Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

Ring 6 said:

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




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?

Click to expand...

FACT: The GB Packers have $110 million in profits over the past 3 seasons (funny how you focus on just the one year which had unusually low profits and not their historical average).

FACT: 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.

FACT: They have more than enough in profits over the past 3 years to cover the financial hit.

XLIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

you know this is wrong. I showed you this is wrong. You are barely covering inflation. No business man loans money for free adjusted for inflation. Honestly you are out of your element here.

But I love that you can tell the owner of the panthers that he has to pay money he doesn’t owe players because, wait you haven’t given a because, and if he doesn’t like it F him because he had a lot of money. Therefore he should embrace your plan for him to make a moronic business decision.


Hey I heard there is a big push for business owners to start giving 500 a week to all the homeless people that hang out in the neighborhood. After all they have it. If it only causes their business to lose 72,000,000 they will be fine.

patman52 said:

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

Click to expand...

That was just an example to drive home the point of giving him a high salary for 2020 so we can enjoy a lower cap # in 2021 and onward.

XLIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

And tom brady makes 25 mill a year, I don't cry for anyone making 500,000 a year. 65% of the players make 1.5 mil or less. The mean is less than 1mill! So 2/3rds of the league will be unaffected no matter what happens. We are talking about 10% of the players taking a significant hit.

Ring 6 said:

you know this is wrong. I showed you this is wrong. You are barely covering inflation. No business man loans money for free adjusted for inflation. Honestly you are out of your element here.

Click to expand...

Using the above example, David Tepper is worth $12 billion. If his business loaned out $40 million for 5 years, he isn't going to the poor house with or without interest.

You're obsessing over pennies.

"Let me put this one more way. Then I’m done because it’s pointless to keep explaining reality in different ways." - Ring6, 20 posts ago

patman52 said:

And tom brady makes 25 mill a year, I don't cry for anyone making 500,000 a year. 65% of the players make 1.5 mil or less. The mean is less than 1mill! So 2/3rds of the league will be unaffected no matter what happens. We are talking about 10% of the players taking a significant hit.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree that the players are going to take a financial hit. The owners are going to take a financial hit. Pretty much everyone in the country is going to take a financial hit. I am simply not entirely sure what your point is in the above post.

You and I are very much on the same page. We have the same idea of spreading out the cap loss over multiple years instead of making it all hit 2021. Really the only difference is you chose to spread it out 2 years, I chose 5, CTpatsfan chose 9. But fundamentally, the ideas are similar.

XLIX said:

FACT: The GB Packers have $110 million in profits over the past 3 seasons (funny how you focus on just the one year which was unusually low and not their historical average).

Click to expand...

I focus on TODAY. Their CURRENT financials.
They are in business to make a profit FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.
In what world should they lose 72,000,000 and then donate 40,000,000 to players?

FACT: 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.

Click to expand...

they would lose 72,000,000. How do they pay expenses that exceed revenue by 72,000,000?

FACT: They have more than enough in profits over the past 3 years to cover the financial hit.

Click to expand...

So now I get it.
They made money 4 years ago so they should react to losing 72,000,000 by donating 40,000,000 to the players because business is about breaking even, and losing 3 years worth of profit (which is either distributed to shareholders or kept for future capital expenses) is a wonderful thing. They are so happy about it they will donate 40,000,000 to the players.
Honestly you should just stop digging your hole deeper.
You are seriously saying that as a shareholder of the Green Bay packers the best response management can have to losing 72,000,000 is to take the negotiated labor concessions of 40,000,000 and say no thanks.
They should take their 50/50 revenue split with players and since they lost 80,000,000 in revenue they should pay the players 40,000,000 more than they have to.
Come in just stop responding. You have r dug yourself in a hole and you don’t have the ability to accept that what you are stating is literally the stupidest thing owners could do. I would struggle to come up with a worse business plan if I tried.

XLIX said:

Using the above example, David Tepper is worth $12 billion. If his business loaned out $40 million for 5 years, he isn't going to the poor house with or without interest.

Click to expand...

