The cap is probably going to drop. now what?

gjkoeppen said:

Technically, I think, I could be wrong, but when a player does go to IR their salary is reduced somewhat. But the nagging injuries that last only a game or two or three is an interesting approach that the owners should on the next CBA if that hasn't been discussed before. Depending on what happens this season and things like live gate and if that is gone or greatly reduced, the owners may or could renegotiate that for this CBA. There have been changes to CBA's in past years after they were originally signed.
.

Click to expand...

No, guaranteed money is guaranteed money. That means, specificially, that if you were to sustain injury, you would still get paid. So again I ask you, would you be OK with that?

Why would the owners not want the cap to go down? It would be going down for every team. Any players they have with a "bad" contract can be released without the worry of another team snatching them up...because other teams wouldn't have the cap space. Then they can resign them to a lower salary. When the new CBA kicks in, players cannot hold out so teams can simply refuse to renegotiate when the cap goes up. For Dallas, it makes it real easy to simply not tag Dak next year and let him become a FA...nobody would be able to give him what he wants.

Seems to me, the prospect of a dropping cap gives the owners A LOT of leverage in contract talks.

BatteryPowered said:

Why would the owners not want the cap to go down? It would be going down for every team. Any players they have with a "bad" contract can be released without the worry of another team snatching them up...because other teams wouldn't have the cap space. Then they can resign them to a lower salary. When the new CBA kicks in, players cannot hold out so teams can simply refuse to renegotiate when the cap goes up. For Dallas, it makes it real easy to simply not tag Dak next year and let him become a FA...nobody would be able to give him what he wants.

Seems to me, the prospect of a dropping cap gives the owners A LOT of leverage in contract talks.

Click to expand...

The cap going down means that the NFL is making less money. Cap is paid out as a percentage of revenue so if the cap goes down, that means the NFL is making less and that is less money in everybodies pockets. Owners don't want the cap going down.

Cap declines so fairness would dictate that Players should shoulder 48% of the hit. Will they? If they don't the CBA is a complete joke and the season should be in doubt.

ABQCOWBOY said:

No, guaranteed money is guaranteed money. That means, specificially, that if you were to sustain injury, you would still get paid. So again I ask you, would you be OK with that?

Click to expand...

I already said I agree with you that injured players should get reduced pay. The contracts would have to have clauses that specify that guaranteed money is for games they are able to play. If injured and can not play then that gets subtracted from their guaranteed pay. There is another thing to remember and think about. The only player I know of that has his entire contract guaranteed is Cousins so after a player gets to an non-guaranteed season it wouldn't matter.
.

gjkoeppen said:

I already said I agree with you that injured players should get reduced pay. The contracts would have to have clauses that specify that guaranteed money is for games they are able to play. If injured and can not play then that gets subtracted from their guaranteed pay. There is another thing to remember and think about. The only player I know of that has his entire contract guaranteed is Cousins so after a player gets to an non-guaranteed season it wouldn't matter.
.

Click to expand...

I never ever said I agreed with that and you, well, you never got it right to begin with. You think this question is about players who hit the IR. That's not the question. The Contracts are already written. The money is already guaranteed. Do you think it would be OK to take away guaranteed money? It's a simple question. Do you think that's right or OK?

ABQCOWBOY said:

I never ever said I agreed with that and you, well, you never got it right to begin with. You think this question is about players who hit the IR. That's not the question. The Contracts are already written. The money is already guaranteed. Do you think it would be OK to take away guaranteed money? It's a simple question. Do you think that's right or OK?

Click to expand...

Every time you ask me a question I swear you don't actually read my responses. This last response I didn't mention IR, I only said if players were injured, that is something you read into it. Yes, please read before responding, I think all player contracts should be worded that states that if they are incapable of playing because of injury that the pay that week should be reduced whether they have guaranteed money or not. The contracts would have to be worded that the guaranteed money is only guaranteed if they are healthy and capable and cleared to play.

As far as what you did say and I'll quote you "What if I said that owners should not be responsible for paying players guaranteed portions of contracts if they are injured?". Now you didn't actually say it, you did say what if, but you did bring that point up and I might be wrong thinking that you agreed with that.
.

gjkoeppen said:

Every time you ask me a question I swear you don't actually read my responses. This last response I didn't mention IR, I only said if players were injured, that is something you read into it. Yes, please read before responding, I think all player contracts should be worded that states that if they are incapable of playing because of injury that the pay that week should be reduced whether they have guaranteed money or not. The contracts would have to be worded that the guaranteed money is only guaranteed if they are healthy and capable and cleared to play.

