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.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.
Drama?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.
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.
Fine.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.
Good points.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.
Haha..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.
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.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.
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.
Yes, then Mara can demand his division rivals be penalized for doing nothing against the rules.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.
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.
The MLB players made the point they are the ones being put at risk, not the owners.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.
Been saying the same thing since 1993.Cap sucks!
While I agree in principle, Leaders should eat last.
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've lost me. The brunt of what load?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?
Again, why? That's what being an owner is.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.
Of course you areMan, I'm glad I am not an NFL player looking for a big payday in today's world!!!