Joe Burrow huge extension 5 years $275 million now highest paid QB

[Meatloaf63]

2 hours ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

How much did he leave for Chase?

The nice thing is those owners are not supper rich and that guaranteed money has to be set aside. It will hamper them going forward with other players.

[Draconator]

 

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, Draconator said:

 

 

if @R. Rich is that rich he can afford to buy game tickets for all TSW members.

He needs a little sun though for he is a bit pale.

[Dr.Sack]

Goodbye Tee Higgins. 

[MJS]

4 hours ago, Mango said:

I actually don’t mind the contract value. It’s billionaires paying millionaires a fraction of the product they produce. I’d be for the salary cap taking a larger percentage. 
 

I do wish the QB market was less of a percentage though. 

The players get 48% of revenue. So, about half of revenue goes to the owners who pay employees, maintain stadiums and other facilities, pay utilities, and all the other costs associated with running a business, including paying pensions and healthcare for retired players. So, it isn't like they are just taking half the money and just using it on themselves.

 

And this is all collectively bargained. If the players association wants a larger cut, they have to bargain for it.

 

I personally think it is fine the way it is. Players are making boat loads of money. Owners are too. Since the players get a percentage of revenue, both parties have incentive to see revenue grow, and contracts are ballooning because revenue has been ballooning. The highest paid player 10 years ago was making $20 million a year. Now it is $55 million per year. Almost tripled in a decade!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

10 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

Just to put this deal into perspective - The total amount of Burrow’s 5 year deal is less than an NFL owner makes in a single season. The Bengals owner spent $89 million in 2022 in operating expenses and made $462 million. So just shy of $375 million in profit. In a single year.

 

In the NFL there is a salary cap ceiling and floor (every team has to spend to at least 89% of the cap in a 4yr period). Every team decides how to spend that allotted money. Even teams without a big QB contract on their books are spending a similar amount of total money on players.

 

Problem:

 

Isn't that Brown's entire income, however? He's not like Pegula with business ventures/income elsewhere

 

[C.Biscuit97]

Brown is cheap

Just now, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

 

Problem:

 

Isn't that Brown's entire income, however? He's not like Pegula with business ventures/income elsewhere

 

That’s the problem with these legacy teams. They are rich solely on the franchise. Teams like the Raiders and Bears are pretty cash poor. 

[benderbender]

Burrow: I need a fully guaranteed contract.

 

Bengals: Sorry, you need at least 20 allegations minimum for THAT kind of guaranteed money.

Edited September 8, 2023 by benderbender
more sarcasm

[Mango]

8 hours ago, MJS said:

The players get 48% of revenue. So, about half of revenue goes to the owners who pay employees, maintain stadiums and other facilities, pay utilities, and all the other costs associated with running a business, including paying pensions and healthcare for retired players. So, it isn't like they are just taking half the money and just using it on themselves.

 

And this is all collectively bargained. If the players association wants a larger cut, they have to bargain for it.

 

I personally think it is fine the way it is. Players are making boat loads of money. Owners are too. Since the players get a percentage of revenue, both parties have incentive to see revenue grow, and contracts are ballooning because revenue has been ballooning. The highest paid player 10 years ago was making $20 million a year. Now it is $55 million per year. Almost tripled in a decade!

 

I understand the split. Without derailing the thread, different from other business ventures, the players, their personal lives, and their play on the field are the product. If the players woke up and said "We want 52% of revenue." I would support that. I don't necessarily mean they are getting jobbed. 

 

That said QB contracts are bonkers. To your point the QB contract has nearly tripled while the salary cap has only nearly doubled over the last 10 years. I definitely wish the quarterback wasn't taking such a large piece of the pie these days. 

 

I am surprised that some of these guys haven't caught on. A big part of Brady's longevity was him taking some paycuts over the years for depth at WR, OL, and of course some of those stingy New England defenses. Imagine if Burrow took $40M and said "Make sure you keep Chase, Higgins, and Boyd". 

 

EDIT: QB's are paid like they are Lebron, Kobe, Mike, etc. But honestly, in BB those guys can more or less win you a championship on their own. How many years did Rodgers flounder? Brees? You can't win in the NFL without a QB, but having a QB and paying a QB can make it difficult without being savvy elsewhere. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Mango

[Chicken Boo]

15 hours ago, Bob Jones said:

NFL owners are certifiably insane.

 

Goes to show how much they and the league, as a whole, really make.  

