Cap Crap...

[Larry Gude]

...todays Washington Post says the league is getting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001206.html

...$4 BILLION a year to split 32 ways or...$125 million per team.

It says our man Dan pulls in about $300 mil a year, which, I think, includes the TV money and that the Skins earn double the worst money teams, Arizona and the Vikes.

If true, that means the Cards and Vikes only earn about $150 mil a year, total, including $125 from TV. That means for the season, 8 games plus two preseason, plus local rights plus stadium naming plus whatever else they pull in is only $25 million or so. If you figure about $75 per ticket times, say, 50,000 or so a game times 10, that's pushing $40 million and I think they split that with the visitor, so call it $20 mil.

THAT means these stiffs are only earning about $5 million on the other stuff.

Now, it also means Dan is out there doing a hell of a job selling his product.

Hang with me here, as I'm drawing (scribbling?) a picture to help get a grip on the salary cap. If baseball and basketball are paying over 1/2 total revenues to players (And I think they are) then based on the Skins one could argue a cap of about $150 mil. Based on the have nots, a cap of $75 mil is good.

Split the difference and you got about what we're told it likely may be, $100 million.

Now, I used 50,000 seats as a base for the bad $ teams because the NFL is so hot any one of us could sell that many tickets if it was our team.

If you're competitive, everyone sells out and the stadium average is about 65,000 seats so, by what we'll call a combination of poor management/poor location (just to be nice) these teams are leaving 15,000 unsold tix at $75 (which I think is on the high side for an actual game ticket?) or about $11 million for 10 games on the table. Half of that is $5.5 million.

This doesn't count luxury boxes, high end seats or the air Snyder charges us for to breathe., so, $75 is gotta be a decent average if not low. Fair enough?

Also, field performance isn't the issue as to earning power; Houston is one of the top money makers.

So, where I'm going with this is if the top teams are paying out $100 mil in players salary and are earning another $150-200 MILLION, that creates one hell of an itchy palm; they are gonna push damn hard for ways to be able to spend more money on players.

If the Cards are earning $150 and spending 100, that leaves them $50 mil to operate the team. I have no clue how much it costs to run a team but, obviously, Snyder and the big money boys don't want to take all their extra local earnings and give it to people who are, perhaps, not working hard enough. But, then again, they might be willing to subsidize some if they see an advantage in it. Say they can spend an extra $20 mil if they fork over, what, a 1/3 'luxury' tax?). I give you the Amercian way.

Thus, in any event, in true American spirit, the people with money are gonna find a way to spend it so I see a new CBA getting done soon somehow, with room, loopholes, clauses for Snyder to spend a good bit more than the present agreement. Here's why:

If they let it go, then they play 2007 with NO cap. It's better for the poor teams to suck it up now with a known number than to play 'sign me' against Snyder with no limit. What if there's no agreement and we're looking at no cap in 2007? Well, if I'm Snyder I schedule everybody for big ass chunks of their contracts to be paid...in 2007. That lets him get who he wants NOW.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying I think it's silly to worry about the Redskins in terms of our salary cap number. Dan Snyder has ZERO problem in terms of the actual money. The only team this deferral and extension business ever hurt was San Fran and that is because they just didn't earn the money Snyder does. They got stuck in a pay me now or pay me later corner, paid at the time to win that last Superbowl and then it came apart at the seams. They had to pay the piper and didn't have it. FIRE SALE of players.

At the end of the day, Dan Snyder IS the piper.

[James Moss]

The less-prosperous teams are seeking a system by which a greater portion of the local revenues would be shared, arguing that the NFL always has maintained its competitive balance on the field by keeping franchises on relatively equal footing financially.

:bsflag:

If this were true then how come only 4 major market teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 20 years? It has nothing to do with competitive balance and everything to do with greed.

[Larry Gude]

:bsflag:

If this were true then how come only 4 major market teams have won the Super Bowl in the last 20 years? It has nothing to do with competitive balance and everything to do with greed.

That's great. That's also not my point. I didn't mention a word as to WHY the small teams want to do something. My point is that we don't have to worry about it.

