Cooley not happy with the way Rookies are paid...

[fleetus]

I find the whole argument amusing. Poor Chris feels the compensation system isn't fair. I got news for Chris...even the league minimum is 7-10 times more than the average salary of folks who actually work for a living in this country. And that paltry signing bonus of $600,000 (paid up front) that Ole Chris had to get by on would take the average guy 16 YEARS to earn.

To really put things into perspective, Chris made 1,730,000 (including the signing bonus) in his first three years. The average income in the US is 37,000. It would take the average Joe making 37K a total of 46 YEARS to earn that much money....with no 30 Mil bonus contract waiting for average joe at the end.

I like Chris y, and he is a fine player, but if I had a tomato, and was close enough during that conversation, he'd better be ducking. There are a 100 Million Americans going to work everyday that would love to have his money problems, and 2 Billion more world wide who envy the average joe making 37K.

News flash for Chirs y.....sometimes life just ain't very fair.

Wow, you totally missed the arguement!

Chris isn't crying his way to the bank about how the rookies are making more money than himself.

He's pointing out that the rookies are getting paid more money than anyone else on the team BEFORE anyone even knows if they can even play.

That be like hiring a person with NO EXPIRIENCE for a job and paying them more than someone who's been on the job for 6 years.

It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players.

Bull. The whole flipping world works that way!! In fact, it's hard to find a situation that doesn't work that way anymore. Go get a degree at Harvard or Yale University, apply for a business management position (zero work experience) and you'll be hired at a much higher salary than a current employee at that company who carries a degree from the community college that has been working there for years. The Ivy league degree just carries a greater "perceived" value but the actual person could turn out to be a total loser. Is that fair? No. It's just the way things work.

The entire NFL compensation structure is just a microcosm of the backasswards economic system we all are forced to endure....and fairness has nothing to do with any of it.

One particularly glaring parallel between the NFL and real world is how a small handful of the top paid players receive the disproportionate amount of the overall salary for each team. Where oh where does that happen outside the NFL? Everywhere, that's where.

We see established star players being released in order to cut salary costs, and the same thing happens in private industry everyday.

The only way you are going to find salary fairness anywhere is either being a blue collar union worker paid on a scale or work a minimum wage job (universal slave wage). Everywhere else, inequity is the rule...not the exception.

What's fair about a food distributor that makes ten times the profit on the food a farmer produced? 25 years ago corporate executives were paid 3-5 times that of the worker in the same company....today they're paid 100 times....500 times more. This isn't a direct analogy, just another example of inequity.

Some of the most valuable jobs in our society are some of the lowest paid...teachers. And even within Academia, the same situation is prevalent. A fresh off the press PhD gets offered a tenured position at a University making tons more money than an adjunct professor that's been teaching there for a decade....I know, cuz I lived with one. I could list examples in every line of work, including personal experiences in three separate industries.

So much for your "It doesn't work in any other job market except for sports players" bologna. The only difference is that everyone of the NFL players, including those making the minimum earn ten times what the average Joe makes, and not a one of them have to worry about paying bills. I'm so sorry if some of them can afford 5 Ferrari's , while another can afford only 1.

As for the point, I read the piece, and he was complaining about his earnings as compared to some new rookies, explaining how it was unfair, and how he had to "EARN" his big numbers while some rookies get it before ever playing. I didn't miss the point. Obviously Chris and YOU are missing the point.... because even those figures he "earned" in his first 3 years places him in the TOP ONE PERCENT of income in the country. And if there is any point at all here, it is ALL OF THEM make way too much money for their valuable service to society, but I don't see any of them...y included, suggesting that!

The bigger problem I see is the free agent structure and the salary cap and how that is calculated and manipulated. And FA is an issue the players brought on themselves. They were greedy, and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. The results of that is what they are now complaining about. Big signing bonuses are offered for cap purposes...a cap that didn't exist until the free agency issue was forced by the players.

And all of those big, back end loaded contracts are rarely achieved. Only the most elite players ever see those big back end numbers....the rest take a pay cut or they get traded or released.

The whole thing sounds like spoiled brat syndrome. "How come he gets 10 Million and I only got 5?

Sean Taylor had it right when he said players earn "a kings ransom for playing a child's game". Every one of them.

Yeah, Harvard and Yale vs. a community college is a great example No relationship to drafted players who have the exact same background (college football) as the veteran players minus the experience the vets have playing in the NFL.

Just like the NFL institutes a salary cap so that small market teams compete on a nearly level playing field with big market teams, they should also institute some form of rookie salary control so rookies can be paid well but not exorbitantly.

[RayNAustin]

Sounded like sour grapes to me.

I agree that the rookies are paid too much, but I think they all are, vets included.

What irks me is that it costs a father of 4 more to take his kids to Redskin game than it used to cost for a week's vacation at the beach. $35 bucks to park after paying the high price of tickets is a slap in the face that you then wash down with a $7 beer. And, all so that these guys can complain about salaries that dwarf the earnings of the fans who help pay them? It's an insult all the way around, and if any of us had a brain, we'd be going on strike instead of listening to them talk about it, and sympathizing with their ridiculous whining.

The fans are the ones being screwed purple. There is little player loyalty anymore, as they are quick to complain and jump ship for a few more bucks. Guys like Darrel Green and Brett Favre who retire with their teams is very rare, and getting rarer.

I have no sympathy for Chris ey.....get a job and work for a living, at 20 bucks an hour if the NFL is so unfair.

[yupchagee]

Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

But I don't think that is what you are saying...is it?

Your statement about limiting salaries & reducing ticket prices is worthy of Karl himself, comrade. Let the marketplace work. I checked the constitution, there is nothing about a right to cheap tickets for the NFL.

[RayNAustin]

Yeah, Harvard and Yale vs. a community college is a great example No relationship to drafted players who have the exact same background (college football) as the veteran players minus the experience the vets have playing in the NFL.

Really.....you think their is no relationship? Guess what....if Colt Brennan had played at LSU with the numbers he posted in college, he'd have been a top 10 pick in the first round, and one of those huge salaries ey was whining about....but he didn't, did he? No, because he played at Hawaii

Just like the NFL institutes a salary cap so that small market teams compete on a nearly level playing field with big market teams, they should also institute some form of rookie salary control so rookies can be paid well but not exorbitantly.

And how would that work, Comrade? Would that be a sliding scale or would the 6th round picks all get the same money as the 4th rounders. What about position? Would QB's get more than O-linemen or would they be the same. Maybe a $ value on position in the draft and position played....but then teams would be manipulating that. What about undrafted FA? What would you do about that? You couldn't cap that because they are free agents, then drafted rookies would be complaining that the undrafted rookies were being paid more.

God forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Look, the cap is part of the problem, and you can't fix problems with more problems. The only way to fix this is to inject some integrity into the process, and remove the legal wrangling that makes contracts not worth the paper they're written on. That would be a good start.

What I mean is, when a team and a player agree to the contract, both are required to live up to it. You agree to play for a specified $$ for 5 years, you do it. It doesn't matter what someone else may negotiate a year, two or three later. That is them, and not you. Teams would also be held responsible, and not allowed to sign you to a 7 year contract with 70% of the money loaded in the last three years that they have no intention of paying, and release you after year 4. That would eliminate the overpaying for rookies and cutting vets to pay for it.

It's really nothing more than observing honesty and integrity.

