PDA

View Full Version : The Money


Taco John
11-03-2005, 02:50 AM
This is a good article for anyone interested in learning about the money mechanics of the NFL. It's relevant because there is a new collective bargaining agreement in the pipes (which, I'll note, is going to crush teams like KC who don't have a new stadium and are already unwilling to spend up to the cap).




Owners have found alternatives to skyrocketing player salaries

BY DAVID ALDRIDGE

Philadelphia Inquirer


PHILADELPHIA - Why would someone spend $400 million of his own money to buy a professional sports franchise when there's a perfectly good developing nation that he could control indefinitely with that kind of loot?

Consider the story of Robert Sarver. Many years ago, there were two houses he was considering buying. One was 2,400 square feet, on the beach and cost $2 million. The other was twice as big, a mile inland and cost $1 million. Sarver bought the million-dollar house.

"Eight years later, the house doubled in value" from $1 million to $2 million, Sarver, now the owner of the Phoenix Suns, recalled. "But the little house went from $2 to $12 ... . There are only 35 houses on the sand. So if you wanted to be on the beach, you had to pay the price."

And so it is with sports teams like the Suns, for which Sarver paid $401 million.

Buying the team is just the half of it, though. You have to pay players, coaches and staff. You pay for advertising and marketing. If you build an arena or stadium, your annual debt service runs into the tens of millions of dollars.

So how does someone make money on a sports team? The same way any company turns a profit: by increasing revenues and cutting spending. Which, in turn, makes the company more valuable - to its owner and prospective buyers.

That's why pro sports teams, in the last two decades, have gone to unprecedented lengths to achieve what they call "cost certainty" in paying the players.

Three of the four major pro leagues now have a salary cap, which limits what players can make. And the one league that doesn't, Major League Baseball, has significantly increased its revenue-sharing plan among teams.

"The trend in more cost certainty is going to make these assets more valuable, clearly," said Sal Galatioto, head of Galatioto Sports Partners, who has financed deals for owners in all four sports leagues for more than a decade.

That trend began in 1983, when the NBA and its players settled on a new collective-bargaining agreement that included a salary cap. In exchange for agreeing to the cap, the players got a guaranteed annual share of league revenues, and over the years, have gotten significant increases in pay for veterans.

But the league still has a cap. It also has an "escrow" system in which players pay back a percentage of their salaries if their share of income paid by the owners grows larger than agreed upon. Owners have a luxury tax in place that penalizes teams that spend above the escrow amount on a dollar-for-dollar basis, with the tax going to the league's lower spenders.

In the newest deal with the players, the owners reduced both the length of maximum contracts and the yearly increases in those contracts.

The net result is a dramatic slowing in what seemed to be exponential growth in superstars' contracts, exemplified by Timberwolves forward Kevin Garnett's six-year, $128 million deal in 1997.

In 2003, Garnett re-signed with Minnesota, for five years and $100 million. That's still a fortune. Just not as big.

"I can't remember what our revenue was in 1998," NBA commissioner David Stern said in an interview, "and I couldn't tell you what our franchises are worth, but my guess is that everything's doubled since then."

In 1989, a simple change in the National Football League's rules helped ultimately bring the cap to the league.

Before then, NFL commissioners like Pete Rozelle had left negotiating with the Players' Association to a management council, but that strategy resulted in increasingly contentious negotiations with the union - and three work stoppages in 13 years.

"It was well-intentioned in the beginning, but in the end it turned out to be misguided," NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue said in a phone interview. "Because eventually, by not being in charge of the relationship with the Players' Association, you lose control over all of those aspects of the player-employment relationship, which determines the quality of the product."

Tagliabue insisted on being head of the labor relations committee, able to negotiate directly with his counterpart, NFL Players' Association chief Gene Upshaw. The new arrangement paid dividends for both sides.

In 1994, Upshaw agreed to a salary cap for his players. In exchange, he got a much more flexible free-agency system - including guaranteed signing bonuses for free agents - along with increased minimum salaries for veterans and major improvements to the players' pensions.

But the owners got cost certainty, and have had it ever since.

The result: The salary cap has increased from $34.6 million per team in 1994 to $85.5 million per team this season. Including additional payments for pensions, 401(k) accounts and the like, players are splitting $102.5 million per team this season. That's a huge pot of money.

