Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

This would be a complete boondoggle for the Pats. If the cap gets cut by $50M per team, the Niners will have no choice but to cut Jimmy G, unless he has an MVP season, & the Lions will almost certainly cut Flowers. Both could very well end up in their rightful home with the Pats in 2021.

Ring 6 said:

thid is totally out of context and had nothing to do with the discussion

Click to expand...

Uh, you saying the payers only choice would be to go on strike is just ignorance. Me pointing out to you there is a mutual no strike/no lockout agreement in the CBA is wholly on point.

Ring 6 said:

wow. 40,000,000 x 32= 1.3 bill
9000000 x 32 x 5 = 1.44 bill

Click to expand...

FIFY

Ring 6 said:

So let’s band together. We were only 2 billion in the hole this year. Let’s donate 1.3 billion more to the players. Sure we will have to borrow it because we are all broke,

Click to expand...

LOL!! You're a moron if you think all of a sudden all these multi-multi billionaires will all be broke after one single season of reduced revenue.

The New England Patriots are valued at $4.1 billion. Yeah it's gonna suck when they get served a sh*t sandwich, but they aren't going to be "broke" if next year's revenue is $550 million instead of $600 million.

32 multi-multi-billionaires can afford to front $40 million per team which they would recover over the next 5 years.

Ring 6 said:

You keep saying stupid things and drawing me back.

Click to expand...

There are few things more pathetic than someone announcing they are done with a thread and then keep coming back. You've done it 3 times now.

You just can't help yourself.

sportnik said:

This would be a complete boondoggle for the Pats. If the cap gets cut by $50M per team, the Niners will have no choice but to cut Jimmy G, unless he has an MVP season, & the Lions will almost certainly cut Flowers. Both could very well end up in their rightful home with the Pats in 2021.

Click to expand...

Thank you for helping me show that owners lose control in a situation with a capocalypse. A lot of teams would have a lot of players where they'd have no choice but to cut 'em. Increased free agency shifts control to players.

Every. Single. Time.

XLIX said:

Uh, you saying the payers only choice would be to go on strike is just ignorance. Me pointing out to you there is a mutual no strike/no lockout agreement in the CBA is wholly on point.

FIFY
LOL!! You're a moron if you think all of a sudden all these multi-multi billionaires will all be broke after one single season of reduced revenue.

The New England Patriots are valued at $4.1 billion. Yeah it's gonna suck when they get served a sh*t sandwich, but they aren't going to be "broke" if next year's revenue is $550 million instead of $600 million.

Click to expand...

Now I am starting to see where you lack knowledge.
Value of a franchise is not cash or profit.
I’ve tried to explain this to you. I just think you don’t understand the concept.
The packers made 8 mill last year and 32 mill the year before.
If the cap goes down 40,000,000 that means revenue goes down 80,000,000. That means profit goes down 80,000,000.
That means the Packers lose 48,000,000 to 72,000,000. CASH. They have a cba that says because of this they will recoup 40,000,000 of that loss by next years so going down. You are suggesting after losing more money than they have made in the last 2 years or more combined they donate 40,000,000 more to the players at 2.25% interest.
Where do you expect a company that just lost 48-72 million dollars to come up with it?

32 multi-multi-billionaires can afford to front $40 million per team which they would recover over the next 5 years.

Click to expand...

Whether they could afford it or not is irrelevant to it being a wise business decision.
What business model do you know that says the response to 80,000,000 reduction in revenue is to loan your associates 40,000,000 at 2.25% interest?

There are few things more pathetic than someone announcing they are done with a thread and then keep coming back. You've done it 3 times now.

Click to expand...

No there are a quite a few. One would be someone who continues to argue and throw insults at that person to force them to change their mind and respond.
Another is someone who knows they are wrong but continues to lost silly thinks like a company losing money will for no reason give away more at a 2.25% rate of return (before inflation)
Another would be someone who is asked a direct question and avoids it because they know answering only proves them wrong.

You just can't help yourself.

Click to expand...

No I can, and at some point I will but you keep raising the bar of stupidity so I’m just compelled to continue. It also helps that it clearly flusters and annoys you.

XLIX said:

Thank you for helping me show that owners lose control in a situation with a capocalypse. A lot of teams would have a lot of players where they'd have no choice but to cut 'em. Increased free agency shifts control to players.

Every. Single. Time.

Click to expand...

Players are cut for cap reasons all the time.
Decreasing league wide payroll by 1.3 billion does not put players in control. A capped finite payroll system does not give players control when more are free agents, the number of jobs and total payroll is static. Another thing you heard someone say once that you don’t understand. Take a pay cut or be cut to a market where there are no buyers gives ownership more control.
Every. Single. Time.

Dear Shareholders of the Green Bay Packers.
The COVID 19 pandemic has affected all of us and I want to communicate our plan to get your financial investment in the Packers back on track.
As you are aware, revenues shrunk by 80,000,000 in the 2020 season while expenses increased 10,000,000 due to payroll increases because the salary cap Increased. So our 8 million on net income in 2019 turned into an 82,000,000 loss. This equals a loss of $16 per share or about 6 1/2 per cent of total
stockholder equity.
But we have a plan!!!!

