Owners are pushing for a reduction to this years cap

[tyecopeland]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Negotiations are fluid, but NFL owners continue to push for an agreement to lower the salary cap in 2020 and 2021 — proposals the NFLPA and GMs believe could lead to a rash of veteran cuts and restructures before this season, sources say.</p>&mdash; Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1286361752624603136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Is this a ploy to cut down the chiefs? I dont know why they'd be pushing so hard on this because it would definitely cause problems for many teams not just the chiefs.

Not sure who we'd be able to restructure to push the cap hit back two years, I think we'd (like lots of other teams) have to cut some higher priced veterans.

[Hydrae]

I would rather see them freeze the cap for the next 2-3 years and use the "overages" down the road to pay back the "underages" from this year. Freeze it for 20 and 21 with an option to include some or all of 22 if needed to get the books re-balanced.

[Shaid]

I'd think you figure out the revenue loss and spread that out to the cap over several years to even out the loss between the players/owners. So, no cap reduction, just no cap increase until the losses are evened out.

[Shaid]

I would rather see them freeze the cap for the next 2-3 years and use the "overages" down the road to pay back the "underages" from this year. Freeze it for 20 and 21 with an option to include some or all of 22 if needed to get the books re-balanced.

There you go, we think the same.

[Mecca]

Basically the shitty teams can use financial loss as a way to try to even the playing field.

[tyecopeland]

Basically the shitty teams can use financial loss as a way to try to even the playing field.

Maybe, but it sounds like more of a widespread thought than just the bad teams. Even the GM's are telling them it's a bad idea but they seem to be pushing it anyway.

Trying to get some other non related concession from the players perhaps?

[Sassy Squatch]

Think it's more the NFL is pushing for prorated salaries and the players aren't budging, so they're trying to hit every button they can.

[Mecca]

Maybe, but it sounds like more of a widespread thought than just the bad teams. Even the GM's are telling them it's a bad idea but they seem to be pushing it anyway.

Trying to get some other non related concession from the players perhaps?

The players are going to fight the fuck out of this so good luck is all I can say.

[TribalElder]

The salary cap shouldn't change so much that's fucking stupid

Other teams probably butthurt we were able to sign everyone but guess what, they change the cap and Saint Veach and the players will team up to adjust accordingly to step on the NFL's necks again so fuck them

[MGRS13]

This is a non starter. Almost all of these owners could lose millions for years and they’re still be fine. They need to pay the players and shut up. If they don’t like it sell your team take your profit and get lost.

[Coogs]

There are 11 teams that have more than $20 million is cap space for this year.

So if they shave $20 million off of the cap, would that mean those 11 teams are good to go? But we would have to come up with $15 million of extra cap space from somewhere this late in the game?

And if we just borrow from future years, that is still a huge advantage to those 11 teams, no?

[TribalElder]

I don't see teams running to the table to readjust earnings when they are raking in HUGE profits

fuck outta here ROFL

[ChiefsCountry]

No ticket revenue is going to hurt. That's #2 revenue source behind television. NFL salary cap is based on revenue.

[tyecopeland]

There are 11 teams that have more than $20 million is cap space for this year.

So if they shave $20 million off of the cap, would that mean those 11 teams are good to go? But we would have to come up with $15 million of extra cap space from somewhere this late in the game?

And if we just borrow from future years, that is still a huge advantage to those 11 teams, no?

I was just looking this up myself.

12 teams have less than 10 mil in cap space. And that's not counting rookies for the most part.

Another 7 have less than 15.

[DJ's left nut]

Think it's more the NFL is pushing for prorated salaries and the players aren't budging, so they're trying to hit every button they can.

Yup.

Negotiating maneuver. They couldn't get the escrow plan off the ground with the players so they're pursuing a more draconian approach that they may have more success implementing unilaterally in the hopes that it makes the 'long-term offset' approach they would be willing to deal with more palatable for the NFLPA.

Standard anchoring technique when their first run didn't get any traction.

[Coogs]

I was just looking this up myself.

12 teams have less than 10 mil in cap space. And that's not counting rookies for the most part.

Another 7 have less than 15.

I think we have at least two rookies included at first glance. CEH and Niang.

[DJ's left nut]

The players are going to fight the fuck out of this so good luck is all I can say.

Eh, eventually they'll come to an agreement.

