The salary cap

[gjkoeppen]

And further, GB signing Reggie White to a massive contract was a major cause for the NFL to desire a cap.I

Talk about 100% wrong #irony

You missed the point that the two teams that STARTED the cry for a cap was the PACKERS and BROWNS. Here's is some things that I'm sure you have no knowledge of. The packers were setup as a nonprofit corporation Which means they have a limited amount of surplus capital they can have. They have to use most of the revenue they have. They didn't/don't have an owner with deep pockets to fall back on. When they signed White they had to use some of the money that was earmarked for other things that some didn't get done. Because of that it caused the packers to cry for a cap so they wouldn't have to use money earmarked for other things to pay for players. At that time the packers had to pay the upkeep of both their stadium but also help with the stadium upkeep in Milwaukee where they played some of their games. The stadium now known as Lambeau field was built by the city but the packers were/are responsible for all repairs, upkeep and improvement and additions to it. This is where most of their profits go after the expenses as a team they have to provide.
.
.

 

[CowboyoWales]

First off all for profit businesses are there to make money for their owners. Whether it's a single owner, a group of owners or stockholders. We do live in a free enterprise capitalistic society and as such profit IS NOT a dirty word. Second it's the CBA that sets the percentage of the revenues created by the league that the owners get PRIOR to all the expenditures they are responsible to pay for other than the players salaries that come out of their percentage of the revenue. Now the owners do a very good job of making sure that the league keeps generating more and higher forms of income streams that the players also enjoy those increases as their percentage keeps rising also. Just about every business's biggest cost is employee costs and that varies from around 40 - 45% of their revenue but the players alone take up 48% of the league revenue and that doesn't include all of the people other than players employed by the league and each team. Adding all of those the leagues employee costs are 51% of their revenue or at least 6% more than other businesses. Then there are all of the other expenses that the teams pick up that doesn't cost the players a dime but enjoy the benefits from them. Things like free travel to and back from away games and all the food they eat while there and the hotels they sleep in while there. The doctors and trainers the team provides. And the list keeps going on and on that those millionaires don't have to pay for that the owners do pay for. Before the cap players weren't guaranteed any amount of the profit generated by the league and that revenue was split up equally among the owners and they decided how much to spend on players. Now the cap guarantees the players 48% of the revenue created by the league.
.
.

But it's not free capitalist enterprise. If it were then there would be a minimum cap guarantee and then rather than an upper level, owners could pay as much as they wanted to get a winning team.

If this happened salaries would spiral and owners profits reduced.

 

[gjkoeppen]

But it's not free capitalist enterprise. If it were then there would be a minimum cap guarantee and then rather than an upper level, owners could pay as much as they wanted to get a winning team.

If this happened salaries would spiral and owners profits reduced.

You've got a very strange idea of what free enterprise and a capitalistic society is. The free entrprise is people are free to start and maintain a business. All businesses, except single owner operated businesses, have employee costs. It's also the largest cost they have. Free enterprise isn't used as a means or equated to control employee costs. If an employee doesn't like working for an employer because the pay is to low they can go to work for another employer. The exception is when there is a employee contract that states they can not leave and work for a competitor. If you or I don't like working for our employers we are free to go work for another company, even in completely different fields than what we are working in now. Other companies negotiate employee cost with employee unions just like the NFL. That in NO WAY means that those companies aren't part taking in the free enterprise system of trying to make as much money as they can. You're trying to relate free enterprise with what employees earn and that has zero to do with free enterprise. Yes if there was no cap salaries would climb faster that they already do and like before the cap there were owners that went as cheap as they could while others like Jones spent what was necessary to build a Super Bowl Team. After what Jones did the owners welcome the cap but that in no way does is mean that the league as a whole isn't part taking in the free enterprise system trying to make as much money as possible.
.
.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You obviously know very little of the history of the Cowboys when the cap started. When the cap started the Cowboys had the highest player payroll in the league. In order to get under the cap the Cowboys had to release some players that put money in the dead money portion of the cap. The Cowboys also had to renegotiate several contracts into longer contracts putting large chuncks of money as bonuses paid in the later years that eventually those players never say the end of those contracts and again moving those bonus payment to the dead money thus drastically reducing the money they had to use to sign players. Because of all of that dead money and reduced caps space every year the Cowboys had to renegotiate more contracts that ended up putting more money as dead money. They had to do this every year just to get enough cap space to sign a couple of their stars and their draft picks. This vicious cycle went on for 20 years until Stephen finally stopped renegotiating contracts and let a couple of their players walk in free agency and signed cheaper replacements to try and eventually get rid of that killing dead money. There will always be some dead money but not the crippling dead money the Cowboys suffered through for 20 years that started originally from the precap salaries.
.
.

