dollars 2 donuts Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 Just now, nedboy7 said: So you are saying professional athletes and franchise owners might have to make less money? Oh no. Maybe Trump can cut them a giant check from my taxes to fix this injustice!!! You make 3.2 billion? ...can I have some? 1
LB48 Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 4 hours ago, ngbills said: I know this can get to be a complicated situation. But owners do not give money to players at the same rate of increases in value so why do so on the downside? Values of teams have gone from $100M to billions. Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys for $140M and they are now worth $5.5B. Think about that. Can other businesses that have shut down now pay our employees half as much? Lets drop minimum wage in half to account for lost business. I dont have the answers but seems like a money grab by billionaire owners. If you want to treat the players this way trade some salary for ownership of the team. VALUE of franchises is all relative at this point.
Mr. WEO Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 Reports last year were that the NFL made 15 billion. If it drops 3.2 billion from last year, that still leaves 370 million per team. The cap in 2020 will be just over half that at 198 million. How would this lead to a "50%" reduction in the cap? 2
atlbillsfan1975 Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 4 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said: You can’t reduce agreed upon contracts. Only you mean by the percentage of the reduced cap. But you can’t change the contract. I’m not an attorney but I bet there is something in each contract for these very circumstances.
Rochesterfan Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Tortured Soul said: So, back to what Schefter said, a $3.2 billion revenue decline is $100 million per team. The salary cap is ~$200 million (slightly more). A 50% cut in the cap would be $100 million. Meaning that, if you take what Schefter is reporting at face value, the players would bear the entire loss. But that is not how the cap works - the cap is based on a under 50% of revenue. So with a salary cap of 215 million - the revenue per team would be about 450 million to get to that number. Now you cut about 100 million from each team (3.2 Billion) and the revenue would drop to 350 million - so the new salary cap would be about 170 - 175 million about a 22% decrease. I also think that is worst case - so I believe it would be closer 15% (a cap around 185 - 190 million). I still think that would be devastating for many teams - so I believe the NFL and NFLPA will work to maintain the cap and then keep it artificially low an the rebound side to make up for the lost revenue, but we will all see. 6 minutes ago, atlbillsfan1975 said: I’m not an attorney but I bet there is something in each contract for these very circumstances. I would doubt it - there is nothing for increases - I doubt the would have anything in place for major decreases. This will be totally uncharted territory- so my guess is the NFL and the NFLPA will have to work an agreement out because if not - several teams are going to be in trouble and a lot of veterans are getting cut and that is bad for everyone. 2
Mr. WEO Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: But that is not how the cap works - the cap is based on a under 50% of revenue. So with a salary cap of 215 million - the revenue per team would be about 450 million to get to that number. Now you cut about 100 million from each team (3.2 Billion) and the revenue would drop to 350 million - so the new salary cap would be about 170 - 175 million about a 22% decrease. I also think that is worst case - so I believe it would be closer 15% (a cap around 185 - 190 million). I still think that would be devastating for many teams - so I believe the NFL and NFLPA will work to maintain the cap and then keep it artificially low an the rebound side to make up for the lost revenue, but we will all see. I would doubt it - there is nothing for increases - I doubt the would have anything in place for major decreases. This will be totally uncharted territory- so my guess is the NFL and the NFLPA will have to work an agreement out because if not - several teams are going to be in trouble and a lot of veterans are getting cut and that is bad for everyone. Probably a force majeur clause in all the contracts, but if they are playing ll the games, don't see how they could invoke that. Only option to avoid losses is to not play some games. But if they don't play the games not sure what the recourse for the networks would be as far as paying full price for the season of broadcasts. 1
muppy Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 shrivel has such a sour ring to it not most mens favorite adjective just sayin'.....
machine gun kelly Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 6 hours ago, H2o said: I love that clip from Animal House. Always reminds me of my fraternity nutty days. As far as the decline, first, there is no way a 50% decline especially if college suspends until the spring, and they play on Saturday as they will increase the TV revenue. Second, the CBA is done so the players have to deal with the % of the revenue receives so everyone loses. Forgive me for being upset, but given how many regular Jim’s and Joe’s who are out of work with nothing or closed small businesses, I don’t have a ton of compassion.
Just Joshin' Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 1 hour ago, atlbillsfan1975 said: I’m not an attorney but I bet there is something in each contract for these very circumstances. It might be force majeure but that would more likely help the owners, not the players.
BuffaloRebound Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 The 50% number is absurd. Ratings will be huge. Look at the draft. Schefter is revealing himself to be a gigantic tool.