And the owners?

That same year, 1994, Jeffrey Lurie bought the Eagles for around $185 million. This year, according to Forbes magazine, the Eagles are worth $833 million - which Lurie wouldn't split with anyone if he sold the team.

The cap isn't the only reason NFL teams have increased in value. The league's television contracts basically pay for each team's roster before a single down is played. And like the Eagles, many now play in new or renovated stadiums. There is debate about the actual value of a new building to a city, but there is little doubt that a new stadium usually becomes a financial windfall for an owner.

"If you'd make less money by moving into a new building rather than staying in the old building, you'd stay in the old building," Galatioto said.

New arenas, though, didn't help the National Hockey League's bottom line.

Four teams - Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Ottawa and Buffalo - had filed for bankruptcy protection since 1995. Expansion and relocation to southern U.S. cities such as Atlanta, Nashville and Raleigh, N.C., in the last decade did not provide much of an economic boost. Player salaries skyrocketed.

The league claimed that its teams had lost $1.8 billion during a 10-year period through 2004, and that its teams were paying 75 cents of every dollar earned to players.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners presented the players with an ultimatum last fall - either agree to a salary cap or be locked out. The players blanched; the owners locked them out, and ultimately the 2004-05 season was canceled.

"Part of what enabled the owners to have the resolve that they did was we were bleeding to death under the old CBA," Bettman said in an interview last month. "The game couldn't be as strong or as entertaining as it needed to be. Our fans knew that we weren't the best that we could be."

After 300-plus days off ice, the players capitulated, not only agreeing to a cap at $39 million this season, but to giving back 24 percent of their salaries this season. Now, at least in theory, most teams should be able to stay out of the red.

"That builds value back into the franchises," Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis said. "Because franchises that lose a lot of money year after year after year cannot appreciate in value."

In exchange, the players received more liberalized free agency. Also, their share of league-wide revenues will be tied directly to what the league earns - up to 57 percent of the total pie when league revenue exceeds $2.7 billion.

Now, Bettman says each of his teams should survive through the six years of the new collective-bargaining agreement - even such franchises as Florida and Phoenix that have struggled to attract fans.

"I have no doubt about that," he said. "When it comes to competitive balance and the economic health and stability of our franchises, nobody has a better system now than we do."

The new system includes greater revenue sharing among NHL teams, something clubs once eschewed.

NFL teams have shared the majority of their revenues since the early 1960s, when Rozelle persuaded teams to forgo individual television contracts and equally share money from national TV deals. Today, that pot has grown to an astonishing $23.9 billion in new deals starting next year from the league's TV partners.

NFL teams also split 40 percent of all revenue from ticket sales, with 60 percent going to the home team. The home team keeps all revenue from naming rights, stadium advertisements, parking and local television and radio deals. The NFL Players' Association is seeking a portion of those revenues in a new collective-bargaining agreement.

Some NFL teams also want increased sharing of those revenues, leading to fierce internal disagreements with the league's most profitable teams, including the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles and Patriots.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said at the NFL owners' meetings last spring that teams share enough revenue. In his view, teams that have spent millions of their own money building stadiums have been chiefly responsible for the increased billions the league has received from television.

"And so if we were sitting out here playing in the Polo Grounds all over the country, and the Cotton Bowls all over the country, I don't think we'd be where we are with television today," he said. "I don't think that's a reach... that is another way of promoting the NFL."

NBA teams also split their national television money ($4.6 billion from the last contract with ESPN, ABC and TNT) and a portion of ticket-sales revenue.

Major League Baseball was late to revenue sharing, but commissioner Bud Selig helped convince owners that the huge disparities in payroll between teams like the Yankees and those of teams like the Oakland A's were killing competitive balance.

This year, the Yankees' $200 million payroll - well above the $128 million luxury-tax threshold - will force George Steinbrenner to pay more than $30 million to other teams.

Teams also pool and share around 34 percent of local revenues into a base plan. In addition, $72 million is annually taken from teams that are payers in the base plan and given to teams that are receivers in the plan.

Selig believes that about $300 million will be redistributed among teams by the time the current collective-bargaining agreement expires in 2006 - a major increase from the $20 million shared by teams in 1992. Selig also has demanded - under threat of fine - that teams that receive payments invest that money into their clubs instead of pocketing the cash.