I know when Troy and Irvin retired shortly after signing massive contracts they got massive prorations and they were forced to cut players like Deion.

What I also know is that those prorations only accelerated into the next year or two just as they always have and then were gone. This 20 years stuff is straight up nonsense.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When I can find again the article from just after the cap was voted on where Jones stated he voted for the cap because being a relatively new owner he would vote with the majority so he wouldn't alienate other older owners. If Jones was so worried about cost controls at the time why did he pay many of his backups starting pay type money and start to sign free agents, oh ya that started before the cap, to more money than the other teams would bid for? If he was so concerned with cost controls he didn't have to spend like that. I'm not saying that in hind site in your article from last year he has changed his mind on the cap but he also had said shortly after the cap was voted on that he would vote with the majority so he wouldn't alienate other owners. Also that cost control ended up putting the Cowboys in a very bad disadvantage for 20 years because of how he spent to make that Super Bowl winning team of the 90's.

BTW, most trusts don't have any kind of outside cost controls because as trusts they are setup as a means of handling the money created by or for the trusts. Monopolies are illegal, trusts are not. A trust is just a legal way to control and/or dispense money in that trust. They don't need any outside approval to do that. As long as the money in a trust is created legally there are no outside approval needed and the executor of the trust can dispense the money how he see fit according all conditions of the trust. An example is a wealthy person dies and leaves his money in a trust for a minor relative and sets up rules that state when that person can get that money. The trust may say not until the age of 25 but also could say that if that minor becomes destitute the executor can release some or all of it to that person but the executor decides which or either. Or that same wealthy person may have set up that trust just saying then the executor will decide when the person is mature enough to handle the money he can release it.
.
.

So you have no articles to support your assertion. Got it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've got a very strange idea of what free enterprise and a capitalistic society is. The free entrprise is people are free to start and maintain a business. All businesses, except single owner operated businesses, have employee costs. It's also the largest cost they have. Free enterprise isn't used as a means or equated to control employee costs. If an employee doesn't like working for an employer because the pay is to low they can go to work for another employer. The exception is when there is a employee contract that states they can not leave and work for a competitor. If you or I don't like working for our employers we are free to go work for another company, even in completely different fields than what we are working in now. Other companies negotiate employee cost with employee unions just like the NFL. That in NO WAY means that those companies aren't part taking in the free enterprise system of trying to make as much money as they can. You're trying to relate free enterprise with what employees earn and that has zero to do with free enterprise. Yes if there was no cap salaries would climb faster that they already do and like before the cap there were owners that went as cheap as they could while others like Jones spent what was necessary to build a Super Bowl Team. After what Jones did the owners welcome the cap but that in no way does is mean that the league as a whole isn't part taking in the free enterprise system trying to make as much money as possible.
.
.

Free market means no price controls. The NFL is not free market. Never has been.

 

[Diehardblues]

What was it truly designed for. Some would like to believe parity. Others would like to believe it controls the peak amount of money one player that one position can receive. There is not one contract that is absolutely 100% guaranteed. Everyone can be manipulated. With that being said. Salary cap is and never will be an issue for the franchises. Some people actually believe it was designed to control the amount of money that a player can actually receive as an excuse.I myself have never seen the franchise not sign a player that they wanted because of the Space.

It was implemented with two objectives.

One to place a cost control in place for the owners which would help maintain the Parity of the league that was created with Equal TV Revenue, the benchmark for Parity in the NFL that the league was concerned unlimited Free Agency would adversely impact smaller market franchises.

