Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

there is a zero.zero percent chance the cap is cut by >40mil the players would take a year off as opposed to losing almost 50% of their pay, the TV deals wouldn't have changed and thats where the big money comes from.

A more likely scenerio is a shortened season with prorated contracts which results in 40-80 million less being paid out total.

patman52 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The loss of revenue will cause a net loss of wages. That much I have explained as it is quite obvious and unavoidable.

The question becomes: Given a loss of revenue in 2020 (and assuming 2020 wages remain the same) what’s the best plan going forward? (A) To absorb a massive loss of cap in 2021 then a huge increase to normal levels in 2022 or (B) spread that loss of cap over the next 5 years or so?

Owners maintain more control and more stability under plan (B). That way you won’t have free agent Armageddon.

chasa said:

there is a zero.zero percent chance the cap is cut by >40mil the players would take a year off as opposed to losing almost 50% of their pay, the TV deals wouldn't have changed and thats where the big money comes from.

A more likely scenerio is a shortened season with prorated contracts which results in 40-80 million less being paid out total.

Click to expand...

Huh? The response to losing 2.5 billion of revenue is to willingly cut revenue the following year?

The formula for the cap is set, so If revenues fall in 2020 there is a 100.0% chance that the cap falls correspondingly in 2021.

Here’s the flaw in your reasoning. There’s nothing to prevent teams from offering contracts with escalator clauses tied to the cap. Cheap now, with growth in the future based on how the market grows. Gives the players a deal now in a buyers market, with some mitigation of the risk that comes with a one-year deal.

XLIX said:

Here's the flaw in your reasoning: Players in 2021 will not be willing to resign long term at "a fraction of the cost" when everyone knows the salary cap will bounce back to a very high level in 2022. Every single player is going to want either a 1 year deal or a contract with a low year 1 cap hit and guaranteed dollars down the line.

For decades, players in all sports have fought for increased free agency and owners have fought for less free agency. It boggles the mind how someone can think that a massive uptick in free agency somehow gives owners more control.

Click to expand...

Great thread.

This is why I want a long term deal for Thuney now, but adjusted so that he earns a 14M+ salary this year so we can have him on a lower cap # next year.

Hyped said:

Great thread.

This is why I want a long term deal for Thuney now, but adjusted so that he earns a 14M+ salary this year so we can have him on a lower cap # next year.

Click to expand...

Unless the carryover of cap has been abolished under the new CBA, I don't see the difference.

n6249c said:

Here’s the flaw in your reasoning. There’s nothing to prevent teams from offering contracts with escalator clauses tied to the cap. Cheap now, with growth in the future based on how the market grows. Gives the players a deal now in a buyers market, with some mitigation of the risk that comes with a one-year deal.

Click to expand...

Um, I don't think that's a flaw in my reasoning since all you've done is come up with a different way to structure one of my suggestions. I said "Every single player is going to want either a 1 year deal or a contract with a low year 1 cap hit and guaranteed dollars down the line." Crafting a contract with escalator clauses is really just a way of doing that.

Ring 6 said:

Huh? The response to losing 2.5 billion of revenue is to willingly cut revenue the following year?

The formula for the cap is set, so If revenues fall in 2020 there is a 100.0% chance that the cap falls correspondingly in 2021.

Click to expand...

Any agreement can be amended if both sides agree, so nothing is really "set" with a "100% chance" that it plays out a certain way.

Spreading out the cap loss to roughly $10 million per year for 5 years makes far, far more sense than taking all of the hit in 1 single season.

XLIX said:

Any agreement can be amended if both sides agree, so nothing is really "set" with a "100% chance" that it plays out a certain way.

Click to expand...

It is 100% certain that the salary cap will be calculated per the cba and if revenue drops the cap drops.
The ability to alter things thereafter does not change that. Then common sense steps in and says owners aren’t going to lose 2.5 billion of revenue then pay the players half of the revenue they lost because they are afraid unemployed players scraping for jobs at 20% of what they used to make will steal control.

Spreading out the cap loss to roughly $10 million per year for 5 years makes far, far more sense than taking all of the hit in 1 single season.

Click to expand...

