I expect the Packers to sign one or both of them to extensions before the start of the regular season.
I'm not sure why you think the Packers don't have enough cash reserves to compete with other teams in the free agent market. They were able to pay for the south zone expansion and in addition for $62 million to Rodgers and Matthews in 2013.
Contrast that $254M to the money available to some teams. The article linked below lists the richest NFL owners according to Forbes’ annual list. The Seahawks’ Paul Allen’s net worth is about $15 billion, The Rams’ owner is about $5B (with his wife about $9.5B), The Dolphins and Buccaneers owners are both listed at $4.4B, etc. In all 19 teams are owned by billionaires.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/26/paul-allen-is-the-richest-nfl-owner/
The sooner these guys get locked up to long term deals the better. Your #1 and #2 hit free agency and we will have problems.More of an issue for 2015.
The sooner these guys get locked up to long term deals the better. Your #1 and #2 hit free agency and we will have problems.
Even before the stadium expansion which provides meaningful additional revenue, the Packers posted record net earnings in 2012. Expect another record in 2013.
Good point. Assuming the signing bonuses were cash payouts in 2013 with nothing deferred, you're most certainly correct. Revenues should tip a record though.I agree with most of your post , don't expect record net earnings in 2013 though as the Packers dished out $62 million to Rodgers and Matthews.
Even in the uncapped year, when the Packers had the second highest player compensation costs in the league, they had net earnings of $10 mil, $5 mil after land value write-downs and were cash flow positive. That's from memory but should be very close.
Even before the stadium expansion which provides meaningful additional revenue, the Packers posted record net earnings in 2012. Expect another record in 2013.
TT commented last off season that Murphy advised him he was under no team restrictions with respect to spending. There's no reason to see that changing any time soon.
Having a billion dollar owner provides no advantage in player retention or acquisition over the Packers at this time or for the foreseeable future. The salary cap makes it so.
It would take failures to sell out or a sudden plunge in NFL popularity impacting visitor gate shares and the next TV contracts some years down the road to prevent this franchise from spending up to the cap each and every year. If they don't, it's not because they can't. It's because they're looking at in-season provisions and a multi-year view of negotiations down the line. This was covered at some length in another thread.
It's also interesting to note that we're moving into the phase of the new CBA where teams have to start worrying about minimum payouts. The CBA calls for a minimum cash payout average over a mulityear period of something like 95% of the cap. Somebody else can look up the exact provisions.
Every team is working now in a fairly narrow band between minimum cash and maximum cap.
You're going to start seeing reporter projections about which teams are likely to be most active in free agency based on minimum cash pay requirements.
No. Money taken in through the stock offering is not counted as revenue or operating earnings. It's a balance sheet matter.would record earning have anything to do with stock offering?
That is true, but all of these guys are that rich because they made smart business moves. While I agree with you that's it's theoratically easier for them to absorb big free agent signings they don't like making too much bad decisions either.
The cap is a leveling influence but there’s no question teams with virtually unlimited bank accounts can overcome big mistakes in free agency than the Packers could. From the article linked in the OP, “In 2013, the Packers paid nearly $7.6 million for Nelson, Jones, Cobb and second-year pro Jarrett Boykin. For less than what Seattle is paying Sidney Rice, the Packers got 224 receptions, 3,245 receiving yards and 20 touchdowns.” If that were reversed, it would be a much bigger deal in Green Bay.
Teams like Seattle can go to the edge of what the new CBA allows in stretching signing bonuses over time and if that contract “blows up” they can do it again with another player. Again, the cap and constraints of the CBA (regarding how long bonuses can be prorated) level the playing field somewhat but there’s no question never having to worry about money is an advantage the Packers don’t have. BTW, money from stock sales can't be used to sign or extend players, only to improve or expand facilities.
Those statements are poorly thought through and largely incorrect.
What we pay our WRs vs. Rice is utterly irrelevant. Compare what we pay our QB vs. what they pay theirs, our top edge rusher vs. theirs, our inside linebackers vs. theirs or out top cornerback to theirs.
Your contention that a rich team like Seattle can pay out big signing bonuses to players who bust and then just turn around and repeat the process is completely misguided. That's the fast road to cap hell. Certainly you're familiar with the concept of "dead cap money"...every signing bonus $ counts against the cap sooner or later; the more often you don't get value for those bonuses, the more dead cap you accumulate. The Seahawks have a ton of dead cap built into their contracts now. Their window is narrow, and it will likely shut when Wilson comes up for renewal...like what we just saw in the Baltimore housecleaning.
That Murphy would have made such statements in 2010 is no surprise...that was the uncapped year where he had the second largest player compensation outlays in the league.
There is absolutely no indication that a cash consideration would come into play for any Packer signing, now or in the foreseeable future. It's all about cap management. If one sees us not spending up to the cap, it has nothing to do with cash considerations...it's a multi-year consideration of future cap room needs coupled with a cap management philosophy that tries to avoid dead cap like the plague.
I like to look at dead cap that's on the roster...what it costs to replace guys in the event of injury, underperformance, age.While I agree with most of your thoughts, I have to disagree with the Seahawks dead money issue. While they don´t have a lot of cap space available (a little bit more than $3 million) they don´t have a lot of dead money counting against their cap either (actually less than the Packers $1.2 million). And aside of cutting Percy Harvin, which will obviously not happen, no other play that would be cut would result in massive dead money either.
However, now I'm looking at 2014. They'll have only 1 guy over $5 million (Harvin) and 6 guys at $3 million or more:
http://www.overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Seahawks&Year=2014
So, you are correct, they are in good shape for next year. I should have known Schneider wouldn't drive them into a cap dead end.
And the only one I think they would cut actually cut of those guys would be Sidney Rice.
The Seahags cap issues were kicked around endlessly in another thread... no need to carry it on here... but that is misleading, to say the least, to say he's the only guy they will need to cut. The Seahags will need to get ready to pay for their two best players in a year. That hampers what they can do this year. You mention cuts, what about their current starters that are FA? I took a good long look at the seahags roster issues for next year and I fail to see how anyone could downplay the changes that will hit that team.
The Seahags cap issues were kicked around endlessly in another thread... no need to carry it on here... but that is misleading, to say the least, to say he's the only guy they will need to cut. The Seahags will need to get ready to pay for their two best players in a year. That hampers what they can do this year. You mention cuts, what about their current starters that are FA? I took a good long look at the seahags roster issues for next year and I fail to see how anyone could downplay the changes that will hit that team.