Salary Cap Bind Of Players

[Sizzlebshu]

Oh dear lord not again 

 

Mods can we autolock any thread that has to do with trading Ray Rice?

[Poes Crows]

The owners would not be able to sign anybody they wanted.  Existing contracts would mean something, their value and term would not be voidable at the election of one party.  They would be equally fair and enforceable contracts. But if the Seahawks wanted to hire a player without a contract, say a player like Aaron Rodgers and they were willing to pay him more than what the Packers whole team earns, isn't that the American Way?  Who would limit an individuals right to hire someone or limit what that someone could earn with his new employer?  Who would do such a thing? The NFL in concert with the NFL Players Union, that's who.

 

So the NFL "agrees" among owners to restrict what each owner can "collectively" pay their employees and the entity representing the players agrees with a nebulous "share of the pie" and contract limits for new members, kind of a "salary seniority" thing?  Does anybody really think that is the American Way or even Legal???  How would it fair if tested in the Courts?, but it is certainly voidable and that's the direction the Players Union needs to take.

 

So you think Bisciotti is concerned about not being able to compete for players once their contract expires? I thought Ozzie Newsome and John Harbaugh were the keys as opposed to retaining or hiring veterans?  How'd that work out with Anquan Boldin? I'm sure Bisciotti really likes his share of the pie, but how large of a pie is it really? and how can a Players Union represent the Players and say "You big strong hungry men only get a sliver of that ethereal pie?....Oh, and we will allow your team to take it away from you!"

[Puntit]

The owners would not be able to sign anybody they wanted.  Existing contracts would mean something, their value and term would not be voidable at the election of one party.  They would be equally fair and enforceable contracts. But if the Seahawks wanted to hire a player without a contract, say a player like Aaron Rodgers and they were willing to pay him more than what the Packers whole team earns, isn't that the American Way?  Who would limit an individuals right to hire someone or limit what that someone could earn with his new employer?  Who would do such a thing? The NFL in concert with the NFL Players Union, that's who.

 

So the NFL "agrees" among owners to restrict what each owner can "collectively" pay their employees and the entity representing the players agrees with a nebulous "share of the pie" and contract limits for new members, kind of a "salary seniority" thing?  Does anybody really think that is the American Way or even Legal???  How would it fair if tested in the Courts?, but it is certainly voidable and that's the direction the Players Union needs to take.

 

So you think Bisciotti is concerned about not being able to compete for players once their contract expires? I thought Ozzie Newsome and John Harbaugh were the keys as opposed to retaining or hiring veterans?  How'd that work out with Anquan Boldin? I'm sure Bisciotti really likes his share of the pie, but how large of a pie is it really? and how can a Players Union represent the Players and say "You big strong hungry men only get a sliver of that ethereal pie?....Oh, and we will allow your team to take it away from you!"

I think you only need to take a look at baseball to see why a salary cap is essential. Every time a team spends a year or two making some young gun a star, another team with a real payroll swoops in and snags him. Small market teams end up with rosters full of people you've never heard of, or people who were good a decade ago. There quickly becomes no reason to go to the games if you live in an area that's not a major market, unless you are a glutton for punishment. The orioles were at this end of the stick not that long ago, having to create "all you can eat" sections of the stadium just to boost attendance, as well as encourage fans from other cities to come to baltimore to see games. I know people who live in areas with low payroll teams and they routinely come out from restaurants to find baseball tickets under every cars wiper blades because nobody wants to go to the games and you can't even give away tickets.  Is this really what you want football to become?

 

The salary cap was the greatest idea for the FANS. Yes it probably screwed the players and benefitted the owners. But as fans, why do we really care if some 22 year old earns $1,000,000 or $7,000,000 a year? With a salary cap suddenly a small city like Baltimore can, just by making smart decisions,  be competitive every year despite being a relatively insignificant market compared to major markets like NY, Chicago, SF or having national fan bases like Pittsburgh or Green Bay. A young team can actually draft well and contend in a year or two. Yes its bad for the players, but I care more about seeing a good game every week. Its not the fans job to stomach a lack of competitiveness in the league just so players can maximize their wealth.

 

It also should be noted that without a cap there would be incentive for teams to pass the costs of expensive players on to the fans, so ticket prices would soar to whatever maximum people are willing to pay. If you think its too expensive to see a game now, imagine where it could go.

