Bahamas#1skins fan Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 DENVER -- NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue said yesterday he is concerned about the large amount of money the Washington Redskins have spent on their coaching staff. The Redskins gave assistant head coach-defense Gregg Williams a three-year contract extension worth about $8 million early this month. The team hired Al Saunders from the Kansas City Chiefs to fill a similar post on offense last week. Saunders, who will be introduced today at Redskin Park, agreed to a three-year contract worth about $6 million. Williams and Saunders each will make more than many NFL head coaches. http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060123-010349-4177r.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 That's the way it is Paul! We protect our coaches and only want the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 How many of us saw THIS coming? :jump: I DID!! I DID!! Heaven help it when the Redskins win the SB. The owners of other teams may make us leave the league. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Little more. "Tagliabue, speaking to reporters before the AFC Championship game, said such salaries for assistant coaches are an issue in the context of the ongoing league battle between high-revenue and low-revenue teams. Some owners say clubs like the Redskins have a competitive advantage because they generate high revenue from sources like local broadcast rights, stadium signage and skyboxes that are not pooled and divided among all the league's teams." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Operations Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Paul's a Redskins fan. He'll protect us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertfox59 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Paul's a Redskins fan. He'll protect us! This is why we may see a backlash from Paul.....Just like you here Troy Aikman praise the Skins when he's broadcasting from time to time to appear honest, you might see Paul T. cap the coaches so as to not appear favorable to the skins..... ...That said... It would be a treamendous mistake for him to do that... Most of the Coaches in the NFL are underpaid compared to the Players they are supposed to control...It must be difficult to have to worry about Job security when disciplining a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hmmm... sounds a bit like he's leaning towards a luxury tax idea like the MLB, which, if put in with the salary cap is a bunch of bs. Now, if there was only a luxury tax and no cap if the cba isn't completed (I really have no idea how this stuff works, I'm only 17 lol) then I'm sure Snyder and some others would have no problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 This is ridiculous. Brett Favre made 8.5 million dollars in 2004. Ahman Green made 3.6 million. Al Harris made about 6 million. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx If the Packers could afford them, how could they not afford assisstant coaches? No Redskins coach is making more than any of these star players. This is just a case of other owners trying to shove their hands into Dan's pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dg28daman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's bull. How are teams supposed to keep coaching staffs intact if you can't pay em what they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundey Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 blah blah. This is not a real threat unless the Redskins start winning. Even then it'll be hard to cap coaches salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonef1de Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 time to appear honest, you might see Paul T. cap the coaches so as to not appear favorable to the skins..... I'm not a genius but Paul cannot cap any coach because they are not in a union. They haven't signed any deal with the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamuskb Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Dog eat Dog, somebody better man up, first we get the coaches, then the bargaining agreement will expire and well get all the players we want!!!! too little too late NFL SKINS are taking over HA HA HA HA HA HAIL TO THE REDSKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertfox59 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'm not a genius but Paul cannot cap any coach because they are not in a union. They haven't signed any deal with the NFL. this might be true....but when the rest of the crybaby owners start **** because of this, you can't deny that something will be done....I just hope that Paul T. does the right thing and allows the coaches to make comparable saleries to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Amazing. A players union featuring hundreds of members making anywhere from 2 to 10 times what the very highest echelon of assistant coach makes, want a share of the revenue paid to those assistants. And it barely makes a ripple in the public. The tail has been wagging the dog too long, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonef1de Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Amazing.A players union featuring hundreds of members making anywhere from 2 to 10 times what the very highest echelon of assistant coach makes, want a share of the revenue paid to those assistants. And it barely makes a ripple in the public. The tail has been wagging the dog too long, I think. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Other teams should have made attempts to keep their own coaches in the past. It's not a Redskins problem. It's a cheap ownership problem because they have to know that their team would be a lot better if they kept their coaches who on average would make less than a league minimum vet anyway. Hell, most coordinators make less than backup players. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Let's be real here.The other owners "laothe" Snyder and not giving DC a Super Bowl was just one manifestation of that.Whining about coaching salaries is another.They're not uniion and it may empower the porduct.Skins have some of the highest ticket prices in the league also, so its all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 This is ridiculous. Brett Favre made 8.5 million dollars in 2004. Ahman Green made 3.6 million. Al Harris made about 6 million.http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx If the Packers could afford them, how could they not afford assisstant coaches? No Redskins coach is making more than any of these star players. This is just a case of other owners trying to shove their hands into Dan's pockets. The player's salaries come out of league-wide shared revenue which is mostly from the TV contracts which has to be spent on players. Money for coaches comes from what's left of the shared revenue that isn't mandated to be spent on players and a team's local revenue. At the same time that large local revenue teams are arguing that having a large amount of local revenue does not give a team a competitive advantage Snyder is spending amounts that teams with little amounts of local revenue couldn't afford on coaches and completely undermining that argument. The Packers couldn't say instead of spending on Favre we'll spend on an coach because they'd have to spend the amount they didn't spend on Favre on other players or spend less than the cap limit on players which would also put them at a disadvantage. If it makes sense to cap the amount a team can spend on players to provide equal competition then it makes sense to cap the amount a team can spend on coaches also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 "Tagliabue also said players want a share of the revenue Redskins owner Dan Snyder is paying coaches. " :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I am going to get real sick of the Dan Rooney lovefest real fast. He's always the first to complain about the Redskins expensive contracts. As if he's poor. Snyder shouldn't have to apologize for spending big money on his team and trying to ensure being a contender in the best way he sees fit. Meanwhile Rooney is in the Super Bowl, so maybe he should just shut up. (fyi, Rooney is also the most vocal person against DC getting a Super Bowl) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 If it makes sense to cap the amount a team can spend on players to provide equal competition then it makes sense to cap the amount a team can spend on coaches also. That's debatable. But regardless, it hasn't happened yet. And until it does, I'm glad our owner is willing to pay premium dollars to attract and keep a top-level coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 This may sound a little wierd but all of this is premature BS. I say that because it is not like we have won three Superbowls in four years or even made the playoffs three straight times for that matter. What I am trying to say is regulations on finanicial matters, such as the salary cap, were put in place to level the playing field amongst giants and men. As far as I can tell, as much as I love the burgandy and gold, we have been no giants by any means. So what is the big deal? :whoknows: I would propose Paul worry a little more about steriods, the giants getting more home games then anyone is the league and the refs making bogus calls; and less about how much we are playing our coaching staff. :shot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Blocker Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Are there any NFL markets smaller than WKRP? Didn't they just give Carson Palmer a ridiculous signing bonus? The small market line should not work any more in the NFL. The revenue sharing program has allow all of the team to do more than survive, they are profiting. Let's see, what big market team made it to the Super Bowl this year... None. It's not about the markets anymore. It's about the types of decisions made by the teams. Let's go a step further and review where arguably some of this year's the best players are playing per position and thier market rank: QB - Ind. (25), Cin (34) RB - SD (26), Sea (13) WR - Car. (27), Cin (34) TE - SD (26), KC (31) Those are not considered large market, revenue generating teams. Whining about coaches salaries is silly. Give me a break. Feel free to compare the best players from teams found in the top 10 media markets. 1) New York 3) Chicago 4) Philadelphia 5) Boston 6) San Francisco 7) Dallas 8) Washington 9) Atlanta 10) Houston 11) Detroit - throw in for good measure. http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 This is preposterous. If they want to limit what teams can pay to keep their coaching staff intact, then they have to make those coaches honor their contracts the same way a player does. If I sign Ladell Betts to a 3 year 8 million dollar contract, and then another team steps in and offers to make him their starting RB, he can't just pick up and leave for greener pastures. But if I sign Greg Williams to a 3 year 8 million dollar contract, he is free to pick up and leave whenever he damn well feels like it, as soon as another team comes calling? That's patently absurd. The fact is, in order to keep any sense of coaching continuity and stability going, you pretty much HAVE to shell out the big bucks to guard against other teams swooping in and stealing the guys YOU ALREADY HAVE UNDER CONTRACT. (Ahem - UCLA) Dan has figured this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Since the league is so hell bent on getting the Redskins to share more of their revenue, are they going to start contributing to the massive debt that the team carries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.