[andyman]

good analysis, but omits one point. Gene Upshaw has been explicit that one of the problems the union has is that many teams are not spending their maximum cap number. And the minimum cap spending level should be raised to ensure all teams are spending all the money available for players. Upshaw has said he has no problem with the Redskins because while generating revenue, the team is also paying the maximum salaries allowed under the cap. The teams not doing so, and you see them cited glowingly as being $5, $10, $20 million UNDER the cap, are using the money earmarked for salaries in other ways. That is why the union is pushing to increase the minimum level as well as increasing the overall pool.

[Butz65]

good analysis, but omits one point. Gene Upshaw has been explicit that one of the problems the union has is that many teams are not spending their maximum cap number. And the minimum cap spending level should be raised to ensure all teams are spending all the money available for players. Upshaw has said he has no problem with the Redskins because while generating revenue, the team is also paying the maximum salaries allowed under the cap. The teams not doing so, and you see them cited glowingly as being $5, $10, $20 million UNDER the cap, are using the money earmarked for salaries in other ways. That is why the union is pushing to increase the minimum level as well as increasing the overall pool.

Good point. The real dirty secret in all of this is that everything comes down to cash. The smaller market owners (especially those who don't own their stadiums) can't afford to lay out as much cash for signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc. (the only money that's guaranteed). Many of these owners have high debt burdens and find it hard to compete (that's why Bidwell and others threaten to move their teams without new stadium deals). The salary money isn't the issue - it all comes down to cash flow.

The Eagles are a good example. Prior to getting their gift of a stadium from the Commonwealth, they rarely made a splash in free agency. Why? Depsite the theory that the Birds were simply managing the cap, the reality was that Lurie didn't have the cash flow to pay out big bonuses. The season after the new stadium was built the Birds signed Kearse and TO - nice gift from the taxpayers. Lurie bought the Eagles using a tremendous amount of debt. Without the stadium revenue the team was cash crunched. Same scenario now faced by a number of other teams. There's no reason to punish the owners who've done it right (restructured debt, increased revenues, etc.). Perhaps Snyder should create a seminar to train the smaller market owners on how to run an NFL franchise.

[Ax]

Aren't days with a visit from the andyman just..........better than most?

[Gamebreaker]

Now we see why so many owners dislike Snyder, and why he gets killed by the media. Snyder embarasses all the owners with total ticket sales and average tickets sold. Which is why he's always able to outspend the competition.

For instance, here are some numbers from the beginning of the 2004 season to October 13th. Here are the top 5 teams in total ticket sales:

Washington - 339,398

Green Bay - 281,521

NY Giants - 236,436

Kansas City - 235,367

Denver - 228,446

Bear in mind, the Skins played a MNF game aganist Green Bay. Which could be looked at as tipping the scales, but take a look at average tickets sold per game, and it shows this is no abberation:

Washington - 84,850

NY Giants - 78,812

Kansas City - 78,456

NY Jets - 77, 698

Cleveland - 73,368

Furthermore, the minimum amount of tickets sold for the Redskins was 6,000 higher than the maximum of the closest team, Kansas City. This isn't anything new, in that time span the Redskins were enjoying a modest 1.5% increase in sales from last season.

The Redskins are also the most profitable sports franchise in the nation, even more profitable than the Yankees or Lakers. It's hard to tell what is fair, should the Redskins suffer because they do their job too well? Or should the lower market teams suffer because they can't create enough interest in their product?

[Larry Gude]

The Redskins are also the most profitable sports franchise in the nation, even more profitable than the Yankees or Lakers. It's hard to tell what is fair, should the Redskins suffer because they do their job too well? Or should the lower market teams suffer because they can't create enough interest in their product?

Let's break that down into two, unrelated questions;

1. What's fair?

Well, I think most would agree that in and of itself a salary cap that all teams must adhere to is fair. The premise is that it is the league itself that is laying the golden eggs and therefore all teams should be working on a level playing field, literally, in terms of the primary cost, players salary, and the effect it should have (equal pay=roughly equal performance or at least no massive disparity such as the Yankee syndrome in baseball) in terms of overall league success.

So, you start equal. You have no financial advantage or disadvantage over your competitors/partners. And there is an interesting notion in and of itself; If it is true that the league success equals the teams success, then Snyder has an interest in the success ofthe Cards and Vikes, his partners, while at the same time competing against them for players and coaches and wins on the field.

So, we move on;

2. From that point, an equitable player salary structure, you can no longer handicap individual initiative. Everyone is starting the race at the same place and at the same time, so to speak. What if Snyder wants to work harder than another owner at finding coaches? At researching players? At promoting his part of the whole?