Look, the downshot to the revenue share model that the owners/teams agreed to is that unforeseen collapses in revenue ARE passed on to the players. And ultimately the owners could ram through a massive salary cap decrease as early as next season if/when revenues decline substantially.

The players, understandably in a league with the turnover the NFL has, are saying "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it..." Because guys that are getting a check this year and may not be getting one next year aren't excited to give back a portion of money they would've earned to lessen losses in years they wouldn't have earned any.

The owners are looking for calmer seas and a more consistent salary structure. The players are looking to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. But at worst, when 2021 comes and the owners have in their power the right to unilaterally slash the cap, the players will capitulate and agree to some kind of solution that eases the sting.

[DJ's left nut]

The salary cap shouldn't change so much that's fucking stupid

Other teams probably butthurt we were able to sign everyone but guess what, they change the cap and Saint Veach and the players will team up to adjust accordingly to step on the NFL's necks again so fuck them

Which is probably why Mahomes took a low signing bonus and Jones took none. It allows the Chiefs to adjust on the fly if needed to ensure that their cap isn't impossible to navigate.

If the cap for this season goes down substantially, they can do stuff in the margins w/ guys like Sorensen and probably sneak under it. If it goes down substantially NEXT season, they can burn that 'signing bonus' bullet and turn $26 million of Mahomes salary into bonus and $20 million of Jones salary into bonus and get themselves almost $35 million in cap relief in 2021.

They'll be fine.

[BigRedChief]

I'd think you figure out the revenue loss and spread that out to the cap over several years to even out the loss between the players/owners. So, no cap reduction, just no cap increase until the losses are evened out.There is a temporary reduction in revenue. No need to fight. Spread it out. New TV contracts are coming even with Covid. The owners don't have a cash flow problem. Seems like a no-brainer.

[Redbled]

I can’t see them lowering it this year. That sends a really bad message to players and fans.

[Coogs]

Which is probably why Mahomes took a low signing bonus and Jones took none. It allows the Chiefs to adjust on the fly if needed to ensure that their cap isn't impossible to navigate.

If the cap for this season goes down substantially, they can do stuff in the margins w/ guys like Sorensen and probably sneak under it. If it goes down substantially NEXT season, they can burn that 'signing bonus' bullet and turn $26 million of Mahomes salary into bonus and $20 million of Jones salary into bonus and get themselves almost $35 million in cap relief in 2021.

They'll be fine.

So if all of the money can be pushed around by all of the teams to avoid taking a hit to the cap, then there is really no "savings" for the owners by lowering the cap. Correct? Then what is the point of wanting to lowering the cap?

[Valiant]

No ticket revenue is going to hurt. That's #2 revenue source behind television. NFL salary cap is based on revenue.

True. But more people will be watching on TV, online. Just increase your cost for games not on the normal market for broadcast rights and commercial costs.

[Mecca]

So if all of the money can be pushed around by all of the teams to avoid taking a hit to the cap, then there is really no "savings" for the owners by lowering the cap. Correct? Then what is the point of wanting to lowering the cap?

It would benefit the teams that aren't over the cap, you know the shitty ones.

[BossChief]

Which is probably why Mahomes took a low signing bonus and Jones took none. It allows the Chiefs to adjust on the fly if needed to ensure that their cap isn't impossible to navigate.

If the cap for this season goes down substantially, they can do stuff in the margins w/ guys like Sorensen and probably sneak under it. If it goes down substantially NEXT season, they can burn that 'signing bonus' bullet and turn $26 million of Mahomes salary into bonus and $20 million of Jones salary into bonus and get themselves almost $35 million in cap relief in 2021.

They'll be fine.

That’s exactly why the 3 deals for Sammy, Pat and Chris took so long I’d presume.

[DJ's left nut]

So if all of the money can be pushed around by all of the teams to avoid taking a hit to the cap, then there is really no "savings" for the owners by lowering the cap. Correct? Then what is the point of wanting to lowering the cap?

Not all of the owners will move the money around. Many will use it as an easy and palatable excuse to reduce costs.

Leaguewide it WILL make a major impact on overall expenditures. The Chiefs are just uniquely situated in having 2 gigantic contracts w/ little/no 'concrete' money on the cap that couldn't be converted to bonus.

