You're not far off in how valuable the Cowboys and Redskins are. However, ALL 32 franchises are in the list of 50 most valuable in the world and several are in the to 10 to 15, close to Washington and Dallas.
To say those 2 teams make more than the other 30 (backed down to "half") is ridiculous though.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...-sports-teams/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by steelerfan
your opinion of how theyve done recently has nothing to do with it..just because you want to get to the top doesnt mean you will either..but in the Super Bowl era that you are so centric about, Dallas has proven thats very important to them, just like Pitt and GB..sure, alot of owners migh like to get to the top but they dont try as hard as those 3 teams.. you guys should know by now, sports franchises are tax write off toys for owners..as long as they can make a profit,thats all they care about..if they happen to beat the odds once in a while, of course they dont mind riding that wave..
any more Manning news?
should be the national Manning League...brother wins SB, other brother gets national attention shopping for teams.....every time Archie turns on the tv, his sons are there.....amazing
Reggie Wayne is staying with the Colts. He signed a 3-year deal.
There goes the automatic assumption that he'd follow Manning.
Maybe he knows Manning is still hurt and won't make opening day.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
Peyton Manning to whoever is interesting to me, but the one I'm really keeping an eye on is Matt Flynn. For this reason more than any other, you would think, after the performance he had last year, that Miami (now coached by his former OC) would be very interested in his services. But it doesn't appear to be the case. Makes me wonder if they know something the league doesn't.
The other part of that which interests me is whether or not Miami (due to OC Mike Sherman) is going after Ryan Tannehill.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Wayne was a shocker. I did figure he'd follow Manning, or just go somewhere else. Didn't expect to re-sign with the Colts. And WOW I think the Redskins overpaid for Garcon, but that isn't much of a surprise, but just days after you find out you're going to get jacked for a ton of cap room, spending $21M+ guaranteed on RGIII to Garcon for 10-12 TD's is quite a gamble.
Garcon is probably an overpay if you put it into the perspective of "he's Pierre Garcon". Though he did have a very impressive year last year, considering his complete lack of a competent QB.
Though, if you consider him the #2 available receiver today (with Colston signing and behind Jackson), that's probably not an overpay. $21 million guaranteed is insane to me no matter who it is, though.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
These numbers come out, then later the details are leaked and you find that the "guaranteed" money is not as high as originally reported (though it's not widely reported and you have to seek out that info).
Often, the initial reports of guaranteed money include future roster bonuses and the like. That sort of money is not really guaranteed at all.
That said, the Redskins and overpaying go together like shit and stink.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
It's actually "only" $13.1 million guaranteed, but, I agree, it's WAY too much money for a receiver that didn't do shit with Peyton Manning throwing him the ball and when he did do shit, he did it because his terrible QBs were throwing him the ball SIGNIFICANTLY more than any other receiver on the team.
It's a bad signing in my opinion, but his contract, like all the ones we've signed so far, have a 2 year out clause that makes it easy to cut them with little repercussions.
he's a pro, he caught balls thrown to him, that does not equal that he sucks LOL
Here's a blog post that explains precisely what I was talking about with "guaranteed" money. It breaks down a couple of the latest WR contacts in Jackson and Garcon.
http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/03...tract-numbers/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
Here's the actual breakdown of his contract, minus a few unknowns at the moment:
Reported - signed to a 5 year, $43.5m deal with $20.5m in guarantees.
REAL guaranteed money = $13.1m
$11m SB
$2.1m base salary in 2012 guaranteed
65% of the contract value ($27.6m) is in the first 3 years.
His 2013 base salary of $5.6m is guaranteed IF he is on the roster on the third day of the 2013 league year
Cap Hits:
2012 - $4.300m
2013 - $8.800m
2014 - $10.100m (approx)
2015 - $9.700m (approx)
2016 - $9.700m (approx)
Still a couple more details to come on this to finish it but the essential infor we have already.
It's definitely not AS bad as originally stated, but I definitely don't care for how much he could possibly make if they feel he's worth it past the first year (since his contract isn't guaranteed at all until the 3rd day of the 2013 season).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official statement from Redskins front office
Quote:
“The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”
...
from another site I was at
And that site is? "From another site I was at" doesn't tell me if it's a believable source or not.
It's most definitely a believable source. If they received written requests not to do what they did, the NFLPA would be able to sue the NFL into the stone age for colluding with one another to lower the amount of money spent on players.
The NFL held the NFLPA hostage. They said, we either penalize these two teams this amount of money, or we don't raise the cap at all and therefore less money could theoretically be spent on players (even though that idea is COMPLETE bullshit because you have teams like San Francisco, Tennessee, and Buffalo that barely reach the cap floor, much less spend their allowed cap money - funny thing is, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers actually spent less than they were allowed to last year so that they could carry some of their cap savings over to this year to spend ridiculous amounts of it; which, btw, is against the CBA, but, do they get punished for it? Nope).
But isn't this "penalty" resulting in MORE money to the players, not less?
My understanding was that every team not named Washington or Dallas was simply getting $1.6 M of additional cap space to use, as they see fit, over the next 2 years while the penalized teams get no benefit or real penalty. Am I missing something?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
The money they got was the "fined" money from Washington and Dallas split between the 30 other teams.
The NFL wasn't going to increase the cap unless Washington and Dallas were fined, thus, they conned the NFLPA to sign off on them doing what they did saying some shit about competitive balance or some bullshit. Like the competitive balance Tampa Bay, San Francisco, Jacksonville, and several other teams "enjoy" by BARELY spending over the cap floor so that their greedy fuckin' owners can pocket the rest of the money?
So does Washington have to stay $18 M under the cap for the next 2 years too? And Dallas $5 M under?The money they got was the "fined" money from Washington and Dallas split between the 30 other teams.
The NFL wasn't going to increase the cap unless Washington and Dallas were fined, thus, they conned the NFLPA to sign off on them doing what they did saying some shit about competitive balance or some bullshit. Like the competitive balance Tampa Bay, San Francisco, Jacksonville, and several other teams "enjoy" by BARELY spending over the cap floor so that their greedy fuckin' owners can pocket the rest of the money?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
It's just money added to their cap expenditures.
Dallas has pussied out of the fight against the NFL, but, all signs point to Daniel Snyder bringing in ridiculously high priced lawyers to lay the smackdown if the CBA route with some special judicial system doesn't work in our favor.
The source was Bruce Allen, Redskins GM. Gotta love quoting without sourcing.
The most damning thing about Garcon, whether he was the #2 available receiver or not, is that he's below the league average catch rate every season so far. That doesn't bode well with a rookie QB.
Assuming the reports of the $36M/$10M were true, then the Redskins and Cowboys were given the option of spreading the fine over this year and the next, however they wish. They could have ate the whole $36M in year one, or waited to eat it in year two. Or spread it as they wish.
According to ESPN's legal guy, the CBA doesn't give the Skins (or Cowboys) many outs on this one. So it might have to be an anti-trust suit rather than a CBA-related ruling. I don't see (even) Snyder doing that unless he's incredibly confident.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks