Captain Hindsight Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 1. Show me and I'll pay you Teams incur more financial risk by increasing bonus money. The hits teams take on guaranteed money or dead cap is what Buffalo is trying to remove with this strategy. We will offer very respectable to high end contracts without much guaranteed. The Bills are asking a player to keep performing, and if you do we will compensate you well. They might even jack up the player’s first year salary to show the commitment a signing bonus does. 2. Build threw the draft We won't bring in many guys demanding a ton of up front money so that shifts emphasis to building threw the draft. Isn't the draft how you build championships anyway? 3. Keep your own guys We will look to the draft but we will also look to renegotiate as early as possible. It's a method Buffalo has struggled with before but has shown some progress in recently. We will only get better at it as our emphasis shifts away from other FA's to our own. 4. FA Bust Hand a guy in his mid to late 20's over ten million dollars and see if he's plays as hard for you the following season. These guys are human, this is the payday they've waited for and the expectation of the next one is not a priority. 5. Character Good players who will play for us without demanding a huge bonus are guys who will have a high degree of character. It shows the player is willing to be compensated for actual performance and doesn't have the sense of entitlement that many players do. Dude good post In Marv We trust
obie_wan Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Any money that is guaranteed, even if called salary, is treated the same as a signing bonus and amortized.
oregonbbfan Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Don't what Antoine's contract woth Minnie stated but didn't they do a first year salary of $12 mill with no amoritization because it was not bonus and not garanteed. Because if you are on the starting day roster, you are garanteed your years salary. To guard against year ending injury, because that is a risk and a way for the team to back out, do an insurance policy for the OTA's and camp. Don't know if that answers how they did it but I think it covers it all and allows the team to take the signing money and not have to amortize it.
LynchMob23 Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Are football players insured like other pro athletes? DeLuca, Most of them insure themselves (or used to) through Lloyd's of London I thought. I know most of the big draft picks do. It's similar to pro-wrestlers (weird I know) in that they're considered independent contractors and therefore not the responsibility of the employer.
obie_wan Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 DeLuca,Most of them insure themselves (or used to) through Lloyd's of London I thought. I know most of the big draft picks do. It's similar to pro-wrestlers (weird I know) in that they're considered independent contractors and therefore not the responsibility of the employer. Players are employees of the NFL team, not independent contractors. Players do typically insure the non-guaranteed portion of their contracts.
socalfan Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Players are employees of the NFL team, not independent contractors. Players do typically insure the non-guaranteed portion of their contracts. No they are not. They are independent contractors.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 He would be stupid not to take deal one, but that’s assuming deal one is even on the table. I'm not making that assumption; I just used it as an example to show that even a wide gap in bonus money can be eliminated with front-loaded base salary. Tweak the numbers a little more and I'll show you a deal that’s more lucrative to the player after just his second year. You can even guarantee the first year of the deal. My point isn't to make our position sound better from a buying perspective, I'm just showing some of the things we can do and how we will still be involved in Free Agency. On a whole, and in theory, you're absolutely right. But this is reality, and reality is that the only reasons the Bills are doing this is to allow Ralph to claim poor AND to NOT spend more cash. So even though you can easily find ways that the contracts can be set up so the player will like it, that's 180 degrees against the Bills stance and philosophy, so what's the use? The Bills aren't against the cap rules or the way players are paid, the Bills are against paying a lot of cash.
Mikie2times Posted February 22, 2007 Author Posted February 22, 2007 On a whole, and in theory, you're absolutely right. But this is reality, and reality is that the only reasons the Bills are doing this is to allow Ralph to claim poor AND to NOT spend more cash. So even though you can easily find ways that the contracts can be set up so the player will like it, that's 180 degrees against the Bills stance and philosophy, so what's the use? The Bills aren't against the cap rules or the way players are paid, the Bills are against paying a lot of cash. Would you say our future is doomed? We seem to disagree most the time but I respect your opinions and feel you’re a very knowledgeable guy when it comes to football. I guess I would be disappointed if you thought that way. All things aside I do see a world of obstacles ahead for the franchise, and I'm very worried about our future. I'm just trying to stay positive by looking at ways we can remain competitive.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Would you say our future is doomed? We seem to disagree most the time but I respect your opinions and feel you’re a very knowledgeable guy when it comes to football. I guess I would be disappointed if you thought that way. All things aside I do see a world of obstacles ahead for the franchise, and I'm very worried about our future. I'm just trying to stay positive by looking at ways we can remain competitive. Here's what I think, and it's just an opinion. 1] No, we're not doomed. 2] Ralph wants something from the league. He thinks he needs it for Bills survival in Buffalo, and he's likely right, or at the very least it's important. And it's six million a year and soon to be ten million a year. That's a lot of money to anyone. The league has promised him he'll get it, and not to worry about it. The big owners have said don't worry about it. The old commish and the new commish have said don't worry about it, you'll get it. But no one has done anything about it, and Ralph, perhaps because he's getting cranky, and perhaps because he's damn right, is sick of this promising and thinks they may be just stringing him along and placating him. Because of that, he has publicly claimed in several places that the Bills cannot survive without it. And until he gets it, he is going to do things like this: Have the team come out publicly and say we can't spend like other teams, we don't have the cash. He's a smart dude. It's likely going to work. IMO, he would get it anyway. 3] He doesn't like when he overspends for players and they don't produce. The last several times he has done it, it has backfired. RJ. Flutie. Moulds. Spikes. Milloy. Mike Williams. Most of the bigger contracts he has given the nod to have not turned out well for him. All for different and unrelated reasons but it's basically true. So he's sick of it. And he doesn't think certain positions are worth it. Whether he is right or not about it is another post. So again, I think that's part deux of why he put this edict down. 4] One thing for sure about this that I don't think has even been brought up, it's impossible for this to have been Marv's idea. Marv PRIDES himself on not knowing what the cap is, not knowing what we're paying players, not worrying about any negotiations and the finances of the team and leaving them to Overdorf and Ralph. So this wasn't Marv's idea at all. I am virtually positive this just came from Ralph, perhaps through Overdorf. But without question this was Ralph's idea and not Marv's. 5] Once this qualifiers thing is settled, Ralph may not be so skittish, and that could happen at any time as they have a conference call and a face to face meeting in the next week I think (before FA). It probably won't be settled before FA (for all I know the slimeball owners are purposefully dragging it out so Ralph and some others don't compete against them for the top free agents). 6] The team was and can be greatly improved through the draft and through smart free agents and better coaching and the evolution of some young talent. This cash to the cash philosophy ONLY affects the top 5-10% of the names and most of those guys we don't want anyway. My problem with it is only because we cannot sign Nate and/or a Steinbach and maybe not even the other two top guards or LBs or a Drew Bennett if we wanted. Most of the other FA's we can sign if we want and they want. 7] This is a self-imposed guideline. They can break it any time they want. They may very well be thinking with regard to say, JP, or Evans, that they will scrap that and pay them what they are worth next year. I am not sure either way about it except that I know they have the money if they want to pay it. This isn't an official hindrance, it's a self-inflicted one and Ralph can just say "Nevermind" whenever he feels like it. Even this year he can. If Marv and Modrak and John Guy say we can get these two players and they are ready to sign and the total goes over the 30 mil by 2-3 million, and Jauron says we could sure use them, IMO, Ralph will say "Git 'er done, Marv", be a hero and look like he's not stingy. I'm not saying that will happen, we need the two guys first and them agreeing to our offers, but I could easily see it happening. 8] In order for us to improve significantly, under these guidelines, however, it has to be the perfect storm. We are going to lose our best defensive player. We are not going to significantly upgrade both lines unless two rookies come in and immediately start and are terrific, and the likelihood of that is not good. We need a great draft and a great role player FA period and great coaching and no injuries and career years for us to be a serious contender. But I don't think we are doomed.
