OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

[abloom]

As Bell just turned down 70 Million with over 30 million in guarantees the first two years.

Yeah, I think his stubbornness will cost him. I think he is grossly overestimating the guaranteed money people will be willing to give him after another heavy workload and being a year older. Especially if he gets hurt again.

Not really. He's played under the tag once so far, this is now his second year, meaning he can be tagged one more time. If he's tagged next year he'll be 16m+

So he looks at it this way, sign a 70m 5year deal and only be garenteed 30m or play for tag this year and maybe next year and be garenteed 30m.

[Ice]

if they keep the franchise tag, maybe they change it so that if a player gets injured, and is not cleared for the next season, that the team will have to pay them the franchise tag pay for the next year... and if cut they have to pay 80%. that way it still is team friendly in that it's a one year commitment and one year of control, but if a serious injury occurs, it's not completely SOL for the player in that they will get paid for another year of rehab at a decent salary.

If the player is that concerned they can always take a portion of their massive fully guaranteed franchise contract pay and purchase their own insurance policy through lLoyds. Our ticket prices are high enough, thank you very much.

[kamihamster]

if they keep the franchise tag, maybe they change it so that if a player gets injured, and is not cleared for the next season, that the team will have to pay them the franchise tag pay for the next year... and if cut they have to pay 80%. that way it still is team friendly in that it's a one year commitment and one year of control, but if a serious injury occurs, it's not completely SOL for the player in that they will get paid for another year of rehab at a decent salary.

If the player is that concerned they can always take a portion of their massive fully guaranteed franchise contract pay and purchase their own insurance policy through lLoyds. Our ticket prices are high enough, thank you very much.

the NFL has a salary cap. having to pay a player doesn't make ticket prices go up. that has to do with only 8 games a year to make money. it just mean they can't pay some other player as much.

[Ice]

if they keep the franchise tag, maybe they change it so that if a player gets injured, and is not cleared for the next season, that the team will have to pay them the franchise tag pay for the next year... and if cut they have to pay 80%. that way it still is team friendly in that it's a one year commitment and one year of control, but if a serious injury occurs, it's not completely SOL for the player in that they will get paid for another year of rehab at a decent salary.

If the player is that concerned they can always take a portion of their massive fully guaranteed franchise contract pay and purchase their own insurance policy through lLoyds. Our ticket prices are high enough, thank you very much.

the NFL has a salary cap. having to pay a player doesn't make ticket prices go up. that has to do with only 8 games a year to make money. it just mean they can't pay some other player as much.

No offense but any basic business principles would fly in the face of your comments. The salary cap is a function of revenue and that is a far cry from profits. The CBA is contract is tied to revenue not cost or profit. If the cap increases 32 million there is cost associated with increase.

If now the league now has to purchase insurance policies for a specific player that to would be cost increase which ultimately will be recouped. This is business 101.

Bell in this example just became the highest priced RB in the NFL by a whopping $6,200,000 and we are to believe now the NFL or the Steelers in this case should be on the hook for an insurance policy guarding against injury. The Steelers would be better served to purchase an insurance policy against their 14,500,000 risk if that was the case. This organization is now on the hook for that money regardless.

Further Socialist policies are not really going to happen, most likely, in this business sector. The league has far bigger problems to worry about such as potential declining TV revenues and reduced fan bases in their cities as they introduce politics into the workplace that are hard to control without upsetting at least 50% of the national fan base. This is as big of an issue as concussion issues which will almost assuredly affect the long term prospects of the league.

Bell's next 16 game checks will be far more than the vast majority of us will ever make in an entire lifetime. Is he worth it, not to most but then again it is not about worth it is about what has been negotiated.

[kamihamster]

If the player is that concerned they can always take a portion of their massive fully guaranteed franchise contract pay and purchase their own insurance policy through lLoyds. Our ticket prices are high enough, thank you very much.

the NFL has a salary cap. having to pay a player doesn't make ticket prices go up. that has to do with only 8 games a year to make money. it just mean they can't pay some other player as much.

No offense but any basic business principles would fly in the face of your comments. The salary cap is a function of revenue and that is a far cry from profits. The CBA is contract is tied to revenue not cost or profit. If the cap increases 32 million there is cost associated with increase.

If now the league now has to purchase insurance policies for a specific player that to would be cost increase which ultimately will be recouped. This is business 101.

Bell in this example just became the highest priced RB in the NFL by a whopping $6,200,000 and we are to believe now the NFL or the Steelers in this case should be on the hook for an insurance policy guarding against injury. The Steelers would be better served to purchase an insurance policy against their 14,500,000 risk if that was the case. This organization is now on the hook for that money regardless.

Further Socialist policies are not really going to happen, most likely, in this business sector. The league has far bigger problems to worry about such as potential declining TV revenues and reduced fan bases in their cities as they introduce politics into the workplace that are hard to control without upsetting at least 50% of the national fan base. This is as big of an issue as concussion issues which will almost assuredly affect the long term prospects of the league.