Most teams won't have that flexibility to get under the cap or the willingness (by players or owners) to spend 'above' it through creative contract structures.

[DJ's left nut]

That’s exactly why the 3 deals for Sammy, Pat and Chris took so long I’d presume.

Sammy's didn't take long at all. And not coincidentally, his is the one that is least likely to provide any meaningful relief in that it's short term and unlikely to be extended.

Sammy's is largely removed from this calculus, IMO. It's pretty hard to escape this year and gives little in the way of long-term flexibility beyond it as I don't think the Chiefs have any designs on keeping him here for another several seasons.

[RINGLEADER]

This has clusterfudge written all over it.

I understand owners shouldn’t have to bear the full brunt per the CBA, but I think they shoukd finance the hit and spread it out over 10 years. Let them get a return on the financing if they want.

[RINGLEADER]

Which is probably why Mahomes took a low signing bonus and Jones took none. It allows the Chiefs to adjust on the fly if needed to ensure that their cap isn't impossible to navigate.

If the cap for this season goes down substantially, they can do stuff in the margins w/ guys like Sorensen and probably sneak under it. If it goes down substantially NEXT season, they can burn that 'signing bonus' bullet and turn $26 million of Mahomes salary into bonus and $20 million of Jones salary into bonus and get themselves almost $35 million in cap relief in 2021.

They'll be fine.

Great post.

[Mecca]

This has clusterfudge written all over it.

I understand owners shouldn’t have to bear the full brunt per the CBA, but I think they shoukd finance the hit and spread it out over 10 years. Let them get a return on the financing if they want.

Unless you are one of the what top 5-7 teams, why wouldn't you want this? A team with a ton of cap spending that needs to rebuild can easily sell cuts as well we had too, Falcons are a great example of this. It also is going to let a bunch of the owners who aren't in winning position pocket more money..

Sadly the Chiefs are in the minority here, there are maybe 5 teams that think they can compete.

[DJ's left nut]

This has clusterfudge written all over it.

I understand owners shouldn’t have to bear the full brunt per the CBA, but I think they shoukd finance the hit and spread it out over 10 years. Let them get a return on the financing if they want.

Again - that's what they want to do. At the moment they just haven't gotten a lot of movement from the NFLPA on the idea.

So they're saber-rattling a bit and letting it be known what they very well COULD do, even without player approval. And it's a thing that would serve the current players pretty poorly.

They're just trying to perk some ears up, that's all.

[O.city]

I was gonna say the same thing as DJ

It’s the owners getting it out there. I wouldn’t worry

[dlphg9]

Again - that's what they want to do. At the moment they just haven't gotten a lot of movement from the NFLPA on the idea.

So they're saber-rattling a bit and letting it be known what they very well COULD do, even without player approval. And it's a thing that would serve the current players pretty poorly.

They're just trying to perk some ears up, that's all.

I wonder how united the owners are on this? Even though this is a negotiating tactic I am sure there are some owners that actually want this to happen and then there are other owners that are 100% against it. If they decreased the cap there is probably going to be a couple of teams that have to either release a good player or release several guys that are on the bottom of the pay scale and run the risk of not being able to field a full roster.

[Lprechaun]

IF they can get a full season in they wont lose any money IF they would just nationally televise more games. I said it before. Never has the NGL had a chance to be the ONLY football on for its entire season.
Ditch Thursday Night Football
2 MNF
2 Sunday NF
Saturday early and late and night games
Sunday early and late
Make up the losses in tv revenue. Networks would scramble to get more games.

[Hoover]

Hard to change the rules of the game after the game has started.

Makes no sense to even considering lowering the cap for 2021 - so I wonder what they really want instead?

[DaFace]

When I mentioned this three months ago, I was told it wouldn't happen.

[DaFace]

Hard to change the rules of the game after the game has started.

Makes no sense to even considering lowering the cap for 2021 - so I wonder what they really want instead?

They're not changing the rules. They're basically wanting to lower it in 2020 so that 2021 isn't a blood bath.

The cap isn't arbitrary. It's based on revenues. So if the revenues this year are in the tank, the 2021 cap will be in the tank as well unless they agree to something that will help to spread the impact.

[DJ's left nut]

When I mentioned this three months ago, I was told it wouldn't happen.

It won’t.

The players will force a 2021 bloodbath before they accept a 2020 reduction.

