The cap is probably going to drop. now what?

LatinMind

iPhotoshop
Messages
17,430
Reaction score
11,554
It is being reported lately that if the season has issues with crowds not being present, ticket sales descending and revenue for the owners and players dropping..

that this is going to interfere with player salaries.

How does this affect everything?

There is a new TV contract coming up. Is it going to just increase revenue or role things back further.?

I am not going to make this a Dak thread, but the Cowboys have to be aware as they plan for the future that the uncertainty of sports going forward is an unknown.

Making huge contracts to players could decimate your franchise if it all goes wrong.

How do you guys suggest it should be done.

No attacks, one line slurs are just not useful here.

What do you really feel?

Over to you.
The NFL and NFLPA are working on this as we speak. The reported fix for 2021 would be to borrow against future earnings. They've already agreed to raise teams dept limits. Which would put a flat cap for a couple yrs, which wouldnt hurt teams as the cap is about to explode with the new tv deal predicted to be double of what the last one was. Everything will be fine.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Personally, I think that a restrictor, of sorts, should be adopted in order to limit what positions can be paid. If a team wants to include incentives based on performance levels met, then allow that but that should be something that is charged back to the team, should it exceed adopted payment levels for any given player or position. That money can then be distributed back to the league through additional cap resources, to be used equally among all other teams. I don't think you can continue to just allow for unchecked escalation around specific players or positions. This idea of escalation just because you are the next player up is a bad model. Any model that artaficially inflates salary, with no emphasize on actual performance is a mistake.

That's my view anyhow.
 

MoistMayonnaise

Devil's Advocate
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
7,603
TV money is huge. The owners can afford to pay the players one year.

Plus, I don't feel bad for any NFL team owner. Can't afford it, then sell and go live on a beach with your billion dollars.
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
Good common sense response to this topic. It's unfortunate that some posters have a hard time imagining common sense solutions and prefer only to see dramatic consequences.
Drama?

Drama is the pandemic null and voiding your business becuz it requires being in contact with people and handling their money.

That's now me.

I am unemployed now.

That's drama.

Me worrying about rich dudes who play a kids game for millions and millions?

Not drama.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
TV money is huge. The owners can afford to pay the players one year.

Plus, I don't feel bad for any NFL team owner. Can't afford it, then sell and go live on a beach with your billion dollars.

Personally, I think it's fair to reduce salaries of players. I mean, the owners are taking a hit in profits through a matter of course so it should be a shared thing. It should not be just one side who feels the pain.
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
The NFL and NFLPA are working on this as we speak. The reported fix for 2021 would be to borrow against future earnings. They've already agreed to raise teams dept limits. Which would put a flat cap for a couple yrs, which wouldnt hurt teams as the cap is about to explode with the new tv deal predicted to be double of what the last one was. Everything will be fine.
Fine.

I have not heard that word for 3 months.

We shall see.
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
Personally, I think that a restrictor, of sorts, should be adopted in order to limit what positions can be paid. If a team wants to include incentives based on performance levels met, then allow that but that should be something that is charged back to the team, should it exceed adopted payment levels for any given player or position. That money can then be distributed back to the league through additional cap resources, to be used equally among all other teams. I don't think you can continue to just allow for unchecked escalation around specific players or positions. This idea of escalation just because you are the next player up is a bad model. Any model that artaficially inflates salary, with no emphasize on actual performance is a mistake.

That's my view anyhow.
Good points.

The collective brain trust here had their coffee this morning.

Thanx.
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
TV money is huge. The owners can afford to pay the players one year.

Plus, I don't feel bad for any NFL team owner. Can't afford it, then sell and go live on a beach with your billion dollars.
Haha..

Your post reminds me of my old HS football coach.

If you didn't get it right..

give me 3 laps around the field.

You

You

And you..

Go run.

:omg:
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Personally, I think it's fair to reduce salaries of players. I mean, the owners are taking a hit in profits through a matter of course so it should be a shared thing. It should not be just one side who feels the pain.
Why not? The argument is constantly raised that the owners deserve the huge amounts of money they make because they're the ones taking on all the financial risk. Well, that cuts both ways. This is just part of that risk.
 