"The system isn't perfect," Selig said. "But teams that pay have a right to expect the others to do everything they can to generate revenue."

The new realities of getting spending in line were eye-openers to owners like the Capitals' Leonsis, who spent millions on salaries when he bought the team in 1999 - and saw it blow up in his face. The Capitals haven't won a playoff series since 1998, and posted their worst record in 25 years in 2003-04. Leonsis traded just about all of his best players to save money and start over with a younger, less expensive team.

"Because there's so few players on the ice or the floor, spending money is sometimes the exact opposite, wrong thing you should be doing, because it doesn't fuel chemistry," Leonsis said. "But yet as an owner, because you've been a businessperson, you think activism, getting... involved helps. What I've learned is stay away, let the professionals do it."

Mecca
11-03-2005, 04:29 AM
Are you trying to say that KC doesn't spend up to the cap.........

HemiEd
11-03-2005, 05:29 AM
Are you trying to say that KC doesn't spend up to the cap.........


I have seen it posted on here a couple times in the last few days that they are about 4 million under right now.

Count Alex's Losses
11-03-2005, 05:35 AM
What does not having a new stadium have to do with anything? Are you suggesting the Chiefs are headed for ten consecutive years of 4-12 unless they get a new stadium?

Pants
11-03-2005, 05:41 AM
Yeah, and Denver won't have the same problem seeing how it's a much larger market. LOL.

Count Alex's Losses
11-03-2005, 05:42 AM
Yeah, and Denver won't have the same problem seeing how it's a much larger market. LOL.

They have a new stadium! That cures everything!

Braincase
11-03-2005, 06:26 AM
Yeah, and Denver won't have the same problem seeing how it's a much larger market. LOL.

That, and they don't pay attention to the salary cap anyway.

Mecca
11-03-2005, 06:43 AM
Actually Denver makes the most money of any team in this division. Basically his point is without a new stadium the Chiefs won't gross enough money to spend up to the salary cap if it continues to increase at it's current rate.

It would basically make the Chiefs a have not team that can't spend up to the cap and would have bad seasons due to that. Denver on the other hand grosses the most money of anyone in the division so they could spend up to a higher cap.

I believe that is the point he's trying to make.

OldTownChief
11-03-2005, 06:53 AM
Actually Denver makes the most money of any team in this division. Basically his point is without a new stadium the Chiefs won't gross enough money to spend up to the salary cap if it continues to increase at it's current rate.

It would basically make the Chiefs a have not team that can't spend up to the cap and would have bad seasons due to that. Denver on the other hand grosses the most money of anyone in the division so they could spend up to a higher cap.

I believe that is the point he's trying to make.


I still don't get it.

Arrowhead Capacity 79,451
Infested Field Capacity 76,125

Mecca
11-03-2005, 06:55 AM
I still don't get it.

Arrowhead Capacity 79,451
Infested Field Capacity 76,125

Luxury Box's...........

OldTownChief
11-03-2005, 07:00 AM
Luxury Box's...........


ahhh... also wine and cheese is more expensive than beer.

the Talking Can
11-03-2005, 07:01 AM
it's not about the cap...it's about having cash to pay bonuses to work around the cap....

Mark M
11-03-2005, 08:38 AM
it's not about the cap...it's about having cash to pay bonuses to work around the cap....

DING! DING! DING!

Spending up to (or close to) the cap isn't the issue -- it's about having the upfront money to pay for signing bonuses.

And there's little to no way the Chiefs will get a new stadium unless they move to Wyandotte county (say, out by the speedway) or to a whole other market (say, L.A.). They should, however, be able to revamp Arrowhead enough to generate some more revenue.

As far as not spending up to the cap, leaving $4 million ain't that big of a deal IMHO. It's not like that money would make the defense suck less or the offense get out of its funk. The defense still lacks playmakers, and the rest of the league has finally figured out the offense. Spending another $4 mill ain't gonna change that.

MM
~~:shrug:

KCTitus
11-03-2005, 08:45 AM
The problems that baseball now has is staring the NFL dead in the face...small market v. big market. Is it possible to prevent this from happening to the greatest game in the US? Yes, but given the players involved--Jones and Snyder primarily, I doubt it.