It also would mandate all teams spend the bulk of the Cap instead of like MLB where some markets choose not to spend impacting their competitiveness.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I know when Troy and Irvin retired shortly after signing massive contracts they got massive prorations and they were forced to cut players like Deion.

What I also know is that those prorations only accelerated into the next year or two just as they always have and then were gone. This 20 years stuff is straight up nonsense.

You just don't get it. The Cowboys were forced to renegotiate contracts just to get any space to resign a couple of their own players and draft picks and this started the very first year of the draft and continued for 20 years. Starting the first year of the cap there was huge amounts of money added to the dead money and every year they had to renegotiate contracts that ended up adding more money to the dead money and that vicious cycle continued for twenty years until Stephen put a stop to it. He did that by letting a couple of big dollar players walk and sign cheaper ones and not having to renegotiate contracts that added dead money. I don't know where you were during all this but it was very well publicized and all of those articles pointed out that it went all the way back to the very first year of the cap. Now if you don't want to believe this I don't care but not believing it does not change what really actually happened.
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

So you have no articles to support your assertion. Got it.

I've tried but it's hard to find twenty year old articles but that doesn't change what I witnessed from the start of the salary cap.
.
.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've tried but it's hard to find twenty year old articles but that doesn't change what I witnessed from the start of the salary cap.
.
.

Human memory from 20 years ago is fallible it's not funny. I gave you proof already that your memory was bad.

It's been demonstrated that:
1) Jerry Jones was a driving force for pushing for the cap.
2) That the cap was pushed for in the wake of SCOTUS ruling against Plan B FA and requiring unrestricted FA.
3) Green Bay signed Reggie White to a massive contract during this time.

There is no reason for anyone to buy what you are selling.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just don't get it. The Cowboys were forced to renegotiate contracts just to get any space to resign a couple of their own players and draft picks and this started the very first year of the draft and continued for 20 years. Starting the first year of the cap there was huge amounts of money added to the dead money and every year they had to renegotiate contracts that ended up adding more money to the dead money and that vicious cycle continued for twenty years until Stephen put a stop to it. He did that by letting a couple of big dollar players walk and sign cheaper ones and not having to renegotiate contracts that added dead money. I don't know where you were during all this but it was very well publicized and all of those articles pointed out that it went all the way back to the very first year of the cap. Now if you don't want to believe this I don't care but not believing it does not change what really actually happened.
.
.

The Cowboys used contract restructures to provide flexibility by design. Teams still do it all the time.

What didn't happen outside of the accelerated prorations of recently signed contracts in that two year period I mentioned, there was never a mass roster purge or the like as cap hell would imply.

I have read the last two CBAs. I have read each of the NFL SCOTUS cases. I get the NFL market just fine. You're the one claiming a market with price controls is a free one and with no idea what a corporate trust is.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You clearly have zero idea about what you are talking about and zero ability to admit being wrong. I'm not wasting my time anymore.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Human memory from 20 years ago is fallible it's not funny. I gave you proof already that your memory was bad.

It's been demonstrated that:
1) Jerry Jones was a driving force for pushing for the cap.
2) That the cap was pushed for in the wake of SCOTUS ruling against Plan B FA and requiring unrestricted FA.
3) Green Bay signed Reggie White to a massive contract during this time.

There is no reason for anyone to buy what you are selling.

AGAIN you keep pushing things that have been refuted, one thing you were/still are clueless on. I've explained the Reggie White thing that you are still clueless on and that AGAIN it was the packers and browns who started the push for the salary cap. Also AGAIN Jones original reason for voting for the cap was as he said then that he would vote with the majority because being a newer owner he did not want to alienate the other owners on the first big issue since becoming an owner.

This is the end of this. I've been a Cowboys fan since their very first day Jan.28, 1960 and have been around to see what has happened with them since then. This is my last comment on this no matter what BS you may reply, I will ignore.
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

The Cowboys used contract restructures to provide flexibility by design. Teams still do it all the time.

What didn't happen outside of the accelerated prorations of recently signed contracts in that two year period I mentioned, there was never a mass roster purge or the like as cap hell would imply.

