Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Goodell & the owners v. Fans


the butch

Recommended Posts

With the Brady ruling, Goodell's image obviously took a hit.  The media sentiment has been that the owners love Goodell because the league is making money.  At the very same time, the media says that the NFL is sui generis, and makes it's own money regardless.  If that's the case, getting rid of Goodell would be irrelevant seeing as how the consensus is that people will always watch.  Further, if Goodell is out, it seems that the brand would grow even more considering the general public hates him.  IMO, it seems that the only thing saving Goodell's job is his effort to expand the NFL abroad.  That's money, and the owners listen to that.  What's the Huddle's opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well written and equally thought out. I'm not sure what the targeted debate is though?

The thread, more or less I guess, is meant to be a Panthers forum fan discussion on Goodell's teetering [as I see it] position as head man of the NFL.  Free commentary is encouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Brady ruling, Goodell's image obviously took a hit.  The media sentiment has been that the owners love Goodell because the league is making money.  At the very same time, the media says that the NFL is sui generis, and makes it's own money regardless.  If that's the case, getting rid of Goodell would be irrelevant seeing as how the consensus is that people will always watch.  Further, if Goodell is out, it seems that the brand would grow even more considering the general public hates him.  IMO, it seems that the only thing saving Goodell's job is his effort to expand the NFL abroad.  That's money, and the owners listen to that.  What's the Huddle's opinion?

general public hating Goodell doesn't prevent them from making money...

he he is a face to hate....but basically instead of directing the hate at Richardson, Jones, etc.  Goodell gets most of it.  Owners like that.  

He is growing the game and the NFL is more profitable than ever.  He also despite the court rulings last from an owners perspective has done a great job against vs the union.

i think the owners are very pleased overall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RG is judge, jury and executioner........as it should be.

union signed on to it...... Courts should not be involved.

The thing with the courts, they can step in when the CBA--ANY CBA not just the NFL and the NFLPA's--is violated.  An arbitration award is nothing more than a contract.  That contract has no legal effect until the legal system gives confirmation.  The only reason arbitration exists is because the legal system needs to divert flow.  This CBA and the resulting negotiations wouldn't even exist if it were not for the court system allowing it.  So, to say the courts should not be involved is missing the point that the courts were involved in the first instance and have tried ever since to not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...