 

You are arguing against the fans interest on a fans site, so your argument is a waste of breath. Go find some players site and you can preach to the converted. For us, its all about what's best for football from the FANS point of view, not just fans of larger market teams, and frankly a salary cap is best for football, regardless of how it impacts players or owners. You have to look no further than baseball to see how the sport can be ruined without setting a salary/payroll cap. It becomes five teams of superstars and another dozen teams wondering whether they can use MoneyBall or rally monkeys or bobble head dolls, or "all you can eat" sections of the stadium, just  to put a product out there that more than 50 diehard fans will pay to come to the stadium to see. Bad bad idea.

[Alexir]

thats how you end up being the jets or raiders they have no talent but lots of dead money.

 

Or the Steelers. That team is struggling with cap for the next few years and there isn't an "Elite" player on that team.

[beanfigger]

The owners would not be able to sign anybody they wanted. Existing contracts would mean something, their value and term would not be voidable at the election of one party. They would be equally fair and enforceable contracts. But if the Seahawks wanted to hire a player without a contract, say a player like Aaron Rodgers and they were willing to pay him more than what the Packers whole team earns, isn't that the American Way?

You, who's been the most outspoken against the players the Ravens have let go, should consider that the Ravens would have little chance to retain anyone who can even remotely play football if there was no salary cap. Flacco would have gotten $200 million from a richer owner/franchise. Torrey would leave the second his rookie deal expired. There's no chance we even have players like Suggs, Ngata, Rice, Yanda, Webb, or anyone else that's shown promise. They would have all been lured away by crazy deals elsewhere by now. The salary cap exists because it works to keep fairness and parity.

[Puntit]

... it works to keep fairness and parody.

Parity.  A parody would be comparing the Ravens to a better financed team in the absence of a cap (ie a joke).

 

I agree that those of us in small market venues are really the last fans who should ever be arguing against a salary cap. Do you really think we would have done 5 trips to the post-season the last five years only with the players Baltimore could afford as compared to big market teams? We would have a team full of veterans who maybe were talented in 2001, along with a handful of unproven draft picks. Pittsburgh would win our division handilly every year because their revenues are much higher. Is that really the future you (OP) want?

[beanfigger]

Parity. A parody would be comparing the Ravens to a better financed team in the absence of a cap (ie a joke).
t?

This is why us English majors dislike typing on mobile with auto-correct. Thanks for the help.

[flynismo]

 

It also should be noted that without a cap there would be incentive for teams to pass the costs of expensive players on to the fans, so ticket prices would soar to whatever maximum people are willing to pay. If you think its too expensive to see a game now, imagine where it could go.

 

That's all the reason we need as fans. We're the ones who make sports possible on a commercial level.

[bauer77]

The owners would not be able to sign anybody they wanted.  Existing contracts would mean something, their value and term would not be voidable at the election of one party.  They would be equally fair and enforceable contracts. But if the Seahawks wanted to hire a player without a contract, say a player like Aaron Rodgers and they were willing to pay him more than what the Packers whole team earns, isn't that the American Way?  Who would limit an individuals right to hire someone or limit what that someone could earn with his new employer?  Who would do such a thing? The NFL in concert with the NFL Players Union, that's who.

 

So the NFL "agrees" among owners to restrict what each owner can "collectively" pay their employees and the entity representing the players agrees with a nebulous "share of the pie" and contract limits for new members, kind of a "salary seniority" thing?  Does anybody really think that is the American Way or even Legal???  How would it fair if tested in the Courts?, but it is certainly voidable and that's the direction the Players Union needs to take.

 

So you think Bisciotti is concerned about not being able to compete for players once their contract expires? I thought Ozzie Newsome and John Harbaugh were the keys as opposed to retaining or hiring veterans?  How'd that work out with Anquan Boldin? I'm sure Bisciotti really likes his share of the pie, but how large of a pie is it really? and how can a Players Union represent the Players and say "You big strong hungry men only get a sliver of that ethereal pie?....Oh, and we will allow your team to take it away from you!"

 

Yeah, them "poor players" make more in one year than some of us will make in our lifetime. Heck, even the guys who never touch the field make a couple hundred thousand a year.