Mikie2times Posted February 22, 2007 Author Posted February 22, 2007 Here's what I think, and it's just an opinion. 1] No, we're not doomed. 2] Ralph wants something from the league. He thinks he needs it for Bills survival in Buffalo, and he's likely right, or at the very least it's important. And it's six million a year and soon to be ten million a year. That's a lot of money to anyone. The league has promised him he'll get it, and not to worry about it. The big owners have said don't worry about it. The old commish and the new commish have said don't worry about it, you'll get it. But no one has done anything about it, and Ralph, perhaps because he's getting cranky, and perhaps because he's damn right, is sick of this promising and thinks they may be just stringing him along and placating him. Because of that, he has publicly claimed in several places that the Bills cannot survive without it. And until he gets it, he is going to do things like this: Have the team come out publicly and say we can't spend like other teams, we don't have the cash. He's a smart dude. It's likely going to work. IMO, he would get it anyway. 3] He doesn't like when he overspends for players and they don't produce. The last several times he has done it, it has backfired. RJ. Flutie. Moulds. Spikes. Milloy. Mike Williams. Most of the bigger contracts he has given the nod to have not turned out well for him. All for different and unrelated reasons but it's basically true. So he's sick of it. And he doesn't think certain positions are worth it. Whether he is right or not about it is another post. So again, I think that's part deux of why he put this edict down. 4] One thing for sure about this that I don't think has even been brought up, it's impossible for this to have been Marv's idea. Marv PRIDES himself on not knowing what the cap is, not knowing what we're paying players, not worrying about any negotiations and the finances of the team and leaving them to Overdorf and Ralph. So this wasn't Marv's idea at all. I am virtually positive this just came from Ralph, perhaps through Overdorf. But without question this was Ralph's idea and not Marv's. 5] Once this qualifiers thing is settled, Ralph may not be so skittish, and that could happen at any time as they have a conference call and a face to face meeting in the next week I think (before FA). It probably won't be settled before FA (for all I know the slimeball owners are purposefully dragging it out so Ralph and some others don't compete against them for the top free agents). 6] The team came be greatly improved through the draft and through smart free agents and better coaching and the evolution of some young talent. This cash to the cash philosophy ONLY affects the top 5-10% of the names and most of those guys we don't want anyway. My problem with it is only because we cannot sign Nate and/or a Steinbach and maybe not even the other two top guards or LBs or a Drew Bennett if we wanted. Most of the other FA's we can sign if we want and they want. 7] This is a self-imposed guideline. They can break it any time they want. They may very well be thinking with regard to say, JP, or Evans, that they will scrap that and pay them what they are worth next year. I am not sure either way about it except that I know they have the money if they want to pay it. This isn't an official hindrance, it's a self-inflicted one and Ralph can just say "Nevermind" whenever he feels like it. Even this year he can. If Marv and Modrak and John Guy says we can get these two players and they are ready to sign and the total goes over the 30 mil by 2-3 million, and Jauron says we could sure use them, IMO, Ralph will say "Git 'er done, Marv", be a hero and look like he's not stingy. I'm not saying that will happen but I could easily see it happening. 8] In order for us to improve significantly, under these guidelines, however, it has to be the perfect storm. We are going to lose our best defensive player. We are not going to significantly upgrade both lines unless two rookies come in and immediately start and are terrific, and the likelihood of that is not good. We need a great draft and a great role player FA period and great coaching and no injuries and career years for us to be a serious contender. But I don't think we are doomed. I would say that’s a very reasonable and accurate take on things. Good post.
socalfan Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 Here's what I think, and it's just an opinion.......4] One thing for sure about this that I don't think has even been brought up, it's impossible for this to have been Marv's idea. Marv PRIDES himself on not knowing what the cap is, not knowing what we're paying players, not worrying about any negotiations and the finances of the team and leaving them to Overdorf and Ralph. So this wasn't Marv's idea at all. I am virtually positive this just came from Ralph, perhaps through Overdorf. But without question this was Ralph's idea and not Marv's. ....... I agree mostly, but disagree with it being Ralph's idea. I think it more likely Littman's idea.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 I agree mostly, but disagree with it being Ralph's idea. I think it more likely Littman's idea. What makes you think that? It's possible but I have never once heard of Littman making any financial edicts like this, and I have heard numerous times of Ralph doing so, or being the man that gives the final say so on contracts. I just find no reason or history for thinking Littman would decide this.