[Chief Roundup]

No ticket revenue is going to hurt. That's #2 revenue source behind television. NFL salary cap is based on revenue.
This is where it all stems from.
True. But more people will be watching on TV, online. Just increase your cost for games not on the normal market for broadcast rights and commercial costs.
Those commercial costs are set by the network. The TV networks already have a contract in place with the NFL they are not going to change those costs.


As Chiefs Country touched on this has to do with no fans in the stands.
Schefter broke it months ago that if there was no fans it would cost $30 Million to $80 Million in cap for the next season. The NFL is trying to spread that hit over this and next season to mitigate what could be a cap disaster.
This is also part of the reason behind the ads on tarps in the first 20 rows. They can recoup some of that loss with those ads as long as there are actual games.
If it is going to cost each team $50 Million, using the middle of Schefters info, Then they could spread that between owners and players and $25M each side would have to be adjusted or spread that out over 2 years and $12.5M each side over the next 2 seasons.

[Hoover]

They're not changing the rules. They're basically wanting to lower it in 2020 so that 2021 isn't a blood bath.

The cap isn't arbitrary. It's based on revenues. So if the revenues this year are in the tank, the 2021 cap will be in the tank as well unless they agree to something that will help to spread the impact.

Sure they are. They set the cap, teams then retain and cut players based on that number, now after free agency and the tags are done, they want to lower that number? It doesn't work. Chiefs have less than 6M in cap space.

Good luck with that. They should borrow against the future know there is a new TV deal in the works.

[MAHOMO 4 LIFE!]

Veach said yesterday on 610 Sports that he has a plan in place in case this happens. In case the salary cap gets cut.

[Pitt Gorilla]

When does gambling revenue kick in?

[tyecopeland]

Which is probably why Mahomes took a low signing bonus and Jones took none. It allows the Chiefs to adjust on the fly if needed to ensure that their cap isn't impossible to navigate.

If the cap for this season goes down substantially, they can do stuff in the margins w/ guys like Sorensen and probably sneak under it. If it goes down substantially NEXT season, they can burn that 'signing bonus' bullet and turn $26 million of Mahomes salary into bonus and $20 million of Jones salary into bonus and get themselves almost $35 million in cap relief in 2021.

They'll be fine.

They can make a pretty sizable dent in a hit this year by taking about 15 mil of jones contract and make it a signing bonus. That would free up about 11 mil.

[DJ's left nut]

Sure they are. They set the cap, teams then retain and cut players based on that number, now after free agency and the tags are done, they want to lower that number? It doesn't work. Chiefs have less than 6M in cap space.

Good luck with that. They should borrow against the future know there is a new TV deal in the works.

I did overstate things a little bit.

It could happen as part of a negotiated solution.

I mean obviously current NFL players are largely going to want to see the can kicked down the road. Those hits will then come in years where they may/may not even be in the league anymore. They would want to see them come in years that their respective earning potentials are diminished or eliminated outright so as to ease the sting.

Owners, OTOH, from a strictly economic perspective (lets set aside competitive concerns right now) would like to see the reduction as quickly as possible. It allows them to cover the 'miss' in their books almost immediately. A miss has a monetary value to them - it's debt. Be it time value of potential earnings or the debt service of loans taken out to cover shortfalls, time = money to the owners.

So the owners theoretically could call the players bluff and say that they're gonna just hammer all the losses into 2021's cap...unless the players agree to some reductions in 2020 (and those 'escrow' suggestions). And if the players will do that, the owners will agree to spread the rest of the losses out over 5 years or something like that.

But ultimately I'd probably call that bluff if I'm the NFLPA. Because what's the benefit? For the most part the contracts are in place and the team rosters are set. Lowering the 2020 cap serves no real practical purpose apart from providing cover to owners to cut people they wanted to cut anyway. And if they're truly financially strapped, they'll do that regardless of public opinion.

The greatest ally for the NFLPA in all this is going to be that thing I set aside earlier - competitive concerns. Probably a full 1/3 of the league has little interest in seeing their teams torn asunder by a slashed cap because they LIKE the teams they've assembled. Another 1/3 probably loves the idea. So in that squishy middle you only need to find a handful of owners that just don't want to deal with the headache of a salary cap slash and roster purge.

I don't think that would be terribly hard. If I'm the NFLPA, I call the bluff.