Normally we would be seeing a $40,000,000 reduction in expenses for 2021 because our reduction in revenue reduces the amount we have collectively bargained that we are required to pay the players.
But we got thinking about it and, since it’s only money we don’t like the idea of players sharing in the losses. After all we might have to release players and sign better ones for less money. Who wants that.
So we have decided that we are going to pay the players $40,000,000 more than we agreed to pay them in our collective bargaining agreement (about another $8 per share) because well someone said losing $80,000,000 is no big deal compared to releasing the players we feel are overpaid to actually conform to this thing they call
a corporate budget.
But there is more good news. In order to not recover 40,000,000 of losses so that we can give it to the players, we are going to get something back!!!! To address this 120,000,000 set back the players are going to take the 40,000,000 we are gifting them a d reduce the cap by 9 million each year.
So in 2022 we will get back 2.25% return on the 40,000,000 we fronted in the form
of a 9 million cap credit. Now you may recognize the irony here because 2.25% is the rate of inflation so the 2022 portion is like an interest free loan. This will continue for 5 years, so if the rate of inflation stays the same we only lose 2.25% on year 2s payback, 4.5% on year 3s, 6.75% on year 4s, and 9% on year 5s.
In other words adjusted for inflation we are going to respond to the financial disaster of losing 80,000,000 by voluntarily overpaying another 40,000,000 so the players don’t lose a nickel from the 80,000,000 in lost revenue that we agree to share, and in return, adjusted for inflation we get back almost 38,000,000.
I think you can all agree that this is the right thing to do. After losing 80,000,000 there is no doubt that the right thing to do is refuse to cut payroll by the 40,000,000 the cba says we must, because this is what smart businesses do. I am sure you all agree that I should give your money to the players. Go pack
Your CEO

Ring 6 said:

If the cap goes down 40,000,000 that means revenue goes down 80,000,000. That means profit goes down 80,000,000.

Click to expand...

LOL!! So what is this? Post #12 after you promised us all 3 times you were done here?

Do you even read you own posts? If revenue goes down $80M and the cap goes down $40M, that means profits dropped $40M, not $80M.

Ring 6 said:

Where do you expect a company that just lost 48-72 million dollars to come up with it?

Click to expand...

oh gee, I dunno.... maybe from the $255 million teams gets every year from TV revenue alone? A number which will only go up in the new deals being renegotiated in the near future?

There are 2 salary cap options in our hypothetical for the years 2021 to 2026 (numbers in millions using projected cap figures):

(A): $140, $220, $230, $240, $250, $260
(B) $180, $211, $221, $231, $241, $251

Both options cost owners the exact same amount in the long run after adjusting for cost of money.

Ring 6 said:

Players are cut for cap reasons all the time.

Click to expand...

Not at the rate we will see in 2021 under your suggestion.

Increased free agency gives more power to players and less to owners. Every. Single. Time.

XLIX said:

LOL!! So what is this? Post #12 after you promised us all 3 times you were done here?

Click to expand...

Promised? Are you on drugs?

Do you even read you own posts? If revenue goes down $80M and the cap goes down $40M, that means profits dropped $40M, not $80M.

Click to expand...

Ok remedial time.
The revenue decreases in 2020 the cap does not. So the 80 mill revenue loss in 2020 is 80 mill in profit loss as well.
The cba would allow then to recover half of that in 2021 but you want them to pay the players half of the revenue they didn’t receive on top of half of the revenue they did.

oh gee, I dunno.... maybe from the $255 million teams gets every year from TV revenue alone? A number which will only go up in the new deals being renegotiated in the near future?

Click to expand...

Omg. The cap would go down by 50% of what revenue goes down by. And you want them to use revenue to pay the players more than the 50% of the revenue they are due.
The players get 50% of that TV money with the cap reduced by 40,000,000.

There are 2 salary cap options in our hypothetical for the years 2021 to 2026 (numbers in millions using projected cap figures):

(A): $140, $220, $230, $240, $250, $260
(B) $180, $211, $221, $231, $241, $251

Both options cost owners the exact same amount in the long run after adjusting for cost of money.

Click to expand...

This is patently wrong and you are now either lying or dumb because I have proven it at least a dozen times.

Your plan equates $1,000,000 per year for 5 years to the time value of $40,000,000 today. That is barely inflation, ignores investment oppportunity, opportunity cost (google that one I don’t have time to reach it to you) and the fact that you are asking them to do it at the time they just took an 2.5 billion dollar revenue reduction and the players haven’t lost a nickel.

XLIX said:

Not at the rate we will see in 2021 under your suggestion.

Increased free agency gives more power to players and less to owners. Every. Single. Time.

Click to expand...