BillsVet Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 What's the point of arguing about the source of this spending guideline? Whether Marv, Littman, Ralph, Overdorf, or Jauron made it, we're still most likley adhering to something. As much as it holds the line on spending I fear it'll creatse an environment in which the team will be in that 7-9/8-8/9-7 window. Remarkably, 15 teams in 2006 finished with records within that range. There's two sides to every coin. I have a feeling some think this is good primarily because it ensures more responsible spending. The flip side to that is people will view this as being cheap. Ralph has some points about the revenue sharing that must be addressed. But I'm not so certain the NFL, in the form of Tagliabue and Goodell, are purposely giving Ralph a hard time. I can see a character like Jerry Jones doing something like that. I'm not clear on the exact cut of the TV revenue pie the Bills receive from the league, but I'm sure it'll cancel out their payroll responsibilities. While few people see enough of the big picture about the financial situation Buffalo finds itself in, I believe there must be something done about the spiraling salary situation. If one refers back to the franchise salaries 2-3 years ago, there's a considerable difference. All in all, the bottom line is people want to see more winning than losing. How you get there, it doesn't matter. Just winning and playoffs.
obie_wan Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 What makes you think that? It's possible but I have never once heard of Littman making any financial edicts like this, and I have heard numerous times of Ralph doing so, or being the man that gives the final say so on contracts. I just find no reason or history for thinking Littman would decide this. Ralph may set the direction, but Littman makes all financial decisions regarding the Bills and Ralph's other companies - he just stays out of the limelight.
obie_wan Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 No they are not. They are independent contractors. The Bills issue w-2s to the players. Independent contractors do not get W-2s.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Ralph may set the direction, but Littman makes all financial decisions regarding the Bills and Ralph's other companies - he just stays out of the limelight. This is "a direction".
Booster4324 Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 B.The second team signs a guy to a 2 million dollar bonus and amortizes it over the 5 years. The cost in cap terms would be 400,000 per year for the bonus. His base salary is made up of the remaining 23 million on the deal and will be front loaded. It would probably be something like 25% in year 1, 20% in year 2, 20% in year 3, 20% in year 4 and 15% in year 5. The total value of the contract adding in the bonus would be. Year 1- 6.15 Million Value after First year 7.75 Million Year 2- 5.0 Million Value after Second year 12.35 Million Year 3- 5.0 Million Value after Third year 16.95 Million Year 4- 5.0 Million Value after Fourth year 21.55 Million Year 5- 3.85 Million Value after Fifth year 25 Million Is it possible to frontload a players salary like this? I sorta had the vague impression that their salaries had to increase every year. I really like the idea of it if so, as it is an excellent way to keep your dead cap amount at a minimum. This would allow for some real serious cap advantages in the ensuing years too. Of course the contracts would need to be more frontloaded to be competitive. Downside of course is we would eat the available cap space up like mad.
Mikie2times Posted February 24, 2007 Author Posted February 24, 2007 Is it possible to frontload a players salary like this? I sorta had the vague impression that their salaries had to increase every year. I really like the idea of it if so, as it is an excellent way to keep your dead cap amount at a minimum. This would allow for some real serious cap advantages in the ensuing years too. Of course the contracts would need to be more frontloaded to be competitive. Downside of course is we would eat the available cap space up like mad. Yes you can structure it like this. It's just not a popular format because you need so much cap room and it's not an efficient way to clear immediate cap space. For our situation it would be a very good strategy to employ.
JimBob2232 Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Yes you can structure it like this. It's just not a popular format because you need so much cap room and it's not an efficient way to clear immediate cap space. For our situation it would be a very good strategy to employ. Such a strategy also increases the likelyhood of future holdouts when the salary drops below what he can earn on the free market.
Mikie2times Posted February 25, 2007 Author Posted February 25, 2007 Such a strategy also increases the likelyhood of future holdouts when the salary drops below what he can earn on the free market. The player never sees the last few years of a back loaded contract anyway so that points irrelevant.
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts