Lothar Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 If I'm not mistaken - though I may very well be - the players' take of the league's monetary pie will grow by some 20+ percent based on new projected numbers (I've heard the jump will be up to around 110 mill). Does it make the likelihood of signing someone like Nate a better possibility next year - or if not - to franchise him since overblown cornerback numbers (higher even than QBs now) will be manageable for the foreseeable future? Or does it open a Pandora's box where GMs have an extra 25 mill to lavish on free agents? I've got to think that front offices are evaluating whether signing a burgeoning star to what seems like a ridiculous contract now might not be a bargain in 5 years. For example, that sick contract Peyton signed may actually be reasonable and allow the Colts a lot more options once the higher revenue TV contracts kick in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 At some point, the salary cap will not be able to be met by all teams. The beauty of it now, is that every single team can afford to pay 80 mil or whatever in salary. If you raise it to 110 or higher that might not be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 At some point, the salary cap will not be able to be met by all teams. The beauty of it now, is that every single team can afford to pay 80 mil or whatever in salary. If you raise it to 110 or higher that might not be the case. Not true. The salary cap is a percentage of gross revenue, and somewhere in the 60's% range. That means that teams still have another 30-ish% in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Not true. The salary cap is a percentage of gross revenue, and somewhere in the 60's% range. That means that teams still have another 30-ish% in revenue. 320383[/snapback] Yes but some owners seem to need the profit they make from their team. For instance, I get the feeling that Mr. Wilson counts on the money he makes from attendance, etc., and that Allen, Blank, etc. do not. This does not necessarily effect the number of wins mind you, but it could possibly matter in terms of giving even bigger bonuses to UFAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Yes but some owners seem to need the profit they make from their team. For instance, I get the feeling that Mr. Wilson counts on the money he makes from attendance, etc., and that Allen, Blank, etc. do not. This does not necessarily effect the number of wins mind you, but it could possibly matter in terms of giving even bigger bonuses to UFAs. 320587[/snapback] And I think which is the most contentious issue in the next labor negotiation. The small market teams want the bigger teams to share the remaining 30+% revenuse amongst the 32 teams so that the playing field is even more even. In such a case then both a Dallas and a Buffalo will be able to dish out the same amount of signing bonus to players... One other comment to the original post. If the Cap goes up by 20% the salaray demands of players also will be going up by 20%. If currently a CB salary is in the 5M range, then it is going to move to 6M/year range after the cap goes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts