ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Now the owners are messing things up.


Greedy bastards. 45%? When the NHL pays 53% with guranteed contracts? They're lucky they got 48%. And whats the chance that concession prices and ticket prices continue to increase with this 45% share? Screw the owners.

Ticket prices, concession prices and parking prices will go UP if the players' share is 45%, 48%, 52% or 59%. These negotiations are not about giving fans a financial break; these negotiations are about how to make the $9B revenue stream into a $9.5B revenue stream and then how either side will divvy up the spoils.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I agree, however I think the best things for the fans would be a fixed salary cap like the NFL initially proposed. Otherwise the owners will just pass the bill onto the fans to keep Thier profits. I dont care if the worker who made my shoes makes only 2 dollars a day... I just want cheap sneakers. Players make too much money as it is and it hurts the game. Players get paid and they stop caring about the game... I say pay them all $1million/year during Thier careers and then pay them a large bonus when they retire based on how well they played... That would all but eliminate the Albert haynesworths of the world

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If I have a lemonade stand and hire you to help me run it, I'm not going to split all the cash I make with you. I'm going to take out all the money I invested in lemons, sugar, cups, etc. And then split whatever is left over with you. It's like that.

LOL...ok, think of the players as..."lemonade"....without them there is no profit.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't see why the players should be given any percentage of revenue.... They should be given a percentage of profit.

BAD idea. Teams with owners like Jerry Jones who is spending profits like a madman will be screwing his players over. They bring him a ton of revenue and it's not their fault if he chooses to drop a billion dollars on a stadium or gets himself fined for a punt-blocking TV screen above the field (somehow he escaped any responsibility with that blunder).

Even for the Skins this year, the stadium is being renovated and that will cut into the profits for the year. Snyder's likely not handing the contractors cash at the start of the job, he'll be paying off a construction loan/note in the near future for the work. Should the players be penalized for the owner's decisions on how to use the revenue and affect his profit?

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

BAD idea. Teams with owners like Jerry Jones who is spending profits like a madman will be screwing his players over. They bring him a ton of revenue and it's not their fault if he chooses to drop a billion dollars on a stadium or gets himself fined for a punt-blocking TV screen above the field (somehow he escaped any responsibility with that blunder).

Even for the Skins this year, the stadium is being renovated and that will cut into the profits for the year. Snyder's likely not handing the contractors cash at the start of the job, he'll be paying off a construction loan/note in the near future for the work. Should the players be penalized for the owner's decisions on how to use the revenue and affect his profit?

It is a bad idea and almost everyone knows that this would be bad for the players. The players should not have to pay for owners private jets and extravagant boondoggle's like the annual owners meetings being held at expensive St. Regis Resort in Dana Point country club (nice expensive golf courses) rather then at an NFL team owned building (no frills conference room/no cost).
It amazes me that these owners cry poor and spend money the way they do on non-essential expenses. Was the Dulles Marriott conference room booked? What.....32 guys can not fit into a normal inexpensive conference room?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Ticket prices, concession prices and parking prices will go UP if the players' share is 45%, 48%, 52% or 59%. .

They go up anyway and if you are one of the fools that buys a $3.75 12oz bottle of beer at the park.....you're dumb enough to pay $4 for it.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

BAD idea. Teams with owners like Jerry Jones who is spending profits like a madman will be screwing his players over. They bring him a ton of revenue and it's not their fault if he chooses to drop a billion dollars on a stadium or gets himself fined for a punt-blocking TV screen above the field (somehow he escaped any responsibility with that blunder).

Even for the Skins this year, the stadium is being renovated and that will cut into the profits for the year. Snyder's likely not handing the contractors cash at the start of the job, he'll be paying off a construction loan/note in the near future for the work. Should the players be penalized for the owner's decisions on how to use the revenue and affect his profit?

This would not be on a team by team basis, it would be based on the league as a whole like, it is now. And even then, yes players should be "penalized" by getting lower salaries if profits are down. Likewise they should be rewarded when profits go up. It's not fair that the owners and taxpayers pay for stadiums out of their pockets and the players don't have to contribute anything towards it. Players need stadiums to play in.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This would not be on a team by team basis, it would be based on the league as a whole like, it is now. And even then, yes players should be "penalized" by getting lower salaries if profits are down. Likewise they should be rewarded when profits go up. It's not fair that the owners and taxpayers pay for stadiums out of their pockets and the players don't have to contribute anything towards it. Players need stadiums to play in.

I agree with the overall point you are making which is that lower revenues should mean declining player costs. I might even go as far as saying that if the rate of revenue declines, aggregate player costs should be frozen.