 

Why do you care so much how much players make anyway? Instead of focusing on the game when its being played, do you sit there and count how much each player is getting paid per year or something? 

 

In all seriousness, the salary cap is there for a reason, so we don't have a Yankees team of the NFL, who would employ 5-6 players who would have a higher salary of a team such as the Jags. 

[Poes Crows]

Yeah, them "poor players" make more in one year than some of us will make in our lifetime. Heck, even the guys who never touch the field make a couple hundred thousand a year.

 

Why do you care so much how much players make anyway? Instead of focusing on the game when its being played, do you sit there and count how much each player is getting paid per year or something? 

 

In all seriousness, the salary cap is there for a reason, so we don't have a Yankees team of the NFL, who would employ 5-6 players who would have a higher salary of a team such as the Jags. 

 

Why would any Ravens Fan care about the Salary Cap?.....

 

Because that fan is a fan of the Players and a fan of a great team with continuity.  Anquan Boldin is not on the team and the Raven's are probably going to lose their streak of 5 straight years in the playoffs because of the Salary Cap. Boldin being Under Contract and not being around is clear evidence of the evils of the Salary Cap. Williams, Ellerbe and Reed were cap casualties as well.

 

But one of the reasons I believe the Salary Cap is unfair to players is that ......The NFL owners have "conspired" among themselves to limit "collectively" what they will pay their respective teams...The Players Union has assented to the owners conspiracy. The owners will not sign a player that doesn't join the union and thus a player must join the union to play NFL Football. It's a workplace that is closed to anyone that doesn't "endorse" this "syndicate".  I don't believe it's legal, but at a minimum the Players Union is working against their members.

 

The owners want 18 games...maybe 20. If the Players are going to assent to that schedule their union needs to bargain on their behalf this time.  What I'd like to see are as follows:

 

The elimination of the Salary Cap...or at a minimum substantially increasing it for a short duration;

 

An increase in the roster from 53 to a minimum of at least 60 spots;

 

and,

 

Elimination of "voidable contracts" for players. A team signs a contract for value and duration. It is committed to pay that contract even if the player is released.

 

The owners are not worried about a "New York Yankees" dynasty in football, (By the way, how successful have the Yankees been the last 10 years?) but, the owners certainly have "Dynasty" in mind, but not a dynasty of championships.

[beanfigger]

Why would any Ravens Fan care about the Salary Cap?.....

 

Because that fan is a fan of the Players and a fan of a great team with continuity.  Anquan Boldin is not on the team and the Raven's are probably going to lose their streak of 5 straight years in the playoffs because of the Salary Cap. Boldin being Under Contract and not being around is clear evidence of the evils of the Salary Cap. Williams, Ellerbe and Reed were cap casualties as well.

 

You're not understanding that we would have never had those 5 straight years of postseason and such great continuity without a salary cap.  With no cap, there would be the same rich teams in the playoffs every year, and they would all keep buying more and more of the premier players to compete with each other.  You can bet that would leave teams like the Ravens out of the running every year.  We'd be like a minor league team, so the rich teams could just watch young players develop on our roster before poaching them when their rookie deal expires.  We would have never had a player of Boldin's caliber in the first place unless we drafted him.

[Poes Crows]

You're not understanding that we would have never had those 5 straight years of postseason and such great continuity without a salary cap.  With no cap, there would be the same rich teams in the playoffs every year, and they would all keep buying more and more of the premier players to compete with each other.  You can bet that would leave teams like the Ravens out of the running every year.  We'd be like a minor league team, so the rich teams could just watch young players develop on our roster before poaching them when their rookie deal expires.  We would have never had a player of Boldin's caliber in the first place unless we drafted him.

 

That's the common retort, but the facts don't support it. Regardless, the key is the Player's Union is not working in the players behalf and that must change.

 

Boldin was not a drafted Raven. Neither was Cary Williams. But they were Ravens and wanted to remain so.

[bauer77]

Why would any Ravens Fan care about the Salary Cap?.....

 

Because that fan is a fan of the Players and a fan of a great team with continuity.  Anquan Boldin is not on the team and the Raven's are probably going to lose their streak of 5 straight years in the playoffs because of the Salary Cap. Boldin being Under Contract and not being around is clear evidence of the evils of the Salary Cap. Williams, Ellerbe and Reed were cap casualties as well.