Huh? That requires the owners to take the entire cap hit in one year. They will lose 2.5 billion, they players will lose nothing and you think the owners will decide that the next fair step is for them to take an ADDITIONAL 1.3 billion up front so the players can spread the hit out 5 years?
You have yet to answer
1) what would possibly motivate owners coming off debilitating losses, to add 1.3 billion to payroll that they don’t have to
2) how exactly you think reducing the cap causing players to be cut and resign for less increases control by the players when there is literally no control to gain because there are finite jobs, finite pay, and a 10 year agreement in place.
But you won’t for obvious reasons.

mgteich said:

Unless the carryover of cap has been abolished under the new CBA, I don't see the difference.

Click to expand...

I mean say we sign Thuney to a 4 year 40 million deal with 20M bonus (just for an example):

I would structure it as:

Annual bonus proration = 5M.
Salaries of: 10, 5, 2.5, 2.5

Giving us a cap numbers of 15, 10, 7.5, 7.5 with the latter 3 years helping us out a lot.

Basically, give him the biggest salary in year one and guarantee it...so we get that into the books this year when we are strapped for cap space to open up more money in the next few years.

Ring 6 said:

It is 100% certain that the salary cap will be calculated per the cba and if revenue drops the cap drops.

Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said it was 100% certain it would drop correspondingly in 2021.

Ring 6 said:

Huh? That requires the owners to take the entire cap hit in one year. They will lose 2.5 billion, they players will lose nothing and you think the owners will decide that the next fair step is for them to take an ADDITIONAL 1.3 billion up front so the players can spread the hit out 5 years?
You have yet to answer
1) what would possibly motivate owners coming off debilitating losses, to add 1.3 billion to payroll that they don’t have to
2) how exactly you think reducing the cap causing players to be cut and resign for less increases control by the players when there is literally no control to gain because there are finite jobs, finite pay, and a 10 year agreement in place.
But you won’t for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

I've explained it to you several times. Considering how often you misrepresent what I have said, it's clear you're just not smart enough to understand the point I am advocating.

BTW, if you think one year of $80 million less revenue is a "debilitating loss" then you're just too ignorant to discuss this subject.

mgteich said:

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

Click to expand...

What I want is not germane to the thread. I just reiterated Godels and the management councils past utterances regarding parity.

Now what I think is fair to both Union and ownership is that ownership takes a hit and spreads it out over two years. Say a cap reduction of 20 mill in both 2021 and 2022. this equates to the owners giving the players a 600,000 mill interest free loan for one year. (If revenues are down 20%)

XLIX said:

That's not what you said. You said it was 100% certain it would drop correspondingly in 2021.

Click to expand...

And it will. It’s in the agreement.

I've explained it to you several times. Considering how often you misrepresent what I have said, it's clear you're just not smart enough to understand the point I am advocating.

Click to expand...

you have explained it zero times.
I fully know what you are proposing but I also know there is no chance ever that owners would agree to it.
You threw out an idea. I showed you why it is a fail and you have not addressed it. I even asked you the key questions and you literally refuse to answer.

BTW, if you think one year of $80 million less revenue is a "debilitating loss" then you're just too ignorant to discuss this subject.

Click to expand...

Oh really. So the packers who made 8 mill last year wouldn’t be devastated by losing 80 million of revenue and losing 72 million?
It is very doubtful any team made 80 mill but I guess you think the owners would have just given the players 73% of revenues and that would be fine. Damn players just didn’t ask for it right.

Ring 6 said:

And it will. It’s in the agreement.

Click to expand...

Which brings me back to what I said before: Any contractual agreement can be amended if both sides agree.

Ring 6 said:

Oh really. So the packers who made 8 mill last year wouldn’t be devastated by losing 80 million of revenue and losing 72 million?

Click to expand...

The GB Packers have $110 million in profits over the past 3 seasons (funny how you focus on the one year which was unusual and not their historical average). They had $477.2 million in revenue last year. Losing 16.7% of that would be a sh*t sandwich, no doubt, but it would not be debilitating nor would it be devastating. They would be able to maintain themselves as a functioning business. They have more than enough in profits over the past 3 years to cover the financial hit.

patman52 said:

What I want is not germane to the thread. I just reiterated Godels and the management councils past utterances regarding parity.

Now what I think is fair to both Union and ownership is that ownership takes a hit and spreads it out over two years. Say a cap reduction of 20 mill in both 2021 and 2022. this equates to the owners giving the players a 600,000 mill interest free loan for one year. (If revenues are down 20%)

Click to expand...

