jason Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Goodell and finances I agree with him. It's ridiculous. The amount these guys get paid is crazy, but to see a rookie get it is that much more insane. Some will argue about capitalism, but it's not an equal comparison. If it were, there would be bidding wars on each player coming straight out of college, there would be no cap, and the NY teams would be in the playoffs for 20 straight years like in baseball. It'll be so nice to see rookies actually have to do something to get paid, and not crap the bed, costing their franchise tons of money without production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Thank you Mr. Goodell, finally some rational thinking! I can not believe the Player's Union would object to the money going to the veterans instead of unproven rookies. Too many players have been drafted in the first round, got paid a shit load of guaranteed money, and never produced on the field, and some never playing a down. Totally ridiculous. Give that money to the veterans who have at least proven they are legitimate NFL stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownman Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 I am glad to see that the Commish is definitely thinking this way. I have never understood how a rookie is able to obtain insane money without taking a snap in the the league. A rookie salary cap and ideally a contract with incentives is a very good thing. If you think that highly of a draftee, then you need to have him prove it on the field and may choose to reward him accordingly. Providing more money to be available for the veterans is also a good thing as well, as they have already been in the league proving their worth. Kudos Mr. Goodell for taking this type of stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 I hope so, rookie salaries are ridiculous. Matt Ryan should not be making more than Tom Brady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 I think Goodell is proving to be a little bolder than Tags. But, this situation has been discussed for years. For some reason on the last CBA, the owners did not strongly pursue it. If they had, they would have had a strong base of players following the owners to the bank. I'm not really sure why it did not pass last time. I'll defer to our cap experts on that. Yo, LT2-3 that means you bro! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 I think everyone besides the rookies and their agents think that rookies get too much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Don't forget the head of the players union. IMHO, what changes, if any, are made to how rookies get paid will really tell the world what sort of power the agents have. Veteran players, owners and fans all seem to want a change. The players union, or at least it head, says no way, but if his union (the players) want the change, you have to think his position is open to change. That leaves the agents. With both sides wanting a change, if nothing happens, i think you have to look squarely at the agents. IMHO, a change will be made. I think Upshaw knows this, but is looking at this as a bargaining chip. He will allow for a change, but only after getting the owners to give up something in return, probably raising the floor, or minimum amount teams have to spend, or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Don't forget the head of the players union. IMHO, what changes, if any, are made to how rookies get paid will really tell the world what sort of power the agents have. Veteran players, owners and fans all seem to want a change. The players union, or at least it head, says no way, but if his union (the players) want the change, you have to think his position is open to change. That leaves the agents. With both sides wanting a change, if nothing happens, i think you have to look squarely at the agents. IMHO, a change will be made. I think Upshaw knows this, but is looking at this as a bargaining chip. He will allow for a change, but only after getting the owners to give up something in return, probably raising the floor, or minimum amount teams have to spend, or something like that. I think this opt out by the owners is the kiss of death for Upshaw. He was rumored to be on the way out before this and if this goes poorly people will want changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Count me in in agreement... The system right now is broken... Goodell and finances I agree with him. It's ridiculous. The amount these guys get paid is crazy, but to see a rookie get it is that much more insane. Some will argue about capitalism, but it's not an equal comparison. If it were, there would be bidding wars on each player coming straight out of college, there would be no cap, and the NY teams would be in the playoffs for 20 straight years like in baseball. It'll be so nice to see rookies actually have to do something to get paid, and not crap the bed, costing their franchise tons of money without production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 I agree with a rookie salary cap but the statements about billion dollar stadiums is total BS. Almost every single stadium built for these teams has been built with a significant amount of public money, in some cases all public