[nucci]

15 hours ago, Bob Jones said:

NFL owners are certifiably insane.

they run a business that has revenue of approx $12B a year. Very insane

[ticketssince61]

16 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

Just to put this deal into perspective - The total amount of Burrow’s 5 year deal is less than an NFL owner makes in a single season. The Bengals owner spent $89 million in 2022 in operating expenses and made $462 million. So just shy of $375 million in profit. In a single year.

 

In the NFL there is a salary cap ceiling and floor (every team has to spend to at least 89% of the cap in a 4yr period). Every team decides how to spend that allotted money. Even teams without a big QB contract on their books are spending a similar amount of total money on players.

 

Not sure the accuracy of this source, but

 

Bengals total revenue in 2022 rose 9% to $501 million last year, according to Sportico. That still ranks last in the NFL.

But the team's operating profit jumped to $137 million ranking 11th. 

[Bob Jones]

4 hours ago, nucci said:

they run a business that has revenue of approx $12B a year. Very insane

Some of you seem to be saying that if somebody is filthy rich (NFL owners), then they must be intelligent/smart/sane. Of course that's not true. Would be like saying all poor people are dumb.

[BillsFan4]

32 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Some of you seem to be saying that if somebody is filthy rich (NFL owners), then they must be intelligent/smart/sane. Of course that's not true. Would be like saying all poor people are dumb.

I am not by any means trying to argue that Mike Brown is an intelligent owner. I’d say he’s near the bottom of the list of good owners.

 

But I guess I’m just failing to see how you think Burrows contract hurts Mike Brown’s bottom line, or why you think this makes him insane?

 

Besides having to guarantee the money, I would say it’s a big win for Mike Brown’s pocket book. The Bengals are quickly becoming a popular national team with Burrow at QB and have made the AFC championship game twice and the super bowl once in burrow’s 3 years as the starter. That’s more revenue for Mike Brown.

 

I would say he is making more profit by paying Burrow, considering how much he’s already helped the bengals popularity and playoff revenue.

 

 

And what was his alternative? Refuse to guarantee Burrow the market rate, tag him twice and let him walk? Why would they do that to their beloved star franchise QB who wants to spend his entire career in Cincinnati?

[nucci]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

Some of you seem to be saying that if somebody is filthy rich (NFL owners), then they must be intelligent/smart/sane. Of course that's not true. Would be like saying all poor people are dumb.

Not saying that. I'm saying they can afford to pay these contracts because that's the business. Players get a percentage of the revenues. Why do you call them insane?

[cle23]

19 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said:

The nice thing is those owners are not supper rich and that guaranteed money has to be set aside. It will hamper them going forward with other players.

 

They don't have to set aside the full amount anymore.  They "may" require it,  but pretty well assumed at this point that they don't given that the NFL isn't going broke at this point. 

[Bob Jones]

1 hour ago, nucci said:

Not saying that. I'm saying they can afford to pay these contracts because that's the business. Players get a percentage of the revenues. Why do you call them insane?

Because they are responsible for paying these totally outrageous salaries, and no one is forcing them to do so.

 

Some regular Joe/Jane can start their work career at age 21, making a $100k a year, work for FORTY PLUS YEARS, work 50 or so weeks a year, 5 days a week, 40 hours a week, and only make about $4.5 million over those 40 years. He/she may make more with raises, so let’s just say $6 million over 44 years. Of course, most people will not even make as much as I’m showing in my scenario here.

 

These athletes are making $40 million (or even more now) over A SEVEN MONTH work period.

 

To me, that’s insane. And it got to this point because owners made it happen.

 

[LeGOATski]

10 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

... and no one is forcing them to do so.

You think they just come up with arbitrary numbers?

11 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

 

To me, that’s insane. And it got to this point because owners made it happen.

 

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the NFL salary dynamics

 

Fans who shovel money to the NFL are just as insane, I guess

[GoBills!]

Allen should just take a part of PSE group in his next deal. Keep him invested and long term financial income. 

[DrDawkinstein]

16 minutes ago, GoBills! said:

Allen should just take a part of PSE group in his next deal. Keep him invested and long term financial income. 

 

I got some bad news for you...

[Meatloaf63]

2 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

They don't have to set aside the full amount anymore.  They "may" require it,  but pretty well assumed at this point that they don't given that the NFL isn't going broke at this point. 

Show me where they don’t, it had nothing to do with the overall NFL financial health it’s a NFL requirement.  

