GregStack said:It's not about the market, it's about the type of owner Al is. All he wants are championships, and if he's allowed to buy one, he will.
Easton said:I don't understand this. How can the NFL legitimize this move? How can this benefit the business of football? Well, as far as I, a non-football fan, know is that the sport is popular and successful just like baseball is. If that's the case then I assume they are confident enough to do this and survive. I guess, unlike baseball's teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, Cinncinnatti Reds, and the Kansas City Royals, every NFL team will continue to attract fans no matter what. Fine, but not that I really care, how does this increase revenues for the NFL because, after all, that is what they're all about. So it must somehow benefit the NFL, or are they taking a risk here?
Hasbro said:Don't forget maladjusted, stoned and drunk. Weird Al gets a interesting mix.
Jester said:for those claiming that the NFL players have an "awful" deal. they get the largest % of any "capped" league...
Tawnos said:They have twice as many players on their rosters as any "capped league".. doesn't equate.
Tawnos said:Yeah, but X amount of cash times X% divided by X amount of players is what you're looking for to see whether a deal if more fair for the players or less. Granted, the average NFL salary is "only" 300k less than the average NHLers (1.1mil vs 1.4mil), but throw in the lack of guaranteed contracts and the deal is awful in comparison.
How would the owners be assuming more risk when the total player compensation is still capped at 65%? Guaranteed contracts determine which players receive the money, not how much the owners spend.Jester said:guaranteed v. non-guaranteed is a give-and-take issue. the players get 65ish% of league revenue at the price of not having guaranteed contracts... if they wanted guaranteed contracts they would have to give up some of that % of the revenue because the owners would then be assuming more risk in their monetary investments...
do non-guaranteed contracts suck in a sport like football where career ending injuries are common? yes. however, because of those contracts players enjoy a larger % of league revenue.
Weary said:How would the owners be assuming more risk when the total player compensation is still capped at 65%? Guaranteed contracts determine which players receive the money, not how much the owners spend.
Yes, you have dead money. But the net cost of that dead money is zero. Lurie may have addressed it, but that doesn't me he addressed it honestly. Despite what Lurie said, the reason that the NFL players get a higher percentage is because the NFL has much higher revenues. It has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts.Jester said:because then you have dead money... owners want to win and use their money to win. not pay a guy that is injured. Jeff Lurie spoke directly to this issue last summer.
Jerry Jones didn't buy a ring. He traded for it when the Vikings bent over to make the worst trade in sports history: Herschel Walker for 3 Super Bowl Rings.dpetri2000 said:Eddie Debartolo and Jerry Jones before the cap...duh!
Well, yeah. A player and his agent will take a $32 million, 6-year contract with a $16 million signing bonus now 99% of the time over a 6-year, $40 million contract with no signing bonus - if only for the simple fact that the player and the agent see $16 million now instead of having to wait 3 years.mr gib said:gene upshaw was on espn radio yesterday - the players and the owners are a half a billion apart over four years - he defended the signing bonus vs guaranteed contracts
acr said:The first thing I thought when I read this was that the Raiders would attempt to buy a title.
It depends. If the league goes uncapped for a few seasons and teams begin to struggle to survive (or worst-case scenario, someone folds), both sides may take it as a sign that going to a cap system of some sort is mutually beneficial for all the teams involved and thus guarantees the players union jobs as a result. If the NFL continues to thrive and is better than ever and teams like Green Bay continue to churn out profits, then it's a *very* bad sign for NBA and NHL owners in the next round of labor talks.Top Shelf said:^
It could also be an advantage to the NHL (and every other sport out there) if they kill the golden goose. Just as people looked elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollars during the NHL lockout the same will hold true for the NFL and there is a nice overlap of seasons between the two.
It wouldn't be a significant windfall for the NHL but it would have an impact.
Also I would think if the NFL loses their cap that would not bode well for the NHL or other leagues looking for or have a cap. Like it or not, they are the league of standard right now.