funds. We pay taxes for these owners to get rich on their teams (they build net worth even if operating expenses break even) and then they turn around and complain about the high costs of stadiums. These are the same owners who hold cities hostage if they won't pay for a new stadium because there aren't enough luxury suites for corporate sponsors. Ticket money goes into whose pocket, owners or taxpayers? How many stadiums have been torn down after just 20-30 years when life expectancy is normally 50 years? I know I've been paying for the Cards new stadium but at least I got to vote yes for that. In some cases the citizens haven't even been given the option to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 I don't know. I do not know of any stadium that has been 100% financed by the public. Even the stadiums that are not paid for at all by the team also have a big chunk paid for through an NFL loan, which team must pay back. So while the owner may not pay upfront, they are still paying for the costs, or at least partially. As for building new stadiums in pace of stadiums not as old as you would expect to be replaced, I think the key is suites. Suites are the key to bigger profits, and until more recently, stadiums were not built w/ those nice executive suites. I do think the owners will have to open up the books if they want to make this case. If they open up the books and show a significant reduction in profits since the last CBA was agreed to, and can show how new stadiums and the economy, as they argue, are the key, then I think there is a valid argument, but it starts w/ their opening up the books. No one is going to take the owners word at face value w/o evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted July 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 I don't know. I do not know of any stadium that has been 100% financed by the public. Even the stadiums that are not paid for at all by the team also have a big chunk paid for through an NFL loan, which team must pay back. So while the owner may not pay upfront, they are still paying for the costs, or at least partially. As for building new stadiums in pace of stadiums not as old as you would expect to be replaced, I think the key is suites. Suites are the key to bigger profits, and until more recently, stadiums were not built w/ those nice executive suites. I do think the owners will have to open up the books if they want to make this case. If they open up the books and show a significant reduction in profits since the last CBA was agreed to, and can show how new stadiums and the economy, as they argue, are the key, then I think there is a valid argument, but it starts w/ their opening up the books. No one is going to take the owners word at face value w/o evidence. And I feel the suites thing has been one of the biggest downfalls in how teams deal with fans in the today's modern sports age. As if the owners weren't making enough money to begin with. The rising player salaries has gone a long way towards forcing the owners' hands to keep the same cut they once had. Along with PSLs, and near collusion with the ticket brokers who consistently allow others to pillage the pocket of fans, it's no wonder that, along with the players' salaries, the average fan has become less sympathetic and less supportive. I would like to be naive and say that if the players' salaries were lessened, the owners wouldn't continue to rape the fans, but I know that isn't so. Now that they have the taste of blood, there is no way they're letting go of the chum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Yea, that is the way it pretty much goes. Also why I worry about the new CBA negotiations. The players like the 60% they get now. How do you think they will feel to basically getting a paycut. Frankly, it just feels like the whole thing got out of control. While the owners, players, union and league in general all share faulk, I would add that fans also share fault. Why do owners charge as much as they do? Because they can. Take a look at the stadiums, and they are full. Season tickes? Several year waiting list. It doesn't matter if teams suck, or what they do. Fans still support their teams and buy tickets. So long as this happens, what is the incentive for owners to charge less? To a lesser extent, it is like buying a movie ticket. I paid $10 the other day. It hacks me off when an actor gets $30m to do a movie, and when the costs trickle down. By the time it gets to me, I end up spending $30 to take my wife to the movie and get some popcord/drink. That hacks me off, but so long as I pay it, what is their incentive to lower the costs? We can complain about the costs, but it is sort of false so long as we continue to support that which keeps costs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 If anything happens....it won't for another 3 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Don't be too sure. While that may be the time frame for the CBA to officially expire, the final year is uncapped, and I would bet many owners will be trying to avoid that. The are other potential problems too for that final year, and thus a new deal could be done w/ in the next two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 What did Baltimore get from the Cleveland Browns to build that stadium? From what I know they basically built a stadium (had the deal in place) and then went shopping for a team. What deal did St Louis Rams? Here's one link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A96F958260 SPORTS BUSINESS; Stadium Financing? New Twist for N.F.L. By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: May 6, 1999 Imagine if George Steinbrenner volunteered to help pay for a new downtown Montreal Expos stadium. Better yet, think of the Expos agreeing to chip in for a $1 billion Yankee Stadium for the good of baseball. That is what the National Football League rivals of Robert K. Kraft, who owns the New England Patriots, will do if a plan to build a $250 million stadium in Foxboro, Mass., comes to fruition. Last week, after the league made public its ardor to keep the Patriots from leaving Foxboro, the team dumped a proposed $374 million taxpayer-paid stadium in Hartford because there was no guarantee it would be ready by 2002. and another link: I'm only posting the stadium data but the short article is worth reading IMO. http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0504/30/biz-166888.htm What the people pay for stadiums A comparison of the public financing burdens for 10 recently built NFL stadiums (year is the first season that the team played in the stadium): Large markets -- Reliant Stadium (Houston Texans, 2002): 73 percent -- Qwest Field (Seattle Seahawks, 2002): 73 percent -- Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia Eagles, 2003): 39 percent -- Ford Field (Detroit Lions, 2002): 30 percent -- Gillette Stadium (New England Patriots, 2002): 0 percent Small markets -- The Coliseum (Tennessee Titans, 1999): 100 percent -- Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati Bengals, 2000): 94 percent -- Cleveland Browns Stadium (1999): 81 percent -- Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver Broncos, 2001): 75 percent -- Heinz Field (Pittsburgh Steelers, 2001): 56 percent Note: In most cases, costs listed are only for construction. Some Tennessee Coliseum funding is generated from personal seat licenses. -- Indianapolis Star reports A third link with data on stadium financing. I'll do my best to format it so it's legible but there's a lot of zeros in the Private$ column and you needn't go beyond Lake Shore drive to find a stadium funded entirely by the public. http://www.uta.edu/depken/ugrad/sports/section8.pdf Franchise Year Public $m Private $m capacity $/seat Atlanta Falcons 1992 214 0 71594 2989.07 Carolina Panthers 1996 50 248 73248 4068.37 Washington Redskins 1997 70.5 180 80116 3126.71 Baltimore Ravens 1998 220 0 68915 3192.33 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998 168.5 0 65647 2566.75 Cleveland Browns 1999 283 0 72000 3930.55 Tennessee Titans 1999 290 0 67000 4328.35 Cincinnati Bengals 2000 400 0 65535 6103.60 Denver Broncos 2001 273.15 90.62 76125 4778.58 Pittsburgh Steelers 2001 153.5 76.5 65000 3538.46 Chicago Bears 2002 365 0 70904 5147.80 Detroit Lions 2002 300 0 65000 4615.38 Houston Texans 2002 399 50 69500 6460.43 New England Patriots 2002 0 325 68000 4779.41 Seattle Seahawks 2002 200 100 67000 4477.61 Chicago Bears 2003 365 0 63000 5793.65 Philadelphia Eagles 2003 512 0 63352 8081.82 I still feel Goodell should shutup about the high cost of stadiums as it's more likely to generate negative press for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Nice work! I live in Indy and we are building our 2nd stadium for the Colts. The 1st was when we lured them out of Baltimore in 83' the 2nd will christened when the beloved destroy them openeing weekend. We pay extra taxes as a result. Lucas Oil did come out of pocket for a large portion, but that was for naming rights. As a result, we get to keep the Colts and host a SuperBowl. Hopefully, that will repay the tax payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 I would also think a rookie salary cap would put an end to these ridiculous rookie holdouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 What did Baltimore get from the Cleveland Browns to build that stadium? From what I know they basically built a stadium (had the deal in place) and then went shopping for a team. What deal did St Louis Rams? Here's one link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A96F958260 SPORTS BUSINESS; Stadium Financing? New Twist for N.F.L. By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: May 6, 1999 Imagine if George Steinbrenner volunteered to help pay for a new downtown Montreal Expos stadium. Better yet, think of the Expos agreeing to chip in for a $1 billion Yankee Stadium for the good of baseball. That is what the National Football League rivals of Robert K. Kraft, who owns the New England Patriots, will do if a plan to build a $250 million stadium in Foxboro, Mass., comes to fruition. Last week, after the league made public its ardor to keep the Patriots from leaving Foxboro, the team dumped a proposed $374 million taxpayer-paid stadium in Hartford because there was no guarantee it would be ready by 2002. and another link: I'm only posting the stadium data but the short article is worth reading IMO. http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0504/30/biz-166888.htm What the people pay for stadiums A