[MAHOMO 4 LIFE!]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A statement following our Executive Committee meeting: <a href="https://t.co/pSkq369jeh">pic.twitter.com/pSkq369jeh</a></p>&mdash; NFLPA (@NFLPA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/1286736810413105152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[duncan_idaho]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A statement following our Executive Committee meeting: <a href="https://t.co/pSkq369jeh">pic.twitter.com/pSkq369jeh</a></p>&mdash; NFLPA (@NFLPA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/1286736810413105152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Was this the proposal of no change to 2020 and locking 2021 in at $175M minimum?

Best-case scenario for Chiefs, IMO.

[DJ's left nut]

Was this the proposal of no change to 2020 and locking 2021 in at $175M minimum?

Best-case scenario for Chiefs, IMO.

That's the rumor, yes. With any add'l losses spread out over the following 5 years.

Chiefs can just change Mahomes salary to a bonus and effectively cover that decrease. May sting a little bit in 2022 (before that TV money hits the cap) but it's doable.

I would once again thing REALLY hard about cutting Anthony Hitchens loose right this very second. You'd free $8 million from the 2021 cap even though you wouldn't gain any space this year.

[ArrowheadHawk]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29531605/sources-nfl-camps-open-pending-ok-players

Among the agreements by NFL teams, sources told ESPN:

The 80-man roster deadline is Aug. 16, before padded practice, but teams can have 90-man rosters if they go with a split-squad setup. Some teams have plans to split squads and use stadium and regular practice facilities.

The salary cap remains the same for 2020 and there is a cap floor of $175 million in 2021 with the possibility of being higher based on revenue streams.

There will be a fund/benefit established to pay back any benefits eliminated as a result of COVID-19 up to 2023, as well as paying back any lost guaranteed money to players.

[Pitt Gorilla]

That's the rumor, yes. With any add'l losses spread out over the following 5 years.

Chiefs can just change Mahomes salary to a bonus and effectively cover that decrease. May sting a little bit in 2022 (before that TV money hits the cap) but it's doable.

I would once again thing REALLY hard about cutting Anthony Hitchens loose right this very second. You'd free $8 million from the 2021 cap even though you wouldn't gain any space this year.I've been thinking about that since they signed him.

[BossChief]

They will make up a huge chunk of the Gates losses by advertising in unused sections, the first 8 rows and other things like advertising on jerseys.

The owners aren’t going to let that $$$ walk out without having a plan in place to recoup some of it.

[DJ's left nut]

I've been thinking about that since they signed him.

Is Damien Wilson a demonstrably worse player than Anthony Hitchens?

I just don't think he is.

Roughly the same size, Wilson may even be a touch more athletic. Why can Hitchens play the middle but we've convinced ourselves that Wilson can't?

Eh, I'm just beating a dead horse at this point. I just feel like with guys like Bradham and Ogletree still out there, you could sign either (hell, both of them) for the vet minimum, put Wilson in the middle and get yeoman's efforts from the 2 vets while Gay eventually works his way into the starting lineup.

And in the process you've made your cap a lot smoother for next season.

[DaneMcCloud]

They will make up a huge chunk of the Gates losses by advertising in unused sections, the first 8 rows and other things like advertising on jerseys.

The owners aren’t going to let that $$$ walk out without having a plan in place to recoup some of it.

Yeah, and considering that the Green Bay Packers made $500 million last year, despite the $200 million dollar Salary Cap, these teams won't be in the red this season or next.

The owners "excuse" is bullshit. If they really cared about their players and fans (which clearly, they don't), this wouldn't even be an issue but those greedy fucks want the players to lose out on revenues while collecting hundreds of millions in profits.

It's complete bullshit.

[BossChief]

Yeah, Hitchens has been a big disappointment, unfortunately.

Neimann May we’ll end up a better player than him, if he isn’t already.

[BossChief]

Yeah, and considering that the Green Bay Packers made $500 million last year, despite the $200 million dollar Salary Cap, these teams aren't to be in the red this season or next.

The owners "excuse" is bullshit. If they really cared about their players and fans (which clearly, they don't), this wouldn't even be an issue but those greedy fucks want the players to lose out on revenues while collecting hundreds of millions in profits.

It's complete bullshit.

Crazy. With them being publicly owned I imagine their books are open.