Guess what? It's none of my business how much money you make, and how much I make is none of yours. If I agree to work for 20 bucks an hour, and you come along and negotiate better and get 22, how does that change my agreement? How am I losing any money? I'm not.

Yet we aren't talking about 20 bucks an hour. All of these guys make a lot of money, even the lowest paid minimums are lucrative.

You agreed to play, and you got a fat check for doing it, so shut up and play, and quit worrying and whining about how fat someone else's paycheck is.

[RayNAustin]

Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

But I don't think that is what you are saying...is it?

Your statement about limiting salaries & reducing ticket prices is worthy of Karl himself, comrade. Let the marketplace work. I checked the constitution, there is nothing about a right to cheap tickets for the NFL.

Ah ha....you aren't as dim as your earlier posts would have suggested. You see, it's exactly the same concept. Hence my use of comrade....and just like that! You got it. I'm not sure who I'm more proud of, me or you.

Nothing at all "free market" about salary caps either, and putting more caps in place won't make the first more free. And I dare say there is nothing to be found in the constitution to support limiting salaries of football players either, including Rookies.

The only difference is that I didn't suggest binding rules or acts of congress mandating a reduction in ticket prices. I just said I'd like to see that happen, and I also suggested how to make that happen through the time test free market way of refusing to pay $35 to park your car. But the masses will never come together because they're too stupid to realize how brutally they are being screwed, among other things.

[yupchagee]

Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.

It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

But I don't think that is what you are saying...is it?

Your statement about limiting salaries & reducing ticket prices is worthy of Karl himself, comrade. Let the marketplace work. I checked the constitution, there is nothing about a right to cheap tickets for the NFL.

Ah ha....you aren't as dim as your earlier posts would have suggested. You see, it's exactly the same concept. Hence my use of comrade....and just like that! You got it. I'm not sure who I'm more proud of, me or you.

Nothing at all "free market" about salary caps either, and putting more caps in place won't make the first more free. And I dare say there is nothing to be found in the constitution to support limiting salaries of football players either, including Rookies.

The only difference is that I didn't suggest binding rules or acts of congress mandating a reduction in ticket prices. I just said I'd like to see that happen, and I also suggested how to make that happen through the time test free market way of refusing to pay $35 to park your car. But the masses will never come together because they're too stupid to realize how brutally they are being screwed, among other things.

If people are willing to pay those prices they are not getting screwed. They are making the decision that the service is worth the price. It may not be worth it to you, & I know it is not worth it to me, but if some people are willing to pay that price, fine. That's the free market at work.

[GSPODS]

Suffice it to say this thread has gone off on a tangent.

What seems to me like the most logical proposal is something along the following lines:

UDFA: $400,000 Guaranteed Salary(League Minimum)
7th Round Draft Selection: $500,000 Guaranteed Salary
6th Round Draft Selection: $600,000 Guaranteed Salary
5th Round Draft Selection: $700,000 Guaranteed Salary
4th Round Draft Selection: $800,000 Guaranteed Salary
3rd Round Draft Selection: $900,000 Guaranteed Salary
2nd Round Draft Selection: $1,000,000 Guaranteed Salary
1st Round Draft Selection: $2,000,000 Guaranteed Salary for four years. Contract addendum stating if the draft selection should become among the top 10 players at his position within the terms of the initial contract, the player would then automatically qualify for a renegotiated contract equal to that of the "Franchise Player Tag" contract.

Draft picks and their agents would still be free to negotiate any bonuses above and beyond the guaranteed contract.

How it would benefit the Owners:
In business, it isn't about the investment. It is about the return on the investment. A four year guaranteed contract would give an owner enough time to evaluate the cost / benefit of the draft pick.

How it benefits the player: The contract is guaranteed for four years at a set salary, meaning no backloaded contracts the owners can opt out of by cutting or trading the player. The four year term means the player will either become a Franchise Player and be paid accordingly, or will become an Unrestricted Free Agent at the end of the contract.

The above dollar values are intended to be a scale, and not necessarily actual amounts. And there are hundreds of talking points from both sides of the argument which would have to be worked out.

I think another member had the right idea, which is that unless or until the players agents are eliminated from the equation, this issue may never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Without agents, these draft picks would see the guaranteed figures as acceptable. It is the agents, and not the draft picks, who make a federal case out of the seventh and eighth zeros being to the left of the decimal point, as opposed to the right. The reason is not the interest of their new client. The reason is pure and simple greed. Agents are paid by percentage, so the larger the contract the more they are stuffing their own pockets.

For perspective, how many of us have hired a lawyer to negotiate our employment contract when a company stated they wanted to hire us? Did anyone ever say, "I'll have to have my agent call you to work out the details."

There is no comparison between the NFL as it exists under the current CBA and "normal" business.

Even the executives hired by the Gateses and Buffetts of the world aren't stupid enough to say "As much as I appreciate the seven or eight figure offer, I'll have to have my agent review this and get back with you."

[1niksder]

Suffice it to say this thread has gone off on a tangent.

What seems to me like the most logical proposal is something along the following lines:

UDFA: $400,000 Guaranteed Salary(League Minimum)
7th Round Draft Selection: $500,000 Guaranteed Salary
6th Round Draft Selection: $600,000 Guaranteed Salary
5th Round Draft Selection: $700,000 Guaranteed Salary
4th Round Draft Selection: $800,000 Guaranteed Salary
3rd Round Draft Selection: $900,000 Guaranteed Salary
2nd Round Draft Selection: $1,000,000 Guaranteed Salary
1st Round Draft Selection: $2,000,000 Guaranteed Salary for four years. Contract addendum stating if the draft selection should become among the top 10 players at his position within the terms of the initial contract, the player would then automatically qualify for a renegotiated contract equal to that of the "Franchise Player Tag" contract.

To avoid overpaying you want to guarantee rookie salaries? What happens when it's time to sign a new contract, why wouldn't this one-time rookie want the same security (Guaranteed salary)? If they have top 10 performances you automactically qualify them for top 5 pay?

Draft picks and their agents would still be free to negotiate any bonuses above and beyond the guaranteed contract.

So what will have changed? They make their high salaries through the bonus money the agent negotiate anyway. Look at it this way, under your proposed system, Laron Landry would have the same contract with his $17M worth of bonus money, because that's' what his agent got him. you want to lock him into a $2M salary for four years. Here's the problem
1. Landry signed a six year deal... what do you do with the other two years.
2. Under his current deal his salary goes up each year however at no time will he get more than $1.95M in base salary in a year. You would be given him a $1.4M raise in 2008 and you would guarantee it.

How it would benefit the Owners:
In business, it isn't about the investment. It is about the return on the investment. A four year guaranteed contract would give an owner enough time to evaluate the cost / benefit of the draft pick.

You want to lock them in to four years, what happens if the owner determines the player to be a bust in year two he still has two years of guaranteed money to pay out and to account for in addition to the prorated signing bonus (money the player got up front but was spread over four year contract instead of six... making the dead cap higher)

How it benefits the player: The contract is guaranteed for four years at a set salary, meaning no backloaded contracts the owners can opt out of by cutting or trading the player. The four year term means the player will either become a Franchise Player and be paid accordingly, or will become an Unrestricted Free Agent at the end of the contract.

Rookie contracts don't get back loaded, Teams have a rookie pool (money set aside to sign draft picks) they general stay with in that set aside amount.

