RiggoReincarnated Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 We need to eliminate signing bonuses for all future picks and free agents. That way, if we need to restructure in the future, and if a player isn't playing up to par, we cut them and don't take a cap hit. STOP THE SIGNING BONUSES PLEASE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 No one will ever sign a contract without a signing bonus.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 No one will ever sign a contract without a signing bonus.... Why not? Why not just pay flat salaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Lets' end hunger while we're at it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Since this is a football thread, why not only sign players to the minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why not? Why not just pay flat salaries? Because signing bonuses are the only part of a contract that is guaranteed. NFL contracts are very one-sided in other ways. A team can terminate a contract at any time but a player cannot. If the player gets injured then he's out of luck. That's why players hate the franchise tag. The one year compensation for tagged players is high, but it offers no security. No vaguely intelligent player would sign a contract without a signing bonus (and no vaguely competent agent would negotiate one). Furthermore signing bonuses help the team deal with cap issues. The only way we're going to get under the cap, regardless of whether a new CBA is signed, is to convert some money to bonuses for a number of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Because signing bonuses are the only part of a contract that is guaranteed. NFL contracts are very one-sided in other ways. A team can terminate a contract at any time but a player cannot. If the player gets injured then he's out of luck. That's why players hate the franchise tag. The one year compensation for tagged players is high, but it offers no security.No vaguely intelligent player would sign a contract without a signing bonus (and no vaguely competent agent would negotiate one). Furthermore signing bonuses help the team deal with cap issues. The only way we're going to get under the cap, regardless of whether a new CBA is signed, is to convert some money to bonuses for a number of players. does the nfl have a rookie pool like the NBA? that way a rookie cant make more than a 5 or 10 yr vet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 does the nfl have a rookie pool like the NBA? that way a rookie cant make more than a 5 or 10 yr vet. Yes. The NFL,every year, allocates an amount, or sets a cap, on the amount each team can sign it's rookies/draft picks with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Until NFL contracts become guarenteed (which will never happen), there will never be a player or agent that will sign a contract without a signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 We can stop the signing bonuses anytime we want. But guess what. No one will come to our team. If you were a player and had three offers of around 10 million up front and a million a year for 5 years and one offer of 3 million a year for 5 years which would you take??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 We can stop the signing bonuses anytime we want. But guess what. No one will come to our team. If you were a player and had three offers of around 10 million up front and a million a year for 5 years and one offer of 3 million a year for 5 years which would you take??? well,then how about we go back to when they had to work during the offseason to keep up the lifestyle they are accustomed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 well,then how about we go back to when they had to work during the offseason to keep up the lifestyle they are accustomed to? Hey I'd love it. I would also love tickets to be $12.00 a game with free parking, and beer at a buck a piece. But it aint gonna happen. Thats history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Hey I'd love it. I would also love tickets to be $12.00 a game with free parking, and beer at a buck a piece. But it aint gonna happen. Thats history. It could happen if the NFL united together so that it became every teams policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 especially with TO's fiasco last season, I doubt players/agents will even go for future roster bonuses either. I speak in reference to a possible uncapped 2007 season, I doubt many will take a low SB now to get a huge roster bonus in 2007. Now if the 2007 year is uncapped, we can give out roster bonuses pretty nicely I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 It could happen if the NFL united together so that it became every teams policy The union would never agree to it in the CBA. If you didn't have a CBA then they couldn't do it because of antitrust laws. (collusion) The best you might ever negotiate is guaranteed contracts instead of a signing bonus, but really there's not much difference in the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I was thinking the same thing. Collusion. Not looked upon as the most favorable of practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Collusion...that is so ironic. It's collusion if the owners do it. It's called "Bargaining" if the Union does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why not? Why not just pay flat salaries? Because salaries are not guaranteed, signing bonuses ae fully guanranteed and cash in pocket when signed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dent19 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why not? Why not just pay flat salaries? The bonus is the only cash they know they get...... they would have to change free agency rules... which wont happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKiNz Jus 2 sick Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 No one will ever sign a contract without a signing bonus....what about maurice clarett :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhutanibeast Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 wow! talk about stupid threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I've had this theory for several years, that seems workable to me, but that doesn't mean it's workable in reality. To me, if, say LaVar wants a big signing bonus, my counter-offer would be vet minimum, guaranteed for 10 years. Granted, from his viewpoint, it's not up-front money. But when you get your money in a big lump sum, the IRS takes a really big chunk of it. A lot of small payments = a lot less taxes. For an example, anybody think Emmit Smith would chose, if he cound, to give back his last signing bonus, and take another 10 years of vet minimum, instead? In my theory, a bonus like that wouldn't accelerate when a player leaves. It means that there might come a time when, for cap purposes, we're paying 20-30 guys who aren't here any more, but we'll be paying all of them vet minimum. (And I think, under the NFL rules, only the first so many players actually count towards the cap. The retired guys might not even make the list.) And we'll be able to predict that kind of dead money in advance, no sudden situation where you have to keep paying an injured guy because you can't afford to have his cap hit accelerate. But the NFL owners have got to be scared to death of the possibility of guaranteed contracts, even vet min ones. So I'd bet they'd make it illegal if Snyder tried it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 well,then how about we go back to when they had to work during the offseason to keep up the lifestyle they are accustomed to? No problem. Just convince 100 million people to stop watching football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I've had this theory for several years, that seems workable to me, but that doesn't mean it's workable in reality. To me, if, say LaVar wants a big signing bonus, my counter-offer would be vet minimum, guaranteed for 10 years. Granted, from his viewpoint, it's not up-front money. But when you get your money in a big lump sum, the IRS takes a really big chunk of it. A lot of small payments = a lot less taxes. For an example, anybody think Emmit Smith would chose, if he cound, to give back his last signing bonus, and take another 10 years of vet minimum, instead? In my theory, a bonus like that wouldn't accelerate when a player leaves. It means that there might come a time when, for cap purposes, we're paying 20-30 guys who aren't here any more, but we'll be paying all of them vet minimum. (And I think, under the NFL rules, only the first so many players actually count towards the cap. The retired guys might not even make the list.) And we'll be able to predict that kind of dead money in advance, no sudden situation where you have to keep paying an injured guy because you can't afford to have his cap hit accelerate. But the NFL owners have got to be scared to death of the possibility of guaranteed contracts, even vet min ones. So I'd bet they'd make it illegal if Snyder tried it. This would be a bad deal for the player. First you always have to discount future income versus present income. Second even at the vet minimum there would be no tax saving s for the player. A vet minimum salary in the NFL would result in maximum tax rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 No vaguely intelligent player would sign a contract without a signing bonus (and no vaguely competent agent would negotiate one). Furthermore signing bonuses help the team deal with cap issues. The only way we're going to get under the cap, regardless of whether a new CBA is signed, is to convert some money to bonuses for a number of players. An example of this is Maurice Clarette. Waived his signing bonus for a deal with a ton of incentives. He was later cut, and didn't make anything. While if he would have taken the signing bonus he would have had about a half a million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.