StcChief
11-03-2005, 08:47 AM
Build new stadium or add luxury boxes and raise ticket prices or don't compete. If the yearly cap limit goes up
and Lamar doesn't want to raise to that cap....
The bonus part will get better players.

What are ticket prices at Incestco now?

Mecca
11-03-2005, 08:49 AM
Build new stadium or add luxury boxes and raise ticket prices or don't compete. If the yearly cap limit goes up
and Lamar doesn't want to raise to that cap....
The bonus part will get better players.

What are ticket prices at Incestco now?

Probably cheaper than ours on average. The Chiefs are one of the most expensive tickets in the league.

Mark M
11-03-2005, 08:54 AM
Build new stadium or add luxury boxes and raise ticket prices or don't compete. If the yearly cap limit goes up
and Lamar doesn't want to raise to that cap....


The Chiefs are talking about PSLs in the next few years. And if that happens, our family won't be able to afford them. Forty two years as season ticket holders, and we may have to give them up.

Needless to say, not real happy about that.

MM
~~:sulk:

Mark M
11-03-2005, 09:00 AM
Probably cheaper than ours on average. The Chiefs are one of the most expensive tickets in the league.

Try again:

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2004/09/06/daily7.html

The average cost for a premium ticket, that is, in a suite or club seat is $160.89 leaguewide, with New England again on top at $464.58 per seat and the Kansas City Chiefs on the low end at $80 per seat. The Bills ranked eighth in that category at $128.53 per seat.

Not sure how much that's gone up the last two years, but IIRC the Chiefs average price is actually on the low end compared to the rest of the league.

MM
~~:)

Mecca
11-03-2005, 09:02 AM
Try again:

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2004/09/06/daily7.html



Not sure how much that's gone up the last two years, but IIRC the Chiefs average price is actually on the low end compared to the rest of the league.

MM
~~:)

Ok, I want you to call into 810 this afternoon and tell Kevin Keitzman this so his head can explode. He thinks the Chiefs are in the top 5 for the cost of tickets. That's what I get for not looking something up before posting I guess.

Mark M
11-03-2005, 09:09 AM
Ok, I want you to call into 810 this afternoon and tell Kevin Keitzman this so his head can explode. He thinks the Chiefs are in the top 5 for the cost of tickets. That's what I get for not looking something up before posting I guess.

The only reason I'd call KK is to tell him how much he sucks. The guy does little to no research and just spews out whatever the hell forms in that empty head of his.

I'm still waiting for the drug ring info he promised would "shake the NFL to it's very foundation."

Sorry ... went on a bit of rant there, didn't I?

MM
~~:D

Mecca
11-03-2005, 09:10 AM
The only reason I'd call KK is to tell him how much he sucks. The guy does little to no research and just spews out whatever the hell forms in that empty head of his.

I'm still waiting for the drug ring info he promised would "shake the NFL to it's very foundation."

Sorry ... went on a bit of rant there, didn't I?

MM
~~:D

I'm sure Bam Morris and Tamarick Vanover shook the NFL to it's core. I'd be surprised if that even shook Chiefs fans to their core to be honest.

Mark M
11-03-2005, 09:13 AM
I'm sure Bam Morris and Tamarick Vanover shook the NFL to it's core. I'd be surprised if that even shook Chiefs fans to their core to be honest.

Yeah, didn't do much shakin', did it?

Although, it did explain why I couldn't find a bag for about two months back in 1998 ...

MM
~~:bong:

BigRedChief
11-03-2005, 09:39 AM
I just don't see this as a deterrent. Signing bonus's are just a business expense. You are gauranteed by the NFL and its TV contract that you will have the money in the future to pay this off so how can an owner say that they don't have the money to pay a signing bonus?

Lamar makes $33 - $43 million profit a year on this team. He is worth over $400 million.

Is anyone seriously trying to tell us fans that the owners and the NFL has a cash flow problem to pay signing bonus's and thats why we need suites and PSL's?

Otter
11-03-2005, 09:41 AM
Try again:

Not sure how much that's gone up the last two years, but IIRC the Chiefs average price is actually on the low end compared to the rest of the league.

MM

If you click on the arrows next to the year you can see the chart by year.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nfl_05.cfm

The beer at Arrowhead is actually pretty cheap compared to the rest of the stadiums. Where's that punk who snuck in the whiskey in the cell phone flask?

