ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
As I've said in many threads, I don't think Kraft is cheap. However, no matter how often some people insist that he's not, the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.
This is the first paragraph from the link above:
Quote:
I was able to get a look at some NFL Management Council figures on “committed cash,” which is a fancy way of saying how much each team spent in actual dollars (not salary cap funny money) on player costs during a fixed period of time. In this case, we’re looking at the gross totals spent on salaries and bonuses to players for the past five seasons — from 2004-2008.
(emphasis added)
Anyone who thinks that the salary cap is "funny money" really does not understand what is going on. The "cash out of pocket" figures reflect the fact that on large contracts players are paid years in advance.
The salary cap is an accounting device that establishes the maximum amount of money that a team can spend in a year. The Patriots spend the maximum amount that they are allowed to spend year in and year out (at least when there was a salary cap).
You cannot argue that the Patriots are cheap from the figures in the link above. I am not up to trying to explain why. If you don't understand it, you just don't understand it. Maybe someone could interest Miguel in explaining it.
I am also not up to reading carefully all of the posts in this thread, I would be delighted to hear that someone has already made the same point.
Last edited by plk; 05-25-2011 at 10:03 AM..
Reason: clarity
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
what can i say? i think the Owners LOW-BALLED the Players big time, led by Kraft. and now the season is in jeopardy.
FWIW, Kraft was not in the room negotiating. . . . Maybe you can fault him for not being there, but even that might not be fair (since it seems like the owners wanted specific people involved/not involved).
__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm very dubious about this survey. For starters there's been a salary cap every year but one so there shouldn't be huge long term divergences between the top teams in salaries paid. Now maybe some other teams had blips because they gave huge signing bonuses right before the survey was done but, over the long term, it's really hard to outspend other top teams.
Not vast differences (see: MLB), but the salary floor was something like 80-85% of the cap, so a team could consistently be $10M-$20M below the limit year after year.
__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not vast differences (see: MLB), but the salary floor was something like 80-85% of the cap, so a team could consistently be $10M-$20M below the limit year after year.
I certainly agree with that. Top teams can't outspend each other consistently-the Cowboys' 2008 spending spree was followed by a lean year in 2009-but Tampa bay or whoever can be at the bottom year after year.
I'd also dispute that "not spending as much as Jerry Jones" is tantamount to cheapness-the Cowboys have a national brand and are in the heart of a football crazy state so they probably have more revenue than our Patsies. What you'd really need to see is a chart of percentage of revenues spent on football-related activities for every team and then you could judge where Kraft ranks.
Likewise the Redskins aren't always spending more than others. now they don't always figure out the correct value of talent and they have big bonuses for some key players (*cough* Albert Haynesworth *couch*).
But, many of their big contracts are backloaded and t he players are not likely to see some of those dollars. so, it's easy to ballon a contract for the total $$, but a player can be cut before the contract ends without havign to pay up (other than guaranteed $$ which is what most players are concerned with).
I get what you're saying, but I'd probably state it as there being a more gradual step down. There's still a sizeable gap ($67.5 million) between the highest of the middle (#4) and the lowest of the middle (#29). It's a larger gap than the difference between #1 and #10, at an average of $16.875 million per year.
In the end, there was over $100 million more spent by #1 than #32. That's more than $25 million per season.
The article doesn't provide enough facts to truly analyze. I'd really like to see the overall salary cap for these five years. And I really want to see the figures for the teams that spent more than the salary total to understand exactly how they did this. We have the aggregate numbers for 2004-2008. Do we get the same results for 2003-2007 or 2005-2009? Who knows?
So it's interesting and useful in a broad sense but is still very fuzzy around the edges.
Well we all know that information isn't public, so we'll never know. All we know is they've had the smallest staff and fewest assistants in the league for many years now, and that they've chosen to develop *mostly* unknown and low profile people on their staff who wouldn't command big money given their backgrounds before they joined.
Interestingly enough, this is BBs stated strategy - not necessarily because he's cheap but because he wants people that live and breathe football and are willing to do whatever it takes to move ahead in this game like he was.
So, getting a business deal that will enable the league, as a whole, to continue to function and make money without his franchise having to carry other franchises makes him greedy?? Huh.. learn something new every day...
Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but you don't become a bllionaire by not being greedy.
9Likes
Re: Kraft is NOT Cheap
Linear Mode
