Big Rumors

[all about da packers]

But if you meant DR-C, I agree all the way. I love that guy.

What a stupid comment that was PIB.

A man cannot love another man unless that other man is Greg Jennings. Seesh. :roll:

 

[pack_in_black]

A man cannot love another man unless that other man is Greg Jennings. Seesh. :roll:

Can I heart someone? Cause I <3 you, AADP.

 

[PackOne]

Zach Thomas to the Cows. Also, where is the bring the "Freak" in thread?

 

[packersfan4life]

I'm not sure why Faneca's name keeps coming up. He has already stated he wants to go and play for Whisenhut in Arizona. Money talks, but the Packers don't have it after the tagging of Williams. DeAngelo Hall is rumored to be going to the Giants. We can all speculate, but more than likely the Packers are going to be going after more of the second tier free agents.

 

[bozz_2006]

I wouldn't be so sure about the Packers not having money. We tagged Williams, which is between 5-6 million i think, and released Bubba, which I believe saved us 3 million. If we cut KGB, i think we would have more cap space than we did 2 weeks ago. Not saying i want that to happen, but if the Packers need to make up some cap space, they certainly can.

 

[Yared-Yam]

Adding Faneca+Hall = Superbowl

 

[Yared-Yam]

I wouldn't be so sure about the Packers not having money. We tagged Williams, which is between 5-6 million i think, and released Bubba, which I believe saved us 3 million. If we cut KGB, i think we would have more cap space than we did 2 weeks ago. Not saying i want that to happen, but if the Packers need to make up some cap space, they certainly can.

Packers have like $20mill cap room. They have money

 

[Zero2Cool]

I say we should hear from "TheScout" instead of taking rumors from PC.com's user Arrigo.

Whatcha got "TheScout"?

 

[bozz_2006]

where'dja go, thescout?

 

[PackOne]

Correct me please, but wasn't "The Scout" wrong about his only set of predictions?

 

[bozz_2006]

i don't even remember what they were.

 

[Veretax]

I may be wrong here, but in the Packers situation isn't it Cash as opposed to the cap that's the problem?

 

[bozz_2006]

I may be wrong here, but in the Packers situation isn't it Cash as opposed to the cap that's the problem?

like, the Packers are unable to come up with enough cash to reach the cap? i don't think so, but i could be wrong

 

[all about da packers]

I may be wrong here, but in the Packers situation isn't it Cash as opposed to the cap that's the problem?

like, the Packers are unable to come up with enough cash to reach the cap? i don't think so, but i could be wrong

Not sure what you mean by "cash" Veretax.

Packers have a preservation fund that, if I'm not mistaken, has over 100 million dollars in it for the purpose of preserving the Packers. It was created to cover costs of operations and other "things" should the need arise.

I remember reading a quote by Harlan that said the Packers fund was big enough to allow them to get by in an uncapped year. Each year the fund grows based on revenue.

 

[PackCrazed4]

I may be wrong here, but in the Packers situation isn't it Cash as opposed to the cap that's the problem?

like, the Packers are unable to come up with enough cash to reach the cap? i don't think so, but i could be wrong

Not sure what you mean by "cash" Veretax.

Packers have a preservation fund that, if I'm not mistaken, has over 100 million dollars in it for the purpose of preserving the Packers. It was created to cover costs of operations and other "things" should the need arise.

I remember reading a quote by Harlan that said the Packers fund was big enough to allow them to get by in an uncapped year. Each year the fund grows based on revenue.

That's a nice safety net, we better keep the cash flowing in that bank account then, the talk of the future with the CBA looks scary, I really hope it doesn't dismantle. The CBA is one of the reasons to love football, everyone is on equal playing ground

 

[Veretax]

Well I may be wrong, I remeber reading that the reason a number of teams were so far under the cap was because those teams were profitable enough to have the cash to flirt with the cap every year. I thought perhaps the Packers might have been one of those teams, given that they are the only one that is publicly owned. If I'm wrong then great, I'd love to see the Pack improve for next year.

 

[all about da packers]

Well I may be wrong, I remeber reading that the reason a number of teams were so far under the cap was because those teams were profitable enough to have the cash to flirt with the cap every year. I thought perhaps the Packers might have been one of those teams, given that they are the only one that is publicly owned. If I'm wrong then great, I'd love to see the Pack improve for next year.