 

”The Cowboys, valued by Forbes at $8 billion, have an edge when it comes to signing players to guaranteed deals over a team like the Bengals, who according to Forbes are worth $3 billion. Neither club is going broke, certainly, but when owners sign a player to a fully guaranteed contract, NFL rules require the team to place the full dollar amount of the contract into an escrow account. Some owners, and family members, rely on income from the team for their livelihoods. Others, such as the Browns, who are owned by truckstop mogul Jimmy Haslam, who’s worth an estimated $5.5 billion, can afford to squirrel away $230 million more easily than some other organizations. The Watson deal could divide the NFL teams into haves and have-nots, with only the wealthiest owners able to lure top talent with guaranteed contracts.”

Edited September 9, 2023 by Meatloaf63

[Buffalo Junction]

15 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Show me where they don’t, it had nothing to do with the overall NFL financial health it’s a NFL requirement.  

 

”The Cowboys, valued by Forbes at $8 billion, have an edge when it comes to signing players to guaranteed deals over a team like the Bengals, who according to Forbes are worth $3 billion. Neither club is going broke, certainly, but when owners sign a player to a fully guaranteed contract, NFL rules require the team to place the full dollar amount of the contract into an escrow account. Some owners, and family members, rely on income from the team for their livelihoods. Others, such as the Browns, who are owned by truckstop mogul Jimmy Haslam, who’s worth an estimated $5.5 billion, can afford to squirrel away $230 million more easily than some other organizations. The Watson deal could divide the NFL teams into haves and have-nots, with only the wealthiest owners able to lure top talent with guaranteed contracts.”

That’s a bit off. It’s 100% of guaranteed money into escrow. Non guaranteed salary can come from elsewhere. That’s why owners fight so hard against fully guaranteed contracts. That interest alone from that Burrow guaranteed money is at a minimum $10 million a year Brown isn’t pocketing. Guys like Pegula, Kraft and Kroenke can swallow it. Same with the Packer without an owner. For guys like Brown and Davis losing that liquidity and interest is a big deal. It’s one of the reasons that the raiders had to trade Kahlil Mack. Separates the rich owners from the guys who survive on NFL cash. Jones is a bit different because of how big the cowboys brand is. 

[GunnerBill]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:49 AM, Mango said:

Not disparaging Allen or Beane, but Allen basically hasn’t started getting paid on that deal. He’s only counting $18M this year. He’ll be bouncing in the 40’s and even low 50’s going forward. 
 

 

 

Well they keep kicking the can. This year shoulda been the first big cap year before the restructure. I imagine they restructure again next year.

[Caesar]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:21 PM, BBFL said:

I read somewhere that Nick Bosa, Chris Jones and Joe Burrow all have the same agent…

 

That guy is making some serious bank this month. 

 

Bosa & Burrow have the same agent (Ayrault).  Jones has the Katz brothers.

On 9/7/2023 at 11:02 PM, BillsFan4 said:

Just to put this deal into perspective - The total amount of Burrow’s 5 year deal is less than an NFL owner makes in a single season. The Bengals owner spent $89 million in 2022 in operating expenses and made $462 million. So just shy of $375 million in profit. In a single year.

 

In the NFL there is a salary cap ceiling and floor (every team has to spend to at least 89% of the cap in a 4yr period). Every team decides how to spend that allotted money. Even teams without a big QB contract on their books are spending a similar amount of total money on players.

Why are you leaving out the over 200M spent on players salaries?  Operating expenses is staff and buildings costs.

[Mango]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well they keep kicking the can. This year shoulda been the first big cap year before the restructure. I imagine they restructure again next year.

Yeah, I’ve actually been a bit more apt to sit back the last few years and not turn into NO. Not to derail but some of the draft misses are also combined with big FA spend to fill the gaps. Not on any single player. Just a lot of them.  So next year this Bills are -$33M with only 2 DE under contract. We’ll be taking one if not 2 high in the draft on the heels of taking 3 DE high in the draft and nothing to show for it. 

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Mango said:

Yeah, I’ve actually been a bit more apt to sit back the last few years and not turn into NO. Not to derail but some of the draft misses are also combined with big FA spend to fill the gaps. Not on any single player. Just a lot of them.  So next year this Bills are -$33M with only 2 DE under contract. We’ll be taking one if not 2 high in the draft on the heels of taking 3 DE high in the draft and nothing to show for it. 

 

Agree all though in fairness the two under contract are our starters and whether AJE had been good or bad we'd have been in this spot with him by the end of this year. Save I suppose for if he had been so good we had never needed to sign Von. 