comparison of the public financing burdens for 10 recently built NFL stadiums (year is the first season that the team played in the stadium): Large markets -- Reliant Stadium (Houston Texans, 2002): 73 percent -- Qwest Field (Seattle Seahawks, 2002): 73 percent -- Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia Eagles, 2003): 39 percent -- Ford Field (Detroit Lions, 2002): 30 percent -- Gillette Stadium (New England Patriots, 2002): 0 percent Small markets -- The Coliseum (Tennessee Titans, 1999): 100 percent -- Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati Bengals, 2000): 94 percent -- Cleveland Browns Stadium (1999): 81 percent -- Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver Broncos, 2001): 75 percent -- Heinz Field (Pittsburgh Steelers, 2001): 56 percent Note: In most cases, costs listed are only for construction. Some Tennessee Coliseum funding is generated from personal seat licenses. -- Indianapolis Star reports A third link with data on stadium financing. I'll do my best to format it so it's legible but there's a lot of zeros in the Private$ column and you needn't go beyond Lake Shore drive to find a stadium funded entirely by the public. http://www.uta.edu/depken/ugrad/sports/section8.pdf Franchise Year Public $m Private $m capacity $/seat Atlanta Falcons 1992 214 0 71594 2989.07 Carolina Panthers 1996 50 248 73248 4068.37 Washington Redskins 1997 70.5 180 80116 3126.71 Baltimore Ravens 1998 220 0 68915 3192.33 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998 168.5 0 65647 2566.75 Cleveland Browns 1999 283 0 72000 3930.55 Tennessee Titans 1999 290 0 67000 4328.35 Cincinnati Bengals 2000 400 0 65535 6103.60 Denver Broncos 2001 273.15 90.62 76125 4778.58 Pittsburgh Steelers 2001 153.5 76.5 65000 3538.46 Chicago Bears 2002 365 0 70904 5147.80 Detroit Lions 2002 300 0 65000 4615.38 Houston Texans 2002 399 50 69500 6460.43 New England Patriots 2002 0 325 68000 4779.41 Seattle Seahawks 2002 200 100 67000 4477.61 Chicago Bears 2003 365 0 63000 5793.65 Philadelphia Eagles 2003 512 0 63352 8081.82 I still feel Goodell should shutup about the high cost of stadiums as it's more likely to generate negative press for the league. Interesting stuff AZ54. I think though that the size of the numbers helps make the issue confusing. The second doc that you posted also doesn't count the loans from the league to help build the stadiums as private financing - which I think is a little weird. The way I figure it, none of the teams have the $100+ million to finance their own portion without borrowing from someone. If they borrowed that money from a bank, they would have to pay for it out of future profits and also pay the interest. So, I don't understand why that isn't counted as private financing. Is it because the loan comes interest free from the league and gets paid for by the fans? Wouldn't that be the same in the case of a loan from a bank - except that the fans would also have to pay for the interest on the loan too? I can't speak about any of the stadium deals other than Bears because I haven't followed those situations as closely. However, in the case of the Bears, the money that paid for the stadium gets paid by visitors to the city through a Hotel / Restaurant tax. If anything, that keeps the rich folks and out of towners paying for it instead of the blue collar regular type dude from paying for it. As for Goodell talking about the cost of stadiums, it is neccesary because that's what is driving the major issues with the current CBA. It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing. The players forced a deal in the last CBA that changed the calculations for the cap from about 58% of designated gross revenues (think of it as kind of net income) to 60% of ALL revenues (think of it kind of as Gross income). The difference in the cap has climbed from $92 million to $116 million in 3 years. That's $24 million more per team while their income hasn't really changed that much. I just read that the Packers had only $20 million in profit last year. That's ridiculous. On a final note, I think it's probably more in the players interest to maintain a cap than many might think. The entire league would change. There would no longer be salary minimums, and the league would probably move to groups of haves and have nots. A player would get drafted and be stuck on the team that drafted them until their original contract expires, and then there would only be a handfull of teams that would be willing to pay a big bucks contract. If there's no salary cap, most players would probably make less than they would have other wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 I would also think a rookie salary cap would put an end to these ridiculous rookie holdouts. sure would. NBA rookies are signed within a couple weeks to a month after the draft. NFL rookies take 3, 4 or 5 months to sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Interesting stuff AZ54. I think though that the size of the numbers helps make the issue confusing. The second doc that you posted also doesn't count the loans from the league to help build the stadiums as private financing - which I think is a little weird. The way I figure it, none of the teams have the $100+ million to finance their own portion without borrowing