Salary Cap Analysis

[70Chip]

Matty's link demonstrates that we will not be the only team blowing the bridge if there is no CBA. (How could the awful Raiders be so far over?) I agree with Schneed that a CBA will be worked out although not necessarily by 3/3. Both sides have too much to lose to allow this thing to spiral away.

The interesting thing to watch is how much Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al have to give up on the revenue side before the other owners get serious with the CBA. The worst scenario for the Skins, IMHO, would be broad revenue sharing with a player's percentage at say 60% rather than 64%. If Snyder shares his coffee cake, he should insist on the 64% (or higher). Since the point of the revenue sharing is a level playing field, as much of that shared money should go to the players as possible. To me, it seems silly for clubs to demand more revenue when they are not spending the money they get now for players. From the looks of the list, several teams payroll is below the TV alottment alone.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The interesting thing to watch is how much Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al have to give up on the revenue side before the other owners get serious with the CBA. The worst scenario for the Skins, IMHO, would be broad revenue sharing with a player's percentage at say 60% rather than 64%. If Snyder shares his coffee cake, he should insist on the 64% (or higher). Since the point of the revenue sharing is a level playing field, as much of that shared money should go to the players as possible. To me, it seems silly for clubs to demand more revenue when they are not spending the money they get now for players. From the looks of the list, several teams payroll is below the TV alottment alone.

You make a great point here 70Chip, but raising the 64% max only hurts Snyder at the end of the day - he makes less money. I don't think even he would sacrifice his own money just to stick it to the other owners, then again...

The number Snyder should be concerned about is the 56% min cap not the 64% max cap. Let's say the 64% max cap for 2006 is $95M. That means the min cap would be about $83M. So assuming the Skins max out (which they always do), that means the other teams can pocket an extra $12M. Why would Snyder want to share his money so it can go into the other owners' pockets?

But it brings up an interesting debate. If you're Snyder, do you want a large discrepency between the min cap and the max cap? If the gap is large, Snyder would stand to gain a bigger competitve advantage on the playing field, since many teams would not max out and some would be at the min. But this would also mean that the other teams could pocket more of his money.

And another thing... when they all bash Snyder for his free spending ways, what are they really bashing him for? If you want to curse his choice of coaches, free agents, etc., fine. But they bash him for spending his own money??? The guy maxes out the cap every year, and tries every trick within the rules to gain a competitive advantage - and that's a bad thing??? THAT'S WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO!

Where are all the articles about the greedy owners who only spend the min cap and pocket an extra $12M every year? Even pocketing a few extra million off the cap is shortchanging the fans imo. It's not like these guys are losing money. Plus they were all rich before they became owners, that's how they can afford to buy an NFL team in the first place.