Jump to content
BringBackFergy

Coaches, Trainers and GM’s should count against the cap.

Recommended Posts

I was hoping for a reasonable argument but I see this is the off season and idle minds do wander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

So it’s ok to spend millions on coaches and managers, equipment guys, trainers, etc. while the rest of the league languishes in mediocrity? Are you guys serious?

If you think Fergy's take on this is off the wall, you should do what my brother Darryl did - - spend a little time on the google to educate yourself about the issue.  Here's an article Darryl found showing that the prospect of a salary cap for coaches is real:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5188986

 

As the article points out, the NFL used to have a required league-wide pension plan for the assistant coaches of all NFL teams.  But the league changed its rules, and allowed individual teams to withdraw from the league-wide pension plan and to instead offer their own, team-specific pension plans for assistant coaches.  Roughly a third of the NFL teams withdrew and began offering their own, stingier pension plans.  I don't know what the Bills did, but Indy is one of the teams that took advantage of the opportunity to reduce pension benefits for its assistant coaches.

 

As a result, veteran Indy assistant coach Howard Mudd, a former Pro Bowl guard for the 49ers, retired in protest and took a lump sum retirement payout (although he did later return to the team as a "consultant").  Here's what Mudd had to say about the matter:

 

". . . the owners are going to keep stripping away more and more.  To me, the potential is there for a salary cap for coaches . . ."

 

So folks, don't act like uneducated Pats*** fans and ridicule Fergy's idea.  It may take years for the sweeping breadth of his proposal to be realized (Mudd did not forecast a salary cap for all team employees, just assistant coaches), but the future is moving in Fergy's direction, even if it's not for competitive balance reasons.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

People laughed at the Right Brothers when they said they could fly like birds. Even called them stupid. Same with Noah, Mark Twain and countless other inventors. An idea like this will take time.

 

So the Green Bay Packers (owned by a bunch of middle class mid westerners who drive pickup trucks and minivans) have to just sit and watch guys like Kraft, Irsay and Pegula spend millions and millions on luxurious training facilities, the best money guys, trainers, coaches, dieticians, etc. and we’re supposed to just look the other way?

 

How is that fair? Or as you say, why is that stupid?

 

Yep listened to everything you said here. 

 

Guess what still stupid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

If you think Fergy's take on this is off the wall, you should do what my brother Darryl did - - spend a little time on the google to educate yourself about the issue.  Here's an article Darryl found showing that the prospect of a salary cap for coaches is real:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5188986

 

As the article points out, the NFL used to have a required league-wide pension plan for the assistant coaches of all NFL teams.  But the league changed its rules, and allowed individual teams to withdraw from the league-wide pension plan and to instead offer their own, team-specific pension plans for assistant coaches.  Roughly a third of the NFL teams withdrew and began offering their own, stingier pension plans.  I don't know what the Bills did, but Indy is one of the teams that took advantage of the opportunity to reduce pension benefits for its assistant coaches.

 

As a result, veteran Indy assistant coach Howard Mudd, a former Pro Bowl guard for the 49ers, retired in protest and took a lump sum retirement payout (although he did later return to the team as a "consultant").  Here's what Mudd had to say about the matter:

 

". . . the owners are going to keep stripping away more and more.  To me, the potential is there for a salary cap for coaches . . ."

 

So folks, don't act like uneducated Pats*** fans and ridicule Fergy's idea.  It may take years for the sweeping breadth of his proposal to be realized (Mudd did not forecast a salary cap for all team employees, just assistant coaches), but the future is moving in Fergy's direction, even if it's not for competitive balance reasons.

I guess you and I are stupid. Thanks for the research ICSWID!!

 

I wonder if there’s anything that would prevent the Pats from naming Tom Brady a “player coach / QB coach” and just drop his player salary and pay him a coach salary? 

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Yep listened to everything you said here. 

 

Guess what still stupid 

Free your mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

I guess you and I are stupid. Thanks for the research ICSWID!!

 

I wonder if there’s anything that would prevent the Pats from naming Tom Brady a “player coach / QB coach” and just drop his player salary and pay him a coach salary? 

Free your mind. 

 

My Mind is Free. Just not on Crack Fergy. It is a terrible drug. You really should Quit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There you go the most inspired in depth opinion of how the money should be split up in the NFL !! 

