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!

     

Goodells's secret relocation plans?


GolfRasta

Recommended Posts

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/8/7/4592730/nfl-relocation-london-la-rams-jaguars-raiders

 

You probably suspect that the NFL has private files describing several possible relocation scenarios -- teams in London, Los Angeles, Toronto and so on. That's just the tip of a very dark, detailed iceberg, as we've recently discovered. Below, for the first time anywhere, is Roger Goodell's working plan to relocate every single team off North America.

YET TO BE PLACED

Carolina Panthers -> ?. We have yet to find a country willing to take in Jimmy Clausen.

Cleveland Browns -> North Korea. The regime's history of media fabrications means we are the closest we will ever be to a "BROWNS WIN SUPER BOWL" headline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't expand past thirty two. There's enough parity and the lack of talent on some 3rd string teams shows that the talent gap would just widen. I like the 32 set up and it stays competitive year after year. The NFC West went from suck to the best defensive league in 3 seasons. Parity my friends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hey, if i made you guys feel better about yourselves today, it was worth it ;)

Actually it makes me quite sad and maybe I will defend and support Jimmy Clausen more since he has been "classy" as an inactive third QB.

I just have higher expectations for a guy named THE HUDDLER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

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