PDA

View Full Version : For htismaqe and ZachKC...New Rufus!!


shaneo69
03-16-2006, 08:08 AM
DAWES: HOW DO THEY DO IT?
Mar 16, 2006, 3:48:31 AM by Rufus Dawes

These are tough times to be a lover of free agency and a Chiefs fan because, by all accounts, your team isn’t going to be a serious player in this latest of infatuations with someone else’s players. Perhaps many of you have tired of my meanderings on the subject and, indeed, I can go on about it. But questions are raised every year about this time on how these teams who spend so freely can do it when there is supposedly a cap in place to curtail wholesale spending one year if a team has been very active in previous years.

The poet Swinburne insisted that even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea. That cannot be said of free agency. Free agency rushes downstream as clubs over-spend in the early weeks but it slows to a trickle in the later months or comes to naught when the players on whom so much has been lavished are soon jettisoned from the roster or don’t live up to expectations. The examples are endless.

Continuing the river metaphor, there has been the usual opening flood of signings this year including some backup cornerback named Brian Williams who signed a six-year, $32 million dollar deal with the Jacksonville Jaguars – who should know better having gone through this over-spending spree before and suffered for it. Included was a $10 million signing bonus. New Orleans put a $4 million dollar signing bonus in Scott Fujita’s pocket. And they say Jacksonville and New Orleans are “small market” teams.

But the poster child for unrestricted free agency remains the Washington Redskins who seemingly never met a free agent they didn’t want to acquire. The franchise continues to convert base salaries into signing bonuses at an amazing rate, cutting cap dollars by renegotiating contracts with returning veterans by handing out upfront bonuses that it can prorate. In one week’s time, the ‘Skins outspent their past yearly offerings by a wide margin handing out cash – that’s cash dollars and cents, not some contract’s potential value – of over $20.6 million dollars.

Washington started the month some $13 million over the $102 million dollar cap and still found a way to trade for receiver Brandon Lloyd and sign five unrestricted free agents including Antwaan Randle El, Adam Archuleta, Christian Fauria, our own Todd Collins and Andre Carter. Currently, Washington has future acceleration costs to their contracts of $83.5 million, a sum greater than the entire current salaries of five NFL teams!

Washington’s philosophy appears to be spend now and worry about it next year. Considering its state of affairs going into this season, the franchise was the main beneficiary of the NFL’s new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). With the signing of these high-priced unrestricted free agents club officials now find themselves counting only $5.1 million of the amount spent against the cap this year. Not only did they receive an additional $7.5 million in room with the increase of each team’s cap from $94.5 million to $102.0 million, but they also received a “Deion Rule” benefit of approximately $3.2 million which under the old CBA they would have had to account for. The “Deion Rule” limits the extent you can pro-rate an existing deal.

Just as fortunate, if not a bit odd, Washington benefited from linebacker Lavar Arrington’s surprising forfeiture of $4.4 million in deferred bonus money, thereby putting that full amount back on the team’s books. This is deferred money not some promise for money down the road. Can you really imagine a player giving up money that he’s owed? By forfeiting his money, he got to move on and the team didn’t have to take any hit to its cap. Instead of going $4.4 in the hole the Redskins got a $4.4 benefit. The team later terminated five players shaving approximately $7.3 million off the books. The source of all this cash money seems endless, never mind the cap implications, and owner Dan Snyder’s stadium, team and outside resources give him a decided advantage over most NFL owners.

All this free spending, of course, serves to send a message that the cap means nothing to the Redskins or to any team should they choose a similar route and have Dan Snyder’s cash to spend. But while Washington clearly got a break with the extension of the collective bargaining agreement the franchise will find itself having to substantially reduce its cash spending within the next three years to comply with the cap. To those who don’t know better, or think the Redskins do, the system is set up that cash has to equal cap at some point in time.


http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2006/03/16/dawes_how_do_they_do_it/

Cochise
03-16-2006, 08:22 AM
The poet Swinburne insisted that even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea. That cannot be said of free agency.


Why would you throw in this quote if in the next sentence you admit that has nothing to do with what you're talking about?

BigChiefFan
03-16-2006, 08:28 AM
Rufus rhymes with excuses. EXCUSES Dawes is the new name for this assclown. Is there no end to this pathetic spewing of drivel that "Excuses" Dawes continues with. Yea, yea, the Chiefs are tapped out.

htismaqe
03-16-2006, 08:28 AM
He didn't write it for me. He wrote it for you - the one who camps out at KCChiefs.com waiting for his latest drivel.

