Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Hijinx · 02-23-2008, 04:59 AM

Can anyone remember the league office granting cap relief for "special circumstances"? I thought this was possible, however I couldn't find a story where it happened. I mean if the Skins didn'tqualify for the loss of ST what does.

Another few questions even though the NFL has profit sharing there is quite a difference in earning between teams. There is usually more than $100 million difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. What makes for this difference, just merchandising and concession sales?

This really means that for some teams the 50% min(about $100 mill) is almost a hardship. For example the Skins's revenue is usually the highest at about $315 million that means the skins will spend between 31.7% and 36.8% of their revenue on players. However for a team like the Vikings, with a revenue of about $180 million, they will spend about 55.6% to 64.4% of their revenue on players. That seems like a huge difference.

Perhaps is is no surprise that the lowest revenue teams(Vikings,49ers, Jags, Raiders, Falcons) seem to be doing poorly.

02-23-2008, 04:59 AM	#18
Hijinx The Starter Join Date: Apr 2005 Age: 50 Posts: 1,961	re: The Warpath presents: Salary Cap 101 Can anyone remember the league office granting cap relief for "special circumstances"? I thought this was possible, however I couldn't find a story where it happened. I mean if the Skins didn'tqualify for the loss of ST what does. Another few questions even though the NFL has profit sharing there is quite a difference in earning between teams. There is usually more than $100 million difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. What makes for this difference, just merchandising and concession sales? This really means that for some teams the 50% min(about $100 mill) is almost a hardship. For example the Skins's revenue is usually the highest at about $315 million that means the skins will spend between 31.7% and 36.8% of their revenue on players. However for a team like the Vikings, with a revenue of about $180 million, they will spend about 55.6% to 64.4% of their revenue on players. That seems like a huge difference. Perhaps is is no surprise that the lowest revenue teams(Vikings,49ers, Jags, Raiders, Falcons) seem to be doing poorly.