Spofford

 

Posted Jul 14, 2010

 

The Green Bay Packers once again were profitable over the past fiscal year, but their operating profit dropped more than 50 percent from the previous year as the rising cost of player salaries continued to outpace revenue growth.

 

In the team’s latest financial report, a preview of which was released to the media this week, the Packers’ operating profit for the 2010 fiscal year (ending March 31, 2010), was $9.8 million, down from $20.1 million the year prior. The primary reason for the decline, despite a $10.1 million increase in overall revenue, was a $22.1 million jump in player costs, which increased 15.9 percent from $138.7 million to $160.8 million. It marked the third consecutive year that operating profits declined, from $34.2 million (2007) to $21.4 million (2008) to $20.1 million (2009) to $9.8 million (2010).

 

That’s the trend the Packers have pointed to as unsustainable – declining operating profits, which reduce club incentives to make investments necessary to grow the game – and is the key issue in the league’s ongoing negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union.

 

“The organization is in good shape financially, and we remain fully able to support our football operations and provide all the resources needed to field a championship-caliber team,” Packers President/CEO Mark Murphy said. “But over the last few years we’ve been concerned with the escalation of player costs relative to overall revenue and reduced incentives to ownership to grow the game. That’s what we’re looking to address in the CBA negotiations, because if the current trend continues, it’s not good for the Packers or for the NFL.”

 

Murphy explained the trend by comparing the team’s finances from the 2006 fiscal year, the final year under the previous CBA before the current, expiring deal took effect in 2007. In short, as the team has seen revenue increases both nationally (television contracts, league revenues, etc.) and locally (Lambeau Field Atrium businesses, Pro Shop, etc.), more and more of that money has been needed to pay the players.

 

Over the four-year period since 2006, the Packers have generated $132 million in incremental revenue, and $123 million of that, or 94 percent, has gone to player salaries. Comparing the most recent fiscal year to 2006, the Packers’ revenues are up $50 million, from $208 million to $258 million, while player costs have gone up $58 million, from $103 million to $161 million.

 

Seen another way, the Packers’ revenues have grown 5.5 percent annually over the past four years while player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually, or more than double the rate.

 

The concern the owners have is obvious - player costs are outstripping revenue growth by a significant rate. Now, is there any reason to think that this would not be typical of most if not all teams in the NFL?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[delusions of grandeur]

The concern the owners have is obvious - player costs are outstripping revenue growth by a significant rate. Now, is there any reason to think that this would not be typical of most if not all teams in the NFL?

 

Not sure how credible the below article is, but take note of the bolded part. If the salary cap is a % of the overall team revenues, then literally the only way that salaries can outpace growth is if some teams are driving the curve up.

 

NFL labor trouble isn't players' fault

January 30, 2011|By Gwen Knapp

 

Blame the owners.

 

If the NFL shuts down for even a fraction of the 2011 season, it will be their fault.

 

They've demanded that the players, as a group, take a smaller portion of the league's revenue. They've asked to expand the regular season, which players believe would increase the risk of injury. The owners are counting on fans to dismiss the current labor dispute with the cliched: "It's millionaires against billionaires, and a pox on both their houses."

 

But athlete greed has not created this stalemate. The players aren't asking for more than they currently receive. Their union would concede to cuts in extravagant rookie salaries, if the savings ended up in veterans' paychecks. Guess where the owners want the money to go.

 

The owners created this mess by voiding a collective-bargaining agreement 2 1/2 years ago, and they have done almost nothing to clean it. They merely say that their profits keep dropping, that player costs are ruining them and that terms of the old agreement are unacceptable.

 

They won't prove that by opening their books, as the players have requested. The owners say that privately held businesses rarely reveal that much information to workers and that when the NBA shared its financials, the players' union instantly disputed the numbers.

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses. If a player talked this way after a sloppy loss, he'd get cut.

 

The one team that does release a financial statement, the publicly owned Packers, showed a drop in operating profit to $9.8 million from $20.1 million between March 2009 and March 2010. Total revenue increased by $10.1 million, but player costs went up by $22.1 million. Salary growth has outpaced revenue gains and profit has dropped over the last three years, according to the team.

The math seems like a straightforward argument for containing players' salaries, but a big part of the equation is missing. The salary cap is a fixed percentage of league-wide revenue, so player costs couldn't rise unless some of the Packers' partners were really thriving. In simple terms, the enormous local income of the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots inflates the cap for every team.