Thanks so much for keeping him employed.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 08:33 AM
My only problem with the "this will catch up to Dan Snyder" mantra is that we've been saying it for 5 years now, and once again, in a year that we finally thought it really had caught up to him, he instead gets under the cap and is active in free agency.

I keep thinking the other shoe is going to drop, and it never does.

Chiefnj
03-16-2006, 08:42 AM
"Continuing the river metaphor, there has been the usual opening flood of signings this year including some backup cornerback named Brian Williams who signed a six-year, $32 million dollar deal with the Jacksonville Jaguars – who should know better having gone through this over-spending spree before and suffered for it. Included was a $10 million signing bonus."

The Jags have a top ten defense that has been carrying the team for a few years now. A Chiefs writer using the Jags as an example of what not to do for defense in free agency is a bit moronic. Two other quick points, Williams took over the starting role after Smoot got hurt and kept the job. He's a little more than "some backup". Second, even though Jax allegedly "suffered" from a previous spending spree they've been able to rebuild and develop all the while KC has been treading water in a sea of mediocrity.

BigChiefFan
03-16-2006, 08:43 AM
My only problem with the "this will catch up to Dan Snyder" mantra is that we've been saying it for 5 years now, and once again, in a year that we finally thought it really had caught up to him, he instead gets under the cap and is active in free agency.

I keep thinking the other shoe is going to drop, and it never does.
It never does, because they play within the boundries of the rules, just like all the other teams. They circumvent the cap, by giving bigger signing bonuses, usually in exchange for a lower base salary. Our owner isn't as willing to give the big upfront money through signing bonuses, so we constantly lose out. Money talks.
What is a sham is our front office would have you believe that we can't compete, but they always neglect to mention the NFL SHARED REVENUE, which is an EQUAL CUT for ALL teams. Lamar is POCKETING an average of $35 million EVERY year, just on Chiefs football, that's AFTER the players salaries, the lease, staff salaries, ect...

|Zach|
03-16-2006, 08:47 AM
He didn't write it for me. He wrote it for you - the one who camps out at KCChiefs.com waiting for his latest drivel.

Thanks so much for keeping him employed.
ROFL

jspchief
03-16-2006, 09:03 AM
It never does, because they play within the boundries of the rules, just like all the other teams. They circumvent the cap, by giving bigger signing bonuses, usually in exchange for a lower base salary. Our owner isn't as willing to give the big upfront money through signing bonuses, so we constantly lose out. Money talks.
What is a sham is our front office would have you believe that we can't compete, but they always neglect to mention the NFL SHARED REVENUE, which is an EQUAL CUT for ALL teams. Lamar is POCKETING an average of $35 million EVERY year, just on Chiefs football, that's AFTER the players salaries, the lease, staff salaries, ect...Regardless of how it's structured, it all applies to the cap eventually.

If you you think every owner gets an equal cut, you're sorely misinformed. Dan Snyder probably makes in the neighborhood of 300% of what Lamar Hunt makes.

htismaqe
03-16-2006, 09:06 AM
It never does, because they play within the boundries of the rules, just like all the other teams. They circumvent the cap, by giving bigger signing bonuses, usually in exchange for a lower base salary. Our owner isn't as willing to give the big upfront money through signing bonuses, so we constantly lose out. Money talks.
What is a sham is our front office would have you believe that we can't compete, but they always neglect to mention the NFL SHARED REVENUE, which is an EQUAL CUT for ALL teams. Lamar is POCKETING an average of $35 million EVERY year, just on Chiefs football, that's AFTER the players salaries, the lease, staff salaries, ect...

Dan Snyder has been POCKETING an average of $100 million EVERY YEAR, just on Redskins football, that's AFTER the players salaries, the lease, staff salaries, ect...

Logical
03-16-2006, 09:25 AM
Regardless of how it's structured, it all applies to the cap eventually.

If you you think every owner gets an equal cut, you're sorely misinformed. Dan Snyder probably makes in the neighborhood of 300% of what Lamar Hunt makes.