 

The Boogie miss hurts. Him being so bad that we are giving him away for a dime two years into a cheap rookie deal definitely hurts the long term outlook. 

 

Benford (or less likely Elam) hitting big would be massive for them. As would a big Greg leap. Because they need to have one premium position beyond Josh manned by a young guy who is legit top 10 at his position. Dion, Tre, Stef have all been good to excellent Bills but they are all getting longer in the tooth.

 

EDIT: just on the Josh point I reckon a restructure clears about half of that $33m deficit. 

 

There are some tougher calls coming on how you solve the other half. I think strong odds Poyer and Morse are gone.

Edited September 9, 2023 by GunnerBill

[No_Matter_What]

2 hours ago, Mango said:

Yeah, I’ve actually been a bit more apt to sit back the last few years and not turn into NO. Not to derail but some of the draft misses are also combined with big FA spend to fill the gaps. Not on any single player. Just a lot of them.  So next year this Bills are -$33M with only 2 DE under contract. We’ll be taking one if not 2 high in the draft on the heels of taking 3 DE high in the draft and nothing to show for it. 

 

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree all though in fairness the two under contract are our starters and whether AJE had been good or bad we'd have been in this spot with him by the end of this year. Save I suppose for if he had been so good we had never needed to sign Von. 

 

The Boogie miss hurts. Him being so bad that we are giving him away for a dime two years into a cheap rookie deal definitely hurts the long term outlook. 

 

Benford (or less likely Elam) hitting big would be massive for them. As would a big Greg leap. Because they need to have one premium position beyond Josh manned by a young guy who is legit top 10 at his position. Dion, Tre, Stef have all been good to excellent Bills but they are all getting longer in the tooth.

 

EDIT: just on the Josh point I reckon a restructure clears about half of that $33m deficit. 

 

There are some tougher calls coming on how you solve the other half. I think strong odds Poyer and Morse are gone.

 

Agree with both  of you, just one technical note - you are assuming Sportrac is correct with its expectation of cap to be $240M. There are other estimates on google, ranging from $250M to $256M, so situation might be actually a little (or significantly) better. Oh and technically we have 3 DEs under contract - Jonathan being the 3rd. I think we use him as DE more than DT.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

34 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

 

 

Agree with both  of you, just one technical note - you are assuming Sportrac is correct with its expectation of cap to be $240M. There are other estimates on google, ranging from $250M to $256M, so situation might be actually a little (or significantly) better. Oh and technically we have 3 DEs under contract - Jonathan being the 3rd. I think we use him as DE more than DT.

 

 

 

Yea Jonathan is an edge not a tackle. Forgot about him. Wonder how he gets used this year. A guy like him might be hurt by our heavy rotation because we rotate a whole second unit in which means they all need to be able to play as a base end. I think Jonathan really wants to be a pass rush specialist only in on 2nd/3rd and longs lined up as a wide 9 and let go hunt. If they want him to play the run well on 1st down he won't and he will get taken off the field. It's about usage.

[BillsFan4]

Bengals QB Joe Burrow wants to keep him and WRs Tee Higgins, Ja'Marr Chase together: 'We're working to make that happen'
https://sports.yahoo.com/bengals-qb-joe-burrow-wants-to-keep-him-and-wrs-tee-higgins-jamarr-chase-together-were-working-to-make-that-happen-204120421.html
 

Quote

Joe Burrow should be among the next young quarterbacks to sign a lucrative long-term extension, but the Cincinnati Bengals star sounds like he'd rather keep his most trusted pass-catchers around than secure a record-setting deal.

 

Burrow told reporters Tuesday that "whenever you have guys on the team that need to be paid, that's always on your mind."

 

"You want that to be a focal point," Burrow said, regarding keeping Higgins and Chase. "We're working to make that happen. ... You gotta have good players. It doesn't matter how good your quarterback is. If you don't have good players around him, you're not going to be a very good team."

 

 

Quote

Higgins even noted Tuesday that he, Burrow and Chase all "talk about staying together for the long run."

"Hopefully we can do that," Higgins said, "and get something negotiated to where they can keep all three of us."

 

Like Higgins, Chase sounded like he believes Burrow won't chase market-setting money and instead look to keep the Bengals' offensive core intact.
 

“He knows what he has to do to win and he wants to win," Chase said. "He's a winning guy. He's not a quarterback that's always interested in money and all that other stuff. He just wants to win, and that's the big thing about Joe."

 

So much for that… lol

[ColoradoBills]

13 hours ago, Buffalo Junction said:

That’s a bit off. It’s 100% of guaranteed money into escrow. Non guaranteed salary can come from elsewhere. That’s why owners fight so hard against fully guaranteed contracts. That interest alone from that Burrow guaranteed money is at a minimum $10 million a year Brown isn’t pocketing. Guys like Pegula, Kraft and Kroenke can swallow it. Same with the Packer without an owner. For guys like Brown and Davis losing that liquidity and interest is a big deal. It’s one of the reasons that the raiders had to trade Kahlil Mack. Separates the rich owners from the guys who survive on NFL cash. Jones is a bit different because of how big the cowboys brand is. 

 

I don't think the "escrow" money is sewn into some mattress.  It's in some sort of an account making money.

[Billl]

14 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Show me where they don’t, it had nothing to do with the overall NFL financial health it’s a NFL requirement.  

 

”The Cowboys, valued by Forbes at $8 billion, have an edge when it comes to signing players to guaranteed deals over a team like the Bengals, who according to Forbes are worth $3 billion. Neither club is going broke, certainly, but when owners sign a player to a fully guaranteed contract, NFL rules require the team to place the full dollar amount of the contract into an escrow account. Some owners, and family members, rely on income from the team for their livelihoods. Others, such as the Browns, who are owned by truckstop mogul Jimmy Haslam, who’s worth an estimated $5.5 billion, can afford to squirrel away $230 million more easily than some other organizations. The Watson deal could divide the NFL teams into haves and have-nots, with only the wealthiest owners able to lure top talent with guaranteed contracts.”

It’s pretty easy for even the “poorest” owners to borrow against the equity in their franchises in order to secure loans for that escrow money.  That money, in turn, can still be invested while it’s in escrow to offset some of the interest on the note.  It’s not revenue neutral in most cases, but it’s been wildly overblown in terms of the degree to which it creates an advantage/disadvantage depending on the owners’ net worth.

[Buffalo Junction]

3 hours ago, Billl said:

It’s pretty easy for even the “poorest” owners to borrow against the equity in their franchises in order to secure loans for that escrow money.  That money, in turn, can still be invested while it’s in escrow to offset some of the interest on the note.  It’s not revenue neutral in most cases, but it’s been wildly overblown in terms of the degree to which it creates an advantage/disadvantage depending on the owners’ net worth.

They may have changed the rules, but there used to be a limit of $150 million with regards to borrowing against the equity of the franchise. That said, they can also sell 30% to partners. 

[Chaos]

[Chicken Boo]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:11 PM, Allen2Moulds said:

He'll get his too, but you have to believe that Tee Higgins is as good as gone after this year.

 

Not necessarily.  They can sign Higgins in the offseason once the cap figure goes up. 

 

Chase isn't due for a new deal until the end of 2024.  

 

It can be done.

[NoSaint]

6 hours ago, Billl said:

It’s pretty easy for even the “poorest” owners to borrow against the equity in their franchises in order to secure loans for that escrow money.  That money, in turn, can still be invested while it’s in escrow to offset some of the interest on the note.  It’s not revenue neutral in most cases, but it’s been wildly overblown in terms of the degree to which it creates an advantage/disadvantage depending on the owners’ net worth.

investments being of course relative as you obviously can’t let the money just *poof* and disappear 

51 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

Not necessarily.  They can sign Higgins in the offseason once the cap figure goes up. 

 

Chase isn't due for a new deal until the end of 2024.  

 

It can be done.

chase, who is eligible for a new deal next year, May be interested in getting paid next year. 

[ganesh]

On 9/8/2023 at 6:15 AM, JaCrispy said:

Not til at least 3/4 years into the new deal…

Or if he wins the SB.  Then his desk will be refine to make him the highest paid QB in the nfl

[Unforgiven]

f joe burrow.

[Bob Jones]

Burrow looked pretty good today. /s LOL

 

Wonder if the Bengals owner has any "buyer's remorse" today. LOL again

[Punching Bag]

20 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Burrow looked pretty good today. /s LOL

 

Wonder if the Bengals owner has any "buyer's remorse" today. LOL again

 

Usually players who played just for the money wait for a while before tanking.

So much guaranteed money makes it easier.

 

 

[Eastport bills]

“Joe Cool” is a top 5 QB in the NFL.  He had to get paid.  His performance today against a revved up Browns defense was that of a tentative, injury compromised QB. How long this level of play lasts is anyone’s guess, but I would be a little concerned about his ability to stay healthy for the long haul.