Bell's next 16 game checks will be far more than the vast majority of us will ever make in an entire lifetime. Is he worth it, not to most but then again it is not about worth it is about what has been negotiated.

None taken. Educate me. If the league has a salary cap and minimum, they are spending this money just to be in the league... how they divy it up is their choice. So how does an injury that eats into their next years budget hurt their profits? This money would be spent on other players if the injury didn't happen but it would be spent nonetheless. If it's insurance cost, is it because the size of the contract that makes the insurance cost go up? And when it comes to insurance isn't it better when you get to file a claim? I work in biotech. I make drugs. I don't get this money stuff.

[Titans95]

Agree or not, I don't see a chance a in Hades the league getting rid of the franchise tag. The players are making huge sums of money and the league which holds the vast majority of the risks of business are sharing over 60% of all revenues. The salary cap for each team in 2018 is approximately 177 plus million. This is a 10 million increase per team over last year.

It is ridiculous think the NFL will cede all rules that insulate them from league risk and competitive balance. Players should consider themselves lucky to have some protections such as guaranteed contracts in such a violent sport.

A FRANCHISE CONTRACT is fully guaranteed. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a risk to an owner is flat out wrong. There are 14,554,000 reasons the Steelers now have risk on Bell.

The NFL average price is 4 Million.

To put Bell's contract in perspective. Bell is the highest paid RB in the league this year by $6,200,000.

Anyone who doesn't think he is winning as he pulls down 8.3 million more this year than Zeke and $10,000,000 more than the league average might want to reevaluate.

The difference is The team is going to spend that money regardless on other players if they do not spend it on Bell. If bell Signed that 14 million per year 5 year contract that years salary becomes fully guaranteed on a certain date just like if he signs the franchise tag, every year almost every single players salaries become fully guaranteed come training camp, the franchise tag just takes the ability away from players to go out and see if other teams are willing to pay them more. I guarantee the Browns would've paid Bell 17 million a year because they have to cap space or even the Steelers would've been more hard pressed not to match any offers knowing if they do not Bell walks instead of having a safety net of franchise tagging him. I'm just saying its dumb to restrict the best players in football from ever testing the freemarket because of threat of the Franchise tag for 3 years in a row. It's especially dumb for RB's when their salaries are so cheap that RB's like Bell won't even make as much money as they could on the free market as the 2nd franchise tag being put on him. Multiple teams would clear cap space right now to accommodate Bell's salary.

All I'm saying is the multi year franchise tag more or less forces players to either take a huge risk by not having any guaranteed money other than a 1 year salary or sign a long cheaper contract with their team instead of testing the open market which is bound to be much more competitive. Everyone world enjoy a more moving free agency like the NBA in the NFL, fans and players. Most owners are taking little to no risk as far as paying players....yes their ticket sales will go down for said year or if you are consistently atrocious like the browns you may struggle but the vast majority of income comes from tv rights and merchandise sales, 8 games a year doesn't even make up a fraction of the NFL franchise income.

[Ice]

the NFL has a salary cap. having to pay a player doesn't make ticket prices go up. that has to do with only 8 games a year to make money. it just mean they can't pay some other player as much.

No offense but any basic business principles would fly in the face of your comments. The salary cap is a function of revenue and that is a far cry from profits. The CBA is contract is tied to revenue not cost or profit. If the cap increases 32 million there is cost associated with increase.

If now the league now has to purchase insurance policies for a specific player that to would be cost increase which ultimately will be recouped. This is business 101.

Bell in this example just became the highest priced RB in the NFL by a whopping $6,200,000 and we are to believe now the NFL or the Steelers in this case should be on the hook for an insurance policy guarding against injury. The Steelers would be better served to purchase an insurance policy against their 14,500,000 risk if that was the case. This organization is now on the hook for that money regardless.

Further Socialist policies are not really going to happen, most likely, in this business sector. The league has far bigger problems to worry about such as potential declining TV revenues and reduced fan bases in their cities as they introduce politics into the workplace that are hard to control without upsetting at least 50% of the national fan base. This is as big of an issue as concussion issues which will almost assuredly affect the long term prospects of the league.

Bell's next 16 game checks will be far more than the vast majority of us will ever make in an entire lifetime. Is he worth it, not to most but then again it is not about worth it is about what has been negotiated.

None taken. Educate me. If the league has a salary cap and minimum, they are spending this money just to be in the league... how they divy it up is their choice. So how does an injury that eats into their next years budget hurt their profits? This money would be spent on other players if the injury didn't happen but it would be spent nonetheless. If it's insurance cost, is it because the size of the contract that makes the insurance cost go up? And when it comes to insurance isn't it better when you get to file a claim? I work in biotech. I make drugs. I don't get this money stuff.