Ok you have to stop. Tepper doesn’t make business decisions with a goal of not going to the poorhouse. He makes business decisions to make money. He leverages situations to gain an advantage. You want him to reduce his revenue from 400 mill to 320 mill. and respond to that by telling the NFLPA that even though they collectively bargained that the players get 50% of revenue he wants to, fit absolutely no reason, compound his losses by paying the players 50% of the revenue he lost. So he loses 80 mill, then gives the players 40 mill just to be nice and the players don’t lose a nickel.
You can’t think any business beyond a lemonade stand would consider that. It is 180 degrees opposite of how a business works.

You're obsessing over pennies.

Click to expand...

2.5 BILLION DOLLARS

"Let me put this one more way. Then I’m done because it’s pointless to keep explaining reality in different ways." - Ring6, 20 posts ago

Click to expand...

Would have been a good point for you to stop saying stupid ****. Had you done that my feelings wouldn’t have changed.
Thanks to you I was compelled to continue.

XLIX said:

Yes I agree that the players are going to take a financial hit. The owners are going to take a financial hit. Pretty much everyone in the country is going to take a financial hit. I am simply not entirely sure what your point is in the above post.

You and I are very much on the same page. We have the same idea of spreading out the cap loss over multiple years instead of making it all hit 2021. Really the only difference is you chose to spread it out 2 years, I chose 5, CTpatsfan chose 9. But fundamentally, the ideas are similar.

Click to expand...

No. The difference is you want the owners to take 150% of the hit today.
The difference in real cash money outlay between what you are saying and he is could not be more different.

If your plan was to for example take a player with 4 years at 8 mill left on his contract, recognize that the loss is 20% of the payroll, and resign him to 2 million this year and 8 mill for the next 3, you would have a reasonable idea, because expense would follow revenue. You want to make the owners swallow 2 years of financial disaster so they can get a modest break in future years. They will not accept that. No way. No how.

MLB owners approve plan to start baseball season in July, but haven’t addressed player safety and payment - The Boston Globe

Hmmm, MLB is asking players to reduce pay consistent with their loss of revenue.

Ring 6 said:

I focus on TODAY. Their CURRENT financials.
They are in business to make a profit FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

Click to expand...

Well that's STUPID. Because last year was a historical OUTLIER.

FACT: The GB Packers have $110 million in profits over the past 3 seasons.

FACT: 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.

FACT: They have more than enough in profits over the past 3 years to cover the financial hit.

Ring 6 said:

Ok you have to stop. Tepper doesn’t make business decisions with a goal of not going to the poorhouse. He makes business decisions to make money. He leverages situations to gain an advantage. You want him to reduce his revenue from 400 mill to 320 mill. and respond to that by telling the NFLPA that even though they collectively bargained that the players get 50% of revenue he wants to, fit absolutely no reason, compound his losses by paying the players 50% of the revenue he lost. So he loses 80 mill, then gives the players 40 mill just to be nice and the players don’t lose a nickel.

Click to expand...

It's amazing how your feeble brain can't comprehend the part where I say he gets that $40 million back over the next few years.

XLIX said:

Well that's STUPID. Because last year was a historical OUTLIER.

FACT: The GB Packers have $110 million in profits over the past 3 seasons.

FACT: 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.

FACT: They have more than enough in profits over the past 3 years to cover the financial hit.

Click to expand...

It’s not an outlier it’s where they stand today. They made 34 mill the year before.

Where go you expect the money to come from to cover $70,000,000 on losses.

But let’s pretend they can cover it.
What businessman would respond to losing 70,000,000 by overpaying expenses he has contracted in advance by 40,000,000.

why would a losing business voluntarily lose more?

XLIX said:

It's amazing how your feeble brain can't comprehend the part where I say he gets that $40 million back over the next few years.

Click to expand...

What is amazing is that you think a plan that a business owner would love to sign up for after losing 70,000,000 is to overpay 40,000,000 today so he can get a little less than that back after adjusting for inflation.

He has an agreed upon labor cost and you think after taking a financial drubbing that probably puts him close to bankrupt he will over pay by 40,000,000 so he goes deeper in the hole in order to make sure the prayers get more than they agreed to, for no reason at all.

Ring 6 said:

It’s not an outlier it’s where they stand today. They made 34 mill the year before.

Where go you expect the money to come from to cover $70,000,000 on losses.