The above dollar values are intended to be a scale, and not necessarily actual amounts. And there are hundreds of talking points from both sides of the argument which would have to be worked out.

Guaranteed contracts is not the answer because you only change the argument from what it is now to - Why do they get guaranteed salaries without doing anything and a player with more than 4 years has less security.

I think another member had the right idea, which is that unless or until the players agents are eliminated from the equation, this issue may never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Without agents, these draft picks would see the guaranteed figures as acceptable. It is the agents, and not the draft picks, who make a federal case out of the seventh and eighth zeros being to the left of the decimal point, as opposed to the right. The reason is not the interest of their new client. The reason is pure and simple greed. Agents are paid by percentage, so the larger the contract the more they are stuffing their own pockets.

Blaming it on the agents is only half correct the NFLPA has a lot to do with this issue. But the rookies are players and soon to be members of the association so the NFLPA can't limit their earning chances without hurting their own members. Agents have and will always before the agent, as recent history has shown most agents put themselves before the firms that they represent when given the opportunity.

For perspective, how many of us have hired a lawyer to negotiate our employment contract when a company stated they wanted to hire us? Did anyone ever say, "I'll have to have my agent call you to work out the details."

For perspective we would have to go to a NCAA affiliate school, take a bunch of courses that will do us no good in the real world, run around chasing a pigskin until we realize that with all the parties, the pigskin and those classes something has to go. In the end we'd say we stopped going because those classes wouldn't do us in good in the real world anyway, then we leave school early. Now we have a contract in front of us that we don't understand. Do you sign it knowing you don't understand it.

There is no comparison between the NFL as it exists under the current CBA and "normal" business.

The NFL is a multibillion dollar industry there is nothing "normal" about that.

Even the executives hired by the Gateses and Buffetts of the world aren't stupid enough to say "As much as I appreciate the seven or eight figure offer, I'll have to have my agent review this and get back with you."

Some do... most say they'll look it over themselves and get back with you, no one takes the first offer when offered.

[GSPODS]

[quote="1niksder"]So what will have changed? They make their high salaries through the bonus money the agent negotiate anyway. Look at it this way, under your proposed system, Laron Landry would have the same contract with his $17M worth of bonus money, because that's' what his agent got him. you want to lock him into a $2M salary for four years. Here's the problem
1. Landry signed a six year deal... what do you do with the other two years.
2. Under his current deal his salary goes up each year however at no time will he get more than $1.95M in base salary in a year. You would be given him a $1.4M raise in 2008 and you would guarantee it.

Landry would have a four year, rather than a six year contract, meaning he would be able to negotiate a higher salary two years earlier than he can under his current contract.

What will have changed is that the NFL Owners would either want a cap on the rookie bonuses or would want the rookie bonuses to not count against the salary cap, is my best guess.

Again, there are so many talking points from both sides that this issue could take forever to come to an agreement on. And the NFL and the NFLPA don't have forever. The current CBA expires in 2010, as far as I know. So, they would have to come up with something by then. I'm not holding my breath.

[1niksder]

Again, there are so many talking points from both sides that this issue could take forever to come to an agreement on. And the NFL and the NFLPA don't have forever. The current CBA expires in 2010, as far as I know. So, they would have to come up with something by then. I'm not holding my breath.

There's really only one talking point here, you and others have identified it throughout this thread. It's the agents, it's always been the agents. Back in the day a player worked out for a team and if the team liked him the talked dollars and terms, signed a deal or he'd go work out somewhere else and the process repeated itself until a deal was made or the player found a gig at the local Safeway. Then came the agents, they started getting players the type of deals where Safeway was no longer a option. If they can do that, why should the player talk to the team? Let the agent do what he's paid to do. Then came the lawyers who said the agents should get a percentage of the contract versus a flat fee. What can a player do but agree, right. They did but then they started a union to watch the attorneys and the agents. Now the Unions go back and forth with the owners and the agents and everything gets heaped on the players and the owners.

They say "kill all of the attorneys" I think they should start with those that represent sports agents would be a good place to start.

Truth is nothing has really changed ,the players play to get paid and the owners are more than willing to pay for good players (we've got one that didn't mind paying for bad ones), when you look at bottom lines. Salaries may seem out of wack but are they really that far off?

We talk about what players get now compared to what players got before the CBA, NFLPA, Salary Caps and other entities came into play.

For perspective I went to the gas station yesterday and got $20 worth of gas, I left with a little more than5 and a half gallons, back in 1980 I could have went to the station got 20 gallons of gas, gave them a $20 and got change.

The players should get more compared but with them having to pay agents that have to attorneys and keep up with their Union dues it's no wonder they are trying to get as much as they can.

[RayNAustin]

The entire CBA structure is the problem, with specific issues relative to how the team salary is calculated for cap purposes.

The ability to spread bonus money over the term of the contract for cap purposes, and the constant restructuring of contracts to free up cap money is a primary cause of the difficulties being complained about.

To solve this, guaranteed contracts (binding on both sides) would go a long way, and the elimination of loop holes in the cap calculation formulas would assist. This would protect vets from being cap victims because their original contracts would be guaranteed so teams wouldn't be able to force vets to restructure under the threat of being cut in order to free up cap money to sign these rookies and other free agents to huge deals.

The result would be that teams would have to handle player contracts more thoughtfully up front, including rookies. Signing bonuses and salaries would count equally against the cap, therefore, teams couldn't give rookies or free agents 10 mil signing bonuses that could be spread over a 5 or 6 year term.

To protect the team's ability to field a team within the cap guidelines, only active roster players salaries would be counted against the cap...meaning: a team that may have a player who's performance has rapidly declined, or a player that becomes injured could placed on IR (for injuries) or released (performance issues) eliminating that player's salary for cap purposes even though they are required to pay the player under the guaranteed contract.

One might even adopt a standard contract to be used by all teams and players with only salary and performance incentives negotiable.

[KazooSkinsFan]

They say "kill all of the attorneys" I think they should start with those that represent sports agents would be a good place to start.

I totally agree with you. The worst thing agents do is have rookies hold out. Look at guys like Leaf and Heath. They held out, got on the wrong foot and never recovered. When a vet holds out and misses a bunch of camp it's not such a big deal. But if agents had any morals at all they would make sure rookies were in camp on time. Every time a rookie holds out, I wonder what is WRONG with the agent? Doesn't he care about his client at all? The answer obviously being NO!

[1niksder]

The entire CBA structure is the problem, with specific issues relative to how the team salary is calculated for cap purposes.

The Cap structure was put in place to "level" the playing field between big market and small market teams, it is something the owners wanted more than the player's union.

The ability to spread bonus money over the term of the contract for cap purposes, and the constant restructuring of contracts to free up cap money is a primary cause of the difficulties being complained about.

That sounds like a good atgument until you look at the fact everytime the rework the CBA the number of years that you can sign a top pick has increased everytime.

To solve this, guaranteed contracts (binding on both sides) would go a long way, and the elimination of loop holes in the cap calculation formulas would assist. This would protect vets from being cap victims because their original contracts would be guaranteed so teams wouldn't be able to force vets to restructure under the threat of being cut in order to free up cap money to sign these rookies and other free agents to huge deals.