Greater revenue-sharing would solve that problem, but the owners would rather take from the players, handing Jerry Jones an even bigger jackpot, than force him and his ilk to share more of their current bounty with the less-rich owners.

 

Thus BB, your example of Green Bay absolutely cannot reflect the state of the entire NFL. It is mathematically impossible for a % of revenue to outpace revenues.

[Caveman_Nick]

Not sure how credible the below article is, but take note of the bolded part. If the salary cap is a % of the overall team revenues, then literally the only way that salaries can outpace growth is if some teams are driving the curve up.

 

 

 

Thus BB, your example of Green Bay absolutely cannot reflect the state of the entire NFL. It is mathematically impossible for a % of revenue to outpace revenues.

 

 

It's impossible for a cost to outpace revenues? What are you smoking? BTW, that's what he said, not that a percentage of revenue outpaced revenue.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Caveman_Nick

[delusions of grandeur]

 

It's impossible for a cost to outpace revenues? What are you smoking? BTW, that's what he said, not that a percentage of revenue outpaced revenue.

 

Yes, but if that cost is based on a fixed % of overall team revenues, then obviously that cost is directly in line with those revenues.

 

If I'm wrong here, then maybe someone can elaborate on what exactly determines the salary cap, but if it's based on a fixed % of revenues, then yes, it is literally impossible for salaries to outpace NFL revenues as a whole.

Edited April 3, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[gbpfan1231]

Not sure how credible the below article is, but take note of the bolded part. If the salary cap is a % of the overall team revenues, then literally the only way that salaries can outpace growth is if some teams are driving the curve up.

 

 

 

Thus BB, your example of Green Bay absolutely cannot reflect the state of the entire NFL. It is mathematically impossible for a % of revenue to outpace revenues.

Maybe I am wrong here and too lazy to check but I am thinking your statement of impossible would only be if a team is consistently at the cap max???

 

If the Packers try to stay below the cap then the % of player salaries to revenues could change up or down based on what they need to do each year to keep certain players.

 

I could easily be way off base with this but I don't think all teams are at the max cap so I am thinking your case of impossible would not be true???

[delusions of grandeur]

Maybe I am wrong here and too lazy to check but I am thinking your statement of impossible would only be if a team is consistently at the cap max???

 

If the Packers try to stay below the cap then the % of player salaries to revenues could change up or down based on what they need to do each year to keep certain players.

 

I could easily be way off base with this but I don't think all teams are at the max cap so I am thinking your case of impossible would not be true???

 

I'm talking about revenues as a whole, not per team, which is how the owners have decided to do it... The Packers certainly don't have to spend all of their cap, so yes, it is possible for them to stay below that cap and more in line with their team's earnings, and yes, individually their salaries can outpace growth, but the NFL owners are the ones who decided to do it this way, rather than pool their profits together.

 

There's nothing wrong with that, but when you decide that revenues can be different, but everyone operates under the same cap (% of revenues), then it is guys like Jerry Jones who actually see their revenues outpace salaries, while the Packers and other teams see their salaries outpace their growth...

 

But this is the way they set it up. The players % of revenues are not rising 1 iota, it's just that teams are operating with different revenues but with the same fixed cap, regardless of individual revenues. Again, someone feel free to let me know if this is incorrect.

Edited April 3, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Ursa Majoris]

Yes, but if that cost is based on a fixed % of overall team revenues, then obviously that cost is directly in line with those revenues.

 

If I'm wrong here, then maybe someone can elaborate on what exactly determines the salary cap, but if it's based on a fixed % of revenues, then yes, it is literally impossible for salaries to outpace NFL revenues as a whole.

This was exactly my first thought on reading the article too. If salary caps are fixed as a percentage of overall league revenue, then it really is impossible for total salaries to outpace total revenues. The worst is that they stay level. It's much more likely that within the NFL cartel, there are some winners and some losers. For every Packers with declining profits, there must be another team with increasing profits.

[delusions of grandeur]

This was exactly my first thought on reading the article too. If salary caps are fixed as a percentage of overall league revenue, then it really is impossible for total salaries to outpace total revenues. The worst is that they stay level. It's much more likely that within the NFL cartel, there are some winners and some losers. For every Packers with declining profits, there must be another team with increasing profits.