ROFL

OldTownChief
11-03-2005, 07:45 PM
This is a good article for anyone interested in learning about the money mechanics of the NFL. It's relevant because there is a new collective bargaining agreement in the pipes (which, I'll note, is going to crush teams like KC who don't have a new stadium and are already unwilling to spend up to the cap).


Dude, You should spend less time on here and more time helping your mother out.


http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/8140/tacodog7mm.png

Taco John
11-03-2005, 08:08 PM
I can only attempt to educate you. You have to drink from the trough yourself, OldTownChief.

Anyong Bluth
11-03-2005, 08:09 PM
I understand everyone not wanting to pay out the butt for tickets, but people that complain about the cost of Chiefs ticket prices are out of touch with cost of living around the US.
the KK's of the world want KC to be a big city league and still have 35 dollar lower bowl tickets and $5 walk up GA tickets to the royals games and expect us to field a baseball team as successful as they were in the 80's and a 14-2 Chiefs. Not gonna happen.

I don't want people to lose their tickets, but the cost of competing means everyone has to ante in. Reworking your budget to afford season tickets is a question of making sacrifices in other areas. Its a sad fact, but its happening everywhere else - KU just started having to address the reality itself with its season ticket holders too.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 08:29 PM
The Chiefs do spend up to the cap. Every team in the NFL spends up to the cap.

Any team that has cap room by this point in the season has the option to accelerate pro-rated bonuses onto this year's cap, rather than pay in a later year where it was originally budgeted for.

The Chiefs will use their $4 million to "pay" a couple bonuses early.

It's one of the many ways teams have learned to make the cap more manageable. Another way is to divert cash payments, that you claim to be paying on one year's cap, and instead pay it in a different year. But that's against the rules, costs you a 3rd round pick, and about $950,00 in fines. Just ask Denver. They know.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 08:34 PM
It's one of the many ways teams have learned to make the cap more manageable. Another way is to divert cash payments, that you claim to be paying on one year's cap, and instead pay it in a different year. But that's against the rules, costs you a 3rd round pick, and about $950,00 in fines. Just ask Denver. They know.


So what's the competitive advantage of doing that?

None, according to the NFL.

Skip Towne
11-03-2005, 08:40 PM
it's not about the cap...it's about having cash to pay bonuses to work around the cap....
Yep. Taco told us that Bowlen spent money on the stadium so couldn't pay Elway and Davis right away so they cheated. So I guess every NFL team helped build Infesco. Whether they knew it or not.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 08:41 PM
So what's the competitive advantage of doing that?

None, according to the NFL.The competitive advantage is it allow you to spend cash you don't have. Or more accurately, it allows you to apply the cash you aren't paying until a later year, on a salary cap in a year when you have room. Then, when you actually pay out that cash, you don't have to apply it to the cap, giving you more room to pay other players in that later year.

The League may softball it to the media, because they don't want an asterisk next to Elway's Superbowl. But it was definately a violation of cap rules, as evidenced by the punishment extended to your team.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 08:45 PM
The competitive advantage is it allow you to spend cash you don't have. Or more accurately, it allows you to apply the cash you aren't paying until a later year, on a salary cap in a year when you have room. Then, when you actually pay out that cash, you don't have to apply it to the cap, giving you more room to pay other players in that later year.

The League may softball it to the media, because they don't want an asterisk next to Elway's Superbowl. But it was definately a violation of cap rules, as evidenced by the punishment extended to your team.


All it is is the inverse of what you said previously. According to the league, there is no competitive advantage. The issue is a viability issue. They are protecting teams from bancruptcy.

tk13
11-03-2005, 08:46 PM
The Chiefs do have one of the highest ticket prices in the league... what that little blurb mentioned included premium seating. When you take out the luxury seats and premium seating, the Chiefs ranked like 3rd in the league in per-game ticket prices where bums like you and me sit.