But the owners already get unfairly good stadium deals through subsidies and luxury boxes and PSLs. And while concerns about paying off debt on stadiums if there is no player revenue are legitimate concerns, new stadiums are ALWAYS a net positive gain for the total asset level of the ownership group. Given that fact, players owe the owners nothing beyond the fact that the owners need them for the product they bring.

The owners that have a legit problem are the ones that can't land new stadium deals, not the owners who have outstanding debt on new stadiums. As long as football games are being played, there will be positive cash flows for ownership, and new stadiums will remain cash cows for owners.

Now are the taxpayers being screwed? Oh yeah. However, in no way will reduced player costs possibly result in a net benefit for the taxpayers. Thankfully, in the cases of the Dallas and New York stadiums, the public contributions have declined and ownership is taking a higher responsibility to build assets that will ultimately belong to ownership.

[CultBrennan59]

God this is why I hate ESPN.com. If I want to read an interesting article I have to pay to be an insider. Can anyone who is an insider copy and paste what Kiper has to say about the Skins in this article... NFL: Mel Kiper's summer look at the NFC East - ESPN

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

God this is why I hate ESPN.com. If I want to read an interesting article I have to pay to be an insider. Can anyone who is an insider copy and paste what Kiper has to say about the Skins in this article... NFL: Mel Kiper's summer look at the NFC East - ESPN

You're not missing much not having access to this article

Help added: This was like a different team this draft. What happened? The Redskins entered the draft without a third- or fourth-round pick and had just eight overall. Same ol' story. But when it was all said and done, they made 12 selections -- four in the first four rounds. After working out a trade with Jacksonville, in which they swapped first-rounders, and dropping six spots, the redskins were thrilled to see Purdue LB Ryan Kerrigan still available. After making a name for himself at defensive end with the Boilermakers, he'll operate at OLB in the Redskins' 3-4 base. Kerrigan has natural big-play ability that can't be taught.

I'm not as high on DE Jarvis Jenkins as the Skins are, but the second-round pick out of Clemson could be productive. Miami wideout Leonard Hankerson was a very nice pick in the third round and gives them the type of physical presence at the position that was lacking last season. A fourth-round pick, Nebraska RB Roy Helu is made to order for their offense. He has excellent speed and is the type of one-cut runner that excels in Mike Shanahan's offense. They obviously scouted Nebraska very thoroughly as their next two picks were teammates of Helu.

I had a free-agent grade on safety DeJon Gomes; they saw fit to take him in the fifth round. We'll see. Wideout Niles Paul struggled with some drops and wasn't much of a factor in the offense last season due in large part to the quarterback situation, so taking a chance on him in the fifth round is well worth it. The sixth-round pick, Penn State RB Evan Royster, has limitations but can catch the ball. I really liked their other selection in the sixth round of SMU wideout Aldrick Robinson. He took over for Emmanuel Sanders as the Mustangs' feature receiver in 2010 and had a very good year.

Questions that remain: As I wrote in my 2011 NFL draft grades, "We know the Redskins need help at quarterback, but I'll give them credit: They realized there wasn't a quarterback in this draft who can help them in 2011, and they moved out of the spot that became the Blaine Gabbert pick." I'll stand by that now, meaning that's a question that remains. And for whoever is taking the snaps, the offensive line will need to continue to progress, and Hankerson will need to quickly add an element in the passing game. Obviously, the biggest questions all start on the offensive side of the ball, where you have to hope Shanahan can get the running game he made famous untracked with some new talent.

Next year's help now: Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford
This isn't a prediction that the Skins will be in place to land Luck, it means he'd be the best QB on their roster now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If I have a lemonade stand and hire you to help me run it, I'm not going to split all the cash I make with you. I'm going to take out all the money I invested in lemons, sugar, cups, etc. And then split whatever is left over with you. It's like that.

Pffft.

#1, if I'm a player, why in God's name would I take that deal? That would be the worst CBA situation imaginable.

#2 If I'm a player, I AM the lemonade.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't see why the players should be given any percentage of revenue.... They should be given a percentage of profit.

Revenues will always be higher than "profit" because Revenues is what the company takes in BEFORE ANY expenses are deducted from it. The players would NEVER do it.

The real problem is that unions are adamantly opposed to ANY lowering of the wages.

Revenue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SmootSmack]

Thank goodness for that Wikipedia link. Until now, I thought revenue was a street Astro lived on.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Pffft.



#2 If I'm a player, I AM the lemonade.

great minds think alike ...see #93

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Thank goodness for that Wikipedia link. Until now, I thought revenue was a street Astro lived on.

Lmao!

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk