Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

NGT: Rumor about Wilson and his Contract Demands

USAF NYG Fan : 4/15/2019 4:52 pm
In case you haven't heard about this, it's gone out on a couple different shows (i.e. Good Morning Football & Undisputed) that Russel Wilson is trying to change the game with how contracts are handled.

Apparently, Wilson is looking for a percentage of the cap as his yearly salary. There wasn't any discussion that I could find about guarantees. The idea is that his salary would go up along with an increase in the salary cap every year.

I'll give you an idea of what that would mean. Seattle's adjusted salary cap is currently $190,785,161 for 2019. Wilson's current contract shows him at 13.25% of the cap at $25,286,668:

14% of the cap would be $26,709,923
15% of the cap would be $28,617,774
16% of the cap would be $30,525,626
17% of the cap would be $32,433,477
18% of the cap would be $34,341,329
19% of the cap would be $36,249,180
20% of the cap would be $38,157,032

I know without further details such as guarantees, length of contract, etc it's hard to totally understand. However, putting that aside as well as the rumors of Wilson coming to NY, what do you guys think about a QB getting a percentage of the cap?

I don't think it can work myself. This will cement a QB's worth being defined directly to their salary. I wonder when will it be too much money? 25%? 30%?
Sure it can work  
armstead98 : 4/15/2019 4:55 pm : link
As long as it's a reasonable number. More than 15% is probably too much, IMO. Better if it's closer to 10%.
Most important position in sports  
battttles : 4/15/2019 4:57 pm : link
And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.
RE: Most important position in sports  
PatersonPlank : 4/15/2019 4:59 pm : link
In comment 14387630 battttles said:
Quote:
And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.


The real issue becomes how can you pay the rest of the players (51 others) if you pay him 30%?
RE: Sure it can work  
USAF NYG Fan : 4/15/2019 5:02 pm : link
In comment 14387626 armstead98 said:
Quote:
As long as it's a reasonable number. More than 15% is probably too much, IMO. Better if it's closer to 10%.

I think I would have to disagree with you there.

10% is equal to $19,078,516 for his 2019 salary.

That's too low IMHO. That's what the bottom half of the league's QB starters make.
RE: RE: Most important position in sports  
USAF NYG Fan : 4/15/2019 5:05 pm : link
In comment 14387632 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 14387630 battttles said:


Quote:


And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.



The real issue becomes how can you pay the rest of the players (51 others) if you pay him 30%?

Not sure why this 30% keeps coming up. No QB is making close to that. Aaron Rogers cap hit is 13.45% of their 2019 cap.
RE: Most important position in sports  
allstarjim : 4/15/2019 5:16 pm : link
In comment 14387630 battttles said:
Quote:
And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.


Imagine what it costs to run an NFL franchise. Imagine the number of employees paid, the operational cost...but you're saying the players aren't getting paid. A group of millionaires.

The Packers revenue in 2017 - $454.9 million. Expenses were $420.9 million. So net income was just $34 million.

The players are pretty well compensated.
RE: RE: Most important position in sports  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/15/2019 5:24 pm : link
In comment 14387664 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14387630 battttles said:


Quote:


And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.



Imagine what it costs to run an NFL franchise. Imagine the number of employees paid, the operational cost...but you're saying the players aren't getting paid. A group of millionaires.

The Packers revenue in 2017 - $454.9 million. Expenses were $420.9 million. So net income was just $34 million.

The players are pretty well compensated.

That represents the floor though, and by a fairly significant margin. The Giants (or the Cowboys, Patriots, Bears, etc.) all have similar expenses to the Packers but much stronger revenue streams. The Packers are an anomaly on a bunch of levels; I'm not sure they should be used for an example of any other NFL franchise's financial situation.
RE: RE: RE: Most important position in sports  
allstarjim : 4/15/2019 5:42 pm : link
In comment 14387674 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14387664 allstarjim said:


Quote:


In comment 14387630 battttles said:


Quote:


And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.