from someone. If they borrowed that money from a bank, they would have to pay for it out of future profits and also pay the interest. So, I don't understand why that isn't counted as private financing. Is it because the loan comes interest free from the league and gets paid for by the fans? Wouldn't that be the same in the case of a loan from a bank - except that the fans would also have to pay for the interest on the loan too? I can't speak about any of the stadium deals other than Bears because I haven't followed those situations as closely. However, in the case of the Bears, the money that paid for the stadium gets paid by visitors to the city through a Hotel / Restaurant tax. If anything, that keeps the rich folks and out of towners paying for it instead of the blue collar regular type dude from paying for it. As for Goodell talking about the cost of stadiums, it is neccesary because that's what is driving the major issues with the current CBA. It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing. The players forced a deal in the last CBA that changed the calculations for the cap from about 58% of designated gross revenues (think of it as kind of net income) to 60% of ALL revenues (think of it kind of as Gross income). The difference in the cap has climbed from $92 million to $116 million in 3 years. That's $24 million more per team while their income hasn't really changed that much. I just read that the Packers had only $20 million in profit last year. That's ridiculous. On a final note, I think it's probably more in the players interest to maintain a cap than many might think. The entire league would change. There would no longer be salary minimums, and the league would probably move to groups of haves and have nots. A player would get drafted and be stuck on the team that drafted them until their original contract expires, and then there would only be a handfull of teams that would be willing to pay a big bucks contract. If there's no salary cap, most players would probably make less than they would have other wise. Whether or not the numbers are perfectly accurate the fact remains many NFL teams have held cities hostage demanding new stadiums or threatening to leave. If the NFL stadium fund money isn't throw in that one list I don't know why and I didn't want to spend a ton of time on every detail. In this respect having no team in LA has been the NFL owners best friend. Put a team in LA and their leverage drops dramatically. NFL fans won't feel quite as put off by this mess but other citizens who don't follow football don't like these deals. Your thoughts about hotel taxes and rental car taxes, well it's still public money and in that sense it's a worse deal for the everyday citizen. If someone from Phoenix visits Chicago they have to pay for their new football stadium. I realize that's all part of the deal whenever you leave your home state or country. Another problem I have with some of these deals is that in some cases I'm willing to bet the citizens didn't get to vote on the new taxes or the stadium deal and I think that's wrong. I'm still pissed off about having to pay for Colangelo's baseball stadium, I'd have voted for it but he and his cronies hijacked the system and found ways to skirt the law about voting for the tax increase. It is the #1 reason I've never attended a DBacks games, not even when they play the Cubs and even to the point where I've turned down free tickets. The bottom line in all this for me is that it's a bit hypocritical for the league to talk about how much money they are losing on their new stadiums when they aren't even financing the majority of the bill, and in some cases none of it. In the majority of these stadiums deals I'm willing to bet the owners frequently stated how they couldn't afford to kick in money. Then when they do kick in money they demand all the advertising rights during games, they demand the naming rights to the stadium (ala AZ Cardinals), parking receipts, etc. to guarantee them a revenue stream to get their money back. I'm sure they don't always get everything they want and often these items are split among the taxpayers and team. I think Goodell would do better to stick to crying about the high operating expenses and the outrageous signing bonuses they are forking over. I think the cap is tied to operating revenues. Does that count the money teams make when, like Jerry Jones, they sign a deal with Pepsi to make it the official drink of the Cowboys? Yet despite the big bucks flying around I realize not all owners are incredibly wealthy, like the McCaskeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Whether or not the numbers are perfectly accurate the fact remains many NFL teams have held cities hostage demanding new stadiums or threatening to leave. If the NFL stadium fund money isn't throw in that one list I don't know why and I didn't want to spend a ton of time on every detail. In this respect having no team in LA has been the NFL owners best friend. Put a team in LA and their leverage drops dramatically. NFL fans won't feel quite as put off by this mess but other citizens who don't follow football don't like these deals. Your thoughts about hotel taxes and rental car taxes, well it's still public money and in that sense it's a worse deal for