As far as what you did say and I'll quote you "What if I said that owners should not be responsible for paying players guaranteed portions of contracts if they are injured?". Now you didn't actually say it, you did say what if, but you did bring that point up and I might be wrong thinking that you agreed with that.
.

Click to expand...

I read your response. It was inaccurate from the beginning. What do you think IR is? Look, either you don't get it or you don't want to and don't even think about trying to tell anybody anything about reading. You missed this entire point by suggesting players miss checks because of missed games, due to injuries. That was never what you were asked. To this point, you've still never answered the question.

You don't get it, that's fine. Move on.

ABQCOWBOY said:

The cap going down means that the NFL is making less money. Cap is paid out as a percentage of revenue so if the cap goes down, that means the NFL is making less and that is less money in everybodies pockets. Owners don't want the cap going down.

Click to expand...

No ****? I mean, that has only been explained everywhere for over two decades...so thank you Captain Obvious. I understand the owners don't want revenue to decline, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't welcome the chance to dump players with bad "cap" contracts while saying "Hey, my hands are tied. We have to get under the cap." when no other team in the league can sign them because they don't have cap space. They get to resign the player a couple of weeks later for less money.

BatteryPowered said:

No ****? I mean, that has only been explained everywhere for over two decades...so thank you Captain Obvious. I understand the owners don't want revenue to decline, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't welcome the chance to dump players with bad "cap" contracts while saying "Hey, my hands are tied. We have to get under the cap." when no other team in the league can sign them because they don't have cap space. They get to resign the player a couple of weeks later for less money.

Click to expand...

OK, whatever.

BTW, read the rules.

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/cowboyszone-forum-rules.239487/

#4 - You will not include profanity or non-family friendly language in your posts.

BatteryPowered said:

Why would the owners not want the cap to go down? It would be going down for every team. Any players they have with a "bad" contract can be released without the worry of another team snatching them up...because other teams wouldn't have the cap space. Then they can resign them to a lower salary. When the new CBA kicks in, players cannot hold out so teams can simply refuse to renegotiate when the cap goes up. For Dallas, it makes it real easy to simply not tag Dak next year and let him become a FA...nobody would be able to give him what he wants.

Seems to me, the prospect of a dropping cap gives the owners A LOT of leverage in contract talks.

Click to expand...

Because they don't want to deal with ramifications.
NFL owners employ players because it makes them more money.
They would love to squeeze players into a blanket pay cut for instance, but absolutely do NOT want to have to compete on the open market again for MOST of the same guys.

Even as this thread has grown we have seen it's lessened impact. Texas can now house 50% crowds in stadiums.
There is no real likelihood that the NFL is impacted more than 10% of it's revenue. Half o that would have been growth anyway.
The latest jobs report shows the economy has bounced back quite a bit already.
Games don't start for months.

As always, the NFL is too big to fail and will make even more money as lesser entertainment does dry up.

Redball Express said:

Click to expand...

I'm probably doing a horrible job trying to explain the floor percentage concept; I bet our old friend @AdamJT13 could do a real good job at it.
Basically as it stands, teams have to pay between 89 percent and 100 percent of the cap each year (although the 89% is averaged over the past 4 years).

Here are a couple links that do a way better job of it than me:

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/9/6/17600618/nfl-salary-cap-2018-everything-to-know-about-salaries

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-space-the-minimum-means-as-much-the-maximum/

My point is, it would be less disruptive to teams having no revenue issues, and equally effective to teams struggling with revenue, to just do a one-time lowering of the floor percentage for 2020 (aka, the minimum cash spend requirement) rather than change the cap number for the year (which in turn, does affect the floor indirectly).

btw, the percentage goes from 89 to 90 in 2021 due to the new CBA, according to this: https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/nfl-salary-cap-rules-explained

With the likelihood of a cap drop looming, it might be wise to allow the franchise tag to continue.

If so, the coming player contracts, as they soon exist, should eventually be adjusted accordingly.

Bullflop said:

With the likelihood of a cap drop looming, it might be wise to allow the franchise tag to continue.