But let’s pretend they can cover it.
What businessman would respond to losing 70,000,000 by overpaying expenses he has contracted in advance by 40,000,000.

why would a losing business voluntarily lose more?

Click to expand...

You should go to your boss when things get back to normal and tell him you have a great deal for him.
All he has to do is give you $40,000 today and you will let him decrease your pay by $9000 a year for 5 years starting in 2022.
Hey he can afford it, who cares if he is losing money he will get it all back somewhere down the line.

Ring 6 said:

It’s not an outlier it’s where they stand today. They made 34 mill the year before.

Click to expand...

Here are their PROFITS from the past 7 fiscal years:

2013: $54 million
2014: $26 million
2015: $49 million
2016: $73 million
2017: $39 million
2018: $34 million
2019: $8 million

That's an average of roughly $40 million per year. You look like a moron for not acknowledging last year's number is an outlier.

You're either too stupid to recognize an outlier or just too dishonest to admit that it is one. Regardless, I am now going to show you how someone walks away from a conversation since this will be my final response to you.

Please note I will still participate in the thread with other posters, but while you are too weak willed to honor your own promise to stop responding, I am going to show you how it is done.

XLIX said:

Here are their PROFITS from the past 7 fiscal years:

2013: $54 million
2014: $26 million
2015: $49 million
2016: $73 million
2017: $39 million
2018: $34 million
2019: $8 million

That's an average of roughly $40 million per year. You look like a moron for not acknowledging last year's number is an outlier.

You're either too stupid to recognize an outlier or just too dishonest to admit that it is one. Regardless, I am now going to show you how someone walks away from a conversation since this will be my final response to you.

Please note I will still participate in the thread with other posters, but while you are too weak willed to honor your own promise to stop responding, I am going to show you how it is done.

Click to expand...

Do you have any concept of a business. Do you really think a company that made 8 mill in the most recent year looks back ten years and thinks it’s CURRENT financial condition is based upon 10 year averages?
If you have $100 in the bank, do you honestly think your financial standing is what you averaged in your bank account over 10 years?


But let’s take a look at those numbers. The owners negotiated a CBA based upon their finances.

You are trying to tell me that when disaster strikes and they lose 70,000,000 there response will be to call the NFLPA and say since we just lost 70,000,000 we want to increase what we pay the players by 40,000,000.
That is idiotic.

of course you won’t respond because you know you are wrong. You ignore the questions I asked because you know you are wrong and now you are going to run away.

And I didn’t promise anything, you have about as a keen an understanding about that as you do about finances. League loses 2.5 billion in revenue, donates 1.3 billion to players. Truly genius.

betterthanthealternative said:

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.

Click to expand...

It’s a disaster, and one of the major reasons for the rush to open things back up too early. I talk with small business owners frequently. I’ve helped two businesses (a friend and family member) fill out their PPP applications (very simple actually for Federal paperwork and since it requires a Schedule C, 1120 or 1065 attached, it would not have been difficult at all to administer some sort of a needs test). One of those applications is still sitting on a loan officer’s desk because the credit union who my friend does business with is not SBA approved. We had to scramble to find a bank that would even take his application, but that bank is sitting on it until all their customer’s apps have been filed. I call BS on making sure “terrorists” didn’t get the money. At the very least, they should have allowed financial institutions who are legally chartered to participate and not just SBA banks. Btw, you know who got their applications in first don’t you? The ones big and wealthy enough to have lawyers and accountants at their beck and call. Anyone with a lick of sense should have foreseen that the fat hogs who already knew their way to the trough would be the first ones there when the slop was put out.

And, If speed was a priority, I would hate to see how long it would have taken to roll it out if it wasn’t. It was two weeks after Congress passed the Cares Act before the first applications were taken. The rules and application probably took a half hour to write (I’m being generous. It really is that simple of an application , but even the simplest of government forms will scare the hell out of most people). I know in Federal bureaucrat time that’s like warp speed, but for people struggling to buy groceries, medications and pay the rent or mortgage, it was too darn long.

Hmmm . . .

ctpatsfan77 said:

Hmmm . . .

Click to expand...

Wow. It usually doesn’t take this quick for me to say I told you so.... we better hope @Ring 6 doesn’t see this or he’ll have a complete and total meltdown....