If they profited that much, I’m surprised the teams don’t have to show every penny because if the average profit is that much, the salary cap should be much higher.

[DJ's left nut]

Yeah, and considering that the Green Bay Packers made $500 million last year, despite the $200 million dollar Salary Cap, these teams won't be in the red this season or next.

The owners "excuse" is bullshit. If they really cared about their players and fans (which clearly, they don't), this wouldn't even be an issue but those greedy fucks want the players to lose out on revenues while collecting hundreds of millions in profits.

It's complete bullshit.

It's...the deal.

What MLB tried to do was bullshit, sure. Because the respective parties have refused to enter into an agreement on a revenue split.

But the NFL and the NFLPA entered into an agreement on how they'll split league revenues. Revenues have declined so the pro-rata share the players get will decline along with them.

That's....the deal. I'm not sure what has you so spun up about it.

[DJ's left nut]

Crazy. With them being publicly owned I imagine their books are open.

If they profited that much, I’m surprised the teams don’t have to show every penny because if the average profit is that much, the salary cap should be much higher.

They didn't make $200 million. They made 1/3 of that.

Which is still a shitload of money, don't get me wrong. But it was also at the tail end of the previously agreed upon revenue split that everyone and their brother said was a mauling of the NFLPA.

So yes, the previous system was tilted heavily against the players from day 1 and only got worse from then. The new agreement is significantly more player friendly in that 1) it was a more equitable deal on its face and 2) it took into account increased revenues over the life of the deal better.

In either event, it was a collectively bargained deal. One that the owners could've leaned heavily into and blasted the players with next season. They came to a negotiated compromise that costs the owners a little more money over the long-term in exchange for labor peace.

That's how this is supposed to work.

[DaneMcCloud]

That's....the deal. I'm not sure what has you so spun up about it.

Well, for starters, the NFL doesn't disclose their financials to the NFLPA, so they really have no idea how much each franchise is earning.

The NFLPA wants to play and just like always, they cave to the owner's demands, despite the fact that it's not a level playing field.

Alas, the owners always cry poverty while in reality, they're profiting hundreds of millions of dollars, while De Maurice Smith gets worked over.

[duncan_idaho]

Yeah, not concerned about a floor of $175M. Seeing a lot of doom and gloom about the Chiefs situation in 2021, but they still have a lot of flex.

Mahomes and Jones contracts can be restructured to get a bunch of money freed up in 2021.

Mathieu, Kelce, Schwartz, even Fisher could all be extended and free up 2021 money.

[DJ's left nut]

Well, for starters, the NFL doesn't disclose their financials to the NFLPA, so they really have no idea how much each franchise is earning.

The NFLPA wants to play and just like always, they cave to the owner's demands, despite the fact that it's not a level playing field.

Alas, the owners always cry poverty while in reality, they're profiting hundreds of millions of dollars, while De Maurice Smith gets worked over.

When do the owners cry poverty? Again, this isn't MLB.

The owners have simply pointed out that if revenues fall, the revenue share falls and the cap falls commensurately. That can either be left unchanged, in which case there will be a sever drop in the 2021 cap, or it can be pro-actively addressed via an amended agreement. An agreement that actually puts profits behind stability.

And you're not exactly being fair regarding the Packers as the model. The Packers are owned free and clear. Their overhead is tiny compared to the overhead of many (most) clubs that are carrying substantial debt service.

But again, that's not to say that each NFL team isn't making tens of millions annually at this point - they very probably are. Some more, some less. Now virtually all of them were at/near the peak of their profitability last season under the dying breaths of a CBA that everyone knew was AWFUL for the players. The new one is a fair amount better for the NFLPA.

But then again, the owners aren't 'crying poverty' either.

They're simply pointing out the natural and probable consequences of the distributions due to players pursuant to the CBA over the coming year.

[DaneMcCloud]

They're simply pointing out the natural and probable consequences of the distributions due to players pursuant to the CBA over the coming year.

Agree to disagree.

I will never side with the owners because they're full of shit.

They never disclose their financial reports, so the NFLPA has no idea how much revenue the NFL is actually generating.

And while revenues will likely decrease this season (which is debatable), there's not a chance in hell that any NFL team owner will "lose" money in 2020.

[DJ's left nut]

Agree to disagree.

I will never side with the owners because they're full of shit.