It is a simple fact that some markets are simply better than others and thus if you not only have a better market put you work it harder the disparity can become what it is; rather freaking large.

I think it is incumbent on the weak teams to get with the program if you want or need more money or shut up if you aren't going to try harder or sell to someone who wants to try harder.

[Hooper]

Ah, a visit from Andyman. Please tell us the Skins won't face disaster in 2006 if the CBA isn't extended -- that they have a plan for this.

Thanks.

[HOF44]

Ah, a visit from Andyman. Please tell us the Skins won't face disaster in 2006 if the CBA isn't extended -- that they have a plan for this.

Thanks.

Yeah what he said andyman. Pleeeease? No details or anything. Just a thumbs up or down for the skins with no CBA.

[Larry Gude]

Yeah what he said andyman. Pleeeease? No details or anything. Just a thumbs up or down for the skins with no CBA.

Again I say;

If no CBA; Who cares? 2007 will be without a cap and Snyder can extend money to be paid that year. Like coach salaries, there's nothing to stop or limit that.

If there is a CBA it's gonna go up more than the current projected cap.

We will have ZERO money problems either way for 2006.

[englitdaudelin]

Again I say;

If no CBA; Who cares? 2007 will be without a cap and Snyder can extend money to be paid that year. Like coach salaries, there's nothing to stop or limit that.

If there is a CBA it's gonna go up more than the current projected cap.

We will have ZERO money problems either way for 2006.

Most analyses (read this as: what I understand from reading papers and watching tv) suggest that if 2007 is uncapped, then bonuses and salaries cannot be extended more than 4 years into the future (2010). This means that all the players with 6- and 7-year contracts, over which their bonus has been prorated, now have, for cap purposes, their bonuses prorated over just four years. So say a guy's got a 12-million-dollar bonus. Over 6 years, that's 2 million against his cap, plus salary, etc...

Now, in the uncapped year, his bonus period shrinks to 4 years-- now he's got a 3-million-dollar bonus number, plus salaries, etc....

The problem is not the 2007 season (season after next, as far as I know)... it's this accelerating bonus rule for the COMING season... so If no agreement, you'll see a number of teams kind of imploding under the weight of their bonuses.

:logo:

[skinsman4u]

...todays Washington Post says the league is getting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001206.html

At the end of the day, Dan Snyder IS the piper.

Man you're incredible and while your effort is appreciated, the problem seems to be you're not a capologist. I think our organization have the experts that breath this stuff and use cap analyses as seasoning on their breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I'm no where near your level of analytical thinking. You must be Six Sigma qualified with Black belt clout or something. But one thing you left out: those 25 some odd ...what ever the number is tailgaters that are parking at 25$ a game.... this analyses is nothing but a bunch of smoke filled, coffee house, B.S. So stay away from cap threads, and I'll speak for myself, I'm neither qualified nor educated on the real analyses. Only Dan and his teams knows. Sorry.:doh:

[Larry Gude]

Most analyses (read this as: what I understand from reading papers and watching tv) suggest that if 2007 is uncapped, then bonuses and salaries cannot be extended more than 4 years into the future (2010). This means that all the players with 6- and 7-year contracts, over which their bonus has been prorated, now have, for cap purposes, their bonuses prorated over just four years. So say a guy's got a 12-million-dollar bonus. Over 6 years, that's 2 million against his cap, plus salary, etc...

Now, in the uncapped year, his bonus period shrinks to 4 years-- now he's got a 3-million-dollar bonus number, plus salaries, etc....

The problem is not the 2007 season (season after next, as far as I know)... it's this accelerating bonus rule for the COMING season... so If no agreement, you'll see a number of teams kind of imploding under the weight of their bonuses.

:logo:

OK, but my point is that Dan will simply restructure deals and put money into bonus' next year. He'll pay 'em now but get it off of this years books.

The NFL salary cap and the way it works, what counts when and how vs. when it actually was paid would make Enron blush.

We ain't got no cap problems. I don't see how.