You can't guarantee contracts in football without changing the game. Look at what happen when QBs started making a lot of money (they were the first to cash in)... you limit lineman to one step after the ball is gone and you can't hit them in thehead or below the knees even if they are withn the one step limit. Then came the QBs targets, out went the bump and run, then came the five yard limit on any contact between defender and potential receiver. Let's not even talk about the escalation of the cost of the LT and the elimanation of the chop block. How do you guarantee a contract worth $7M (over 4 years that's only $1.75 a year... no one signs for so little anymore without a big SB) knowing the player might go out and get hurt in practice before he's done anything to earn it. The owners just won't go for it.

The result would be that teams would have to handle player contracts more thoughtfully up front, including rookies. Signing bonuses and salaries would count equally against the cap, therefore, teams couldn't give rookies or free agents 10 mil signing bonuses that could be spread over a 5 or 6 year term.

The fact is it takes more thought the way it is than it would the way you propose. As it stands teams have to look at what they are paying out year over the length of every contract and compare it to what they are paying other players at the same postition and playing at a comparable level, they then will look at how much cap space is being used on that one position, again they'll need to look at these numbers over the length of the deal, and fit it into the overall structure of the teams cap. Then that have to look at what happens if the player doesn't work out in year two, three and four and how it will impact the cap (deadcap).

To protect the team's ability to field a team within the cap guidelines, only active roster players salaries would be counted against the cap...meaning: a team that may have a player who's performance has rapidly declined, or a player that becomes injured could placed on IR (for injuries) or released (performance issues) eliminating that player's salary for cap purposes even though they are required to pay the player under the guaranteed contract.

What happens to the money that was allotcated for this player when he signed? The injuried/declining player has a guaranteed contract and will be paid just the same even if he isn't playing , why should the team that signed him get relief for making a bad signing, what would stop them from saying overpaid players that are performing at a lower than expect level is simply hurt and the team needs cap relief?

One might even adopt a standard contract to be used by all teams and players with only salary and performance incentives negotiable.

That's what they have now. There's nothing in a players contract that says anything about the teams salary cap. The problem is who's doing the negotiations, they have so many clauses added (as incentives) it get rediculous very quickly.

If a player meets certain goals in his first 2-3 years he can void the last year of his deal
Who benifits from this? The player gets to be a free agent (unemployed) a year earlier, he got his bonus money (guaranteed money) upfront so it's not a raise. The team losses a position player they thought they had sign for one more year, if cap money was prorated for that year then his cap number goes up for any unvoided years.

Agents are paid a percentage of the total value of a contract when the deal is signed, so a $42M 6 year deals give him a percentage of $7M a year voiding a year means he gets a percentage of $8.4M a year and to shop the player a year earlier...that means new deal, new clauses new money...... IT'S THE AGENTS

[yupchagee]

Again, there are so many talking points from both sides that this issue could take forever to come to an agreement on. And the NFL and the NFLPA don't have forever. The current CBA expires in 2010, as far as I know. So, they would have to come up with something by then. I'm not holding my breath.

There's really only one talking point here, you and others have identified it throughout this thread. It's the agents, it's always been the agents. Back in the day a player worked out for a team and if the team liked him the talked dollars and terms, signed a deal or he'd go work out somewhere else and the process repeated itself until a deal was made or the player found a gig at the local Safeway. Then came the agents, they started getting players the type of deals where Safeway was no longer a option. If they can do that, why should the player talk to the team? Let the agent do what he's paid to do. Then came the lawyers who said the agents should get a percentage of the contract versus a flat fee. What can a player do but agree, right. They did but then they started a union to watch the attorneys and the agents. Now the Unions go back and forth with the owners and the agents and everything gets heaped on the players and the owners.

They say "kill all of the attorneys" I think they should start with those that represent sports agents would be a good place to start.

Truth is nothing has really changed ,the players play to get paid and the owners are more than willing to pay for good players (we've got one that didn't mind paying for bad ones), when you look at bottom lines. Salaries may seem out of wack but are they really that far off?

We talk about what players get now compared to what players got before the CBA, NFLPA, Salary Caps and other entities came into play.

For perspective I went to the gas station yesterday and got $20 worth of gas, I left with a little more than5 and a half gallons, back in 1980 I could have went to the station got 20 gallons of gas, gave them a $20 and got change.

The players should get more compared but with them having to pay agents that have to attorneys and keep up with their Union dues it's no wonder they are trying to get as much as they can.

It's not the agents, all they are doing is looking out for their clients. It's owners who lack fiscal discipline. All these plans are only to protect owners from themselves. If you think prices are too high, don't go to games.

[PulpExposure]

They say "kill all of the attorneys"

What did I ever do to you?

[RayNAustin]

The Cap structure was put in place to "level" the playing field between big market and small market teams, it is something the owners wanted more than the player's union.

Correction, the cap was put into place for that reason. That doesn't mean that it's structure can't be changed i.e. eliminate the complex loopholes for manipulating the salary figures. The current structure gave birth to the back loaded contracts insuring that vets would get the shaft in the latter years of their contract because teams have no intention of paying those inflated salary numbers as I originally said "The ability to spread bonus money over the term of the contract for cap purposes, and the constant restructuring of contracts to free up cap money is a primary cause of the difficulties being complained about."

That sounds like a good atgument until you look at the fact everytime the rework the CBA the number of years that you can sign a top pick has increased everytime.

IF THERE WERE GUARANTEED CONTRACTS THE CONTRACT YEARS WOULD DECREASE....GUARANTEED.

You can't guarantee contracts in football without changing the game. Look at what happen when QBs started making a lot of money (they were the first to cash in)... you limit lineman to one step after the ball is gone and you can't hit them in thehead or below the knees even if they are withn the one step limit. Then came the QBs targets, out went the bump and run, then came the five yard limit on any contact between defender and potential receiver. Let's not even talk about the escalation of the cost of the LT and the elimanation of the chop block. How do you guarantee a contract worth $7M (over 4 years that's only $1.75 a year... no one signs for so little anymore without a big SB) knowing the player might go out and get hurt in practice before he's done anything to earn it. The owners just won't go for it.

Bull$hit. They put those rules in place to protect QB's, not salaries. Given the difficulty of finding franchise quality QB's, they needed to protect them. You forget that the D-Linemen of today are much larger and quicker than they were a couple of decades ago.

As for the rules helping receivers, that had nothing to do with salaries either. That was a way to increase SCORING because fans like high scoring games.

As for your argument about owners not going for guaranteed contracts because a player could get hurt....they already do have guaranteed contracts for select players. And those huge SB are just another form of guaranteed money. Consequently, if signing bonuses had to be counted the same as salary, those big SB would go away immediately, and would offset any losses owners might experience through paying an injured player.

The fact is it takes more thought the way it is than it would the way you propose. As it stands teams have to look at what they are paying out year over the length of every contract and compare it to what they are paying other players at the same postition and playing at a comparable level, they then will look at how much cap space is being used on that one position, again they'll need to look at these numbers over the length of the deal, and fit it into the overall structure of the teams cap. Then that have to look at what happens if the player doesn't work out in year two, three and four and how it will impact the cap (deadcap).

You should try reading a post before dissecting and arguing. My point was that they only worry about this year and possibly the next, and don't worry about years 3-6 on a 6 year contract now because they intend on restructuring it from the get go. If the contracts were guaranteed they wouldn't be able to "restructure", therefore they would have to consider the salary cap impact for the entire length of the contract...for every player on the team. And my hypothetical scenario would ELIMINATE deadcap. It wouldn't exist....because if a player is either injured or released, their salary wouldn't count against the cap, nor would there be deadcap because of signing bonuses because you would'nt be allowed to spread that out over the term of the contract, remember?

