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!

     

Come on, England!


Matt Foley

Recommended Posts

http://rushthecourt.net/2010/06/10/a-college-basketball-fans-guide-to-watching-the-world-cup/#more-21959

England. America’s first opponent reminds us a lot of the Kentucky program from the last couple of years. England has a proud history, a crazed but phenomenal fan base, and some titles in their past, but have posted some disappointing results in recent World Cups while playing under coaches that might not have been good fits for such a high-pressure job. Kentucky went through a similar phase from 2007-2009 under Billy Gillispie, but hope returned when a new coach of Italian descent arrived in the form of John Calipari (for England, it’s Fabio Capello) and loaded the team with exciting young stars and turned things around for them instantaneously. Like Kentucky last season, England is one of the top teams in this tournament and it wouldn’t surprise anyone if they won it all. Also like last year’s Wildcats, England are fielding a much more exciting team this time, with their version of John Wall being Wayne Rooney, a fierce competitor, great scorer, and exemplary teammate, not to mention a fellow who will gladly sacrifice his body to score, or assist on one. Similar to Wall, Rooney might be considered the best player in the game…were it not for just that one other guy (the aforementioned Messi, in the role of Evan Turner). And the recent English soccer infidelity scandal involving John Terry and Wayne Bridge makes this whole Eric Bledsoe nonsense look like a jaywalking ticket. Maybe we should have chosen Louisville.
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...