JetsFan20 Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 7 hours ago, BillsFan692 said: Pretty sure the players will strike lol Sorry, but it would be a terrible look for the players to make a fuss on this. Folks are risking their lives going to work for minimum wage right now. Plus it’s not like it’s cash going back into owners pockets 6 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said: The 50% number is absurd. Ratings will be huge. Look at the draft. Schefter is revealing himself to be a gigantic tool. One word-sponsorships. The Jets and Giants receive $ from almost every company that sells a food or beverage item in the building.
FireChans Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, JetsFan20 said: Sorry, but it would be a terrible look for the players to make a fuss on this. Folks are risking their lives going to work for minimum wage right now. Plus it’s not like it’s cash going back into owners pockets ???? Free Agency just happened. Clowney is siting out waiting for $20M per year. This isn’t a big deal for anyone.
JetsFan20 Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 Just now, FireChans said: ???? Free Agency just happened. Clowney is siting out waiting for $20M per year. This isn’t a big deal for anyone. One guy holding out for a contract is not the same as the players going on strike like some suggested.
FireChans Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 Just now, JetsFan20 said: One guy holding out for a contract is not the same as the players going on strike like some suggested. The players going on strike to protest a 50% paycut because the billionaire owners aren’t making as much money won’t have the effect you think it will.
BuffaloRebound Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 15 minutes ago, JetsFan20 said: Sorry, but it would be a terrible look for the players to make a fuss on this. Folks are risking their lives going to work for minimum wage right now. Plus it’s not like it’s cash going back into owners pockets One word-sponsorships. The Jets and Giants receive $ from almost every company that sells a food or beverage item in the building. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe those type of revenues are used in the 50% formula that is shared with players.
Florida Bills Fanatic Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 7 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said: I agree, there's no way they can reduce it more than 10%. The union would immediately get involved. The owners are just going to have to "wear it" for one year. It will all depend on the language in the collective bargaining agreement, which I have not taken the time to read. I seriously doubt that the players and their individual contracts are totally insulated from a drop in revenue by the league. The cap is based on a percentage of the total league revenue. Not all owners have the financial ability to "wear" it for a year. I also doubt that owners would ever agree to a labor contract in which they assume all of the risk associated with changes in revenue. The players negotiated for a labor contract which would give them a percentage of the total revenue and probably never considered a scenario like this. If they had settled for a flat total dollar amount for the cap as proposed by the owners, they would be in a stronger position. Players and the league will sort it out because they will have no choice. What we as fans should be concerned about are the inevitable increase in ticket prices, parking, beer, etc.. 1
klos63 Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 8 hours ago, ngbills said: I know this can get to be a complicated situation. But owners do not give money to players at the same rate of increases in value so why do so on the downside? Values of teams have gone from $100M to billions. Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys for $140M and they are now worth $5.5B. Think about that. Can other businesses that have shut down now pay our employees half as much? Lets drop minimum wage in half to account for lost business. I dont have the answers but seems like a money grab by billionaire owners. If you want to treat the players this way trade some salary for ownership of the team. This has nothing to do with team values. This is a collectively bargained agreement, than unless both parties agree to change, it's the deal. 1
Ethan in Cleveland Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 Not going to happen. As long as there is TV revenue nothing will change. The teams probably would net more money playing without fans by cutting employee costs. As long as the games are played on TV people will watch.
hjnick Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 3 hours ago, FireChans said: ???? Free Agency just happened. Clowney is siting out waiting for $20M per year. This isn’t a big deal for anyone. Clowney has overestimated his value, which is sad. He should talk with Houston's GM for a contract... He just gave a 3yr/66mil contract to an OT... Oops... I guess he probably can't go back there... Never burn bridges bro...?
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 8 hours ago, Florida Bills Fanatic said: It will all depend on the language in the collective bargaining agreement, which I have not taken the time to read. I seriously doubt that the players and their individual contracts are totally insulated from a drop in revenue by the league. The cap is based on a percentage of the total league revenue. Not all owners have the financial ability to "wear" it for a year. I also doubt that owners would ever agree to a labor contract in which they assume all of the risk associated with changes in revenue. The players negotiated for a labor contract which would give them a percentage of the total revenue and probably never considered a scenario like this. If they had settled for a flat total dollar amount for the cap as proposed by the owners, they would be in a stronger position. Players and the league will sort it out because they will have no choice. What we as fans should be concerned about are the inevitable increase in ticket prices, parking, beer, etc.. I agree, in the end the fans will be paying for this one way or another. 1
Recommended Posts