Be careful, my friend, because you risk the wrath of Ring6. Your suggestion is very much in line with mine, our only difference is the length of time where they spread out the cap reduction.

Hyped said:

I mean say we sign Thuney to a 4 year 40 million deal with 20M bonus (just for an example):

I would structure it as:

Annual bonus proration = 5M.
Salaries of: 10, 5, 2.5, 2.5

Giving us a cap numbers of 15, 10, 7.5, 7.5 with the latter 3 years helping us out a lot.

Basically, give him the biggest salary in year one and guarantee it...so we get that into the books this year when we are strapped for cap space to open up more money in the next few years.

Click to expand...

He would not sign the deal. He would sign a one year deal somewhere else. If he wants a deal say that avg 14 mill a year when the cap is at 200 mill that is 7% of the cap. He is not going to sign a deal for 10mill a year, because the cap goes down to 160 next year. What I think would be fair for both sides would be to extend this years deal 4 years and 50 with a 12, 10, 10 and 8 salary with 10mill bonus. This is a 10% discount over this years tag and gives him 65mill and a free agent again when he is 32

XLIX said:

Be careful, my friend, because you risk the wrath of Ring6. Your suggestion is very much in line with mine, our only difference is the length of time where they spread out the cap reduction.

Click to expand...

Well, you want an interest free loan for 4 years, which I believe the owners would find unpalatable in a year that their revenues are down 50mill. Pepper just paid almost 2.5 bill for the panthers, now fans think he should give out a 40mill interest free loan.

patman52 said:

Well, you want an interest free loan for 4 years, which I believe the owners would find unpalatable in a year that their revenues are down 50mill. Pepper just paid almost 2.5 bill for the panthers, now fans think he should give out a 40mill interest free loan.

Click to expand...

Actually, my numbers adjusted for cost of money so no, it wouldn't be an interest free loan.

And even if it was interest free, David Tepper is worth $12 billion, so he can cry me a river.

XLIX said:

Which brings me back to what I said before: Any contractual agreement can be amended if both sides agree.

Click to expand...

that doesn’t change that we know With 100% certainty what the cba will dictate.

The GB Packers had $477.2 million in revenue last year. Losing 16.7% of that would be a sh*t sandwich, no doubt, but it would not be debilitating nor would it be devastating. They would be able to maintain themselves as a functioning business.

Click to expand...

They had 469 million in expenses.

Are you that dense?
If your family income is 25,000 and your expenses are 24,000 how’s that 6,000 pay cut going to affect you?

But wait. You are saying that after going 72,000,000 in the hole, they are fine with that and will call the NFLPA and say, we know since we had 80,000,000 less in revenue that the cap goes down. We want to make sure ownership bears your share of the loss as well. So we are going to forget the we only owe you 160,000,000 mill in salary but we are going to, out of the goodness of our hearts pay you half of the revenue we didn’t get too.
You guys don’t lose a buck and we were so happy with a 72,000,000 loss we don’t care about getting back.
Because, everyone knows of we cut the cap by 1.3 billion dollars that’s how you get control over us, so we will be happy to follow the logic that says when we lose money we give you more.
This isn’t even debatable. Anyone who ever worked in any type of financial setting or did well in high school economics would be rolling in the floor laughing at you saying that’s the best move for the owners.
Yup businesses with a 2% ROI aren’t hurt by a 20% loss of revenue. Companies love losing 70,000,000. The packers would probably have to file bankruptcy if you negotiated for them.
But I’m curious.
You laid out the numbers.
They operate with approx 470 or revenue and 460 of expense.
When they have 390 of revenue what funds are you expecting them to use to pay 460 of expense? How does that work?

The first draft of the PPP had a need-based application process. It was scrapped to make it possible for the banks to get the money out quickly. Speed was prioritized over need and perfection. The banks were legally bound to ensure that the money was not to be used for illegal activity, which meant processing applications first for clients they already knew and had qualified as upstanding. You and I would have done the same thing under those circumstances. And they weren't allowed to qualify based on need.

The rest of the sequencing was about who filled out the applications quickly.

Yes, it didn't go as well as it could have. For the most part, it wasn't people being greedy; it was just what happens when a massive program is implemented quickly and all our requirements (i.e. don't let the money flow to terrorists) require some work to meet.

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...

Ring 6 said:

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.

Click to expand...