Imagine what it costs to run an NFL franchise. Imagine the number of employees paid, the operational cost...but you're saying the players aren't getting paid. A group of millionaires.

The Packers revenue in 2017 - $454.9 million. Expenses were $420.9 million. So net income was just $34 million.

The players are pretty well compensated.


That represents the floor though, and by a fairly significant margin. The Giants (or the Cowboys, Patriots, Bears, etc.) all have similar expenses to the Packers but much stronger revenue streams. The Packers are an anomaly on a bunch of levels; I'm not sure they should be used for an example of any other NFL franchise's financial situation.


Oh really? So please enlighten us on the financial situation of other football teams. The Packers are one of the more popular franchises in the sport. Sure, the Cowboys and maybe the Giants are a bit popular, but I'd be willing to bet the operational costs / stadium costs are also higher than at Lambeau Field as well.
Anyway  
allstarjim : 4/15/2019 5:46 pm : link
The salary cap is collectively bargained. The players get 48.5% of REVENUES, not profits, but revenues. And that number can't average less than 47% at any time.

I don't see why people always are complaining on the players' behalf as if they are getting crumbs. It's just so odd to me.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Most important position in sports  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/15/2019 5:57 pm : link
In comment 14387702 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14387674 Gatorade Dunk said:


Quote:


In comment 14387664 allstarjim said:


Quote:


In comment 14387630 battttles said:


Quote:


And still a small fraction of the money teams and the league are taking in. CBA negotiations will be interesting. Pay the players.



Imagine what it costs to run an NFL franchise. Imagine the number of employees paid, the operational cost...but you're saying the players aren't getting paid. A group of millionaires.

The Packers revenue in 2017 - $454.9 million. Expenses were $420.9 million. So net income was just $34 million.

The players are pretty well compensated.


That represents the floor though, and by a fairly significant margin. The Giants (or the Cowboys, Patriots, Bears, etc.) all have similar expenses to the Packers but much stronger revenue streams. The Packers are an anomaly on a bunch of levels; I'm not sure they should be used for an example of any other NFL franchise's financial situation.



Oh really? So please enlighten us on the financial situation of other football teams. The Packers are one of the more popular franchises in the sport. Sure, the Cowboys and maybe the Giants are a bit popular, but I'd be willing to bet the operational costs / stadium costs are also higher than at Lambeau Field as well.

Well, the Packers are the only team that publishes their finances since they are nominally a public company. But it stands to reason that there are revenue streams that exist in the country's larger markets that don't exist (or at least are weaker) in Green Bay, WI.

Forbes estimates that the Giants' revenue in 2017 was $493MM. That placed them third, behind the Cowboys ($864MM) and Patriots ($593MM). That said, I probably did underestimate the Packers' relative revenue compared to the league. I figured them for the bottom due to market size (since that's really the only variable for NFL revenue where much of the money is national), but they appear to be more middle of the pack (no pun intended). I do think their reported expenses might be a bit high though due to some significant signing bonuses in 2017.

The thing to keep in mind though is that NFL teams don't even have to operate at a profit year to year and the rapid long-term valuation increases as well as ancillary revenue for teams that own their stadiums still make it incredibly profitable to own an NFL team. The players enjoy no such cushion - they have to earn what they can when they can.
RE: Anyway  
battttles : 4/15/2019 5:59 pm : link
In comment 14387707 allstarjim said:
Quote:
The salary cap is collectively bargained. The players get 48.5% of REVENUES, not profits, but revenues. And that number can't average less than 47% at any time.

I don't see why people always are complaining on the players' behalf as if they are getting crumbs. It's just so odd to me.


Billionaire owners appreciate your allegiance.
RE: RE: Anyway  
allstarjim : 4/15/2019 6:24 pm : link
In comment 14387720 battttles said:
Quote:
In comment 14387707 allstarjim said:


Quote:


The salary cap is collectively bargained. The players get 48.5% of REVENUES, not profits, but revenues. And that number can't average less than 47% at any time.