 

But one of the reasons I believe the Salary Cap is unfair to players is that ......The NFL owners have "conspired" among themselves to limit "collectively" what they will pay their respective teams...The Players Union has assented to the owners conspiracy. The owners will not sign a player that doesn't join the union and thus a player must join the union to play NFL Football. It's a workplace that is closed to anyone that doesn't "endorse" this "syndicate".  I don't believe it's legal, but at a minimum the Players Union is working against their members.

 

The owners want 18 games...maybe 20. If the Players are going to assent to that schedule their union needs to bargain on their behalf this time.  What I'd like to see are as follows:

 

The elimination of the Salary Cap...or at a minimum substantially increasing it for a short duration;

 

An increase in the roster from 53 to a minimum of at least 60 spots;

 

and,

 

Elimination of "voidable contracts" for players. A team signs a contract for value and duration. It is committed to pay that contract even if the player is released.

 

The owners are not worried about a "New York Yankees" dynasty in football, (By the way, how successful have the Yankees been the last 10 years?) but, the owners certainly have "Dynasty" in mind, but not a dynasty of championships.

 

1. No, Williams, Ellerbe and Reed were not cap casualties. They were free agents who got paid more than they were worth by other teams.

 

2. And yet that those players are still getting paid millions of dollars from that "unfair salary cap". More money than they SHOULD (saying should b/c some players like to blow through their money after their playing days are finishing) ever need in their lifetimes.

 

3. At the end of the day, the best 53 players are on rosters. If they are that "talented", like you said in a above post, they should be able to make the team they get tried out on, signed by, drafted by, whatever. You rarely see guys that are young and talented enough crying because they got cut at final cut downs or what not. They wait for the next opportunity, and try to go with that.

[beanfigger]

That's the common retort, but the facts don't support it. Regardless, the key is the Player's Union is not working in the players behalf and that must change.

 

Boldin was not a drafted Raven. Neither was Cary Williams. But they were Ravens and wanted to remain so.

 

What facts?  I have factual examples that I, and others, have pointed to (MLB).  All your arguments are based in fantasy.  Where are your facts that without a salary camp the Ravens would be able to compete with big revenue teams like the Cowboys and Jets/Giants and the rich owners, like in Seattle, who even our own owner admitted he could never keep up with without a salary cap?

[1/28/01]

Clue.Less.Yes

[Puntit]

That's the common retort, but the facts don't support it. Regardless, the key is the Player's Union is not working in the players behalf and that must change.
 
Boldin was not a drafted Raven. Neither was Cary Williams. But they were Ravens and wanted to remain so.

The facts do support it. Look no further than baseball. Compare the top payroll teams to the bottom and look at how many stars each has.

Cary Williams is a strange example -- we picked him up when no one else saw much in him, coached him up to being a starter, and as soon as we did so someone with more money to throw around grabbed him. Without a salary cap we would have lost him sooner and to a richer team, but the end result would be the same. Boldin needn't be discussed because he would never have been in Baltimore in the first place. Baltimore, a small market team, would never have big name free agents in their prime. Again, look at baseball. Look at how many young players get coached up at smaller market teams only to be snapped up by the richer teams as soon as they show starter quality. There is no parity in baseball. There are teams where nobody bothers to go to the games because the team cannot contend under the system. There's only so many years that fans will root for a perennial loser -- lack of parity has destroyed that sport. In football, for any team, a winning season might be only a draft and a few free agent signings away. Washington and Indy both got to the playoffs after signing big name rookie QBs after horrid prior seasons. It's just a better arrangement because a cap and roster limit mean teams have to make hard strategic choices. That's both an interesting component of the game and maintains relative parity in the league. There haven't been many dynasties since the cap, and that's a good thing -- it means for small market teams there's still something to root for and you don't watch your team get used as a minor league farm team for the Yankees.

I don't know why you want to ruin football, but you are sorely misguided regarding the importance of the cap. It ensures parity, and that's better for fan. Especially fans of smaller market teams like the Ravens.

[Poes Crows]

What facts?  I have factual examples that I, and others, have pointed to (MLB).  All your arguments are based in fantasy.  Where are your facts that without a salary camp the Ravens would be able to compete with big revenue teams like the Cowboys and Jets/Giants and the rich owners, like in Seattle, who even our own owner admitted he could never keep up with without a salary cap?