What happens to the money that was allotcated for this player when he signed? The injuried/declining player has a guaranteed contract and will be paid just the same even if he isn't playing , why should the team that signed him get relief for making a bad signing, what would stop them from saying overpaid players that are performing at a lower than expect level is simply hurt and the team needs cap relief?

Now you are getting ridiculous. If a player is injured, how is that anyone's fault? How can you say it was a bad signing decision? Ridiculous! Why should a team be impacted salary cap wise for a player's salary that cannot play who must be replaced, and their salary added? As for your argument that a poor performing player could be falsely declared injured simply for cap relief, that's just splitting hairs. First, they'd have to be removed from the active roster, either released or placed on IR, and the team would still have to pay him anyway...so I don't think your scenario would be much of an issue.

That's what they have now. There's nothing in a players contract that says anything about the teams salary cap. The problem is who's doing the negotiations, they have so many clauses added (as incentives) it get rediculous very quickly.

No...you just said it yourself....the contracts are not standard by any stretch of the imagination. WHY DO YOU TALK IN CIRCLES?

If a player meets certain goals in his first 2-3 years he can void the last year of his deal
Who benifits from this? The player gets to be a free agent (unemployed) a year earlier, he got his bonus money (guaranteed money) upfront so it's not a raise. The team losses a position player they thought they had sign for one more year, if cap money was prorated for that year then his cap number goes up for any unvoided years.

Agents are paid a percentage of the total value of a contract when the deal is signed, so a $42M 6 year deals give him a percentage of $7M a year voiding a year means he gets a percentage of $8.4M a year and to shop the player a year earlier...that means new deal, new clauses new money...... IT'S THE AGENTS

No, it is because of the non binding nature of the contracts. Please see GUARANTEED CONTRACT, and why that would eliminate so many problems, including every word of the above quoted PROBLEMS.

[GSPODS]

IF THERE WERE GUARANTEED CONTRACTS THE CONTRACT YEARS WOULD DECREASE....GUARANTEED.

No, it is because of the non binding nature of the contracts. Please see GUARANTEED CONTRACT, and why that would eliminate so many problems, including every word of the above quoted PROBLEMS.

Arguing how the salary cap affects player contracts with the only THN member who understands the implications enough to chart and explain the numbers for the rest of us is ludicrous.

Every NFL player contract is partially guaranteed, even the minimum contracts. No player agent would allow their client to sign a non-guaranteed contract. Without guaranteed salary, the agent has no guaranteed income for representing the player. Player agents don't work pro bono.

Dwight Freeney signed a $30,750,000.00 contract last season.
$15,000,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his signing bonus.
$750,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his 2007 base salary.
$5,750,000.00 was his 2007 Value Against the Salary Cap.
The above numbers leave $25,000,000.00 remaining on Freeney's contract.
$15,000,000.00 in base salary, and $10,000,000.00 in pro-rated signing bonus money.

Compare Freeney with Julius Peppers:
2007 $5,535,000 Base Salary
2007 $4,500,000 Signing Bonus
2007 $4,650,000 Other Bonuses
2007 $7,685,000 Total Salary
2007 $14,087,500 Value Against the Salary Cap.

Compare with Chris Wilson:
2007 $285,000.00 Base Salary
2007 $3,960.00 Bonuses
2007 $288,960.00 Total Salary
2007 $288,960.00 Value Against the Salary Cap

What do you propose the NFL franchises guarantee in the contracts?
Salary? Term of Employment? Heard of Mike Utley? Kevin Everett? Rae Carruth? Chris Henry? Adam Jones? Michael Vick?

No NFL owner is going to lock himself or herself into a multi-million dollar investment without any legal loophole which allows for cutting thier losses. These people didn't become billionaires by allowing themselves to get screwed in business negotiations.

The NFLPA wants players to get huge, short-term contracts, so that the players can sign several huge, short-term contracts over the course of their careers, rather than one contract which appears huge the year it is signed but looks miniscule by comparison in two or three years.

Everyone involved in a NFL contract negotiation can point fingers but the truth is that the salary cap limits the owners, not the players. Without a salary cap in place, Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would make the NFC a two-horse race by outbidding the competition for every ProBowl player. If you don't think Snyder and Jones would like an uncapped year, you're fooling yourself.

It is the small market teams that would suffer from an uncapped year.
Small market teams would lose money just trying to re-sign their own players, let alone trying to compete with the Big Boys for the Big Toys.
The salary cap is in place to protect the 24 or so small market teams, not the 8 or so large market teams. So, for that matter, is the revenue sharing. And the Competition Committee. And the portion of the CBA that allows for pro-ration of salary and bonuses over the length of the contract. And the ERFA and the RFA clauses, and the Franchise and Transition tags, and the list goes on.

Everything is about leveling the playing field so that the NFL doesn't have a repeat of the 1980's, where only four teams out of 28 were competitive. What that caused was a fire sale on NFL franchises, which is bad for business.

Player contracts have gotten far more out of hand under the salary cap than they ever did when the league was uncapped, but the owners can't have it both ways. They either want equal opportunity and parity, or they want a dog-eat-dog league where no one should be caught wearing milk-bone underwear.

[RayNAustin]

Arguing how the salary cap affects player contracts with the only THN member who understands the implications enough to chart and explain the numbers for the rest of us is ludicrous.

Every NFL player contract is partially guaranteed, even the minimum contracts. No player agent would allow their client to sign a non-guaranteed contract. Without guaranteed salary, the agent has no guaranteed income for representing the player. Player agents don't work pro bono.

Oh really? Then why are YOU doing it? You yourself clearly challenge the assertion made by 1niksder that NFL owners would never agree to guaranteed contracts. Hmm? Why?

Freeney signed a $30,750,000.00 contract last season.
$15,000,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his signing bonus.
$750,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his 2007 base salary.
$5,750,000.00 was his 2007 Value Against the Salary Cap.
The above numbers leave $25,000,000.00 remaining on Freeney's contract.
$15,000,000.00 in base salary, and $10,000,000.00 in pro-rated signing bonus money.

No! Get your story straight....you speak so definitively, yet you are totally off the wall and wrong. Are you just making this stuff up as you go? The facts are Freeney signed a whopping 6 year, 72 Million (restructured) contract that includes a 30 Million signing bonus making him the highest paid defensive player in the history of the NFL. The way the deal was structured saved the Colts 3.4 Million in cap space this year....SAVED them cap space money!!!! Think he'll ever see the money in years 4, 5 and 6? Never in a Million years....or 72 Million years.

This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what the problems are...PERFECT. The Colts sign a player to a mega huge deal, and through the magic of legal wrangling and manipulation, they save cap space immediately.

Not only will this effect Freeney's position later (he'll have to take a huge cut later or be released or traded), but now every pass rusher out there will be demanding a restructured deal too....using Freeney's deal as the precedent. And you can bet there are other players on the Colts who might question how Freeney could be worth 10 or 20 times what they are being paid. He's valuable, but he can't play defense by himself.