I don't see why people always are complaining on the players' behalf as if they are getting crumbs. It's just so odd to me.



Billionaire owners appreciate your allegiance.


I don't have allegiance to either of them. This is not a zero sum game. I do have allegiance to consumers, though, as the game gets farther and farther out of reach for regular middle class people to go and enjoy a game.

But whatever. I guess get what you can get as far as I'm concerned, and we'll see how it works out for the game in 25 years.
RE: RE: RE: Anyway  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/15/2019 6:53 pm : link
In comment 14387744 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14387720 battttles said:


Quote:


In comment 14387707 allstarjim said:


Quote:


The salary cap is collectively bargained. The players get 48.5% of REVENUES, not profits, but revenues. And that number can't average less than 47% at any time.

I don't see why people always are complaining on the players' behalf as if they are getting crumbs. It's just so odd to me.



Billionaire owners appreciate your allegiance.



I don't have allegiance to either of them. This is not a zero sum game. I do have allegiance to consumers, though, as the game gets farther and farther out of reach for regular middle class people to go and enjoy a game.

But whatever. I guess get what you can get as far as I'm concerned, and we'll see how it works out for the game in 25 years.

As a matter of the work that I do for a living, I can absolutely assure you that no one prices their tickets based on payroll. Every revenue specialist prices to what the market will bear, not as a function of how much the players make.

Your concern for the consumer, while considerate, is a little misguided here. The reality is that the money is either going to end up in the players' pockets or the owners' pockets. And even if by some miracle a franchise decided to marry their ticket pricing to the payroll, you'd just be cutting in a third group: the secondary market jumping on an arbitrage opportunity due to a pricing inefficiency. The inventory is just that scarce in a relative sense.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Anyway  
FranchiseQB : 4/15/2019 6:55 pm : link
In comment 14387765 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14387744 allstarjim said:


Quote:


In comment 14387720 battttles said:


Quote:


In comment 14387707 allstarjim said:


Quote:


The salary cap is collectively bargained. The players get 48.5% of REVENUES, not profits, but revenues. And that number can't average less than 47% at any time.

I don't see why people always are complaining on the players' behalf as if they are getting crumbs. It's just so odd to me.



Billionaire owners appreciate your allegiance.



I don't have allegiance to either of them. This is not a zero sum game. I do have allegiance to consumers, though, as the game gets farther and farther out of reach for regular middle class people to go and enjoy a game.

But whatever. I guess get what you can get as far as I'm concerned, and we'll see how it works out for the game in 25 years.


As a matter of the work that I do for a living, I can absolutely assure you that no one prices their tickets based on payroll. Every revenue specialist prices to what the market will bear, not as a function of how much the players make.

Your concern for the consumer, while considerate, is a little misguided here. The reality is that the money is either going to end up in the players' pockets or the owners' pockets. And even if by some miracle a franchise decided to marry their ticket pricing to the payroll, you'd just be cutting in a third group: the secondary market jumping on an arbitrage opportunity due to a pricing inefficiency. The inventory is just that scarce in a relative sense.


100% correct. Supply and demand determines ticket prices. Though payroll could have an indirect affect on pricing in the form of increased demand due to news or excitement over new signings.
Not sure I see the point...  
DonQuixote : 4/15/2019 7:35 pm : link
it is easy enough to convert any contract (in dollars) to percentage and the cap, and presumably vice versa. Maybe an expert can chime in...does it reduce backloading a contract or something?

RE: Not sure I see the point...  
USAF NYG Fan : 4/15/2019 7:57 pm : link
In comment 14387786 DonQuixote said:
Quote:
it is easy enough to convert any contract (in dollars) to percentage and the cap, and presumably vice versa. Maybe an expert can chime in...does it reduce backloading a contract or something?

Not an expert but it's a percentage of the cap that doesn't change for the duration of the contract. Again, I'm not sure how guarantees would work with that though so maybe there is a minor front or backloaded adjustment.