 

Well...It would be nice if everything that was said, was said with integrity and out of truth and candor. But the world is not like that, especially when large amounts of money are involved.

 

The teams revenue share, so small markets are not at the disadvantage the NFL Owners state. (It is clear the memo went out!!!) They have to revenue share to a great extent but it's wrong for the players union to position its members to revenue restrict.

 

When Bisciotti and Kraft run out onto the field and lay a crushing block or take a blind side sack or throw a ball 75 yards in the air, fans may begin to consider their opinions, but for now we are going to support the men that play the game.

 

Just for perspective peruse this list a bit in regard to "big market dynasties"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions

[Puntit]

Nope. We are going to support whatever is in the best interest for us, the fans. If my team gives me something to root for I really don't care if an owner gets too much or a player gets too little. Not interested. I want a good competitive team and ticket prices I can afford. Guess what -- the salary cap is a big part of what makes this possible. You keep focusing on what the owners earn. that's irrelevant to the fans. Biscotti is richer than me today and he would be richer than me under any structure anyone created for the NFL. BFD. You know who else is probably richer than me? Every single active player in the NFL, no matter how screwed they are getting.....

 

The fans only need to focus on the product that gets put on the field in the 30+ markets. Is there parity? Can every team contend if they make the right choices? Can I afford to go see a game? And that's it. The salary cap ensures parity and keeps the owners from passing costs for top players onto the fans. And that's what should be important to fans. Nobody wants to hear about destroying parity to increase the earnings of players, except the players.

 

Your profit sharing notion is misguided -- it will never create the true kind of financial equality that a fixed cap number does (it can't unless someone like Jerry Jones is ready to give away half his bank account to an owner of a small market team). its a silly and not well thought out argument. "Profit" sharing doesn't address the underlying money, just the profit made on top of that money. So it can never make a guy with 500 million dollars in the bank able to outbid the guy with a billion dollars in the bank. All it does is move $100 million or so from a more lucrative team to a poorer one. It doesn't equalize the relative buying power of big market vs small market teams -- it is essentially peanuts. Profit sharing isn't wealth equalizing, and so there can never be parity without a cap.

 

I think you need to take a step back and see how baseball has been ruined before you keep hammering at this poorly thought out notion. In the wiki article you linked, look at the column of series appearances and look at how the NY Yankees number dwarfs that of most small market teams - 40 appearances. Unrestricted spending on free agents bought that. That's what we are trying to avoid in the NFL with the salary cap.

[beanfigger]

Well...It would be nice if everything that was said, was said with integrity and out of truth and candor. But the world is not like that, especially when large amounts of money are involved.

 

The teams revenue share, so small markets are not at the disadvantage the NFL Owners state. (It is clear the memo went out!!!) They have to revenue share to a great extent but it's wrong for the players union to position its members to revenue restrict.

 

When Bisciotti and Kraft run out onto the field and lay a crushing block or take a blind side sack or throw a ball 75 yards in the air, fans may begin to consider their opinions, but for now we are going to support the men that play the game.

 

Just for perspective peruse this list a bit in regard to "big market dynasties"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions

 

With revenue sharing and no restrictions on pay limit/minimum for players pay, there is a larger chance of collusion between the owners.  Are you so sure there wouldn't be several, if not all teams, who choose to under-compensate the players in order to profit more.  There is factual basis for this, as well.  Just look at the NFL before the players union and all these rules.  The blueprint for this exists, too.  The Houston Astros, who have been a laughing stock for years, are reportedly the most profitable franchise in baseball this year.  You can't have it both ways.  You think anyone who believes in "The American Way" would agree with losing the cap without losing the minimum?  The fact is, you are completely wrong about all this.  The union helps the players immensely.  That is an indisputable fact.

[Poes Crows]

quite a bit that was senseless

Puntit.....Baseball has not been harmed by that sport's refusal to adopt the artifice called "The Salary Cap".

 

I posted the list of MLB Champions and the Big Market / Big Money Dynasty Argument doesn't hold up from a Championship Perspective.