The crazy thing is, his numbers have declined steadily over the past 4 years 2004 (16 Sacks) 2005 (11 Sacks) 2006 (5.5 sacks) and an injury shortened 2007 (3.5 sacks). He's 28. Think he's going to see that money in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013? Keep dreaming. That huge deal simply locks him in for the Colts (no body else will work a trade for him 2 or 3 years from now for that kind of money), and should his play continue to decline, they can cut him any time they want. That's the reality of it.

This also illustrates my point that a small number of players on each team receive a hugely disproportionate chunk of the overall team salary.....quite similar to the general population of the US where the top 10% possess 71% of the nations wealth while the bottom 80% possess 16%

This type of scenario is never good for the health of the whole, be it the entire nation, or a small segment of it like the NFL. Now I have no sympathy for a guy that makes 2 Million a year whining about another guy making 12 Mil. But if their situations were more reflective of the common guy, they'd be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER. Can you imagine 5 top players on each team making 2 Million each, with the other 48 players being paid $100,000 each? Yet that is exactly what is happening in the NFL. The only difference is that minimum wage in the NFL is 10 times the median income of the US, so even those "low" paid guys live extremely well...much better than most of us.

What do you propose the NFL franchises guarantee in the contracts?
Salary? Term of Employment? Heard of Mike Utley? Kevin Everett? Rae Carruth? Chris Henry? Adam Jones? Michael Vick?

No NFL owner is going to lock himself or herself into a multi-million dollar investment without any legal loophole which allows for cutting thier losses. These people didn't become billionaires by allowing themselves to get screwed in business negotiations.

I propose they guarantee the terms of the contract. Period. Right now, the contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on. A team can, for no cause at all other than convenience, release a player, including the remainder of money left on the contract.

As for players injured, they should be paid. It's an occupational hazard. For players that violate the rules or the law, and are found guilty of misconduct, that would be grounds for terminating the contract. Simple as that.

NFLPA wants players to get huge, short-term contracts, so that the players can sign several huge, short-term contracts over the course of their careers, rather than one contract which appears huge the year it is signed but looks miniscule by comparison in two or three years.

Totally Wrong again. The players constantly clamor, complain, demand, and hold out for long term contracts, so that they can get big signing bonuses (more guaranteed money). Owners agree to it because they can prorate and spread that SB money across the term of the contract for the purpose of manipulating the cap.

involved in a NFL contract negotiation can point fingers but the truth is that the salary cap limits the owners, not the players. Without a salary cap in place, Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would make the NFC a two-horse race by outbidding the competition for every ProBowl player. If you don't think Snyder and Jones would like an uncapped year, you're fooling yourself.

That may be how it appears.....but it has a negative impact on the majority of the players. It's been great for the "elite" players, but there is an increasing trend creating a greater division between the highest and lowest paid players now than ever before in the NFL. Don't believe me? Do the research.

Furthermore, the whole idea that you can simply buy a championship team has been proven false, beyond a reasonable doubt by our very own Redskins. We have maintained either the highest or one of the highest team salaries in the NFL for at least the entire time Snyder has owned them. Did that buy us a championship? Did it make us dominant? Did it even buy us a top 10 spot? Hell no. So much for that false argument. That's propaganda from the little cabal running things, otherwise known as the 31 men and one publicly owned team that rule the NFL.

is the small market teams that would suffer from an uncapped year.
Small market teams would lose money just trying to re-sign their own players, let alone trying to compete with the Big Boys for the Big Toys.
The salary cap is in place to protect the 24 or so small market teams, not the 8 or so large market teams. So, for that matter, is the revenue sharing. And the Competition Committee. And the portion of the CBA that allows for pro-ration of salary and bonuses over the length of the contract. And the ERFA and the RFA clauses, and the Franchise and Transition tags, and the list goes on.

It's a racket. It's racketeering. It's price fixing. And it serves the ownership and screws the players and the fans. How does it screw the fans? Profit sharing. Why should NY Jets fans have to pay the average of $71 a ticket so that Jacksonville's fans only have to pay $41? Especially when you consider the fact that Jacksonville is a much better team?

Everything is about leveling the playing field so that the NFL doesn't have a repeat of the 1980's, where only four teams out of 28 were competitive. What that caused was a fire sale on NFL franchises, which is bad for business.

Player contracts have gotten far more out of hand under the salary cap than they ever did when the league was uncapped, but the owners can't have it both ways. They either want equal opportunity and parity, or they want a dog-eat-dog league where no one should be caught wearing milk-bone underwear.

We agree on one thing....hurray!! They did want to maintain the popularity of the sport by increasing competitiveness in order to protect their interests, and their profits. But they aren't suffering from those out of control salaries....the fans are taking it in our milk-bone shorts.

In the 1980's I paid about $250 (as best I can recall give or take a couple of bucks) for 2 season tickets. I paid somewhere around $3 to park at RFK, and a couple of bucks for a beer AND a hot dog. It cost me about as much to go to every single game then as it costs for ONE game now.

So who's paying for those Big out of control contracts? The fans are. Not the owners. In fact, the owners are richer than ever before, because for every $1 in cost increases, they charge the fans $1.50

All you have to do is look at the huge profits Snyder is making on the Redskins (#1 revenue generating team and #2 most profitable team in the NFL) to realize that the owners are not getting dinged for this.

And let's dispel one more fantasy myth right here and now. For all of those who no longer make a list and send it to the North Pole each december, the NFL Agents are not working for the players. They work for the owners 1st, themselves 2nd, and merely pretend to represent the players best interests.

The owners and GM's and agents all pretend to have this adversarial relationship, but it's a ruse. Take Drew Rosenhause for example...he represents probably 2 full NFL teams worth of players. If the Owners (31 of them) wanted to, they could all agree to refuse to work with him and he'd be OUT OF BUSINESS in 24 hours, and Drew knows that better than anybody.

The NFL, like other big businesses that are owned by a small group of elitists, is a racket. Period. And those owners have structured the CBA to benefit themselves, and will always come out on the plus side of any deal they agree to.

The NFLPA is a joke, and the players own greed has led them down the wrong path.

[KazooSkinsFan]

We agree on one thing....hurray!! They did want to maintain the popularity of the sport by increasing competitiveness in order to protect their interests, and their profits. But they aren't suffering from those out of control salaries....the fans are taking it in our milk-bone shorts.

Fans shouldn't be charged what they are willing to pay because you don't "want" to pay that much? The NFL is the premiere football league. If you go to college or semi-pro it's a lot cheaper. This is like going to the wine store and filling your cart with Dom Parignon and complaining about the greedy store owner for charging more then you want to pay. You want cheaper, buy cheaper. Don't buy the best and carp about what it costs. The NFL is answerable to the market and fans are willing to pay it. They have spoken. Stop complaining.

[GSPODS]

Arguing how the salary cap affects player contracts with the only THN member who understands the implications enough to chart and explain the numbers for the rest of us is ludicrous.

Every NFL player contract is partially guaranteed, even the minimum contracts. No player agent would allow their client to sign a non-guaranteed contract. Without guaranteed salary, the agent has no guaranteed income for representing the player. Player agents don't work pro bono.

Oh really? Then why are YOU doing it? You yourself clearly challenge the assertion made by 1niksder that NFL owners would never agree to guaranteed contracts. Hmm? Why?

What I challenge is the assertion that an owner would FULLY guarantee a contract. With Pro-Rated Signing Bonuses, no owner would guarantee he will be paying a player several years after the player retires, regardless of the reason for retirement.