They never disclose their financial reports, so the NFLPA has no idea how much revenue the NFL is actually generating.

And while revenues will likely decrease this season (which is debatable), there's not a chance in hell that any NFL team owner will "lose" money in 2020.

{shrug}

Probably not. But if you've got $2 billion to throw at a football team, you could take that same $2 billion and toss it in a hundred different zero risk investments and draw a 3% yield. You'd never have to risk your principal (as owners don't as franchises ain't losing value over any meaningful timeline).

That's $60 million in annual returns.

So let's just use the Packers here as a baseline - that doesn't seem unfair. They're a relatively small team but have a major national following and a rabid fanbase. They're most assuredly an above average team in terms of profitability. And to your concerns regarding transparency - hard to say that the Packers aren't about as transparent an organization as you could ask for in this regard.

At peak profitability (in terms of TV contracts and CBA terms) they made $70 million last year. They also roughly broke even the year prior to that. Over the course of the decade, they averaged right around $45 million/yr in profit.

For a team with an estimated franchise value of roughly $2.9 billion.

That's a 1.5% annual return if that team was sold and the proceeds re-invested elsewhere. Or, y'know, not great. For a team with no overhead to speak of that's almost certainly among the most profitable teams in the NFL.

This is just angry populist stuff.

The owners traded profits for stability here. They were more generous than they HAD to be. I simply see no utility in putting them on blast for it.

[duncan_idaho]

Yeah, not concerned about a floor of $175M. Seeing a lot of doom and gloom about the Chiefs situation in 2021, but they still have a lot of flex.

Mahomes and Jones contracts can be restructured to get a bunch of money freed up in 2021.

Mathieu, Kelce, Schwartz, even Fisher could all be extended and free up 2021 money.

Just did this on Over the Cap. Using comparison deals for the extensions and restructuring $35M in roster bonuses from Mahomes and Jones into signing bonuses, ended up with $150M in commitments for 21. Leaves a lot of room to manuever....

[DaneMcCloud]

{shrug}

Probably not. But if you've got $2 billion to throw at a football team, you could take that same $2 billion and toss it in a hundred different zero risk investments and draw a 3% yield. You'd never have to risk your principal (as owners don't as franchises ain't losing value over any meaningful timeline)

Dude, come on.

While many of these owners are "legacy" owners, meaning they didn't need to do a goddamn thing in order to own a franchise, those that do purchase any sports franchise, whether it's the NBA, MLB, NHL or the NFL, do so because it's seen as a "Status Symbol" and something they can brag about, not because they're looking for a sound ROI.

And in making that purchase, they'll be able to print money, even during a pandemic.

The owners traded profits for stability here. They were more generous than they HAD to be. I simply see no utility in putting them on blast for it.

Yeah, remember this when teams are cutting star players next year in order to get under the salary cap, which of course, will benefit the wealthiest owners (like Jerry Jones), who will swoop in and grab a bunch of talented players while the rest of the league's chances to compete for a division title see their best players end up elsewhere.

[DJ's left nut]

Dude, come on.

While many of these owners are "legacy" owners, meaning they didn't need to do a goddamn thing in order to own a franchise, those that do purchase any sports franchise, whether it's the NBA, MLB, NHL or the NFL, do so because it's seen as a "Status Symbol" and something they can brag about, not because they're looking for a sound ROI.

And in making that purchase, they'll be able to print money, even during a pandemic.

No question. And they could just as easily sell said franchise and invest the proceeds into FAR more profitable ventures. Ventures that print even more money.

But owning an NFL team is more fun and carries more prestige. Which is kinda my point - this isn't about making a ton of money for most of them. They could virtually all put their money to better use.

This is about making as much money as the players will let them make while continuing to play football thus allowing them to garner that prestige and ego boost.

Which is all they're doing here.

Yeah, remember this when teams are cutting star players next year in order to get under the salary cap, which of course, will benefit the wealthiest owners (like Jerry Jones), who will swoop in and grab a bunch of talented players while the rest of the league's chances to compete for a division title see their best players end up elsewhere.

Sure. But again, the owners created a floor on any potential cap reduction today. If revenues don't decline pursuant to the agreed upon formula, the cap won't fall. If they do decline less than anticipated, this agreement won't matter.

And if they fall by a lot, there's now a floor on the commensurate cap reduction.