 

I bet the players will be all about giving up some of their cash to pay for the coaches & other staff I just wonder where this train of thought comes from ?? 

 

Never heard of it before ...

Edited by T master

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, T master said:

There you go the most inspired in depth opinion of how the money should be split up in the NFL !! 

 

I bet the players will be all about giving up some of their cash to pay for the coaches & other staff I just wonder where this train of thought comes from ?? 

 

Never heard of it before ...

 

Try thinking about this from the players' perspective for a minute.  Right now, the unionized players collectively get a bargained-for percentage of the NFL revenues based on a collective bargaining agreement between their union and the league.  The assistant coaches aren't unionized, and don't collectively get a specified percentage of NFL revenues - - instead each assistant coach negotiates with team ownership to get the best salary he can out of the money each team has left over after the players get their bargained for cut. 

 

Why do you think the players unionized in the first place?  It was because they realized that collectively as a group they had more negotiating leverage than any single player individually.

 

Well don't you think that if they included all of the NFL's assistant coaches in the group of people who could threaten to go on strike if their salary demands weren't met, they would have even MORE leverage over the team's owners?

 

I don't recall the exact numbers, but hypothetically, let's assume that currently (1) the players get 50% of annual NFL revenues, and (2) although not currently guaranteed like the players' cut, the assistant coaches combined salaries, although individually negotiated by each coach, take another 5% of those same annual NFL revenues.  By banding together, the players and assistant coaches collectively would have even more leverage than the players alone do now.  So hypothetically, they could tell the owners during the next round of collective bargaining, pay us 58% of all NFL revenues next year (not 55%), or we ALL go on strike.  With more leverage, they can ask for a bigger piece of the revenue pie, just like the players union already can ask for a bigger piece of the revenue pie than individual players could.  Net result, by adding the assistant coaches to their side of the bargaining table, their side of the table gets 3% more $ than they did when acting separately.  The extra 3% could be split between the coaches and the players any way they negotiated for at the bargaining table with the owners.  So the players would probably get MORE money under Fergy's proposal, not less. 

 

The ability to have more employees (i.e., not just players, but assistant coaches, too) go on strike means more bargaining power, which directly translates to getting a bigger piece of the revenue pie.

 

It's really not that complicated, if you stop and actually think about it.   

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 7:45 PM, BringBackFergy said:

Well, thus far no one has given me a logical reason why the cap shouldn’t apply to GM’s, coaches, admin and equipment guys. I, for one, would like to find the best nutritionist in the league but if he/she’s on another team, I want them to account for that salary. Same for the weightlifting trainer and the others who treat the players. Maybe, just maybe, if Hoodie has to skimp on a trainer due to the cap, they don’t have the benefit of that therapist’s expertise. You guys need to think ahead a little. 

So, you seem to contradict yourself; You 'want to find the best nutritionist in the league"...why wouldn't you be willing  to pay more for that person? its called 'free enterprise' and rewards the  person with talent and work ethic. Personally, I'm tired of all the whining about the Patriots. LEARN from  them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Georgie said:

So, you seem to contradict yourself; You 'want to find the best nutritionist in the league"...why wouldn't you be willing  to pay more for that person? its called 'free enterprise' and rewards the  person with talent and work ethic. Personally, I'm tired of all the whining about the Patriots. LEARN from  them

 

My brother Darryl points out that despite the supposedly greater worth ethic and supposedly greater talent of the Pats*** players, those players, taken as a whole, get paid the same amount as the players on consistently seller-dwelling teams like the Browns and Cardinals.  Like every other team in the NFL, the Pats*** are an example of "unionized" enterprise, not "free" enterprise.  You get that, right?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Georgie said:

So, you seem to contradict yourself; You 'want to find the best nutritionist in the league"...why wouldn't you be willing  to pay more for that person? its called 'free enterprise' and rewards the  person with talent and work ethic. Personally, I'm tired of all the whining about the Patriots. LEARN from  them

I am trying to level the playing field. Many here believe Bellicheat is the driving force behind the numerous Superbowls won by NE.   Bill B , Josh McDaniel, Matt Patricia and that old fella that sits in the back room like Robert the Bruce’s Dad....they get paid millions and millions. It’s time the NFL puts a stop to this kinda crap. Cap their salaries and facilities. It’s not fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...