Freeney signed a $30,750,000.00 contract last season.
$15,000,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his signing bonus.
$750,000.00 of the $30,750,000.00 was his 2007 base salary.
$5,750,000.00 was his 2007 Value Against the Salary Cap.
The above numbers leave $25,000,000.00 remaining on Freeney's contract.
$15,000,000.00 in base salary, and $10,000,000.00 in pro-rated signing bonus money.

No! Get your story straight....you speak so definitively, yet you are totally off the wall and wrong. Are you just making this stuff up as you go? The facts are Freeney signed a whopping 6 year, 72 Million (restructured) contract that includes a 30 Million signing bonus making him the highest paid defensive player in the history of the NFL. The way the deal was structured saved the Colts 3.4 Million in cap space this year....SAVED them cap space money!!!! Think he'll ever see the money in years 4, 5 and 6? Never in a Million years....or 72 Million years.

The salary figures for Freeney, Peppers and Wilson were obtained from NFLPA.org, so every effort was made to be accurate. Accuracy of the exact numbers not withstanding, it does not deter from the original point of the statement. $750,000 salary and $5,000,000.00 signing bonus for 2007 for Freeney. $285,000.00 salary and $3000.00 signing bonus for Wilson. Only one part of each salary is guaranteed. And it isn't the entire pro-rated part. It is a pro-rated part of the pro-rated part. Cap Acceleration. If the Colts cut Freeney today, they would not owe him the entire $25 Million remaining on his signing bonus. They would, however, owe him part of it. And that part would count against the salary cap.

This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what the problems are...PERFECT. The Colts sign a player to a mega huge deal, and through the magic of legal wrangling and manipulation, they save cap space immediately.

Not only will this effect Freeney's position later (he'll have to take a huge cut later or be released or traded), but now every pass rusher out there will be demanding a restructured deal too....using Freeney's deal as the precedent. And you can bet there are other players on the Colts who might question how Freeney could be worth 10 or 20 times what they are being paid. He's valuable, but he can't play defense by himself.

The crazy thing is, his numbers have declined steadily over the past 4 years 2004 (16 Sacks) 2005 (11 Sacks) 2006 (5.5 sacks) and an injury shortened 2007 (3.5 sacks). He's 28. Think he's going to see that money in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013? Keep dreaming. That huge deal simply locks him in for the Colts (no body else will work a trade for him 2 or 3 years from now for that kind of money), and should his play continue to decline, they can cut him any time they want. That's the reality of it.

This also illustrates my point that a small number of players on each team receive a hugely disproportionate chunk of the overall team salary.....quite similar to the general population of the US where the top 10% possess 71% of the nations wealth while the bottom 80% possess 16%

This type of scenario is never good for the health of the whole, be it the entire nation, or a small segment of it like the NFL. Now I have no sympathy for a guy that makes 2 Million a year whining about another guy making 12 Mil. But if their situations were more reflective of the common guy, they'd be SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER. Can you imagine 5 top players on each team making 2 Million each, with the other 48 players being paid $100,000 each? Yet that is exactly what is happening in the NFL. The only difference is that minimum wage in the NFL is 10 times the median income of the US, so even those "low" paid guys live extremely well...much better than most of us.

What do you propose the NFL franchises guarantee in the contracts?
Salary? Term of Employment? Heard of Mike Utley? Kevin Everett? Rae Carruth? Chris Henry? Adam Jones? Michael Vick?

No NFL owner is going to lock himself or herself into a multi-million dollar investment without any legal loophole which allows for cutting thier losses. These people didn't become billionaires by allowing themselves to get screwed in business negotiations.

I propose they guarantee the terms of the contract. Period. Right now, the contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on. A team can, for no cause at all other than convenience, release a player, including the remainder of money left on the contract.

Michael Westbrook ring any bells? You propose owners guarantee a player without any return guarantee from the player? Business is still a two-way street. If an owner is going to guarantee an investment, that owner wants an equal guarantee of a return on his investment. A team can release a player. A player can quit. Barry Sanders comes to mind.

As for players injured, they should be paid. It's an occupational hazard. For players that violate the rules or the law, and are found guilty of misconduct, that would be grounds for terminating the contract. Simple as that.

Injured players with tenure are paid. Injured players with less than four accrued seasons are not, although some owners have been known to make exceptions. Kevin Everett and Jackie Garcia come to mind, courtesy of Ralph Wilson and Daniel Snyder.

NFLPA wants players to get huge, short-term contracts, so that the players can sign several huge, short-term contracts over the course of their careers, rather than one contract which appears huge the year it is signed but looks miniscule by comparison in two or three years.

Totally Wrong again. The players constantly clamor, complain, demand, and hold out for long term contracts, so that they can get big signing bonuses (more guaranteed money). Owners agree to it because they can prorate and spread that SB money across the term of the contract for the purpose of manipulating the cap.

Big signing bonuses would only matter if the signing bonus was paid up front or front-loaded in the contract. Backloaded contracts never pay. Cuts, trades, restructures, etc. Any player holding out for a huge signing bonus is a moron who will never see most of the money.

involved in a NFL contract negotiation can point fingers but the truth is that the salary cap limits the owners, not the players. Without a salary cap in place, Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would make the NFC a two-horse race by outbidding the competition for every ProBowl player. If you don't think Snyder and Jones would like an uncapped year, you're fooling yourself.

That may be how it appears.....but it has a negative impact on the majority of the players. It's been great for the "elite" players, but there is an increasing trend creating a greater division between the highest and lowest paid players now than ever before in the NFL. Don't believe me? Do the research.

Furthermore, the whole idea that you can simply buy a championship team has been proven false, beyond a reasonable doubt by our very own Redskins. We have maintained either the highest or one of the highest team salaries in the NFL for at least the entire time Snyder has owned them. Did that buy us a championship? Did it make us dominant? Did it even buy us a top 10 spot? Hell no. So much for that false argument. That's propaganda from the little cabal running things, otherwise known as the 31 men and one publicly owned team that rule the NFL.

A team owner cannot buy a championship team with the salary cap in place. That is why the salary cap is in place. The Snyder's and Joneses of the NFL would spend $500,000,000.00 per season to win if they could. Many owners couldn't spend that if they wanted to. At least not legally. See Edward DeBartolo, Jr.

is the small market teams that would suffer from an uncapped year.
Small market teams would lose money just trying to re-sign their own players, let alone trying to compete with the Big Boys for the Big Toys.
The salary cap is in place to protect the 24 or so small market teams, not the 8 or so large market teams. So, for that matter, is the revenue sharing. And the Competition Committee. And the portion of the CBA that allows for pro-ration of salary and bonuses over the length of the contract. And the ERFA and the RFA clauses, and the Franchise and Transition tags, and the list goes on.

It's a racket. It's racketeering. It's price fixing. And it serves the ownership and screws the players and the fans. How does it screw the fans? Profit sharing. Why should NY Jets fans have to pay the average of $71 a ticket so that Jacksonville's fans only have to pay $41? Especially when you consider the fact that Jacksonville is a much better team?

It is a Billionaire's Club. And even though the NFL refers to each team as a Franchise, it isn't like buying a fast food franchise. Even in the Billionaire's Club there are the haves and the have-nots. The owners don't count on their NFL Franchises to earn money. They are merely diversions, toys, tax write-offs.