Hm, from what I know, think of the NFL as a bank.

The bank allocates the cap ($116 million this year) for each team, so think of the bank as basically handing over an account filled with $116 dollars to each NFL team.

Now each team can use that money as they wish, they can use all of the money (spend right up near the cap amount), or they can not spend all of that money (be below the cap, like the Packers, Lions, Vikings, Dolphins, etc.).

Think of the revenue each team makes like this: The revenue for each team (at least most of it) is pooled to a large fund, and that large fund is then divided evenly by 32. Whatever the amount works out to that way is the amount of cap space for each season, the amount of money each team receives from the bank to spend.

 

[Veretax]

Well I may be wrong, I remeber reading that the reason a number of teams were so far under the cap was because those teams were profitable enough to have the cash to flirt with the cap every year. I thought perhaps the Packers might have been one of those teams, given that they are the only one that is publicly owned. If I'm wrong then great, I'd love to see the Pack improve for next year.

Hm, from what I know, think of the NFL as a bank.

The bank allocates the cap ($116 million this year) for each team, so think of the bank as basically handing over an account filled with $116 dollars to each NFL team.

Now each team can use that money as they wish, they can use all of the money (spend right up near the cap amount), or they can not spend all of that money (be below the cap, like the Packers, Lions, Vikings, Dolphins, etc.).

Think of the revenue each team makes like this: The revenue for each team (at least most of it) is pooled to a large fund, and that large fund is then divided evenly by 32. Whatever the amount works out to that way is the amount of cap space for each season, the amount of money each team receives from the bank to spend.

The money to pay players does not come from the NFL. Now it is true there is some measure of Revenue sharing, but not to the tune of the Salary Cap each year from the NFL. The Salary Cap is a Ceiling they place on how much you can pay on salaries each year. The Salary Cap and profits are also NOT divided equally. That's a misnomer. Now I don't know whether the packers are one of the "small market teams" That has a hard time paying everything up to the Salary Cap or not. They might not be, but the Salary Cap is not a Bank I know that much for sure. The money still has to come from the Packers Organization. the ammount spent is the total that the NFL says, you can spend no higher than this. Now many teams this year are WAY under the cap, before all of the signings, releases, and what not, but do not Confuse the Salary Cap with an NFL Equality Fund. It really isn't.

Here check this link out:

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

or this one:

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salary Cap FAQ.htm

So while there is some Revenue Sharing going on, some of the smaller market teams still don't have the funds on hand to really flirt with the cap every year. THe packers I believe are in the top 15 in Revenue so they may be fine.

 

[all about da packers]

The money to pay players does not come from the NFL. Now it is true there is some measure of Revenue sharing, but not to the tune of the Salary Cap each year from the NFL. The Salary Cap is a Ceiling they place on how much you can pay on salaries each year. The Salary Cap and profits are also NOT divided equally. That's a misnomer. Now I don't know whether the packers are one of the "small market teams" That has a hard time paying everything up to the Salary Cap or not. They might not be, but the Salary Cap is not a Bank I know that much for sure. The money still has to come from the Packers Organization. the ammount spent is the total that the NFL says, you can spend no higher than this. Now many teams this year are WAY under the cap, before all of the signings, releases, and what not, but do not Confuse the Salary Cap with an NFL Equality Fund. It really isn't.

Here check this link out:

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

or this one:

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salary Cap FAQ.htm

So while there is some Revenue Sharing going on, some of the smaller market teams still don't have the funds on hand to really flirt with the cap every year. THe packers I believe are in the top 15 in Revenue so they may be fine.

Thanks for the links, I guess I didn't know as much as I thought about the CBA, eh?

Interesting reads though, it's odd that the NFL Salary cap is structured that way, it's more like the NHL "salary cap" and I didn't think I'd be saying that, like ever.


If I recall correctly, weren't teams in the Sherman era constantly up near the cap limit? Perhaps that shows that the Packers have enough revenue to place them somewhere near the cap, and hence they have room yet to go after some free agent(s)? Although, I guess you'd have to factor in that the salary cap during Sherman's era was less than what it is now.

Then there are the cap credits to come, for some players (Lee plus someone else I think) who didn't qualify for the Likely To Be Earned incentives. I think Lee's LTBEI value was around 6 million, so that's a nice chunk of cap space there, although I guess I'm assuming the Packers have enough "cash" to use it.