So if the player signs for 4 years at 15% of the cap instead of a set amount per year he would get basically get a raise every year. If the cap goes up 5%, the player would get an increase in salary of 15% of that 5%.

To make it simple the cap space is $100M, the player at 15% would get $15M that year. If the cap went up $5M the following year, the player would get $15.75M the following year.

I guess the guarantees would be done in minimums to receive in case the player is cut/traded. I suppose the contract could be made so that the percentage of the cap changes every year as well. It could even be broken down into incentives still like a 3% bump for winning the division or a 1% workout bonus.

Now that I think of it, I wonder if it could increase the use of incentive-based contracts. I would prefer an incentive-based system as it increases the change the best player gets the best money. The NFL will never switch to that though.
The point would be  
oreojenkins : 4/15/2019 8:28 pm : link
He thinks the CBA is going to push salaries even higher and wants a deal in place now. Alternatives would be either sign for a set number now under old CBA rules or wait to sign until the new rules are laid out. NBA already has deals that are a percentage of the cap. Honestly seems like a good move for all involved, team and player, if you want him on your team. He'll be locked up long term and happy.
Teams do that at every position. Should trickle down to QB.  
Ivan15 : 4/15/2019 8:29 pm : link
.
Why not just assign each position a percentage of the cap?  
since1925 : 4/15/2019 9:55 pm : link
Every team is the same. Ends the need for agents and negotiations.
There is not a team owner out there that will  
montanagiant : 4/15/2019 9:57 pm : link
Allow this precedent of escalating pay based on Salary Cap. They would be shunned if any did that and rightly so.
RE: There is not a team owner out there that will  
USAF NYG Fan : 4/16/2019 3:55 am : link
In comment 14387932 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Allow this precedent of escalating pay based on Salary Cap. They would be shunned if any did that and rightly so.

Why? I'm not disagreeing with you. It's why I asked what others thought to begin with. I'm having trouble seeing the downside. It does seem to be something the owners do not want to do but I can't see the downside really. Would the increasing salaries get even more out of hand for the owners?

The only thing I can think of is that it makes the escalating salaries even more complicated. If there are 5 QBs that all think they are the best, they will keep competing to get the highest percentage of the cap. However, that's pretty much what's already happening now. Will this make it worse?

Again, I'm trying to leave the trade rumors to the Giants out of this and just focus on Wilson's contract with the Seahawks. However, it appears that Wilson is trying to force Seattle to release or franchise him in order to trade him next year. The other part of this is his get the contract done by midnight of the 15th "or else". What's being said is the "or else" means he won't listen to offers again until the next off-season.

This is all rumor but if true, I think Wilson is saying either start a new precedent for paying players when you re-sign me or move me.
RE: RE: There is not a team owner out there that will  
montanagiant : 4/16/2019 7:36 am : link
In comment 14388109 USAF NYG Fan said:
Quote:
In comment 14387932 montanagiant said:


Quote:


Allow this precedent of escalating pay based on Salary Cap. They would be shunned if any did that and rightly so.


Why? I'm not disagreeing with you. It's why I asked what others thought to begin with. I'm having trouble seeing the downside. It does seem to be something the owners do not want to do but I can't see the downside really. Would the increasing salaries get even more out of hand for the owners?

The only thing I can think of is that it makes the escalating salaries even more complicated. If there are 5 QBs that all think they are the best, they will keep competing to get the highest percentage of the cap. However, that's pretty much what's already happening now. Will this make it worse?

Again, I'm trying to leave the trade rumors to the Giants out of this and just focus on Wilson's contract with the Seahawks. However, it appears that Wilson is trying to force Seattle to release or franchise him in order to trade him next year. The other part of this is his get the contract done by midnight of the 15th "or else". What's being said is the "or else" means he won't listen to offers again until the next off-season.

This is all rumor but if true, I think Wilson is saying either start a new precedent for paying players when you re-sign me or move me.

Because it won't end with just QB's and the Salary Cap raising every year is the one bit of relief teams get to sign players
Back to the Corner