Lack of a salary cap leaves wide range of spending in NFL clubs

[Box_O_Rocks]

Lack of a salary cap leaves wide range of spending in NFL clubs

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The LOLphins are like a kid in a candy store this year

 

[Urgent]

The article references a chart of total cash spending in 2009.
Patriots are 25th.
29% less cash spent than Dolphins, 25% less cash spent than Jets.
Surprisingly, 9% less than the Bills.

The Patriots should have cash reserves, given their position in total revenues.
There should be an ability to pay Brady a big bonus this off-season.
Similarly, an ability to sign some of the tendered players to long-term deals should they want to.

 

[Jangles]

The article references a chart of total cash spending in 2009.
Patriots are 25th.

I almost hope we're a bottom tier team this year.

I want the front office to wake up. The group of over achieving, decent players that came together and won championships is gone. It's time to go out and find some talent

 

[crowell33]

The article references a chart of total cash spending in 2009.
Patriots are 25th.
29% less cash spent than Dolphins, 25% less cash spent than Jets.
Surprisingly, 9% less than the Bills.

The Patriots should have cash reserves, given their position in total revenues.
There should be an ability to pay Brady a big bonus this off-season.
Similarly, an ability to sign some of the tendered players to long-term deals should they want to.

Completely shameful.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

I almost hope we're a bottom tier team this year.

I want the front office to wake up. The group of over achieving, decent players that came together and won championships is gone. It's time to go out and find some talent

that's like saying if the pats draft another QB in the 6th round that they will find another Tom Brady

 

[Jangles]

that's like saying if the pats draft another QB in the 6th round that they will find another Tom Brady

I don't understand?

 

[emoney_33]

The article references a chart of total cash spending in 2009.
Patriots are 25th.
29% less cash spent than Dolphins, 25% less cash spent than Jets.
Surprisingly, 9% less than the Bills.

The Patriots should have cash reserves, given their position in total revenues.
There should be an ability to pay Brady a big bonus this off-season.
Similarly, an ability to sign some of the tendered players to long-term deals should they want to.

How much cash did they spend relative to the cap? How much cap did they leave open? How much cash could they not spend due to bonus' paid out in prior years? How much cash OVER the cap did the top teams in cash spent in 2009 spend? Were they borrowing any of it from future years?

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the shrewd business side of the pats......they hedge their bets on a 2011 lockout

face it......it does not matter what the pats spend in 2010....the stadium will be full......the pats revenue stream for 2010 is already fixed......coupled with a potential lockout in 2011, the pats are getting ready to be long-term players for when the new CBA comes out

like it or not, its pretty obvious this is whats going on

 

[tanked_as_usual]

I don't understand?

you're waiting for the FO to wake up for history to repeat

 

[mgteich]

The entire difference is that Brady's new contract and bonus is not accounted for.

 

[Rob0729]

The article references a chart of total cash spending in 2009.
Patriots are 25th.
29% less cash spent than Dolphins, 25% less cash spent than Jets.
Surprisingly, 9% less than the Bills.

The Patriots should have cash reserves, given their position in total revenues.
There should be an ability to pay Brady a big bonus this off-season.
Similarly, an ability to sign some of the tendered players to long-term deals should they want to.

The Pats were pretty much up against the cap last year within a few million. Just because one year they are low in payouts doesn't mean they are flushed with cash the next. The Pats did payout a lot of bonuses in 2007 and 2008. They should have enough money to extend Brady though.

 

[lostjumper]

the shrewd business side of the pats......they hedge their bets on a 2011 lockout

face it......it does not matter what the pats spend in 2010....the stadium will be full......the pats revenue stream for 2010 is already fixed......coupled with a potential lockout in 2011, the pats are getting ready to be long-term players for when the new CBA comes out

like it or not, its pretty obvious this is whats going on

I agree with you. I think thats what they are planning for as well, and trying to put themselves in a good position for the pst lockout NFL. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out well often. Thats the same strategy the Bruins used, and it turned out to be a huge failure.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that it is a better business decision for owners to spend LESS this year, rather than MORE. This puts their franchises in a better cash position in the face of a potential reduction in 2011 revenue, and spending less overall helps the negotiation position of the owners. Players will NOT be able to say that owners would spend much more, if only there were no cap. The players will find that some teams will not even spend the 2009 minimum. Others will spend like crazy (poor) business folks (like Miami).

 

[tanked_as_usual]

I agree with you. I think thats what they are planning for as well, and trying to put themselves in a good position for the pst lockout NFL. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out well often. Thats the same strategy the Bruins used, and it turned out to be a huge failure.

I think its different than the bruins.....the pats spend money....they just don't want to spend it NOW given the unknown state of the labor agreement

 

[BradyFTW!]

Cash spent in 2009 is kinda meaningless. All of the signing bonuses for guys that were signed prior to '09 don't count, so it tells, at best, half of the story. Cash spent in any one year is basically meaningless: you have to look at it in at least four-year increments.

And before anyone thinks that some stupid conclusion can be carried over into 2010: it's March, people. Let's see what happens to that chart when Brady signs his extension and we sign some June roster cuts.

 

[mgteich]

June roster cuts haven't been signifcant for years. Theya re especially insignifcant in a no-cap year.

Cash spent in 2009 is kinda meaningless. All of the signing bonuses for guys that were signed prior to '09 don't count, so it tells, at best, half of the story. Cash spent in any one year is basically meaningless: you have to look at it in at least four-year increments.

And before anyone thinks that some stupid conclusion can be carried over into 2010: it's March, people. Let's see what happens to that chart when Brady signs his extension and we sign some June roster cuts.

 

[FoxboroFlyer]

I agree that it is a better business decision for owners to spend LESS this year, rather than MORE. This puts their franchises in a better cash position in the face of a potential reduction in 2011 revenue, and spending less overall helps the negotiation position of the owners. Players will NOT be able to say that owners would spend much more, if only there were no cap. The players will find that some teams will not even spend the 2009 minimum. Others will spend like crazy (poor) business folks (like Miami).

Well Parcells is probably nearing the end of his stay in Miami, and we're all to familiar with what that means...a future filled with salary cap nightmares.

 

[makoute]

I agree that it is a better business decision for owners to spend LESS this year, rather than MORE. This puts their franchises in a better cash position in the face of a potential reduction in 2011 revenue, and spending less overall helps the negotiation position of the owners. Players will NOT be able to say that owners would spend much more, if only there were no cap. The players will find that some teams will not even spend the 2009 minimum. Others will spend like crazy (poor) business folks (like Miami).

Why would the players not be able to say that? We all know how things would go if there was no cap. Pretty much like baseball, were some owners would be more than willing to pay and make their teams better, and others wouldn't be as willing.

 

[upstater1]

Completely shameful.

Why is it shameful?

If I gave my kid $100 last week, and my neighbor gave his kid $25 last week and $25 this week, while I gave my kid nothing this week, should I be ashamed?