What that points out is the Chiefs do not make nearly as much money on premium seating as everybody else, simply because they play in one of the oldest stadiums that wasn't built with this in mind. The Chiefs aren't going broke or anything, but as we get farther along in years and all these other teams are getting new stadiums and the Chiefs are standing still, it probably will become tougher. Simply because teams like the Skins and Cowboys and Eagles can say "Hey Kearse and TO, here's $20 mil a piece, right now." The Chiefs could never do that.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 08:47 PM
Or more accurately, it allows you to apply the cash you aren't paying until a later year, on a salary cap in a year when you have room.


This makes absolutely no sense, but it sounds real bad. ROFL

We spend up to the cap every year regardless of season. We didn't spend over the cap. We just gave out a couple of IOUs due to the stadium deal.

If it comes between a new stadium or a third round pick, i'll take new stadium every time. Every owner would.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 08:53 PM
All it is is the inverse of what you said previously. According to the league, there is no competitive advantage. The issue is a viability issue. They are protecting teams from bancruptcy.No it is not the inverse of what I said previously. The inverse would be delaying applying the cap hit until a later date. The Broncos delayed the actual payment.

For one thing, it allowed them to ink contracts that they couldn't afford. While other teams have to pass on big player contracts that require cash bonuses that they can't afford, Denver just cheats the system.

And secondly, it allowed them to keep cap space open on later years, by lying about when they actually paid it out.

Team's don't need to be protected from bankrupcty when the reason they are going bankrupt is they are spending money they don't have on players. The rest of the league simply follows the rules and has to take a pass on players they can't afford.

Skip Towne
11-03-2005, 08:54 PM
The problems that baseball now has is staring the NFL dead in the face...small market v. big market. Is it possible to prevent this from happening to the greatest game in the US? Yes, but given the players involved--Jones and Snyder primarily, I doubt it.
Usually it is greedy players to blame. Not now. It is a few greedy owners. Two owners can each be making $300 million per year yet will fight each other to the death over a million or two. What possible difference can that make to people in that stratosphere? And guys like Snyder and Jones seem to want an extra few million for themselves even if it wrecks the league. Snyder is a dot com wonder who basically had his wealth fall in his lap and Jones drills holes in the ground and was very lucky in tha business. At least that's what I hear from the folks in Arkansas about Jones. Neither one of them has worked a day in their lives.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 08:58 PM
No it is not the inverse of what I said previously. The inverse would be delaying applying the cap hit until a later date. The Broncos delayed the actual payment.

For one thing, it allowed them to ink contracts that they couldn't afford. While other teams have to pass on big player contracts that require cash bonuses that they can't afford, Denver just cheats the system.

And secondly, it allowed them to keep cap space open on later years, by lying about when they actually paid it out.

Team's don't need to be protected from bankrupcty when the reason they are going bankrupt is they are spending money they don't have on players. The rest of the league simply follows the rules and has to take a pass on players they can't afford.


Nothing I can say but that you're a clueless liar. And that if it comes between a new stadium and a third round pick, every owner in every instance would opt for the new stadium.

The only thing we did was ask Elway and Davis to accept an IOU the following year because Bowlen had most of his money tied up in the stadium deal, and he needed to make payroll for the front office for the season. The idea that we got a competitive advantage in that year or in later years is a joke invented by clueless liars like yourself, and has been effectively disputed and dismissed by the NFL.

Had we have gained a competitive advantage, we would have been penalized much more harshly than a mere third round pick. But clueless liars like you will continue to spread clueless lies because of sour grapes. That's fine with me. You have the sour grapes. We have the hardware.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 09:00 PM
This makes absolutely no sense, but it sounds real bad. ROFL

We spend up to the cap every year regardless of season. We didn't spend over the cap. We just gave out a couple of IOUs due to the stadium deal.

If it comes between a new stadium or a third round pick, i'll take new stadium every time. Every owner would.I'll make it simple.

John Bucktooth wants a $5 million bonus. The Boulder Jackasses want Mr. Bucktooth as their QB, but can't afford to give him the bonus he demands. So they write a contract that says you'll get that $5 million in 2007 when we can afford it.

Meanwhile, they happen to have cap room for an extra $5 mil in 2005, so they lie to the NFL and claim they already paid Mr. Bucktooth. Later, in 2007, they spend all the way up to the cap, plus they hand that $5 million bonus to John under the table. Effectively exceeding that year's cap by $5 mil.

It doesn't matter if the reason they were broke was because they were building a stadium or buying high-priced whores.

