NE39
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,056
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The fact is the Pats have spent all their cap room under the Krafts. They may not have leveraged the future as heavily as they may have, but no cap room went unused. That is a fact which is not disputable.
Felger is in no position to be commenting on that really. The league goes by the cap THOSE are the numbers that the league go by..now he's trying to be a business authority. THAt is stretching it far far too much. His kowledge is poor and taking an article in teh US today and running with it like it's gold is silly. Yes he pulled up some data..but that is like taking numbers from a financial and not knowing all else about those numbers. He would not even let Kraft explain what those numbers were! That is not only rude, but shows how little Felger REALLY wanted to know..He had those numbers and he was going to shove them down Kraft's throat even though he really could NEVER explain them. Take the numbers andFelger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.
Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.
Thanks...a great article..I think with Felger it's the latter...a REAl discussion on the economics of a football team would be boring to many..but to some who wish to undesrtand how it all is put together with the cap and other financials REALLY interesting from many view points. I now myself, I would never venture into commenting on that because I don't understand the details. Felger wishes NOT to understand, but rather throw a grenade and then filibuster and cut off, afraid to really have anyone explain anything. How cowardly is that?This is what Felger doesn't get or doesn't want to understand.
The NFL?s Smartest Business Team | BNET
For any of use who are managers, directors, VPs, etc, force ranking your employees is what you do. It's what you do when thinking about come budget time, when promoting, firing or laying people off.
The Pats follow this corporate philosophy to a "T" and never deviate from it.
This is what Felger doesn't get or doesn't want to understand.
The NFL?s Smartest Business Team | BNET
For any of use who are managers, directors, VPs, etc, force ranking your employees is what you do. It's what you do when thinking about come budget time, when promoting, firing or laying people off.
Nothing there precludes the team from spending more in actual dollars if it so chooses. In fact, the claim of a 'maximized' revenue stream gives more credence to Felger's assertion that the team should be spending more money. A more effective rebuttal would be to point out the debt service on the stadium, as one example, rather than pointing out how good the team is about bringing in money to fill its pockets above and beyond the salary cap.
This is not true. They have deliberately manipulated the cap to push money into later years. That's not spending all the cap room. I'm not complaining about the maneuver, but it does need to be pointed out in response to posts such as yours. The Patriots have used gimmicks like the LBTE to play games with the so-called hard cap.
Felger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.
Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.
Nothing there precludes the team from spending more in actual dollars if it so chooses. In fact, the claim of a 'maximized' revenue stream gives more credence to Felger's assertion that the team should be spending more money. A more effective rebuttal would be to point out the debt service on the stadium, as one example, rather than pointing out how good the team is about bringing in money to fill its pockets above and beyond the salary cap.
The cap is the same for all teams. You can spend more actual dollars, but what you are doing is spending future cap money. At some point, that will have to be accounted for.
If you spend like crazy now, you are hoping for one of two things:
1) The cap will continue to rise indefinitely by a large amount
2) The cap will disappear
However, there is no certainty either of those will happen.
Felger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.
Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.
The Patriots were 'only' 10th in the league in actual spending from 2004-2008, and they spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys did during that time. Again, Felger's argument has merit if you are looking at spent money.
According to the USA Today database, the Pats spend a lot some years and not so much in others. In 2007, they spent the 2nd most in the NFL. In 2002, they spent the second least. However, in the long haul it averages out if you carry unused space over.
Not one year cap roll fwds but...What are the specific categories of dollar allocation that constitute the gap between dollars actually spent on players vs the cap number that take effect over a 5 year period?
That is a 5-year window. You need to know how much space teams carried over from 2003 and how miuch they carried into 2009 as well.
The cap is the same amount for all teams. You can spend more, but you are spending the same cap dollars in the long-term. The Pats job is to manage the cap for both this year and future years.
You can't say they aren''t "spending to the cap". They are over the long haul. They are managing how much they spend year-to-year, but they aren't leaving unspent cap space. If they didn't carry over unused cap space, your argument would have merit. However, they have been doing that. They have the same amount of money over the long haul as other teams, and have spent it.
Is your criticism that they haven't been using the credit card enough for success in the present? If so, I would argue their success over the last decade indicates they have been managing their cap well when compared to their peers. Each decision isn't made in a vacuum, so deciding to spend today may lead to being unable to do something in the future. Nobody is going to be right all the time, but they have done excellent when held up against their peers in terms of success vs. management of the cap.
According to the USA Today database, the Pats spend a lot some years and not so much in others. In 2007, they spent the 2nd most in the NFL. In 2002, they spent the second least. However, in the long haul it averages out if you carry unused space over.
I'm simply noting that Felger's assertion does, in fact, have merit if you're looking at it strictly from a 'spent money' angle.
I mentioned elevated spending in some years as opposed to others. However, as the data shows, it certainly hasn't 'averaged' out over 4 years, given that the Patriots have spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys during that period of time, and are only 10th in committed money, behind teams like the Panthers, Colts and Steelers.