 

Yes, but to be fair, BB's article did show that the current model has flaws and may not be sustainable for all teams, and I can sympathize with the Packers' position if their small-market really is putting them at that much of a disadvantage in filling their cap to stay competitive. But we'll still have to see how much the national recognition of winning a Super Bowl might lead their revenues to rise, however...

 

But let's not feel too sorry for the struggling teams. They knew what they were getting into, and it was all about risk/reward. If you're one of the lucky owners who sees revenues exceed the % you would pay to the players, then you see a growth on top of your fixed share. If you don't make as much revenue, then salaries may outpace revenues for a bit, but of course these teams know that it's a cyclical thing. You buy into quality players, win games and your revenues will always tend to rise (this is exactly what has happened for the Falcons in the last 10 years, now that Blank is investing in winners)... But either way, it's still a safe, stable investment that yields millions..

Edited April 3, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

Not sure how credible the below article is, but take note of the bolded part. If the salary cap is a % of the overall team revenues, then literally the only way that salaries can outpace growth is if some teams are driving the curve up.

 

 

 

Thus BB, your example of Green Bay absolutely cannot reflect the state of the entire NFL. It is mathematically impossible for a % of revenue to outpace revenues.

 

Apparently you don't understand the difference between operating profit and gross revenue, which is what the article was comparing. Operating profits are those after costs are removed. It's pretty plain to see that costs went up. You also don't seem to understand the difference between player costs and the salary cap. That confusion probably explains why you take the position that you do. The article compared apples to oranges and you fell for it.

[delusions of grandeur]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between operating profit and gross revenue, which is what the article was comparing. Operating profits are those after costs are removed. It's pretty plain to see that costs went up. You also don't seem to understand the difference between player costs and the salary cap. That confusion probably explains why you take the position that you do. The article compared apples to oranges and you fell for it.

 

Dude, I completely see what it means for the Packers "operating profit". My point is not to cry about the players you made a deal with a set % of revenues with. Go cry to Jerry Jones for making too much money and driving the salary cap up. That's what's hurting GB's operating profits, costs, whatever you want to call it, since their revenues are actually increasing.

 

Explain then how I am mistaken in assuming that the salary cap is entirely based on a fixed % of league revenues, which only has a 1/32 bearing on their team revenues.

 

Please enlighten me on how it really is...

Edited April 3, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

Dude, I completely see what it means for the Packers "operating profit". My point is not to cry about the players you made a deal with a set % of revenues with. Go cry to Jerry Jones for making too much money and driving the salary cap up. That's what's hurting GB's operating profits, since their revenues are actually increasing.

 

Explain then how I am mistaken in assuming that the salary cap is entirely based on a fixed % of league revenues, which is what is driving up the Packers operating costs, hurting their profits (or whatever you want to call it) with only having a 1/32 bearing on their team revenues.

 

Please enlighten me on how it really is...

 

I'd be happy to.

 

These are numbers from the annual report as provided by the Milwaukee Sentinal-Journal:

 

LINK

 

In the last fiscal year, profit from operations was $20.1 million.

 

Total team revenue was $258 million, a record, up from $248 million.

 

Expenses, especially player costs, increased markedly. Operating expenses jumped to $248 million, up from $228 million. Of that amount, $161 million went to player costs, up from $139 million.

 

Player costs are defined as not only salary, but also signing bonuses, player incentives, and health and pension costs.

 

In interviews, team executives said the franchise remained in a strong financial position. At the same time, however, they stressed that player costs continue to be a concern. That is and will be the mantra the entire National Football League wants to stress as it continues negotiating with the players union on a new collective bargaining contract.

 

According to team officials, over a four-year period, while player costs have gone up 11.8%, revenue has only gone up 5.5%.

 

“Player costs are growing at twice the rate of revenue,” Murphy said. That, he said, helps explain why the league, with the Packers in full support, agreed to opt out of the current contract and go to an uncapped salary season in 2010.

 

So total revenue rose from $248M to $258M. That's an increase in revenue of $10M. With me so far?

 

Operating expense rose from $228M to $248M. That's an increase in cost of $20M. Still with me?

 

Okay, so the increase of revenue of $10M - the increase in cost of $20M means a reduction in profit by $10M. Did you understand that? I can do it again if you would like.

 

Player costs went up from $139M to $161M. That's an increase in cost of $22M. That means other operating costs actually went down $2M.

