Good Borges Article

[Bill's Girl]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/03/05/players_need_to_know_their_limits/?page=1

Maybe my meds need to be adjusted, but this is a great article from our arch nemisis! Of course BB is not mentioned at all....

There is great stuff in here about cash-over cap and how all of this affects Givens and Branch.

 

[DarrylS]

have read about the marketing stuff, and the NY and Boston Skyline, but how does a team like GreenBay fit into this equation? It seems that teams like Buffalo, Arizona and others languish in self pity rather than putting a marketable product on the field that would attract a larger market. Think about it, what is Buffalo known for?? Probably only chaos or being an almost, so don't blame market share for that.

 

[bosfan]

The article makes it sound like the higher revenue teams can actually spend more than the salary cap in a given year as the Redskin example below.
quote
Cash-over-cap has been the NFL's little secret for years. It's how the Washington Redskins can pay more than $100 million to their players when the salary cap last year was $85.5 million. It's also at the core of complaints from the low-revenue teams about the need for sharing local revenue because some owners believe unlimited cash-over-cap spending is making for an uneven playing field, tilted in favor of teams that can generate local revenue from things such as luxury box sales, naming rights, and local TV and radio deals.
unquote
I thought all monies (salaries, bonus's, incentives - whatever they are called ) had to fit under the CAP?
It is a given that the more total revenue a team has will make it easier for that team to afford increasing CAP numbers - but the Redskin example makes it sound like they actually spent 100 mil during a year when the CAP was 85.5 mil? Is anything like this possible? - I will steal another members line - 'here to learn'..............

 

[Willie55]

Green Bay with a population of 103,000 is 13th on the list. MMMM, Somebody is working harder than somebody else.

Team revenues

Here is how NFL teams ranked in revenue in 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Figures are in millions:

1. Washington Redskins 287

2. New England Patriots 236

3. Dallas Cowboys 231

4. Philadelphia Eagles 216

5. Houston Texans 215

6. Cleveland Browns 203

7. Denver Broncos 202

8. Carolina Panthers 195

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195

10. Chicago Bears 193

11. Baltimore Ravens 192

12. Miami Dolphins 190

13. Green Bay Packers 189

14. Tennessee Titans 186

15. Detroit Lions 186

16. Seattle Seahawks 183

17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182

18. Kansas City Chiefs 181

19. St. Louis Rams 176

20. New York Giants 175

21. New Orleans Saints 175

22. Buffalo Bills 173

23. New York Jets 172

24. Cincinnati Bengals 171

25. San Francisco 49ers 171

26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169

27. Oakland Raiders 169

28. Atlanta Falcons 168

29. Indianapolis Colts 166

30. San Diego Chargers 165

31. Minnesota Vikings 164

32. Arizona Cardinals 153

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It is what happens with any team that gives out big bonuses in given years, whether the consider themselves small, medium or large markets. We spent over $100M last year because we were paying Tom's bonus. Probably will be again this year. Of course the Colts were well over in 2004 ($108M) because of you know who's bonus, and will obviously be over this year because of all the bonus money due to Manning, Harrison, Wayne, Simon etc. Without being able to spend cash over cap - which is basically just a function of allowing amortization of bonus money over the life of the contract - there is no Manning in Indy and no Palmer in Cincy (whose owner is one of the biggest complainers about cash over cap - or he was until this year when he backed the truck up to Carson's house). So it's something of a red herring argument for increased revenue sharing.

Does a jerk like Snyder really abuse it and rub his cash in others faces? Absolutely. He'll consistently spend two or three times more cash over cap than anyone else. And Upshaw lauds him for it. So go figure. But eventually he will pay the price. Cap hits are like death and taxes - you can only avoid them for just so long.

And Green Bay is a have of sorts. No debt service to speak of, ranked 13th in value and revenue in large part because they manage their product well (or did until the last year or so). In a league where TV revenue alone pays your entire cap expenses plus a little more they are all haves. It's really about the lazy haves and their jealousy of the hey he has more's. Funny part is winning is as much about smarts as money but the woe is me haves refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Green Bay with a population of 103,000 is 13th on the list. MMMM, Somebody is working harder than somebody else.

You mean like .....???????
20. New York Giants 175
23. New York Jets 172

not exactly small markets.....................

 

[Chevy]

You have to give Buffalo credit, though. They willingly give up a lot of revenue to accomodate the fans - I read where the average fan has a 4+ hour drive to get to the stadium. Because of this, Buff will not have a home Prime Time game. That gives them 1/2 the opportunities of any other team. This has to have an impact on the bottom line.

 

[Hoodie]

"Good Borges article" is an oxymoron. I wish I could read it but I can't because reading anything by Bogus makes my head blow off.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/03/05/players_need_to_know_their_limits/?page=1

Maybe my meds need to be adjusted, but this is a great article from our arch nemisis! Of course BB is not mentioned at all....

There is great stuff in here about cash-over cap and how all of this affects Givens and Branch.

Ron desperately wants to be for the have nots and the poor players, but he's not a stupid man, just a stubborn and egotistical and arrogant man. The longer this drags out and the more he listens to sources outside his own self imposed and tired little limited circle of insider pals and is forced to think about the issue from all sides, the more he understands that Kraft has it right.

And the big market teams understand that some teams are stuck in a bind of sorts (Buffalo) that may not be entirely of their own making. Those teams they are willing to help. But they are not willing to help teams who can (and in some cases will soon) do better on their own if they simply show some initiative. Indy and Arizona have new deluxe taxpayer funded facilities coming on line from which they will generate their own mega revenue. Bet their tune will change in the coming years, if it privately hasn't already.

And coming to grips with cash over cap (which many small market teams amazingly abuse moreso than the large market teams - with the exception of the idiot in DC) Ron is beginning to see that Gene's stance may in fact be quite disingenuous. As someone on this board elluded the other day he wants his slice of the pie to be a larger slice from a bigger pie and apparently he still wants the ice cream topper to be thrown in for free. The owners are willing to give the union more under a harder cap. He wants them give more under the same squishy cap and he wants the best run franchises to pick up his tab. And if not he may decide for a membership base that on the whole either has no problems with the way things have been going or has little comprehension of the consequences to just throw the whole damn pie out the window.

 

[mtbykr]

hey

"Good Borges article" is an oxymoron. I wish I could read it but I can't because reading anything by Bogus makes my head blow off.

You stole my line----i guess great minds think alike!

 

[PatsSteve1]

And the big market teams understand that some teams are stuck in a bind of sorts (Buffalo) that may not be entirely of their own making. Those teams they are willing to help. But they are not willing to help teams who can (and in some cases will soon) do better on their own if they simply show some initiative. Indy and Arizona have new deluxe taxpayer funded facilities coming on line from which they will generate their own mega revenue. Bet their tune will change in the coming years, if it privately hasn't already.

* The teams that don't own thier own stadiums don't get all the revenue generated by that stadium, even for NFL football events. Parking, concessions, stadium naming rights, etc. the team owner may get none or just a percentage of.

 

[Mike the Brit]

The article makes it sound like the higher revenue teams can actually spend more than the salary cap in a given year as the Redskin example below.
quote
Cash-over-cap has been the NFL's little secret for years. It's how the Washington Redskins can pay more than $100 million to their players when the salary cap last year was $85.5 million. It's also at the core of complaints from the low-revenue teams about the need for sharing local revenue because some owners believe unlimited cash-over-cap spending is making for an uneven playing field, tilted in favor of teams that can generate local revenue from things such as luxury box sales, naming rights, and local TV and radio deals.
unquote
I thought all monies (salaries, bonus's, incentives - whatever they are called ) had to fit under the CAP?
It is a given that the more total revenue a team has will make it easier for that team to afford increasing CAP numbers - but the Redskin example makes it sound like they actually spent 100 mil during a year when the CAP was 85.5 mil? Is anything like this possible? - I will steal another members line - 'here to learn'..............

I think it's just a way of referring to the bonuses that are then amortized over the life of a contract. Pay more now; have less cap room later.

So why is that such a big advantage to the higher-revenue teams? I think it's just a coincidence that Snyder (a) owns a high-revenue team (b) spends money like there is no tomorrow. Of course, you need the cash to fund such payments, but, as someone pointed out, these franchises are all worth $500m and up, so come on! If they need $20m in a hurry any bank would be happy to do the deal.

