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!

     

Bears and Broncos willing to open up the books.


eViL jEsTeR

Recommended Posts

We'd be the last team to open ours.

Incorrect by a long shot. Dallas will never open theirs. NE, Washington would be right there with them. They don't want to because it would show small market owners they have TONS of extra money that could be disbursed in revenue sharing. Hell it might show they have been hiding money that should have been shared in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect by a long shot. Dallas will never open theirs. NE, Washington would be right there with them. They don't want to because it would show small market owners they have TONS of extra money that could be disbursed in revenue sharing. Hell it might show they have been hiding money that should have been shared in the first place.

Spot on point.

Teams opening their books would have consequences in the league well beyond the CBA. It woudl drive a wedge between small market and big market teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you say, "MLB?"

And it's not so much what, how or where the teams are making money as much as it is the right of a privately owned entity to keep their books shut.

Unless I have a publicly owned company with a bunch of stockholders to keep happy and Wall Street has their rules, why should I open my books every time someone asks?

How about if everyone on the board agrees to show me all their personal bank records?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...