the everyday citizen. If someone from Phoenix visits Chicago they have to pay for their new football stadium. I realize that's all part of the deal whenever you leave your home state or country. Another problem I have with some of these deals is that in some cases I'm willing to bet the citizens didn't get to vote on the new taxes or the stadium deal and I think that's wrong. I'm still pissed off about having to pay for Colangelo's baseball stadium, I'd have voted for it but he and his cronies hijacked the system and found ways to skirt the law about voting for the tax increase. It is the #1 reason I've never attended a DBacks games, not even when they play the Cubs and even to the point where I've turned down free tickets. The bottom line in all this for me is that it's a bit hypocritical for the league to talk about how much money they are losing on their new stadiums when they aren't even financing the majority of the bill, and in some cases none of it. In the majority of these stadiums deals I'm willing to bet the owners frequently stated how they couldn't afford to kick in money. Then when they do kick in money they demand all the advertising rights during games, they demand the naming rights to the stadium (ala AZ Cardinals), parking receipts, etc. to guarantee them a revenue stream to get their money back. I'm sure they don't always get everything they want and often these items are split among the taxpayers and team. I think Goodell would do better to stick to crying about the high operating expenses and the outrageous signing bonuses they are forking over. I think the cap is tied to operating revenues. Does that count the money teams make when, like Jerry Jones, they sign a deal with Pepsi to make it the official drink of the Cowboys? Yet despite the big bucks flying around I realize not all owners are incredibly wealthy, like the McCaskeys. Well, like I said, I can't comment about other deals than the Bears. It DOES sound crappy that they raised taxes without a referendum though. I guess I don't have an issue with Goodell talking about the stadiums. See, those $200 million loans get paid back out of revenues from the stadiums while the salary cap is ALSO based on those revenues even though the teams have to use some of that money to pay back the loans. So, basically, the 60% IS fair to pay the players as long as the teams aren't paying off debt at the same time. It's in the player's interest for the new stadiums to be built because the new stadiums bring in more money, but they have to realize that paying back the loans to get them built in the first place costs money too. Actually, I think we could get agreement from both sides on a new CBA if they just didn't count money used to pay back loans in the number that they calculate the salary cap from - oh and a rookie salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 If they don't do something very soon about the salaries in the NFL, it's going to get ugly. First, NO, I do NOT believe that the players deserve 60-65% of the profits when they share ZERO responsibility for the operation of the NFL. You can say they are the product but that's just semantics. The product is the game. People love the game. History has proven that players come and go but the game is there for good. I do think the producing players should be paid accordingly but this has gone well beyond reasonable when a Rookie with no experience can come in and get 21M guaranteed money. Green Bay's total profit last year was 21M. Unfortunately, there will always be the few owners with the most money circumventing the system at every opportunity just like they have with the salary caps and THAT is why they are in trouble now. Sorry but I think Goodell is a puppet to guys like Jerry Jones. Do you really think Jones would sign Pacman or whatever the hell he calls himself now, if he didn't know that Goodell was going to reinstate him? I think the system is a mess but the owners have noone to blame but themselves. Somehow, someway, they were duped into believing that giving away 60-65% of their profits was not going to bite them in the ass down the road. Well, we're down the road and the owners asses are bleeding. I just say, make the rookies earn their money. Take the game back from the agents and lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'm confused... The NFL has had a rookie salary cap for each team. Did that go out the window when the owners opted out of the labor deal? Or do people mean something different, something like the NBA slotted system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'm confused... The NFL has had a rookie salary cap for each team. Did that go out the window when the owners opted out of the labor deal? Or do people mean something different, something like the NBA slotted system? No and yes. The rookie salary cap only covers the cap hit for the rookies 1st year of their deal, but not the whole contract. So, for instance, a team has a cap of $2 million for their frist round guy, they can only count that much the first year, but then in the second year, the player gets an option bonus of $20 million. That isn't covered by the rookie cap. Yes, people are suggesting a slotted rookie cap like the NBA has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.