All of which makes me think that this is by no means a great article -- the cash over cap isn't some well-hidden secret and for the low-revenue teams to pretend that they're at a great competitive disadvantage because of it is dishonest. Fortunately for them -- since the Patriots are no longer a low-revenue team -- there'll always be one journalist in Boston who'll put their line for them.

Borges as usual.

 

[arrellbee]

I think it's just a way of referring to the bonuses that are then amortized over the life of a contract. Pay more now; have less cap room later.

So why is that such a big advantage to the higher-revenue teams? I think it's just a coincidence that Snyder (a) owns a high-revenue team (b) spends money like there is no tomorrow. Of course, you need the cash to fund such payments, but, as someone pointed out, these franchises are all worth $500m and up, so come on! If they need $20m in a hurry any bank would be happy to do the deal.

All of which makes me think that this is by no means a great article -- the cash over cap isn't some well-hidden secret and for the low-revenue teams to pretend that they're at a great competitive disadvantage because of it is dishonest. Fortunately for them -- since the Patriots are no longer a low-revenue team -- there'll always be one journalist in Boston who'll put their line for them.

Borges as usual.

The advantage to a team that is willing to 'pay later' is that they can get a discount this year compared to the future years in which they will actually pay and when the free agent contracts may be higher. And, of course, they can sign higher priced players than they can now afford under the current cap. As many posters have said, they will eventually have to account for the bonuses in future cap space. They DON'T get more total cap space over time. What they are also counting on HEAVILY is that future years caps will go up significantly so that they don't get into a crunch - and can continue to take out mortgages. What a lot of folks may not stop to think about - even without a new extension situation, if the revenues flatten (which they almost certainly will at some point in time) these clubs would then also immediately be in real difficulty as all of the past overspending has to be subtracted from the current cap without any new space.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The advantage to a team that is willing to 'pay later' is that they can get a discount this year compared to the future years in which they will actually pay and when the free agent contracts may be higher. And, of course, they can sign higher priced players than they can now afford under the current cap. As many posters have said, they will eventually have to account for the bonuses in future cap space. They DON'T get more total cap space over time. What they are also counting on HEAVILY is that future years caps will go up significantly so that they don't get into a crunch - and can continue to take out mortgages. What a lot of folks may not stop to think about - even without a new extension situation, if the revenues flatten (which they almost certainly will at some point in time) these clubs would then also immediately be in real difficulty as all of the past overspending has to be subtracted from the current cap without any new space.

I think the rationale behind all this thinking (unfortunately) by most GM's is how the hell long am I gonna be here anyway unless I win.

Everybody points the finger at Snyder, and rightly so (except for the union who thinks he is a good owner ) when in fact in 2004 according to Forbes 13 teams spent in excess of $100M in payroll cash over an $80M cap. A dozen more teams including us spent in excess of $90M (we spent $92M). Of the remaining handful who spent less than $10M more than cap two were top revenuie teams Denver and Dallas.

Cry baby Buffalo spent $3M more than the eventual Superbowl XXXIX champs did, and poor dear Borges idol Al Davis spent an additional $2M. The Colts payroll balooned to $108M, and we all know why, while their cap did just fine because after pocketing his $34.5M signing bonus they only had to "pay" Peyton $500K in salary on the 2004 books and absorb a $5M bonus amortization on the cap for the season. Cincy has been howling about the injustice of cash over cap, but I think they stopped howling long enough late last year to back a brinks truck up to Carson Palmer's door (prior to his blowing out his knee). So while they claimed it wasn't fair they can do it when it suits them. Even Red McCombs, the lowliest of the low with the 32nd ranked team in the league by value and revenue knew how to play the cash over cap game when he wanted to clean up his pig before the buyer showed up to inspect it. Worked too when he got $600M for the poorest franchise in the league and walked away from his 7 year odessey in the NFL with a $350M pre tax profit from the unfulfilling experience..

These guys didn't get to be gazillionaires for nuttin'. They love free enterprise when it suits them, and socialism when it doesn't. Ditto the NFLPA.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I think the rationale behind all this thinking (unfortunately) by most GM's is how the hell long am I gonna be here anyway unless I win.

