Issues in NFL labor

Status
Not open for further replies.

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
djhn579 said:
But as I pointed out before, all teams, big and small are going to be paying these big bonuses the same way - through loans. Using the corporate backing of the other business owned by the team owner, they should be able to get low interest loans. And no owner, big or small has $30M sitting in their wall safe. That much money has to be put to work making more money by being invested. If you had that much money, and knew you could make at least 5% interest on that $30M, would you have it sitting around doing nothing? (5% of $30M is $1.5M, and that does not include compounding...)

Exactly. NFL teams are in general rolling in the dough. That didn't prevent the Colts from having to take out a loan to pay Peyton Manning's $34.5 million bonus. Part of doing business.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
1. Are you trying to say that elite NFL teams stay together because of non-guaranteed deals? How many starters did New England waive after the Super Bowl? How many starters has Philly waived the past few years to stay under the cap? How about Indy? Or St. Louis? Those teams lose starters to free agency, of course, but they're not waiving guys left and right as you would have us believe. They key is keeping a core groups of guys together then filling in the role players as best one can under the limitations of the cap. It's called smart management and it's generally what separates the good from the bad in the NFL.

They don't stay together by waiving guys. They can stay together because they can circumvent the cap through the signing bonus loophole. That loophole is closed for all intents and purposes if contracts are guaranteed.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
Exactly. NFL teams are in general rolling in the dough. That didn't prevent the Colts from having to take out a loan to pay Peyton Manning's $34.5 million bonus. Part of doing business.

Point me in the direction of some proof please.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
They don't stay together by waiving guys. They can stay together because they can circumvent the cap through the signing bonus loophole. That loophole is closed for all intents and purposes if contracts are guaranteed.


That comes back to bite you in the a*ss eventually in the NFL. The SF 49'ers got hit with it after being called 'Cap Whizzes' and had to hit the very bottom after a string of winning. The Dallas Cowboys had the same after a few years of super bowl runs. The Steelers lose all stars every year it seems. But the Steelers, Patriots, Eagles, etc. will have that deferred paying the piper come home eventually and hit them too. Why is that a bad thing? And why would it be bad for hockey?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
That comes back to bite you in the a*ss eventually in the NFL. The SF 49'ers got hit with it after being called 'Cap Whizzes' and had to hit the very bottom after a string of winning. The Dallas Cowboys had the same after a few years of super bowl runs. The Steelers lose all stars every year it seems. But the Steelers, Patriots, Eagles, etc. will have that deferred paying the piper come home eventually and hit them too. Why is that a bad thing? And why would it be bad for hockey?

Aren't they driving up the prices in the mean time? Indy may get slammed in a few years but Manning and Harriosn and James have raised the market value for the top players in their respective posistions. Its OK in the NFL because no team is hurting for money. I don't think that works in the NHL.

And regardless if one team gets hit, all the "rich" teams won't get hit at the same time. There will be a handful of teams enjoying a financial advatnage over the rest of the league at all times. Those teams just might change every few years.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
And regardless if one team gets hit, all the "rich" teams won't get hit at the same time. There will be a handful of teams enjoying a financial advatnage over the rest of the league at all times. Those teams just might change every few years.


So? I have no problem with teams having advantages at vairous times based on management decisions, as long as every team gets their chance to be good based on management decisions alone. Like the NFL. I am not for everyone having equal records, merely equal opportunity.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Jaded-Fan said:
So? I have no problem with teams having advantages at vairous times based on management decisions, as long as every team gets their chance to be good based on management decisions alone. Like the NFL. I am not for everyone having equal records, merely equal opportunity.

But thats not what I said.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
hockeytown9321 said:
Personal loan is different than a loan againat the assets of the team.

No. It's worse from an owner's perspective. If it's loan against the team's asset and there's a default, the owner as an individual loses nothing.
Regardless, the point remains. Not all NFL teams have millions of dollars laying around with which to fund bonuses.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Fish on The Sand said:
signing bonuses should not only be disallowed entirely, but illegal as a signing bonus is really just a bribe.
How so? If it's in the contract saying it's a signing bonus, it's perfectly fine provided its a legal contract. Happens all the time. It's really just upfront money.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
Bicycle Repairman said:
How so? If it's in the contract saying it's a signing bonus, it's perfectly fine provided its a legal contract. Happens all the time. It's really just upfront money.
I'm not saying what it "technically" is, because I know its legal, but what it technically is is a bribe. If you offer a cop up front money for a speeding ticket it isn't called a performance bonus, its a bribe.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Fish on The Sand said:
I'm not saying what it "technically" is, because I know its legal, but what it technically is is a bribe. If you offer a cop up front money for a speeding ticket it isn't called a performance bonus, its a bribe.
Nonsense. What an inept analogy.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
No. It's worse from an owner's perspective. If it's loan against the team's asset and there's a default, the owner as an individual loses nothing.
Regardless, the point remains. Not all NFL teams have millions of dollars laying around with which to fund bonuses.

What I'm saying is that there could be many reasons he took out a personal loan. I wouldn't put it past a billionaire to to divert some of his company's money into his own accounts and use loans against that for tax write offs.

Another thing to keep in mind, the Colts had 2 marquis players to sign this year. Manning got a $34 million bonus, Harrison basically got a $22 million bonus and they are going to have to give Edgerrin James something similar to what Harriosn got. So yeah, maybe Indy's owner didn't have $70 million laying around. But by and large, I don't think it happens too often, and with the NHL's history of loans for other purposes, I don't think its a road many NHL owners can go down.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Fish on The Sand said:
I'm not saying what it "technically" is, because I know its legal, but what it technically is is a bribe. If you offer a cop up front money for a speeding ticket it isn't called a performance bonus, its a bribe.

Are you serious? I don't even know where to start with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->