While what you say may be basically true (300% is an exaggeration) at a surface level, Lamar paid 10K to buy his AFL franchise, Dan Snyder paid $800 Million to buy the Redskins. Lamar is also richer than Dan Snyder, in fact I have read that Lamar is the third richest owner in the NFL. It is all about what you are willing to do with your excess money. Dan Snyder desperately wants to win a Championship, Lamar wants to remain competitive and have the fans filling Arrowhead while minimizing his cash outlay. For Lamar hosting a Super Bowl is more important than playing in one.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 09:37 AM
While what you say may be basically true (300% is an exaggeration) at a surface level, Lamar paid 10K to buy his AFL franchise, Dan Snyder paid $800 Million to buy the Redskins. Lamar is also richer than Dan Snyder, in fact I have read that Lamar is the third richest owner in the NFL. It is all about what you are willing to do with your excess money. Dan Snyder desperately wants to win a Championship, Lamar wants to remain competitive and have the fans filling Arrowhead while minimizing his cash outlay. For Lamar hosting a Super Bowl is more important than playing in one.300% is not an exaggeration. The last Forbes article on the subject had Lamar making 26 million off his team and Snyder making in excess of 100 million.

And what you and so many other fans fail to recognize (inspite of having it explained to you ad infinitum) is that smart business owners don't take money out of their own pocket on an annual basis to pour back into a business. Nor do they take profits from lucrative years decades ago to support current years.

Snyder isn't spending money out of his own pocket. He's just capable of carrying more overhead due to more revenue. You guys want Lamar to break even on a given year, and use Snyder as some sort of justification, ignoring that Snyder is still making tens of millions more in profit despite his spending.

It's like saying Boulevard should spend as much money on advertising as Budweiser does. It completely ignores the discrepency in revenues between the two companies.

Sully
03-16-2006, 09:37 AM
How does Rufus rhyme with excuses?

Dartgod
03-16-2006, 10:08 AM
For Lamar hosting a Super Bowl is more important than playing in one.
That's an asinine statement.

CoMoChief
03-16-2006, 10:38 AM
That's an asinine statement.


Id have to say its true though. Carl would have been gone years ago if that wasnt true. Peterson is one of the longest if not the longest tenured GM on any pro team, and we have 1 playoff win under his belt to show for it. Thats the reality. Now Lamar wants to do all of this stuff to host a SB and cost tax payers money etc, to host a SB that he might not even get to see. Football is supposed to be played outdoors Lamar. Don't ruin Arrowhead with some crappy roof. If we were to get a new stadium in general, then thats fine put a retractable roof on it. The new plans for it look retarded IMO.

Mr. Laz
03-16-2006, 11:03 AM
Dan Snyder has been POCKETING an average of $100 million EVERY YEAR, just on Redskins football, that's AFTER the players salaries, the lease, staff salaries, ect...

link

jspchief
03-16-2006, 11:11 AM
link In 2004 Washington brought in over $100 million more than KC. After expenses, Snyder still pocketed almost $23 million more than Lamar. He's really dipping into his pocket. :rolleyes:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html

tk13
03-16-2006, 11:13 AM
While what you say may be basically true (300% is an exaggeration) at a surface level, Lamar paid 10K to buy his AFL franchise, Dan Snyder paid $800 Million to buy the Redskins. Lamar is also richer than Dan Snyder, in fact I have read that Lamar is the third richest owner in the NFL. It is all about what you are willing to do with your excess money. Dan Snyder desperately wants to win a Championship, Lamar wants to remain competitive and have the fans filling Arrowhead while minimizing his cash outlay. For Lamar hosting a Super Bowl is more important than playing in one.
That is completely inaccurate. Dan Snyder does not pour any "excess" money into his team. He pours more money into his team, because he pulls in way more revenue. He still turns the largest profit in the league year in, and year out. He is making money hand over fist. He is not spending a dime of "excess" money because he wants to win. He simply has a bigger pool of money to play with. Generally, the Chiefs make 20-30 million in profit a year. The Redskins generally make between 50 and 70 million dollars in profit. And that's with the Skins spending way more money on players and coaches than Lamar does.

Mr. Laz
03-16-2006, 11:14 AM
In 2004 Washington brought in over $100 million more than KC. After expenses, Snyder still pocketed almost $23 million more than Lamar. He's really dipping into his pocket. :rolleyes:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.htmlparker said snyder is pocketing 100 million bucks in profit.

i have yet to see a link saying that

jspchief
03-16-2006, 11:20 AM
parker said snyder is pocketing 100 million bucks in profit.

i have yet to see a link saying thatParker was wrong. Snyder is only pocketing $54 million in profit. I was also wrong earlier in the thread when I said Snyder was making 300% of what Hunt does (If we're talking profit). It's more like 180%

I'm not sure it changes his point though.

One owner has more than 100 million in additional revenue to work with, and is still profiting almost double what Hunt is.

The notion that Snyder is making some great sacrifice in the name of "trying to win" is completely baseless.

tk13
03-16-2006, 11:23 AM
And that $54 million was actually a smaller number than previous years. If you go back and look at the couple years before that... he made even more profit... 60-70 million or so. And on top of that, that 2004 season was the one where we "stood pat" in everyone's mind... I would guess our profit for this last season will be a smaller number since we were very active in FA.

58-4ever
03-16-2006, 11:32 AM
So Snyder has makes 180% more, but Washington has signed 700% more players. There is still a little discrepancy.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 11:34 AM
So Snyder has makes 180% more, but Washington has signed 700% more players. There is still a little discrepancy.:rolleyes:

Brilliant.

Logical
03-16-2006, 11:37 AM
300% is not an exaggeration. The last Forbes article on the subject had Lamar making 26 million off his team and Snyder making in excess of 100 million.

And what you and so many other fans fail to recognize (inspite of having it explained to you ad infinitum) is that smart business owners don't take money out of their own pocket on an annual basis to pour back into a business. Nor do they take profits from lucrative years decades ago to support current years.

Snyder isn't spending money out of his own pocket. He's just capable of carrying more overhead due to more revenue. You guys want Lamar to break even on a given year, and use Snyder as some sort of justification, ignoring that Snyder is still making tens of millions more in profit despite his spending.

It's like saying Boulevard should spend as much money on advertising as Budweiser does. It completely ignores the discrepency in revenues between the two companies.

Making 100 million in profits is not a reflection of revenue excess neccessarily. If he uses his own wealth or loans to pay excess expenses above other clubs then his revenue will be higher. That is simple book-keeping. Fact is we don't know how he handles it. What we do know is that his club has a market value because he owns his stadium of just over a billion dollars but that he sank 800 million into buying it. That means he has equity he can invest of around 200 to 300 million before he spends a dime of his own money. Lamar on the other hand does not own his own stadium but the Chiefs are estimated at a 500 million value, since he only paid 10K to buy into the league he has equity of (somewhere under) 500 million he could invest back into the team before he touches his own money. So he could spend much, much more in cash outlays and never touch his own money. Snyder has the additional advantage of having extra Club box income but that does not amount much more than around 10 million more a season. Ownership of the stadium does afford a bigger revenue stream also but that is shared on a 60/40 basis with the league, I have never seen an estimate on what that turns into when it comes to revenue.

By the way the Chiefs have averaged around 40 million in profits per year over the last decade. This cash flow thing is just a hype issue that a lot of fans have bought into that the Chiefs use as an excuse. Every corporation has negative cash flow at some point in their fiscal year, the interest on the money floated is just a miniscule part of the cost of doing business.

Logical
03-16-2006, 11:39 AM
In 2004 Washington brought in over $100 million more than KC. After expenses, Snyder still pocketed almost $23 million more than Lamar. He's really dipping into his pocket. :rolleyes:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html



As is Lamar.ROFL

:rolleyes:

Logical
03-16-2006, 11:42 AM
Parker was wrong. Snyder is only pocketing $54 million in profit. I was also wrong earlier in the thread when I said Snyder was making 300% of what Hunt does (If we're talking profit). It's more like 180%

I'm not sure it changes his point though.

One owner has more than 100 million in additional revenue to work with, and is still profiting almost double what Hunt is.

The notion that Snyder is making some great sacrifice in the name of "trying to win" is completely baseless.
No!, the point is that Lamar could easily spend an addition 25 million a year and never touch his own money if he really wanted to win a Super Bowl.

Mr. Laz
03-16-2006, 11:43 AM
Parker was wrong. Snyder is only pocketing $54 million in profit. I was also wrong earlier in the thread when I said Snyder was making 300% of what Hunt does (If we're talking profit). It's more like 180%

I'm not sure it changes his point though.

One owner has more than 100 million in additional revenue to work with, and is still profiting almost double what Hunt is.

The notion that Snyder is making some great sacrifice in the name of "trying to win" is completely baseless.
so then why are you responding to my post?


so anxious to fight .. that you're not even addressing my point?


mr. "i'm always more accurate than all the rest you stooopid fans" parker was full of chit ............. again.

cdcox
03-16-2006, 11:46 AM
No!, the point is that Lamar could easily spend an addition 25 million a year and never touch his own money if he really wanted to win a Super Bowl.

Exactly for which team could you make the statement:

They've spent every penny they had, without dipping into there own pockets. That proves they really want a Superbowl.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 12:04 PM
so then why are you responding to my post?


so anxious to fight .. that you're not even addressing my point?


mr. "i'm always more accurate than all the rest you stooopid fans" parker was full of chit ............. again.I was just trying to offer some insight on the difference in revenue and profit between the two teams. You asked for a link to the numbers that htismaqe was throwing out, and I provided a link that gave the correct numbers.