[bubba9497]

good analysis, but omits one point. Gene Upshaw has been explicit that one of the problems the union has is that many teams are not spending their maximum cap number. And the minimum cap spending level should be raised to ensure all teams are spending all the money available for players. Upshaw has said he has no problem with the Redskins because while generating revenue, the team is also paying the maximum salaries allowed under the cap. The teams not doing so, and you see them cited glowingly as being $5, $10, $20 million UNDER the cap, are using the money earmarked for salaries in other ways. That is why the union is pushing to increase the minimum level as well as increasing the overall pool.

Bingo, the Cards, Eagles, and such are the teams that are in the wrong, and the villains.

I propose a minimum cap, that all teams MUST use say 95% of the salary cap, or be penalized like the teams who go over the maximum limit.

[Larry Gude]

Man you're incredible and while your effort is appreciated, the problem seems to be you're not a capologist. I think our organization have the experts that breath this stuff and use cap analyses as seasoning on their breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I'm no where near your level of analytical thinking. You must be Six Sigma qualified with Black belt clout or something. But one thing you left out: those 25 some odd ...what ever the number is tailgaters that are parking at 25$ a game.... this analyses is nothing but a bunch of smoke filled, coffee house, B.S. So stay away from cap threads, and I'll speak for myself, I'm neither qualified nor educated on the real analyses. Only Dan and his teams knows. Sorry.:doh:

You're right and I don;t claim to be one but I have watched the cap over the years and watched where we are told the cap is $75 mil but Snyder (and other teams) actually put out $10-20 million more in actual dollars and this count for that coming time period and that defered to this and so forth.

Why stay away from cap threads? This **** is interesting.

I'm not qualified either but do I thus have to be a player or a coach or an owner to opine about ANYTHING Redskin/pro ball related?

[bubba9497]

OK, but my point is that Dan will simply restructure deals and put money into bonus' next year. He'll pay 'em now but get it off of this years books.

The NFL salary cap and the way it works, what counts when and how vs. when it actually was paid would make Enron blush.

We ain't got no cap problems. I don't see how.

because in the current CBA, rules have been set up if an extension is not signed, teams can't dump salaries into uncapped years... that's what the 30% rule everyone is discussing is all about.

[Larry Gude]

Bingo, the Cards, Eagles, and such are the teams that are in the wrong, and the villains.

I propose a minimum cap, that all teams MUST use say 95% of the salary cap, or be penalized like the teams who go over the maximum limit.

I'd rather they keep on being losers with unhappy players.

[skinsman4u]

You're right and I don;t claim to be one but I have watched the cap over the years and watched where we are told the cap is $75 mil but Snyder (and other teams) actually put out $10-20 million more in actual dollars and this count for that coming time period and that defered to this and so forth.

Why stay away from cap threads? This **** is interesting.

I'm not qualified either but do I thus have to be a player or a coach or an owner to opine about ANYTHING Redskin/pro ball related?

Okay thanks for the insight good post and sorry.

[Larry Gude]

because in the current CBA, rules have been set up if an extension is not signed, teams can't dump salaries into uncapped years... that's what the 30% rule everyone is discussing is all about.

Gotcha.

I still see a molehill, not a mountain. The converse is to believe that, somehow, given the fabulous fiscal health of the league that salaries won't go up a good chunk.

[Larry Gude]

Okay thanks for the insight good post and sorry.

Sorry for what?

I'm probably full of Sh1t and making this up on the fly!

:laugh:

I'm entertained. You're entertained. Good/good.

[skinsman4u]

Sorry for what?

I'm probably full of Sh1t and making this up on the fly!

:laugh:

I'm entertained. You're entertained. Good/good.

Its all good and at least we have the best web site in the league, that allows us all to be skin deep together :laugh: . We can all laugh together, and cheer GOSKINSWIN!

[AdamJT13]

I propose a minimum cap, that all teams MUST use say 95% of the salary cap, or be penalized like the teams who go over the maximum limit.

There already is a minimum cap.

[Khun Kao]

Perhaps Snyder should create a seminar to train the smaller market owners on how to run an NFL franchise.

Truer words were never spoken! The league *should* encourage the owners who are doing it right (Snyder, Kraft, Jones, etc) to speak to the other owners at every years Symposium (or whatever they call it) to walk them through some of the marketing strategies and techniques to make their franchises more profitable and less needing to dip into other owners pockets.

[HOF44]

Perhaps Snyder should create a seminar to train the smaller market owners on how to run an NFL franchise.

For of course a nominal fee. 10% of revenues generated from the advice. Now thats revenue sharing!