 

It's easy to understand why fans opinions are skewed. The NFL is involved in propaganda as much as any immense business or organization with a favorable environment due to special regulations that protect it's earnings.  Fans are fed only a portion of the facts and hear only one side of the story. There's no way they can formulate a fully informed opinion.

 

The propaganda noted by Bisciotti and repeated by fans is that small markets will suffer because big market owners will outspend them. You may get the rogue owner who will spend at any cost to buy a championship because that is his life's dream, but it takes more than money to win a title. The reality is these are businessmen that will not spend their way into the "Red". They will live within their available revenue and within their means.

 

Just look at the history I posted from the so called "Dynasty League" and the point is moot.

 

What transpires from here forward is up to the Players Union, or a Lawsuit.

[nk02442]

Please just stop talking. You know litterly nothing, and are just making yourself look like a bigger fool.


The reason the NFL is such a popular sport , is the CAP. It is what keeps teams like NY, Chicago, LA or any large market where the owners can outspend the small markets from winning every year. It would have a snowballing effect , and result in less money for all players as fans would not care to watch if your from a small/poorer market.

Why even play the game if were just trying to see who has the most money and who can buy all the talent.

The Yankees are a great example. They have dominated the last 20 years or so. No they don't win every years, as ownership decision, coaching , and the players actualy playing still factor. However being able to buy up all the talent gives a HUGE advantage over not having talent. Poor teams can get lucky, can develop players into All-stars but when they become FA's, they get scouped up.

A Cap Floor is almost as important. It keeps greedy owners (Like those in baseball and NBA) from spending the bare minimum on talent so they can rake in all the shared revenue. Owners of Sports teams and Owners of tradtional businesses are not the same thing. When Cities/states give tax break, pay for personal/secruity, build infastructure and build facilities for free for private business, then we can talk.
NFL owners OWE the taxpayers and the fans a honest attempt at putting out a good product.

In fact, if they don't, their Team's charter to the NFL should be terminated and a new franchise allowed to start up.

[Poes Crows]

Please just stop talking. You know litterly nothing, and are just making yourself look like a bigger fool.
 

 

Honestly, this is as far as I read.

 

You're as bad as the Steelers.

[Puntit]

 

quite a bit that was senseless

Puntit.....Baseball has not been harmed by that sport's refusal to adopt the artifice called "The Salary Cap".

 

I posted the list of MLB Champions and the Big Market / Big Money Dynasty Argument doesn't hold up from a Championship Perspective.

...

 

What are you talking about? The list in the wiki post you linked shows that the number of series the Yankees have been in (40) dwarfs every other team by a lot. No parity at all. Most teams aren't able to compete. That's awful for fans of every team that isn't new york.  And guess what -- Baltimore isn't a big market.

 

I think the consensus of virtually everyone on here other than you is that yes baseball has been hurt. Badly. The fanbases of every small market have been hurt. They are stuck trying to implement "MoneyBall" type statistics because they cannot afford the same kind of players that the richer teams can. There are many stadiums where they can't give away tickets because their teams at best are farm teams for other bigger markets. No you aren't winning any supporters with this argument.

 

Football is a good sport because of the salary cap. Period. A team like Baltimore could never have the roster it has now without a cap -- the price tag for a Flacco, Suggs, Ngata would soar to beyond what we could afford. The entire team would be UDFAs and over their prime veterans because that's who would play for what we could pay.

 

No point pushing the issue further -- nobody is jumping on board this sinking ship of an idea. Its not well thought out from the fan of a small market perspective (although it Im sure sounds great if you are a fan of a major market team and would rather win than have competitive games). Again, Bad Bad idea.

 

This has nothing to do with "propoganda", although I think you might be the one victim to some. Most of us don't care if an owner or the NFL gets rich or if the players don't earn more millions, as long as the local team is competitive and tickets arent absurdly expensive. Baseball fails on the first count -- it by definition cannot provide a competitive product for a small market team (as evidenced by the wiki page you linked). That's not propoganda, just observation. It actually seems you are the one drinking the player association koolaid and are absurdly focused on (who's getting) the money, while the rest of us really couldn't care less about who earns what as long as the game is worth watching. (I think you previously called this focus on the money "repulsive". Pot meet kettle.)

[The Raven]

 

quite a bit that was senseless

Puntit.....Baseball has not been harmed by that sport's refusal to adopt the artifice called "The Salary Cap".

