One more thing – the Redskins and Cowboys never went over the cap in signing their players. They simply wrote off the remainder of some players salaries during the uncapped year – an action that was approved by the league office when they did it, by the way.

This is not a true statement. It was stated by the NFL that the contracts of the players who were redone to dump future cap money into the current noncapped year would still be approved if they were deemed to be free of legal defects which would nullify a contract. It was explained to the teams that because a contract was approved it did not mean that they would not be held liable for violating the uncapped year. The rules for an uncapped year was that you could spend as much money as you wanted but you could not redo a players contract, who was currently under contract, solely to reduce future cap amounts for that player. Keep in mind that the NFL determines its rules and the meanings of terms used in their rules. The NFL clearly defined what an “uncapped year” meant. It is no different than what the NFL considers “holding,pass interference,offsides”, or any other term it uses in its course of business .

Attendance is already off, so that’s a good start.

In your little dream scenario, how would you feel if you were in Brees, Brady’s, or the manning boys territory? The big name guys bring in the most revenue. Let them market their skills and be compensated for them.

The one and only thing agents are concerned with is the size of their commission. Anything else is meaningless to them.

Why is Florio trying to make this sound like a new dilemma? Teams have always been using this trick. Yes, it eventually catches up with them one day, but there are ways to minimize the impact.

Look at the Colts last year. They had been using this trick for years with Peyton Manning (using future cap space to field a better team). They were so far over the cap last year that they decided to take their lumps (or at least they thought that), and they took a massive cap hit last year.

Now?

They are back to $30M or so UNDER the cap.

If I have a championship-contending team and only have a window of 2 or 3 years, I’d do the same.

If he actually plays out the extension without it being renegotiated then I will admit he took a discount but to date, despite all the positive press Brady get’s, he has yet to give the Patriots a discount even once.
———————————————

Not true. Besides the discount in years 3-5 of this contract, in 2005 Brady signed a 6 year $10M per year deal, $4M under P Manning’s rate. He was very clear that he took less to enable the patriots to spend more on others.

By the way, Giselle wasn’t in the picture in 2005, so it wasn’t because she brought in millions.

Apples and oranges. Owners are allowed to pay Roger whatever they want. They do not have such freedom for players under the NFLPA agreement cap. $30MM for Roger is less than $1MM per team, or slightly more than the 10-year vet minimum.

Not exactly shocking agents are trying to get clubs to spend as much upfront as possible. When has this NOT been the case? Besides, if their guy gets a huge paper contract but is cut next year, the agent probably isn’t hurt, he can rep another player. Former players, not so much.

Unfortunately, management of some teams never seem to learn. They know they are judged by 2 or maybe 3 year results anyway.

A true salary cap would involve placing a limit on how much any player could earn in a single season, say $10 million, with most players earning less…There would still be a team spending cap as well, which would operate much like it does now.

So for instance, Joe Superstar gets signed to a 4-year, $40 mil contract…$10 mil a year, period. And each team, even if they still can only spend, say, $120 mil total, gets to stay competitive from one year to the next.

And of course the NFLPA would never in a zillion years agree to this, even though it would benefit the players in the long run, since all teams would be more able to bid on free agents…The way it is now, the good team a player really wants to play for may not be able to afford him, while a lousy team with spending room will scoop him up.

I know I rambled here, and probably missed some key points, but the current system, to me, is skewed too much in favor of owners who are just as happy at 5-11 as 11-5, so long as enough fans show up on Sundays.

The difference between the Brees deal and the Flacco deal is the age of the QB. In 2015, Flacco will be 30/31, in the middle of his prime. If a team believes he’s an elite QB, there should be no problem paying him that amount. So the structure for Brees’ deal make sense for the Ravens for Flacco’s deal.

You learn something every day. Have never heard this before. You would think a reporter might mention the appearance of conflict.

No?

I didn’t think so.

One would hope that most NFL GMs would be wise to this, hopefully, and not crush his team’s future on the now. At the very least, it’s selfish, since if they screw the future, they are going to get fired in that future when they can no longer manage the cap.