Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

How much will owners spend in an uncapped year? (A myth that needs discussion)


SkinsHokieFan

Who wins this matchup?  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. Who wins this matchup?

    • RDSKNfaithfull (Von D, Carey, Sanchez)
    • Coach Williams (Knowles, Tyler, Zschech)


Recommended Posts

I am reading several posters fall into the trap of thinking that Dan Snyder would be a middle of the road spender in an uncapped year due to the fortunes of Paul Allen, Jerry Jones and others with large sums of money

This is one of the bigger myths, that if you repeat it enough, somehow turns into facts

A) Lets remember this isn't the 1980s anymore. The NFL has revenue sharing, and players on average make well over 1 million dollars per year, where it was far less in the mid 1980s. This is to quickly eliminate the "well JKC did it in the 80s" Yes he did dip into his personal fortune. No he wasn't sharing revenue nor was he paying multi millions in guranteed money either. Joe Gibbs was working for 100k in the mid 80s

B) Spending is linked to the revenue a team brings in. After the new stadiums are built in Dallas and New York, they will have an advantage because of the revenue they generate, not because of the amount of money Jerry Jones or the Maras have. Similar to Paul Allen in Seattle. He already could dip into his fortune and use cash to pay big bonuses to keep cornerstone players, like Steve Hutchinson. But he doesn't dip into his personal fortune and the money the Seahawks spend is linked to the amount of revenue they bring in

C) And once again, the rich owners pay the poor owners. Now in uncapped years, this revenue sharing would probably go away, letting owners keep more revenue. The Washington Redskins and Dan Snyder will still be in the top 5-7 in revenue even with the new stadiums coming into existence. Paul Allen still will not spend a dime from his own money to pay salaries for the Seahawks

So lets bury this myth now. NFL owners spend what they make off their team. They ain't touching their own wallets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players would be locked intotheir deals for 6yrs.... only a few players will be FA. not much to choose from....

And those players that sign those deals will be locked in for another 6yrs....if they dont make that big deal, they will be stuck in that deal and team. not many players want to be stuck. And the up front money will be less because roster bonuses will be higher because of the length of the contracts......

the players get the short end of the stick.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players would be locked intotheir deals for 6yrs.... only a few players will be FA. not much to choose from....

And those players that sign those deals will be locked in for another 6yrs....if they dont make that big deal, they will be stuck in that deal and team. not many players want to be stuck. And the up front money will be less because roster bonuses will be higher because of the length of the contracts......

the players get the short end of the stick.....

I am trying to discuss something a little bit different. I do see your point.

I am seeing posts in the other threads about the CBA talking about who will be able to spend what. And this warrants its own discussion because people seem to think that owners will be willing to dip into their personal funds to pay for players

It simply will not happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are trying to have fun assuming there is no CBA in 2011. A lot of people seem to get that 2010 has many restrictions to it. People like to go through scenarios when things are unknown so they can feel their feet firmly planted to the ground.

I get the feeling that many people are more informed than you're giving them credit for, but I'm sure plenty others will prove me wrong any minute now.

I am trying to discuss something a little bit different. I do see your point.

I am seeing posts in the other threads about the CBA talking about who will be able to spend what. And this warrants its own discussion because people seem to think that owners will be willing to dip into their personal funds to pay for players

It simply will not happen

I just now read this, and if this is your point you probably should have posted it in a thread discussing the uncapped year, instead of starting a new one. :silly: :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading several posters fall into the trap of thinking that Dan Snyder would be a middle of the road spender in an uncapped year due to the fortunes of Paul Allen, Jerry Jones and others with large sums of money

So lets bury this myth now. NFL owners spend what they make off their team. They ain't touching their own wallets

Survery says.......No. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Paul Allen throws an insane amount of cash into everything he owns, even if it is going straight down the drain.

His company, CHTR, may be the only worse story than Dan's Six Flags, and he pours Hundreds of Millions every single year into that pig from his own pocket.