If you go back and read my post dealing with a new cost to the league of now buying insurance for players because they didn't sign a long term deal or just signed a F Tag as if it is the leagues fault somehow then this cost would be passed through.

To the broader concept of ticket prices, the salary cap has a major impact given the monies out are based on revenue generated. The salaries paid not only affect profit but those increases also impact taxes paid as in matching SS to name one. While the league has to spend the money, of course they can spend it as they see fit within the CBA rules. (that wasn't the point)

Revenue is top line. Cost of Goods or services in this case will provide a Gross Profit. As Costs increases in salaries, travel expenses, lease payments and hundreds of line items it affects the Margin thus ticket prices increases are common which does drive revenue. The players absolutely love these increases because they benefit as the are paid on revenues as opposed to profits.

Perhaps it was off the cuff to suggest the league should buy insurance for the player in case he gets hurt. That is far out in left field but if a million dollars in costs is added then a new source in revenue will be needed to offset. In this business it will come at the expense of the fans as in higher concessions, parking fees, or ticket prices.

The best way to explain the impact is to look at the average ticket price. In 2006 it was $62.38. In 2016 it was $92.98 based on the link below.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193 ... ince-2006/

[Cult of Dionysus]

if they keep the franchise tag, maybe they change it so that if a player gets injured, and is not cleared for the next season, that the team will have to pay them the franchise tag pay for the next year... and if cut they have to pay 80%. that way it still is team friendly in that it's a one year commitment and one year of control, but if a serious injury occurs, it's not completely SOL for the player in that they will get paid for another year of rehab at a decent salary.

If the player is that concerned they can always take a portion of their massive fully guaranteed franchise contract pay and purchase their own insurance policy through lLoyds. Our ticket prices are high enough, thank you very much.

the NFL has a salary cap. having to pay a player doesn't make ticket prices go up. that has to do with only 8 games a year to make money. it just mean they can't pay some other player as much.

I don't understand how you guys can argue about the above. Both of you were correct with your initial statements. Ticket prices don't go up because of individual contracts. Ticket prices, league revenue and the cap, however, are very much linked. As for insurance, yes, players can protect themselves from catastrophic financial losses due to injury and other events. Some (smart) college players do it, and hopefully many NFL players do it. Sure, it costs a fair amount, but it's worth it. I sure hope Marcus Lattimore had some protection or that Packers RB who was hurt early in his 1st season (Franklin, I believe it was), Shazier is another example.

[Pac_Eddy]

Per Adam Schefter on Twitter just now:

"Rams and RB Todd Gurley finalizing agreement on a 4-year extension worth $60 million that includes $45 million guaranteed that ties him to LA for the next six seasons, source tells ESPN. Finally a deal that resets the RB market."

15 millon per year with 45 guaranteed. The market is already being reset.

[Fantasyfanatic11]

Per Adam Schefter on Twitter just now:

"Rams and RB Todd Gurley finalizing agreement on a 4-year extension worth $60 million that includes $45 million guaranteed that ties him to LA for the next six seasons, source tells ESPN. Finally a deal that resets the RB market."

15 millon per year with 45 guaranteed. The market is already being reset.

Wow

So PIT better pay up or buh-bye Bell.

[Lotto4Life]

Seems like the Rams are spending a lot of money lately. Do they not have cap issues? Is all of the money for Gurley in years 3-6 or are they bringing some of it up into the next couple of years?

[Pac_Eddy]

Seems like the Rams are spending a lot of money lately. Do they not have cap issues? Is all of the money for Gurley in years 3-6 or are they bringing some of it up into the next couple of years?

As of today, before this Gurley deal, the Rams have $2.2M in 2018 cap space, but a whopping $72M in 2019 cap space. Hopefully they're loading up Gurley with 2019 money.

[Valhalla]

I might be misunderstanding...but wasn’t the gurley deal 60M over 6 years? It’s a 4 year extension, totaling 6 years worth 60M. Averaging 10/year is a lot different than 15/yr.

[Pac_Eddy]

I might be misunderstanding...but wasn’t the gurley deal 60M over 6 years? It’s a 4 year extension, totaling 6 years worth 60M. Averaging 10/year is a lot different than 15/yr.

The Schefter tweet says "4-year extension worth $60 million that includes $45 million guaranteed", so I read it as that's the new years & money.

[Valhalla]

I might be misunderstanding...but wasn’t the gurley deal 60M over 6 years? It’s a 4 year extension, totaling 6 years worth 60M. Averaging 10/year is a lot different than 15/yr.

The Schefter tweet says "4-year extension worth $60 million that includes $45 million guaranteed", so I read it as that's the new years & money.

"4-year extension (extension to the two years he had) worth $60 million (60M total over the now 6 years remaining) that includes $45 million guaranteed"

Edit: at least...that's my current interpretation...