 

Now, ask yourself what the cap number was in 2009. Here, I'll help. It was $128M. How is it possible that the Packers paid $161M in player costs but the salary cap was $128M? Oh, that's right, some of it was signing bonuses paid out that year which will be spread out across other years for cap purposes, but some of it was also health care costs, pension costs, unemployment taxes paid, etc.

 

There's a lot more to player cost than just player salaries. And that's where the rate of increased cost can easily outpace the rate of revenue. Didn't things cost your family more this year than it did in 2009? If the rate of increased costs outpaced the rate of increase in your salary, you actually make less net profit, even though you would be making more money.

 

Do you get this? Oh, and since you brought up with authority that it was Jerry Jones making a lot more money that drove Packers' profits down, please share with all of us what Jerry Jones' operating revenues and costs were for the Cowboys so we can do the same calculations.

 

We'll all wait....

Edited April 3, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

Oh, and since you brought up with authority that it was Jerry Jones making a lot more money that drove Packers' profits down, please share with all of us what Jerry Jones' operating revenues and costs were for the Cowboys so we can do the same calculations.

You should have stopped before this bit because that's pretty much what the NFLPA were asking for.

[delusions of grandeur]

You should have stopped before this bit because that's pretty much what the NFLPA were asking for.

 

Yup, I'll concede he makes a very strong argument about how it's hurting the Packers (although we really don't know what portion of this 13% increase in player costs are due to things like signing bonuses, which are really a part of multi-year salaries up front to help keep their edge in talent, so I don't buy that non-salary costs have gone up that much, when compared to the billion $ split they get for those kinds of costs).

 

But Ursa is pretty much getting at the same point I am. If most teams are in the same boat as Green Bay like BB had said, then I'll concede that the players are being somewhat unreasonable in wanting to keep the same agreement they had, assuming it does point in an unsustainable direction. But without knowing their books, it's silly to try to say that Green Bay is any sort of a representation of the state of the league as a whole, particularly those in big markets who likely have been doing very well with the growth of the sport, and most certainly have influence on everyone's cap.

 

But I'm tired of acting like I know what's going on. BB, all I really want is you to concede is that you really don't know any more than any of us do about what is actually "fair" in these negotiations. No one but the owners do as long as the books stay closed...

Edited April 3, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Bronco Billy]

Yup, I'll concede he makes a very strong argument about how it's hurting the Packers (although we really don't know what portion of this 13% increase in player costs are due to things like signing bonuses, which are really a part of multi-year salaries up front to help keep their edge in talent, so I don't buy that non-salary costs have gone up that much, when compared to the billion $ split they get for those kinds of costs).

 

But Ursa is pretty much getting at the same point I am. If most teams are in the same boat as Green Bay like BB had said, then I'll concede that the players are being somewhat unreasonable in wanting to keep the same agreement they had, assuming it does point in an unsustainable direction. But without knowing their books, it's silly to try to say that Green Bay is any sort of a representation of the state of the league as a whole, particularly those in big markets who likely have been doing very well with the growth of the sport, and most certainly have influence on everyone's cap.

 

But I'm tired of acting like I know what's going on. BB, all I really want is you to concede is that you really don't know any more than any of us do about what is actually "fair" in these negotiations. No one but the owners do as long as the books stay closed...

 

I saw what the owners put on the table. They were very open about the offer they made right before the players walked out and decertified. I did the simple math. I've seen the mistatements made by the NFLPA and by individual players who do not disavow the deal offered but instead mischaracterize its impact, either intentionally or through ignorance.

 

I also know that the owners put up 5 years worth of financials for each team like that which we can see with the Packers above, and that the players decided that wasn't good enough, demanded 10 years worth that had to be delivered in an hour, and then walked 45 minutes after the demand.

 

IMO, the players are getting a very good deal, and it is a deal that is insulated against any reduction in the rate of revenue gain - something that isn't insignificant in a weak economy. The numbers show that. There are also other items not being focused on but being conceded by the owners - a good example is each team kicking in $85M each year for currently retired players to supplement their needs. The deal is also front loaded for the players so that they actually gain more through the time/value of money. The vets don't lose one dime, even though they falsely claim time and again that they are losing money in the deal. They gain significantly. The owners just want the initial terms reset for the new economics involved, for the installation of the rookie cap, and what we can plainly see is that the rate of increase in revenues is less than it was a few years ago - but none of this affects that the veteran players will get paid incrementally more each year by a substantial amount.

