The playuers rejected the Owners offer of some financials

[MikesVikes]

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.

 

 

What's your answer to the difference? Is it because (or partially because) signing bonuses are pro-rated over the life of the contract and aren't the same each year?

 

I'd be happy to.

 

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.

 

Do teams take a similar hit each year for signing bonuses or do those vary from year to year?

 

Is it fair to assume that the player costs increasing from $139 million to $161 million is due to paying out signing bonuses which may or may not be the same each year? I don't think it's fair to say that the Packers are going down the tubes because the player costs are increasing $22 million each year.

Edited April 4, 2011 by MikesVikes

[MikesVikes]

Let's look at those Packer Player salaries.

 

link

 

AJ Hawk salary was 4.124 million in 2010 but 1 million in 2011.

 

Tauscher's salary was 1.4 mil in 2010 but 4.1 mil in 2011.

 

As you can see, Player costs are both significantly higher AND lower from year to year. How can you compare the financials of one team from one year to the next as a signal that the league is losing ground to the player costs.