MoistMayonnaise

Devil's Advocate
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
7,603
Personally, I think it's fair to reduce salaries of players. I mean, the owners are taking a hit in profits through a matter of course so it should be a shared thing. It should not be just one side who feels the pain.

While I agree in principle, Leaders should eat last.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The knight in shining armor is just waiting out there to ride in and drive that cap back up and the TV nets know it's just biding it's time. Amazon and Netflix were flush before this pandemic and now they have money to burn. The NFL will exert pressure on the TV nets to keep the real enemy out of their camp.

They're going to be in the same position that ESPN was years ago when the competing sports cable nets began to show up. They had to overspend to protect some of their franchises, MLB, NBA, College football, and all of the nets involved with the NFL are going to have to do the same and they know it and the owners know it.

One thing about rich people (and you can check out how some of them have fared in this economy) problems are opportunities in disguise. Someone might lose money but it will not be the owners or the players.
 

fivetwos

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,056
Reaction score
25,881
IMO if the cap takes a serious hit then I could see the owners implementing a no cap season like they did a few years ago.
Yes, then Mara can demand his division rivals be penalized for doing nothing against the rules.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Why not? The argument is constantly raised that the owners deserve the huge amounts of money they make because they're the ones taking on all the financial risk. Well, that cuts both ways. This is just part of that risk.

Why not what?

There are many arguments that are constantly made. For example, the argument that NFL players, collectively, should be paid a higher percentage of profits, which has happened in the new CBA. But yet, not every player gets the benefit of this. So really, that lip service only applies to a small percentage of players. Does that mean that because a small percentage of players make much higher salary, in comparison to most of the other NFL players, they too should be singled out to shoulder the brunt of the load and the players who make much less should just be exempt?

We can take this a lot of ways but how is that fair? This idea that only one side should shoulder the burden is BS. No, that's not right.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Personally, I think it's fair to reduce salaries of players. I mean, the owners are taking a hit in profits through a matter of course so it should be a shared thing. It should not be just one side who feels the pain.
The MLB players made the point they are the ones being put at risk, not the owners.

I could see some kind of proration with a reduced number of games played but don't know the verbiage in contracts as far as what constitutes a season. And how are those guarantees defined in the contracts? If they cannot pull off a full season, are some of those contracts written where some get paid their contract amount?

Some of those players, on the lower end of the pay scale, have got to be nervous. We have the tendency to see them all as a bunch of multimillionaires but that is not the case with most of them.

You can bet the owners and NFLPA phone lines have been buzzing.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
While I agree in principle, Leaders should eat last.

I think that if you adopt something like what I posted earlier, then the burden is distributed in an unbias manner, universally among all parties involved. That is the right way to handle any situation, like this IMO.

Understand, any position taken that puts any party under more burden is ultimately going to be resented and that will eventually come back some how, some way. That should be avoided at all costs IMO.

Deal in good faith, attack problems together and you put yourself in a much better position long term IMO. I do not believe that it is ever a good idea to single any party out in situations, such as this, as a rule. It's just not good business to me.

That's just my opinion.
 

Rockport

AmberBeer
Messages
41,077
Reaction score
41,060
It is being reported lately that if the season has issues with crowds not being present, ticket sales descending and revenue for the owners and players dropping..

that this is going to interfere with player salaries.

How does this affect everything?

There is a new TV contract coming up. Is it going to just increase revenue or role things back further.?

I am not going to make this a Dak thread, but the Cowboys have to be aware as they plan for the future that the uncertainty of sports going forward is an unknown.

Making huge contracts to players could decimate your franchise if it all goes wrong.

How do you guys suggest it should be done.

No attacks, one line slurs are just not useful here.

What do you really feel?

Over to you.

You have a link to that report?
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Why not what?

There are many arguments that are constantly made. For example, the argument that NFL players, collectively, should be paid a higher percentage of profits, which has happened in the new CBA. But yet, not every player gets the benefit of this. So really, that lip service only applies to a small percentage of players. Does that mean that because a small percentage of players make much higher salary, in comparison to most of the other NFL players, they too should be singled out to shoulder the brunt of the load and the players who make much less should just be exempt?
You've lost me. The brunt of what load?

We can take this a lot of ways but how is that fair? This idea that only one side should shoulder the burden is BS. No, that's not right.
Again, why? That's what being an owner is.
 
Top