Oshkoshpackfan
YUT !!!
anyone know what % the agent gets of the overall contract signed? Just wondering.....
I think it's generally 3%, I don't think they are allowed to charge more than that on NFL contracts. It might be more in other sports, though.
3% on a $150M contract though (just speculating an amount) is still a pretty serious rake for negotiating a contract!
Yep Jack, I remember when they inked him to that deal. It was a huge show of confidence in an unproven player at that time. I think it should help in some respect when Aaron signs this deal. He knew they threw their chips in with him at that point. I'm just glad to hear it's not in the $25 mil range that was initially reported. I think we all can live with 22 or 23.The Press Gazette quotes an nfl.com source saying the Packers and Rodgers are $2M/year apart, with the Packers currently offering a little more than $21M/year. If true, the deal will definitely be less than the $25M/year speculated about.
It's been mentioned a lot about how underpaid (by NFL elite QB standards) Rodgers has been but I have heard him mention that for the first three years of his Packers career he was overpaid. I'm not saying it balances out - again by NFL standards - I'm just saying that's also part of the story.
When the details on the Flacco deal came out, I was (foolishly) hoping Rodgers would sign a deal with $1 more guaranteed and $1 more overall. While Rodgers will no doubt be the highest paid player in the league once the deal is done, it won't be that long before that's no longer true. So one dollar more than the current highest paid player shows him the respect he's due while giving the Packers a little more cash and cap space to retain others. And no matter what the particulars of this extension are, Rodgers' family should be financially secure for generations upon generations if he's smart with his money - and IMO it's extremely likely he is. So Aaron, please tell your agent it's OK if he leaves a little money on the table. He'll collect his share of that money from Matthews and probably Raji.
http://www.packersnews.com/article/...s-Rodgers-only-2-million-apart?nclick_check=1
That's total average, it'll still be 25 after his current deal would have been up if I'm thinking right.Yep Jack, I remember when they inked him to that deal. It was a huge show of confidence in an unproven player at that time. I think it should help in some respect when Aaron signs this deal. He knew they threw their chips in with him at that point. I'm just glad to hear it's not in the $25 mil range that was initially reported. I think we all can live with 22 or 23.
Not that we have any darned say in the matter, haha.
JSOnline says the $2 million is between $23 and 25 million. Good Article - says virtually the same I have been saying all along - a longer contract is a lot better than short. They are talking 6 instead of 4. I say make it 10 years - a career deal similar to what Favre's was supposed to be. The article also shows cap numbers for Flacco and Brees - also a lot like the example I wrote up - not bad at all in the first couple of years. It says they are expecting a big cap increase in '15 or '16. The article also points out that when the $18 current amount under the cap is mentioned, it includes Rodgers and Matthews current cap numbers. Thus, getting a new contract for both should actually give the Packers more cap space, not less for the first year. This just ain't the mess some make it out to be.
Assuming no playoff games, that's 400,000 beers a game.
..... I'm thinking 10 cents oughta do it
Hell...just raise the cost of a beer at the stadium 50 cents and that will get you $2 million/year that you are shy.
The big increases in cap is a myth. The league wants a gradual rise in the cap not a sudden surge. It's been in the media and fans have grabbed onto it as a way to justify big contracts that are back ended. Don't spend tomorrow's money today.
Not sure who has posted it's a "mess" but look at the cap numbers for Brees and Flacco again. If Rodgers' deal is structured similarly, those numbers show more pressure on the cap in future years. And remember Matthews will require a huge deal as well. Just because there may be more cap room this season than some expect doesn't mean the Packers don't have to be careful managing the cap going forward, and that includes signing UFAs this season. BTW, my guess is Thompson and Ball will try to "fill up" more cap space this season (than BAL or NO) to reduce those numbers in "outer" years.This just ain't the mess some make it out to be.
True or myth about "big" increases, it will steadily be going up, and that definitely is the way to go with contracts. Just watch when the Rodgers deal actually happens. It will be similar structure to Flacco and Brees - but a little bit bigger, as it should be.
Not sure who has posted it's a "mess" but look at the cap numbers for Brees and Flacco again. If Rodgers' deal is structured similarly, those numbers show more pressure on the cap in future years. And remember Matthews will require a huge deal as well. Just because there may be more cap room this season than some expect doesn't mean the Packers don't have to be careful managing the cap going forward, and that includes signing UFAs this season. BTW, my guess is Thompson and Ball will try to "fill up" more cap space this season (than BAL or NO) to reduce those numbers in "outer" years.
Damn, that's alot of ****.Assuming no playoff games, that's 400,000 beers a game.
..... I'm thinking 10 cents oughta do it
But it's not really certain that you are thinking right, correct?That's total average, it'll still be 25 after his current deal would have been up if I'm thinking right.
Correct.But it's not really certain that you are thinking right, correct?
Bob Kaminski, perhaps a larger font would get your point across better? Then again, perhaps not.
[rant]If you don't want to support the NFL or any other entertainment venture, you are free not to. And if enough people agree with you, the NFL will become less popular and the owners, people in the front offices, coaching staffs and the players will make less money. But you've got to know that's not the trend.
IMO professional sports is part of the entertainment industry. So NFL players, just like players in MLB and the NBA make a ton of money as do many movie and TV actors and entertainers in the music industry, etc. I have no problem with it because I believe capitalism is by far the best economic system (and I support what looks like an anti-trust violation which keeps the NFL competitive). And for those who believe the fact a relative few in our society get extremely wealthy is a bad thing, I think that's a small price to pay for the rest of us being relatively (less and less unfortunately) free to pursue our own economic interests. IOW, I believe what would be by far worse than the current system is one trying to "fix" it by reducing our freedom further.
BTW, Green Bay Packers tickets are still a relative bargain in the marketplace. Considering the demand and the length of the season ticket waiting list, the fair market value of those tickets probably approaches twice what they're asking. But of course you don't have to go to Lambeau: Except for games on the NFL network, you can enjoy NFL games on TV at no additional cost. If the time comes when Packers games are pay-per-view, I'll pay to watch them. Because I don't believe I deserve to consume entertainment for free and I am incredibly entertained by Packers football. But thank goodness - for now at least - you are free not to.[/rant]