Everybody points the finger at Snyder, and rightly so (except for the union who thinks he is a good owner ) when in fact in 2004 according to Forbes 13 teams spent in excess of $100M in payroll cash over an $80M cap. A dozen more teams including us spent in excess of $90M (we spent $92M). Of the remaining handful who spent less than $10M more than cap two were top revenuie teams Denver and Dallas.

Cry baby Buffalo spent $3M more than the eventual Superbowl XXXIX champs did, and poor dear Borges idol Al Davis spent an additional $2M. The Colts payroll balooned to $108M, and we all know why, while their cap did just fine because after pocketing his $34.5M signing bonus they only had to "pay" Peyton $500K in salary on the 2004 books and absorb a $5M bonus amortization on the cap for the season. Cincy has been howling about the injustice of cash over cap, but I think they stopped howling long enough late last year to back a brinks truck up to Carson Palmer's door (prior to his blowing out his knee). So while they claimed it wasn't fair they can do it when it suits them. Even Red McCombs, the lowliest of the low with the 32nd ranked team in the league by value and revenue knew how to play the cash over cap game when he wanted to clean up his pig before the buyer showed up to inspect it. Worked too when he got $600M for the poorest franchise in the league and walked away from his 7 year odessey in the NFL with a $350M pre tax profit from the unfulfilling experience..

These guys didn't get to be gazillionaires for nuttin'. They love free enterprise when it suits them, and socialism when it doesn't. Ditto the NFLPA.

Great post, Mo! I agree with every word.

 

[Pats726]

I think the rationale behind all this thinking (unfortunately) by most GM's is how the hell long am I gonna be here anyway unless I win.

Everybody points the finger at Snyder, and rightly so (except for the union who thinks he is a good owner ) when in fact in 2004 according to Forbes 13 teams spent in excess of $100M in payroll cash over an $80M cap. A dozen more teams including us spent in excess of $90M (we spent $92M). Of the remaining handful who spent less than $10M more than cap two were top revenuie teams Denver and Dallas.

Cry baby Buffalo spent $3M more than the eventual Superbowl XXXIX champs did, and poor dear Borges idol Al Davis spent an additional $2M. The Colts payroll balooned to $108M, and we all know why, while their cap did just fine because after pocketing his $34.5M signing bonus they only had to "pay" Peyton $500K in salary on the 2004 books and absorb a $5M bonus amortization on the cap for the season. Cincy has been howling about the injustice of cash over cap, but I think they stopped howling long enough late last year to back a brinks truck up to Carson Palmer's door (prior to his blowing out his knee). So while they claimed it wasn't fair they can do it when it suits them. Even Red McCombs, the lowliest of the low with the 32nd ranked team in the league by value and revenue knew how to play the cash over cap game when he wanted to clean up his pig before the buyer showed up to inspect it. Worked too when he got $600M for the poorest franchise in the league and walked away from his 7 year odessey in the NFL with a $350M pre tax profit from the unfulfilling experience..

These guys didn't get to be gazillionaires for nuttin'. They love free enterprise when it suits them, and socialism when it doesn't. Ditto the NFLPA.

Great post...says it all about the real issues ands the smokescreens they throw up to divert attention from the real issues and the facts.

 

[bosfan]

So in the end there are no big secrets - the bonus money is paid out in one year but amortized over several years which is what everyone does. The actual bookeeping for each year will be within the CAP but real cash distributed may be more than the CAP depending on the amount of bonus money a team is paying out. So in the end every teams accounting must be within the CAP and it is also a given that higher revenue teams will be able to afford increasing CAPs - it is what it is..............

 

[PatsChamps363839]

"Good Borges article" is an oxymoron. I wish I could read it but I can't because reading anything by Bogus makes my head blow off.

I refuse to read anything that is written by Wrong Borges.

 

[stcjones]

Good Borges article?

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/03/05/players_need_to_know_their_limits/?page=1

Maybe my meds need to be adjusted, but this is a great article from our arch nemisis! Of course BB is not mentioned at all....

There is great stuff in here about cash-over cap and how all of this affects Givens and Branch.

Good Borges article.....?? Isn't this an oxymoron?