If so, the coming player contracts, as they soon exist, should eventually be adjusted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Dak would be smart to sign the deal today IMO. I mean, I don't think the team goes for his agents counter with or without COV19 so basically, I see this thing as going sideways in terms of money if he waits a year. IDK.......... The deal he has in front of him is a fair one to me. I would just take that and go out and win a championship and then hit Jerry up for more money. You give Jerry a ring and there is nothing he will say no to. He's shown that in the past. What do I know?

Redball Express said:

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.

Click to expand...

Everything will change accordingly. Never an issue never will be an issue. Just over excited fans

Since 2014, you could set your watch to the NFL's salary cap going up by at least $10 million each offseason. This March was no different when the league announced the 2020 salary cap would be set at $198.2 million, up from its $188.2 million the previous year.

Games played with no fans would represent a loss of anywhere between $70-100 million in gate receipts, concessions and parking for each NFL teams, on top of any loss of associated sponsorship dollars. If the cap nosedives to, say, $140 million in 2021, that sort of hit would send shockwaves through the NFL for years to come.

Since I earlier estimated a $120 million cap for 2021, in a rational universe, there is no reason why fans under 50 shouldn’t attend the games. Healthy older folks might want to wear masks and gloves.

I’m seventy, so I still wait for more data for larger crowds.

Will go to a grandson’s soccer game Saturday.

The gloves do keep me from sucking my thumb.

McKDaddy said:

I don't understand any issue with % based agreements. It happens all the time. Its really the only fair way to split up a pie that isn't the same size from day to day. The league revenue calculations are well known & transparent so the Players Union & outside parties can all see the impact on revenue & the corresponding decrease in players pay. Everyone likes this when the pie is always increasing. Only fair to share in the pain. Having an immediate adjustment only affects current players which is also fair. Anything that delays or spreads out the hit affects players who aren't even in the league now.

Click to expand...

Clarity.

A word I understand less and less of each minute.

I think both sides players and owners were nowhere ready to deal with this

It's possible there maybe agreement for some language to be inserted in contracts done before and after the virus.

But that would require a vote and a majority vote to do that.

Hmmm..

sounds like a tall order.

ABQCOWBOY said:

No, guaranteed money is guaranteed money. That means, specificially, that if you were to sustain injury, you would still get paid. So again I ask you, would you be OK with that?

Click to expand...

I responded with I already said I agree with you that injured players should get reduced pay. The contracts would have to have clauses that specify that guaranteed money is for games they are able to play. If injured and can not play then that gets subtracted from their guaranteed pay. There is another thing to remember and think about. The only player I know of that has his entire contract guaranteed is Cousins so after a player gets to an non-guaranteed season it wouldn't matter.

ABQCOWBOY said:

I never ever said I agreed with that and you, well, you never got it right to begin with. You think this question is about players who hit the IR. That's not the question. The Contracts are already written. The money is already guaranteed. Do you think it would be OK to take away guaranteed money? It's a simple question. Do you think that's right or OK?

Click to expand...

I then replied with Every time you ask me a question I swear you don't actually read my responses. This last response I didn't mention IR, I only said if players were injured, that is something you read into it. Yes, please read before responding, I think all player contracts should be worded that states that if they are incapable of playing because of injury that the pay that week should be reduced whether they have guaranteed money or not. The contracts would have to be worded that the guaranteed money is only guaranteed if they are healthy and capable and cleared to play.

As far as what you did say and I'll quote you "What if I said that owners should not be responsible for paying players guaranteed portions of contracts if they are injured?". Now you didn't actually say it, you did say what if, but you did bring that point up and I might be wrong thinking that you agreed with that.

ABQCOWBOY said:

I read your response. It was inaccurate from the beginning. What do you think IR is? Look, either you don't get it or you don't want to and don't even think about trying to tell anybody anything about reading. You missed this entire point by suggesting players miss checks because of missed games, due to injuries. That was never what you were asked. To this point, you've still never answered the question.

You don't get it, that's fine. Move on.

Click to expand...

NOW right above your last reply I clearly did not use IR, and yes everyone past the 1st grade knows what IR is. You're trying your best to deflect I did answer you question even when you change what I have said.

You're right this is over. Don't bother to reply because there's no doubt that you will change what you or I have actually said and that makes this senseless.