The stock keeps going lower, mainly to death spiral financing, but Allen writes $500 million checks to that company at least once a year.

He can buy Dan 20x over.

That is a no-win proposition, from a guy that pisses money like water into his ventures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how much owners will spend in the uncapped year, I think this will be great for the Redskins. Some may spend more, but we will spend enough to put out a competitive squad.

Right now this is all speculation, but I believe that all "dead" cap money will be forgiven if we get to an uncapped situation in 2010.

The NFL will need to do something to allocate for salary spent on players in 2010 if a cap is instituted after. Otherwise, rather than giving a player a large up-front signing bonus in 2010, I see teams paying large base salaries to players in 2010 (and restructuring already-existing contracts to convert bonus to base salary - the opposite of what we are doing now), which would otherwise only be applied to the 2010 cap number if a cap were in place. That way, when the cap returns, you've got teams with whopping amounts of cash to spend on players because no signing bonuses will be prorated and allocated to future years. We can really clean house in this situation.

In any event, I see the Redskins getting a great deal of flexibility with an uncapped year for years to come, regardless of what happens next. The Doomsday scenario of cap hell will have never reached fruition.

And the Skins can keep this team together until 2010 and do some major restructuring then. I see many teams playing it out this way. Several players will be changing teams in 2010 as teams make moves to restructure their rosters without the burden of the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Survery says.......No. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Paul Allen throws an insane amount of cash into everything he owns, even if it is going straight down the drain.

His company, CHTR, may be the only worse story than Dan's Six Flags, and he pours Hundreds of Millions every single year into that pig from his own pocket.

The stock keeps going lower, mainly to death spiral financing, but Allen writes $500 million checks to that company at least once a year.

He can buy Dan 20x over.

That is a no-win proposition, from a guy that pisses money like water into his ventures.

CHTR?...Charter Communications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DC market is one of the top markets in the nation and Dan Snyder has no problems spending money to try and make his team competitive. That being said, players will be locked into their contracts for 6 years and FA won't have as many players each and every year. Yes, Dan will be willing to spend money, but their won't be as many FA. Thus, the Draft will become even more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently talked with one of the Union's bargaining agents. He told me over a month ago that the owners were going to opt out this year. He said the union's immediate response will be to decertify. They are not going to wait around until 2010 or negotiate in the interim. So far he was right on item one - owners opting out. Now lets see if he is right on item two - union decertifing in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're crazy if you think owners don't touch a dime from their pockets.

Like any smart businessman, these owners will spend their own money if it is to invest in greater revenue.

The myth that needs to GTFO is that is constantly dropped by simpletons on this board that "OMG SNYDER IS TEH RICH3ST EVAR" and that he will outspend everyone. That myth is always based on the poster's ignorant belief that Snyder is somehow super rich when in actuality, he isn't even in the top half of owners financially.

A similar myth is this "top revenue team" that is thrown out based solely on the Forbes article. That "revenue" is based on stadium income/debt. It's a very particular valuation, and one that will change when the newer stadium open up. It doesn't mean that the Redskins have more cash than any other team. It doesn't figure out in merchandizing and private licensing deals. The NYG are the biggest market. The Cowboys are the most popular team, and Jerry has crazy private licensing deals. The Patriots are popular now because of their success (something other owners realize; success = popularity = revenue). The Packers, Steelers and Raiders are always merchandise machines.

The myth is this belief that somehow we are going to sitting pretty without a salary cap because we are so rich. That's not the case.

Losing the salary cap is bad thing for the NFL. Ignorant people shouldn't be cheering for it based on some ignorant assumption that somehow the Redskins would be great beneficiaries if it happens. We wouldn't. We would suffer like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're crazy .......

....by simpletons on this board ……….Ignorant people ....

Ya know, your reasonably sound arguments are seriously tarnished by your propensity to persistently demean your audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners want out of the CBA because of the rising salaries Spending like the Yankees in an uncapped year seems at best, wishful thinking. I think you would be more likely to see a lockout ala 1980's. Greed is such a terrible thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...