Ok so let’s try this one for fun.
You are wrong that in a capped league that already has free agency that players gain power when more of them are free agents.
There is no power for them to gain. There are a finite number of jobs and a finite amount of pay to split between those jobs.
I know someone told you this once and you misunderstood, so please explain exactly how the players gain power over owners under a salary capped CBA when more of them are unemployed.
What exactly happens in this scenario that weakens the owners and strengthens the players.
Hint don’t waste your time because there is no answer because when you say this you are wrong and only illustrating your ignorance. Every. Single. Time.

But by all means go ahead and explain how the players gain more power by being unemployed, since it can’t make them more money, because the money is capped, and it can’t give them more jobs because the jobs are capped, so I can’t wait to hear what form of power their lack of a job gains them over the owners.

XLIX said:

Not at the rate we will see in 2021 under your suggestion.

Increased free agency gives more power to players and less to owners. Every. Single. Time.

Click to expand...

And it’s not “my suggestion” it’s the rules that the players and owners agreed to.

XLIX said:

Thank you for helping me show that owners lose control in a situation with a capocalypse. A lot of teams would have a lot of players where they'd have no choice but to cut 'em. Increased free agency shifts control to players.

Every. Single. Time.

Click to expand...

no a flooded market with 1/2 the teams cutting players 40 mill of players depresses the wages of labor. A normal year has a couple of teams cutting players. This will be 15 teams cutting 30 mill of contracts- just a guess that the average guy that you cut saves you 7.5 mill in cap space, that is 4 each for those 15 teams, never mind the players on those teams who contract normally expires. How you can put an additional 60 starters in FA when there are only 15 teams bidding and not expect the wages to depress is beyond me.

There's only one reasonable solution to this: a year long Paycheck Protection Program just for pro sports players. Unemployment among pro athletes is high enough as it is. They need to feed their families. We need to crank up the printing presses to keep these guys whole. The owners can't be expected to fund this problem with their hard earned billions; that's just un American.

You laugh, but the LA Lakers did receive a PPP grant/loan before returning the money. They have not gotten nearly the amount of shame from this that they deserve.

Kenneth Sims said:

You laugh, but the LA Lakers did receive a PPP grant/loan before returning the money. They have not gotten nearly the amount of shame from this that they deserve.

Click to expand...

They have many employees who are not athletes who have been laid off.

patman52 said:

Why would the games be less viewable. The league has been striving for parity for as long as I can remember (Babe Parelli). The better teams on average would be harder hit. How does Dallas, Rams and KC keep the team together.

Click to expand...

So, you want more parity. You seem to believe that weaker teams makes the league better.

Ring 6 said:

The boldest spot can’t be overstated.
People are suggesting that after losing 2.5 billion in revenue in 2020 the owners will INCREASE wages by 1.3 billion in 2021 because owners think it would be horrible that they have to cut players and bring them back for less, and they will raise payroll cost by 1.3 billion rather than have players take paycuts corresponding to the revenue cuts.

Click to expand...

The goal of owners is to maximize profits. Many owners also have goals with regard to the quality of their teams and league. After all, the teams are a hobby for most owners.

mgteich said:

The goal of owners is to maximize profits. Many owners also have goals with regard to the quality of their teams and league. After all, the teams are a hobby for most owners.

Click to expand...

There is no competitive disadvantage in an even playing field. If the cap increases owners don’t freak out about how it affects competitive balance.


I mean do you really think ownership as a group is going to look at losing 2.5 billion in revenue, recognizing they have bargained for relief of such as disaster and then turn around and tell they players they want to pay them 50% of the revenue they didn’t earn?

Look at it this way. We are 50/50 partners. Coronavirus virus causes our revenues to drop from 3 mill to 2 mill. Last year we had 1 mill in expenses and each got paid 1 mill, or 33% of revenue, and 50% of profit.
Why would agree to you keeping your 1 mill when it now equals 50% of revenue and 100% of profit?

Ring 6 said:

They have many employees who are not athletes who have been laid off.

Click to expand...

The roll out and administration of this program is a National disgrace. The banks dolled the money out to their best customers regardless of any demonstrated need and and smaller less connected businesses with a real need were left out and still are even with another $300 billion put into the program.

You think the Lakers were justified butting in front of the food line to get Federal money to pay for idle employees who probably represent 1% of their operational budget when small business owners and there employees can’t afford to pay their rent? Wow!

Kenneth Sims said:

The roll out and administration of this program is a National disgrace. The banks dolled the money out to their best customers regardless of any demonstrated need and and smaller less connected businesses with a real need were left out and still are even with another $300 billion put into the program.

You think the Lakers were justified butting in front of the food line to get Federal money to pay for idle employees who probably represent 1% of their operational budget when small business owners and there employees can’t afford to pay their rent? Wow!

Click to expand...

I think that those employees deserve to be paid too. I don’t think a program designed to protect employees payroll should discriminate based upon who the employer is.
Banks processed every application they were capable of and followed guidance that they should service their clients first. Bank employees were literally working around the clock to handle the demand. There was no time to pick and choose who they wanted to work on, and it would literally be illegal for them to refuse to take an application from a business that met the criteria. The media likes to misinform, and this is a perfect example.