 

You want me to state that the owners used a scummy tactic early on to gain leverage - I'll freely admit that. But since getting shot down on their TV insurance scam, the owners have put together a very lucrative package that the players should have jumped on. The players played chicken and the owners called their bluff and are willing to go to court now that Doty doesn't preside on the issue any longer.

 

There is a lot of information out there that can be accessed. It just means taking the time to look it up, review it, and then decide how credible it is. If people want to rely on the sound bites and snippets, but not look across the entire spectrum of information then we'll see a lot of extreme positions and a lot of farfetched statements. But to think that there isn't enough information to form an educated opinion is a fallacy.

[WaterMan]

I also know that the owners put up 5 years worth of financials for each team like that which we can see with the Packers above, and that the players decided that wasn't good enough, demanded 10 years worth that had to be delivered in an hour, and then walked 45 minutes after the demand.

 

Jerry Jones could have had a pretty young blonde assistant put that information on a flash drive or three then fly her by private helicopter to the meeting.

 

Player costs are defined as not only salary, but also signing bonuses, player incentives, and health and pension costs.

 

I don't understand how rising salary costs are hurting teams. If teams are employers and the NFL players are employees, how come the teams can't say, "we can't sign you to our team for that much money, we are tightening our belts." ? If the teams can't afford to pay players what they signed to in a contract, then DON'T SIGN THEM FOR THAT MUCH MONEY.

 

Do these NFL teams even have accountants or do the players' lawyers have a 2nd job calculating the NFL's books?

Edited April 4, 2011 by WaterMan

[Bronco Billy]

I don't understand how rising salary costs are hurting teams. If teams are employers and the NFL players are employees, how come the teams can't say, "we can't sign you to our team for that much money, we are tightening our belts." ? If the teams can't afford to pay players what they signed to in a contract, then DON'T SIGN THEM FOR THAT MUCH MONEY.

 

There's no way I'd support that. I'm absolutely certain the that the players wouldn't, and the owners would be foolish to damage their product by doing this. I don't mind the players getting paid well, and they should be compensated for the risks they take as well as the entertainment value of the NFL because of hteir unique skill sets. But what you are suggesting is that the NFL turn into MLB, where you have the small market "have-nots" and the deep pocket "haves". The baseball season just embarked on a 162 game season and there are already fans of half the teams in the league who know they have no shot at making the playoffs - because their ownership simply can't spend enough money to compete.

 

At the start of the coming NFL season, even teams like DET and CLE have hope for making the playoffs if the teams make some solid draft and FA moves. Look at the STL fans last season - they suffered through a dog-butt ugly season the year before and were on the cusp of making the playoffs this past season. Now they've got the coming season to be jacked up about. If there's a hard salary cap, it is in the best interest of all teams to push right to the edge of the envelope on it as much as possible, knowing that they may have to set some aside if the have an unusually large number of FAs coming up that they want to keep by extending contracts.

 

That's exciting as hell for fans and is a great part of what makes the NFL stand apart.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ursa Majoris]

There's no way I'd support that. I'm absolutely certain the that the players wouldn't, and the owners would be foolish to damage their product by doing this. I don't mind the players getting paid well, and they should be compensated for the risks they take as well as the entertainment value of the NFL because of hteir unique skill sets. But what you are suggesting is that the NFL turn into MLB, where you have the small market "have-nots" and the deep pocket "haves". The baseball season just embarked on a 162 game season and there are already fans of half the teams in the league who know they have no shot at making the playoffs - because their ownership simply can't spend enough money to compete.

 

At the start of the coming NFL season, even teams like DET and CLE have hope for making the playoffs if the teams make some solid draft and FA moves. Look at the STL fans last season - they suffered through a dog-butt ugly season the year before and were on the cusp of making the playoffs this past season. Now they've got the coming season to be jacked up about. If there's a hard salary cap, it is in the best interest of all teams to push right to the edge of the envelope on it as much as possible, knowing that they may have to set some aside if the have an unusually large number of FAs coming up that they want to keep by extending contracts.

 

That's exciting as hell for fans and is a great part of what makes the NFL stand apart.

Again, you are right. So is Waterman, though. The teams DO have it in their own hands to lower costs by simply refusing FA demands. The fact that they don't is one of the paradoxes of the NFL being both a cartel AND a competitive set of individual entities at the same time.