I didn't realize the thread was private discussion between you and htismaqe. Next time I'll only speak when spoken to. 4321

I also didn't realize we were "fighting".

jspchief
03-16-2006, 12:07 PM
No!, the point is that Lamar could easily spend an addition 25 million a year and never touch his own money if he really wanted to win a Super Bowl.And only make 6 million dollars?

There isn't a single owner in the NFL that would be willing to make such a small return on his investment. It's still a business.

If you're expecting to find an owner that will cast aside good business acumen in the name of winning, you're not going to find it in the NFL.

Logical
03-16-2006, 12:17 PM
And only make 6 million dollars?

There isn't a single owner in the NFL that would be willing to make such a small return on his investment. It's still a business.

If you're expecting to find an owner that will cast aside good business acumen in the name of winning, you're not going to find it in the NFL.

The point is whether he makes 1, 5, 35 or 40 million it is pocket change for Mr Lamar the billionaire. If a championship was important the money would not be an issue for him.

Logical
03-16-2006, 12:19 PM
Exactly for which team could you make the statement:

They've spent every penny they had, without dipping into there own pockets. That proves they really want a Superbowl.

Not true, last year they almost did, the year befor they spent between 5 and 8 million under the cap. This year if Carl holds to his word they will spend at least 10 million less than the cap.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 12:20 PM
The point is whether he makes 1, 5, 35 or 40 million it is pocket change for Mr Lamar the billionaire. If a championship was important the money would not be an issue for him.People don't get to be billionaires by not caring about profit margins.

You're never going to be satisfied if you expect Hunt to not profit on this team.

Logical
03-16-2006, 12:24 PM
People don't get to be billionaires by not caring about profit margins.

You're never going to be satisfied if you expect Hunt to not profit on this team.

I don't know what the hell you are thinking Lamar was born a billionaire, he did not earn it. H.L. Hunt earned it.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 12:31 PM
I don't know what the hell you are thinking Lamar was born a billionaire, he did not earn it. H.L. Hunt earned it.I realize that. It doesn't change the point that smart business owners don't operate the way you are suggesting Lamar Hunt operate his business.

Your expectations are impractical and unrealistic.

Chiefnj
03-16-2006, 12:50 PM
I also didn't realize we were "fighting".

You are treating Laz like he is an employee of WPI.

jspchief
03-16-2006, 12:52 PM
You are treating Laz like he is an employee of WPI.I don't know what the f*ck his problem is. Apparently he doesn't handle people disagreeing with him very well.

I hope he's not mad that I made another post in his thread.

Mr. Laz
03-16-2006, 12:52 PM
You are treating Laz like he is an employee of WPI.
ROFL ROFL

he always does :sulk:






i have never suked nick dik :harumph:

cdcox
03-16-2006, 12:56 PM
Not true, last year they almost did, the year befor they spent between 5 and 8 million under the cap. This year if Carl holds to his word they will spend at least 10 million less than the cap.

The cap means nothing. The Chiefs could have signed more free agents last year if Lamar was willing to let go of more cash. Give players huge signing bonuses (Lamar's money) and spread that over the cap for several years to lower the cap impact. If you have enough cash your can run well over the cap, at least for many years in a row. Snyder is doing it in Washington, but who else?

Logical
03-16-2006, 01:55 PM
The cap means nothing. The Chiefs could have signed more free agents last year if Lamar was willing to let go of more cash. Give players huge signing bonuses (Lamar's money) and spread that over the cap for several years to lower the cap impact. If you have enough cash your can run well over the cap, at least for many years in a row. Snyder is doing it in Washington, but who else?

Denver, Dallas, Seattle, Rams, to name just a few.

BigChiefFan
03-16-2006, 02:17 PM
Some of you guys are missing the point, which is ALL of the owners have to BUDGET for the salary cap. Lamar Hunt is not alone in the max salary cap number he can spend and neither is Daniel Snyder. ALL of the NFL owners are on a level playing field when it comes to the amount a team can spend in any given year. They BOTH have an EQUAL playing field, when it comes to spending on PLAYERS SALARIES. The difference is, one owner is willing to spend more UPFRONT money. Snyder may make more PROFIT every year, but profit is PROFIT. It means what you make AFTER ALL of your EXPENSES are taken care of. Lamar is still PROFITING, that's AFTER the players are PAID.

Logical
03-16-2006, 02:35 PM
I realize that. It doesn't change the point that smart business owners don't operate the way you are suggesting Lamar Hunt operate his business.

Your expectations are impractical and unrealistic.And that doesn't change that we are unlikely to ever win a championship exactly because Lamar is more worried about it as a business rather than his expensive play toy.

Logical
03-16-2006, 02:37 PM
Some of you guys are missing the point, which is ALL of the owners have to BUDGET for the salary cap. Lamar Hunt is not alone in the max salary cap number he can spend and neither is Daniel Snyder. ALL of the NFL owners are on a level playing field when it comes to the amount a team can spend in any given year. They BOTH have an EQUAL playing field, when it comes to spending on PLAYERS SALARIES. The difference is, one owner is willing to spend more UPFRONT money. Snyder may make more PROFIT every year, but profit is PROFIT. It means what you make AFTER ALL of your EXPENSES are taken care of. Lamar is still PROFITING, that's AFTER the players are PAID.Actually I think we all know that. What we don't agree on is that if we are ever going to win a championship the owner has to have that as his priority over running it like a business.

htismaqe
03-16-2006, 03:39 PM
so then why are you responding to my post?


so anxious to fight .. that you're not even addressing my point?


mr. "i'm always more accurate than all the rest you stooopid fans" parker was full of chit ............. again.

I spoke without doing my research. Oops.

Doesn't change the fact that the rest of you are stupid.

|Zach|
03-16-2006, 03:41 PM
I spoke without doing my research. Oops.

Doesn't change the fact that the rest of you are stupid.
Spoken like a true CP member. ROFL :p

cdcox
03-16-2006, 03:49 PM
Denver, Dallas, Seattle, Rams, to name just a few.

I seriously doubt they've all maxed out the salary cap to the fullest extent possible by converting as much salary to bonuses as possible. We can't see their books, so we can only go by their FA activity. Since no one matches the Redskins in terms of jaw-dropping how-do-they-do-that deals year after year, the other teams on your list are probably not pushing it as hard as they can. They really don't want to win a Super Bowl either.

shaneo69
03-16-2006, 05:33 PM
So to summarize the first three pages of this thread, it sounds like Vlad and Laz think Lamar is a cheap-ass, and everyone else thinks Lamar's doing everything a rational businessman would do to try and win a Super Bowl.

I guess that explains why the Chiefs are still selling out Arrowhead.

|Zach|
03-16-2006, 05:43 PM
So this is the point where people who like to go to the games should try to apologize isn't it Shaneo.

Logical
03-16-2006, 06:33 PM
So to summarize the first three pages of this thread, it sounds like Vlad and Laz think Lamar is a cheap-ass, and everyone else thinks Lamar's doing everything a rational businessman would do to try and win a Super Bowl.

I guess that explains why the Chiefs are still selling out Arrowhead.

Not so much a cheap ass, as someone not commited to winning another Super Bowl. He is commited just enough to keep the team on a winning track overall.

cdcox
03-16-2006, 06:45 PM
Not so much a cheap ass, as someone not commited to winning another Super Bowl. He is commited just enough to keep the team on a winning track overall.

I will agree that Lamar lost his zeal for competitiveness after the AFL/NFL merger right at the time of our SB win. But I point to loyalty to GMs Steadman and Peterson as evidence of that. I don't think his spending patterns are any different from any other team, except maybe Isray who reportedly took money out of his own pocket to pay Manning his huge bonus.

Dave Lane
03-16-2006, 06:57 PM
And only make 6 million dollars?

There isn't a single owner in the NFL that would be willing to make such a small return on his investment. It's still a business.

If you're expecting to find an owner that will cast aside good business acumen in the name of winning, you're not going to find it in the NFL.

The cost of the contract and or signing bonus is amortized over the term of the contract. Not only for the cap but for accounting purposes as well.

Dave

stevieray
03-16-2006, 07:07 PM
I also didn't realize we were "fighting".

I wonder if eventually just looking at someone will be considered agressive.

htismaqe
03-16-2006, 07:38 PM
So to summarize the first three pages of this thread, it sounds like Vlad and Laz think Lamar is a cheap-ass, and everyone else thinks Lamar's doing everything a rational businessman would do to try and win a Super Bowl.

I guess that explains why the Chiefs are still selling out Arrowhead.

Actually, you can put me in the middle.

I think Lamar is doing everything a rational business man would do.

But I DON'T think he's trying to win a Super Bowl.