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!

     

Some owners would rather lose season than keep current system

ncguy2184

By ncguy2184,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

ncguy2184 Enthusiast

ncguy2184

Posted
Posted

“I don’t think any of the major areas are getting closer,” King said. “The biggest area right now is that I believe there are owners out there — prominent owners — that if the system isn’t fixed to where it was a lot closer to pre-’06 levels than it is now . . . I think there are some owners would rather just lose the season.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/17/king-some-owners-would-rather-lose-season-than-keep-current-system/

Maybe Jerry Richardson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urrymonster Newbie

Urrymonster

Posted
Posted

The thing is, it is the owner's money, so I am not surprised they aren't keen on the players taking 60% of the revenue.

Frankly I don't see how that is a viable business model at all, so if the owner's do not get this right now, then I don't blame them.

Problem is the players are used to getting what they want the last few years with frankly ridiculous sized contracts, which is mainly the owner's fault. It's a bit like spoiling your kid all it's life, then suddenly changing to get them to fend for themselves.

If they actually looked at it objectively, the 16% drop isn't much (take 16% from their wages and it's not a big difference at the wages they get). Most will be made up due to the rookie scale and there would likely be more for veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherfan49 Newbie

pantherfan49

Posted
Posted

When you factor in the salaries for coaches, concessions operators, training staff, marketing, etc, I am sure that the % of revenue being paid out to "employees" is at 70% or greater. I challenge anyone to find another industry that pays that much out to employees. You won't because it simply isn't a sustainable business model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urrymonster Newbie

Urrymonster

Posted
Posted

When you factor in the salaries for coaches, concessions operators, training staff, marketing, etc, I am sure that the % of revenue being paid out to "employees" is at 70% or greater. I challenge anyone to find another industry that pays that much out to employees. You won't because it simply isn't a sustainable business model.

Bingo

Try telling the fat kid at the party he has to share the cake with the others children. The players will not accept less because they are used to getting more than everyone else, including the owner's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      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.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...