I have read the last two CBAs. I have read each of the NFL SCOTUS cases. I get the NFL market just fine. You're the one claiming a market with price controls is a free one and with no idea what a corporate trust is.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You clearly have zero idea about what you are talking about and zero ability to admit being wrong. I'm not wasting my time anymore.

Your knowledge of what happened to the Cowboys when the cap started is, I was going to say limited but I'm changing it to none. AGAIN you seem to think free market is an employee term and it's not. The NFL as a league, as a business is and operates as and in the free market. Here's what you just don't get. Every time the TV contracts expire can the NFL market their product to whomever they choose for as much as they can get? The answer is YES, WHY because the NFL operates as and in the free market society we live in. There are no outside forces that controls how and for how much they can market their product for other than what the free market will go. You're under this delusion that the employees of the NFL, the players, are what defines free market and it's not, they are employees.

Your right this ends here and now.
.
.

 

[Clove]

To put it simply, some owners want to spend, some owners don't. The cap evens it out.
They don't want the Jerry Jones' of the world buying ALL THE PLAYERS.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your knowledge of what happened to the Cowboys when the cap started is, I was going to say limited but I'm changing it to none. AGAIN you seem to think free market is an employee term and it's not. The NFL as a league, as a business is and operates as and in the free market. Here's what you just don't get. Every time the TV contracts expire can the NFL market their product to whomever they choose for as much as they can get? The answer is YES, WHY because the NFL operates as and in the free market society we live in. There are no outside forces that controls how and for how much they can market their product for other than what the free market will go. You're under this delusion that the employees of the NFL, the players, are what defines free market and it's not, they are employees.

Your right this ends here and now.
.
.

Not when it puts price controls on the labor market it is not. Labor is part of the market whether you like it or not. the NFL utilizes its trust to do so.

And they are not employees. They are contractual laborers. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[Diehardblues]

Not when it puts price controls on the labor market it is not. Labor is part of the market whether you like it or not. the NFL utilizes its trust to do so.

And they are not employees. They are contractual laborers. Your ignorance is showing.

Right!

And to expand the players are members of the NFLPA which is their governing body which negotiates bargaining agreements with the NFL.

Much like players opting out of the season this year. Those are negotiated by the Players Union. The Salary Cap, Rookie contract guidelines, etc are all negotiated by the NFLPA.

The players are contractual laborers for the Franchises in conjunction with their Union. The players benefits , insurance and pensions are all negotiated and provided by the Union not the Franchises.

 

[Whirlwin]

I've tried but it's hard to find twenty year old articles but that doesn't change what I witnessed from the start of the salary cap.
.
.

I totally believe your integrity my cowboy brother. These people just don’t know you

 

[Whirlwin]

Not when it puts price controls on the labor market it is not. Labor is part of the market whether you like it or not. the NFL utilizes its trust to do so.

And they are not employees. They are contractual laborers. Your ignorance is showing.

They are employees. Under contract. Did not self Inc. That’s what you’re not understanding. You don’t have to be self-employed to be on the contract.There’s a difference between corporations employees and self-employed.

 

[Whirlwin]

Your knowledge of what happened to the Cowboys when the cap started is, I was going to say limited but I'm changing it to none. AGAIN you seem to think free market is an employee term and it's not. The NFL as a league, as a business is and operates as and in the free market. Here's what you just don't get. Every time the TV contracts expire can the NFL market their product to whomever they choose for as much as they can get? The answer is YES, WHY because the NFL operates as and in the free market society we live in. There are no outside forces that controls how and for how much they can market their product for other than what the free market will go. You're under this delusion that the employees of the NFL, the players, are what defines free market and it's not, they are employees.

Your right this ends here and now.
.
.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. These people just don’t understand the difference between self-employed employed under contract and then Inc. NFL players are employed. By their employer. Under contract. That doesn’t mean their self employed. Like these people would like to think. Self-employed Requires to be under cooperation. In most states

 

[Whirlwin]

So it was delusional that the Cowboys were in cap hell for twenty years?
.
.

They wernt in Cap hell it was a delusion.It only took restriction if they want to come on you know that