Everything is about leveling the playing field so that the NFL doesn't have a repeat of the 1980's, where only four teams out of 28 were competitive. What that caused was a fire sale on NFL franchises, which is bad for business.

Player contracts have gotten far more out of hand under the salary cap than they ever did when the league was uncapped, but the owners can't have it both ways. They either want equal opportunity and parity, or they want a dog-eat-dog league where no one should be caught wearing milk-bone underwear.

We agree on one thing....hurray!! They did want to maintain the popularity of the sport by increasing competitiveness in order to protect their interests, and their profits. But they aren't suffering from those out of control salaries....the fans are taking it in our milk-bone shorts.

In the 1980's I paid about $250 (as best I can recall give or take a couple of bucks) for 2 season tickets. I paid somewhere around $3 to park at RFK, and a couple of bucks for a beer AND a hot dog. It cost me about as much to go to every single game then as it costs for ONE game now.

So who's paying for those Big out of control contracts? The fans are. Not the owners. In fact, the owners are richer than ever before, because for every $1 in cost increases, they charge the fans $1.50

All you have to do is look at the huge profits Snyder is making on the Redskins (#1 revenue generating team and #2 most profitable team in the NFL) to realize that the owners are not getting dinged for this.

And let's dispel one more fantasy myth right here and now. For all of those who no longer make a list and send it to the North Pole each december, the NFL Agents are not working for the players. They work for the owners 1st, themselves 2nd, and merely pretend to represent the players best interests.

The owners and GM's and agents all pretend to have this adversarial relationship, but it's a ruse. Take Drew Rosenhause for example...he represents probably 2 full NFL teams worth of players. If the Owners (31 of them) wanted to, they could all agree to refuse to work with him and he'd be OUT OF BUSINESS in 24 hours, and Drew knows that better than anybody.

The NFL, like other big businesses that are owned by a small group of elitists, is a racket. Period. And those owners have structured the CBA to benefit themselves, and will always come out on the plus side of any deal they agree to.

The NFLPA is a joke, and the players own greed has led them down the wrong path.

Player agents have to establish a working relationship with all parties. The owners can't tell Rosenhaus to get bent because he represents some of the best talent in the league. The players can't tell Rosenhaus to get bent because he has a reputation for getting the big contracts from owners. Rosenhaus could tell himself to get bent but I doubt he would listen.

[RayNAustin]

We agree on one thing....hurray!! They did want to maintain the popularity of the sport by increasing competitiveness in order to protect their interests, and their profits. But they aren't suffering from those out of control salaries....the fans are taking it in our milk-bone shorts.

Fans shouldn't be charged what they are willing to pay because you don't "want" to pay that much? The NFL is the premiere football league. If you go to college or semi-pro it's a lot cheaper. This is like going to the wine store and filling your cart with Dom Parignon and complaining about the greedy store owner for charging more then you want to pay. You want cheaper, buy cheaper. Don't buy the best and carp about what it costs. The NFL is answerable to the market and fans are willing to pay it. They have spoken. Stop complaining.

I can't say here what I'd like to say...but you know what I would say, don't you?

As for people willing to pay whatever costs...that's true. The stadium only holds 100,000.....so it's very easy to find that many willing to stand in line for the opportunity to pay through the nose. That doesn't mean they aren't getting screwed. It just means that today, people are more used to being screwed, so I guess they just accept it.

Or perhaps they are either too stupid to realize it, or they secretly like being screwed.....look how many Republicans and Democrats there are.

[yupchagee]

We agree on one thing....hurray!! They did want to maintain the popularity of the sport by increasing competitiveness in order to protect their interests, and their profits. But they aren't suffering from those out of control salaries....the fans are taking it in our milk-bone shorts.

Fans shouldn't be charged what they are willing to pay because you don't "want" to pay that much? The NFL is the premiere football league. If you go to college or semi-pro it's a lot cheaper. This is like going to the wine store and filling your cart with Dom Parignon and complaining about the greedy store owner for charging more then you want to pay. You want cheaper, buy cheaper. Don't buy the best and carp about what it costs. The NFL is answerable to the market and fans are willing to pay it. They have spoken. Stop complaining.

I can't say here what I'd like to say...but you know what I would say, don't you?

As for people willing to pay whatever costs...that's true. The stadium only holds 100,000.....so it's very easy to find that many willing to stand in line for the opportunity to pay through the nose. That doesn't mean they aren't getting screwed. It just means that today, people are more used to being screwed, so I guess they just accept it.

Or perhaps they are either too stupid to realize it, or they secretly like being screwed.....look how many Republicans and Democrats there are.

They aren't getting screwed. To them, going to NFL games is worth the cost. Those who are buying the tickets have obviously managed to acquire a reasonable amount of wealth so they can't all be that "stupid" when it comes to money. Just because you (or I) think that the tickets aren't worth what teams are charging doesn't mean that those who think otherwise are stupid.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I can't say here what I'd like to say...but you know what I would say, don't you?

What? Start a smack forum and say it. We certainly agree there is greed in your scenario. We just disagree on the source of that greed. I want expensive stuff and I don't want to pay for it, I want to pay for cheap stuff but GET the expensive stuff. That darned greedy store owner! Why won't he give me what I want at what I WANT to pay? What's up with that?

When I left the DC area I missed watching the Skins SO much every Sunday. I pay hundreds of dollars a year to watch the Skins every week on DirectTV to get the games in HD with TiVo and I LOVE it. This is such a great country. I can CHOSE how I spend my money and there are so many choices. I can't imagine just kvetching about that. I don't WANT to pay that, boo hoo. Sob, sob.

As for people willing to pay whatever costs...that's true. The stadium only holds 100,000.....so it's very easy to find that many willing to stand in line for the opportunity to pay through the nose. That doesn't mean they aren't getting screwed. It just means that today, people are more used to being screwed, so I guess they just accept it.

Or perhaps they are either too stupid to realize it, or they secretly like being screwed.....

As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 16 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

look how many Republicans and Democrats there are.

There is certainly a consistency here with the Democrats. We dont' care if oil is less of our wallet then it was in 1981, 27 years ago, we don't WANT to pay that much and that makes oil companies greedy.

We don't want to pay for our retirement or our own health care, we want that from government and the rich SOBs who won't fork over the money they earned and give it to us are GREEDY because they won't do that.

Again we agree there is a long trail of greed in this story. I'll leave it at that on the part we agree on.

[GSPODS]

:hmm: As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 8 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

One minor correction. If we're talking 100,000 seats then we are only speaking about home games. There are only eight of those guaranteed.
So, the owners have to make $150 Million just to cover team payroll. Adding in other expenses, the owners have to make $25 Million per home game just to break even. $25 Million divided by 100,000 seats is an average ticket price of $250. And yet tickets are available for $99. If team owners were really out to screw the fans, there would be no game tickets cheaper than $250.

[yupchagee]

:hmm: As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 8 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

One minor correction. If we're talking 100,000 seats then we are only speaking about home games. There are only eight of those guaranteed.
So, the owners have to make $150 Million just to cover team payroll. Adding in other expenses, the owners have to make $25 Million per home game just to break even. $25 Million divided by 100,000 seats is an average ticket price of $250. And yet tickets are available for $99. If team owners were really out to screw the fans, there would be no game tickets cheaper than $250.

The owners have other revenue sources, most notably network TV contracts. I don't remember any numbers, but my guess is that they make enough from TV to meet their payroll.