 

I posted the list of MLB Champions and the Big Market / Big Money Dynasty Argument doesn't hold up from a Championship Perspective.

 

It's easy to understand why fans opinions are skewed. The NFL is involved in propaganda as much as any immense business or organization with a favorable environment due to special regulations that protect it's earnings.  Fans are fed only a portion of the facts and hear only one side of the story. There's no way they can formulate a fully informed opinion.

 

The propaganda noted by Bisciotti and repeated by fans is that small markets will suffer because big market owners will outspend them. You may get the rogue owner who will spend at any cost to buy a championship because that is his life's dream, but it takes more than money to win a title. The reality is these are businessmen that will not spend their way into the "Red". They will live within their available revenue and within their means.

 

Just look at the history I posted from the so called "Dynasty League" and the point is moot.

 

What transpires from here forward is up to the Players Union, or a Lawsuit.

 

 

 

Honestly, this is as far as I read.

 

You're as bad as the Steelers.

 

You are clueless. The salary cap is essential to the game. Period. It is unintelligent, foolish, naive, and asinine to think otherwise.

 

Next!

[ThePurpleWall]

no

[ThePurpleWall]

I Know some are talking about trading Ray Rice for some high picks in this years draft?why do they want him gone? the reason is not just that he eats our cap next year but he is also the easiest position to replace look at Lache Seastrunk out of Baylor he is the fastest and strongest RB in the Draft this Year by trading away Rice we can replace him with Seastrunk using our pick we already have plus we can draft an LT with the higher one because lets face reality we need there is no way on earth Antonio Richardson falls to number 32 and we need to worry about our offensive line protecting our franchise QB in Joe Flacco. here is the best reason I can think of Ray Rice plus I don't Know about everyone else but I rather trade Rice than Trade Ngata,Yanda,Smith,Flacco,or Oher let me know what you think of some peoples perspectives about this

 

this is why your a fan, and this is also why the people that agree with you are a fan.

[Poes Crows]

 

lol

 

Asinine is a big word for a FSU supporter!

 

You're grammar / sentence structure could use some work, but at least you didn't misspell anything in regard to your disagreement!

 

Just because the Raven's have won 2 Championships under the Salary Cap doesn't mean they wouldn't have won otherwise. 

 

It's not like the Salary Cap existed since the inception of the League.  Just because it's here now is no reason to believe it will stay. What's gotten into some of the posters here? The mere existence of the salary cap refutes their premise that owner's will spend for Championships.  The titles are great, but that's not why they are owners.

 

Regardless of what some of the fans think, the Salary Cap's fate will hinge upon the desires of the Players and their Union and the leverage they will gain by the owners wanting more.

 

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more!

[Puntit]

 

 

lol

 

Asinine is a big word for a FSU supporter!

 

You're grammar / sentence structure could use some work, but at least you didn't misspell anything in regard to your disagreement!

 

Just because the Raven's have won 2 Championships under the Salary Cap doesn't mean they wouldn't have won otherwise. 

 

It's not like the Salary Cap existed since the inception of the League.  Just because it's here now is no reason to believe it will stay. What's gotten into some of the posters here?

 

Regardless of what some of the fans think, the Salary Cap's fate will hinge upon the desires of the Players and their Union and the leverage they will gain by the owners wanting more.

 

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more!

 

Since clearly nobody on this thread agrees with you, has it occured to you that it could mean perhaps that you are simply the one who is dead wrong here? Only a fool keeps hammering away at the same argument that's clearly not finding any support. Time to give up this loser of an argument. You haven't convinced a single person to step out onto that ledge with you. Enough already.

[Poes Crows]

Since clearly nobody on this thread agrees with you, has it occured to you that it could mean perhaps that you are simply the one who is dead wrong here? Only a fool keeps hammering away at the same argument that's clearly not finding any support. Time to give up this loser of an argument. You haven't convinced a single person to step out onto that ledge with you. Enough already.

 

What makes you think no one agrees?

 

Let's assume you think everyone holds your same misguided view.  You probably didn't know that all truth passes through three stages.  First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

 

You're still in stage one.

 

These fans would be so much more credible if they could spell.

[SecretAgentMan]

Yes! The ignore feature works again!