And you didn't trade that third rounder (and $950k) for the Stadium. You traded it for John Elway and Terrell Davis. Which gave your team a competitive advantage.

dirk digler
11-03-2005, 09:02 PM
The Eagles are always under the cap. IIRC last year they were at least $10 million dollars under but it doesn't seem to hurt them at all.

Sometimes it is how you evaluate talent rather than just throwing money out the window like CP does.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 09:04 PM
I'll make it simple.

John Bucktooth wants a $5 million bonus. The Boulder Jackasses want Mr. Bucktooth as their QB, but can't afford to give him the bonus he demands. So they write a contract that says you'll get that $5 million in 2007 when we can afford it.

Meanwhile, they happen to have cap room for an extra $5 mil in 2005, so they lie to the NFL and claim they already paid Mr. Bucktooth. Later, in 2007, they spend all the way up to the cap, plus they hand that $5 million bonus to John under the table. Effectively exceeding that year's cap by $5 mil.

It doesn't matter if the reason they were broke was because they were building a stadium or buying high-priced whores.

And you didn't trade that third rounder (and $950k) for the Stadium. You traded it for John Elway and Terrell Davis. Which gave your team a competitive advantage.


I'll make it simple.

The NFL ruled that there was no competitive advantage. If there had been, we'd have been punished with something other than a light slap on the wrist.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 09:08 PM
Nothing I can say but that you're a clueless liar. .What am I lying about? Nothing I posted is a lie.

As for "no competitive advantage"... That's a crock of shit. One of the key points of the salary cap is to level the field for teams. By cheating the cap, you are giving your team an advantage. Period.

Skip Towne
11-03-2005, 09:13 PM
I'll make it simple.

The NFL ruled that there was no competitive advantage. If there had been, we'd have been punished with something other than a light slap on the wrist.
Taco, are you saying every team in the league will cheat the NFL rules if the reward is great enough? Because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 09:14 PM
What am I lying about? Nothing I posted is a lie.

As for "no competitive advantage"... That's a crock of shit. One of the key points of the salary cap is to level the field for teams. By cheating the cap, you are giving your team an advantage. Period.


Yes, but we didn't cheat on the cap. Cheating on the cap is going over it. We didn't spend over the cap at all...

Hey listen, I can argue with a sour-grapes Chiefs fan over this, or I can listen to what the NFL itself said. They ruled there was no competitive advantage to what we did, but that there is a viability issue that the NFL wants to protect the league against. Any competitive advantage is a dreamed up lie made by anti-fans with a sour grape vendetta and goes against the NFL's own findings.

I hope you realize it's your blood pressure being affected here, not mine. You've got the sour grapes, we've got the hardware.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 09:15 PM
Taco, are you saying every team in the league will cheat the NFL rules if the reward is great enough? Because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying.Of course that's what he's saying. It's the f*cking Broncos mantra.

He's so stupid he doesn't even realize that the rest of the world thinks that cheating is wrong, regardless of the potential reward.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 09:18 PM
Yes, but we didn't cheat on the cap. Cheating on the cap is going over it. We didn't spend over the cap at all...

Hey listen, I can argue with a sour-grapes Chiefs fan over this, or I can listen to what the NFL itself said. They ruled there was no competitive advantage to what we did, but that there is a viability issue that the NFL wants to protect the league against. Any competitive advantage is a dreamed up lie made by anti-fans with a sour grape vendetta and goes against the NFL's own findings.

I hope you realize it's your blood pressure being affected here, not mine. You've got the sour grapes, we've got the hardware.Why the hell would I be sour over this? I'd rather have no trophy than one that is tainted with the dishonesty of your organization. I'm actually glad you cheated. It removes the legitimacy of Denver's accomplishments in those years.

Taco John
11-03-2005, 09:19 PM
Except that it doesn't.

Nice try though.

jspchief
11-03-2005, 09:22 PM
Except that it doesn't.

Nice try though.Not in the minds of Broncos homers.

It does for those of us that recognize the truth though.

By the way, it's nice to see that Eddie Kennison is still a thorn in Broncos ass.

Der Flöprer
11-03-2005, 09:32 PM
Dude, You should spend less time on here and more time helping your mother out.


http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/8140/tacodog7mm.png


That could well be the funniest picture I have EVAR seen. ROFL