This can do nothing but inure to the benefit of the players. Apart from the airing of old grievances, what possible complaint can there be over this?

[DaneMcCloud]

This can do nothing but inure to the benefit of the players. Apart from the airing of old grievances, what possible complaint can there be over this?

My opinion is that it would be far more fair and equitable to the players and GM's to spread any loss of revenues in 2020 to future cap years, especially after the new TV licensing deals are in place or even to 2025, when gambling money has been infused into the equation.

I see this "agreement" as yet another ploy that the wealthiest owners will exploit, with the loudest voices in the room winning again AND on their own behalf.

[tyecopeland]

Just did this on Over the Cap. Using comparison deals for the extensions and restructuring $35M in roster bonuses from Mahomes and Jones into signing bonuses, ended up with $150M in commitments for 21. Leaves a lot of room to manuever....

How many players were on the roster?

[duncan_idaho]

How many players were on the roster?


Around 40. Didn’t do an exact count. But $25M would leave plenty of room to pay rookies and make some smaller deals for free agents.

[Brooklyn]

This wouldn’t hurt the Chiefs anyways. They’d have to cut some expensive veterans, which might suck, but then all the other teams would be flooding the market with their vets too. And with a shrinking cap and little to no money to go around to these newly streeted free agents, watch then all flock to KC on vet min deals in pursuit of a ring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redbled]

This wouldn’t hurt the Chiefs anyways. They’d have to cut some expensive veterans, which might suck, but then all the other teams would be flooding the market with their vets too. And with a shrinking cap and little to no money to go around to these newly streeted free agents, watch then all flock to KC on vet min deals in pursuit of a ring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Super valid point. This helps destination teams.

[DaneMcCloud]

This wouldn’t hurt the Chiefs anyways. They’d have to cut some expensive veterans, which might suck, but then all the other teams would be flooding the market with their vets too. And with a shrinking cap and little to no money to go around to these newly streeted free agents, watch then all flock to KC on vet min deals in pursuit of a ring.

This is a pipe dream.

The Chiefs are currently at $202 million for the 2021 season, which means they'd need to cut $27 million in salary from their roster in order to meet the $175 million dollar floor. Additionally, they'll need to add back in LDT's Base Salary from 2020, which is at least another $2.75 million, which pushes this number closer to $30 million.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/kansas-city-chiefs/

Now, look at the Chiefs cap situation in 2021: The Chiefs are completely Top Heavy in terms of salary. They can't cut Hitchens without taking another $8.4 million in Dead Cap, meaning their new number would be closer to $36 million over. They can't cut Frank Clark, Travis Kelce, Tyrann Mathieu, Mitch Schwartz, Tyreek Hill, Harrison Butker or obviously, Patrick Mahomes.

That leaves them the option to cut Chris Jones, which would free up $21.5 million, Alex Okafor, which would free up around $4 million and Eric Fisher, which would free up around $8 million.

So let's say they cut Fisher and Okafor, which would free up around $12 million. Well, they'd still need to sign their draft choices, which would be around $6 million, so they're back to cutting more than $18 million again. And that pushes them straight to the cap, without signing a single Free Agent.

So where do you find $18 million more in salary to cut and who's your new starting Left Tackle and starting DE? Sure, they could try to extend guys or push their cap money down the road, as Clark, Mathieu, Jones and Kelce would be prime candidates but what if they can't agree to terms? And adding a massive cap number to guys getting up in age like Mathieu and Kelce could hurt them in future years.

If the floor truly comes in at $175 million, Brett Veach is going to have a massive job on his hands and it won't be as easy as replacing aging veterans with guys that want to play for the possibility of a Super Bowl ring for Veteran Minimum.

[keg in kc]

Lowering the cap now would seem odd, since it's after all the important deadlines like the June 1 tender, the June 15 tender, the July 15 franchise player deadline and the July 22nd deadlines for URFAs and transition players. By this point, GMs have completely built their teams around the prior established numbers...

[Direckshun]

I’ve identified Mathieu, Kelce, and Schwartz as likely extensions — Mathieu’s in particular could save us around $15m.

That’s *before* we noodle with Jones and Mahomes and Clark if need be, who all can have their salary turned into signing bonus money.

The Chiefs will have cap space next year. But it’s looking more likely that Fisher May be out the door to make that happen.