Aaron Rodgers contract is a steal

[pbmax]

I think these contract numbers for Manning and future QB extensions are being blown out of proportion.

Future QBs outside of Manning, perhaps. But he is going to get close to $20 per. There is more on this than just random ESPN Super Bowl speculation.

Just today the Raven's owner conducted an interview where he said that there are several teams just barely staying in the black in the NFL.

Given that the NFL will not open its books to the Union (within their rights, certainly), its hard to judge that statement. There are multiple ways to claim a loss when you are actually gaining value. And none of the NFL teams are worth less now than in 2006, when the last CBA was negotiated.

However, between interest rates going up, investments (like the Packers Rainy Year fund) and teams assuming a greater percentage of stadium construction costs compared to previous eras, their cost structure probably has changed for the worst.

Admittedly, I don't know anything about the situation beyond what I've been reading on the big sites, but articles like this point to cutting the minimum salary basically in half.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ak7Q2UBZmfW7uesS7vU7gY85nYcB?slug=ap-superbowl-nflpa&prov=ap&type=lgns

I don't think they're going to do that as it's a risky sport and the union has to represent and protect even the lowest paid players from injury risks, etc. I suspect the guys getting the salaries lowered are going to be the high end players.

I agree that Peyton is going to break the bank. He deserves it. Without him, Indy would probably be one of those franchises in trouble.

Right now my biggest fear is the revenue sharing. This absolutely needs to be continued at the level it's at now in order to promote competition and keep things interesting. The NFL is great the way it is. Here's to hoping it doesn't change too much!

Well, there is no doubt that the owners are looking to trim the slice of the revenue pie that the players get. Their current proposal, which is the source the Union is crediting for the 18% cut, makes that clear. But its also a negotiation, so the rumored Union thinking is that 18 percent is a starting point, hoping for a tit for tat splitting of the difference down to a 9% cut.

But while the top earners are attractive for cuts, there is something to be said for dividing the players. The NFL could aim for the higher profile, higher paid players (of which there are fewer, but accounting for a significant portion of salaries) or they could aim for the lesser paid players, who earn less money but are far larger in number. The NFL proposal likely affects them all, but could be probably be engineered to attract one group over the other. The NBA did this with their Union.

On the other hand, the NFL has hired a law firm known for battling unions with lockouts, the same firm that led the NHL lockout of a few years ago. So this one might look much different than the NBA model.

And as always, the owners do not have the exact same set of interests in this. The high revenue teams do not want to share local revenue, the increase in which was a huge boon to the Patriots, Redskins and Cowboys under new ownership (Jones, Snyder, Kraft). Some of that they now send to the lower revenue clubs. The lower revenue clubs dislike the total revenue percentage the players get and need the local revenue (called supplemental) sharing to cover the higher player costs. I surmise (no proof available) that the plan is that the high revenue clubs get to kill supplemental revenue sharing if they can lower or eliminate the salary cap floor. They already tried to implement the end of supplemental sharing once the new league year starts with no cap, but they were blocked by a Federal Court for the duration (I think) of the CBA (end of 2010 season).

Also, be careful with articles talking about the end of revenue sharing. The only revenue sharing up for debate currently is the supplemental (local) revenue. Things like stadium naming right, concession sales, sponsorships, advertising, local radio and TV, etc. The majority of income involved in revenue sharing is National TV deals and licensing, and that gets split evenly and has for decades.

[Smidgeon]

Who needs $18 million a year???

Who is getting $18M a year? After taxes, agents, insurance, etc., $18M turns into about $8-$10M.

And players earn it. Do you just want Jerry Jones to pocket ALL the money?

$8-$10 million? Poor babies. How in the hell are they going to survive...especially in this economy? Players EARN it? Listen...I'm as big a fan as any....but I wouldn't say they earn millions. Police, firefighters, coal miners, teachers, doctors....they earn it...but don't get it. These are fuckin athletes PLAYING a sport.

This is chump change. Brains (and balls) over brawn anyday. Check this crap out: http://www.theweek.com/article/index...or_Goldman_CEO

Nobody's paying me for my brain... Dagnabit! Who owes me?!?

[Pugger]

I thought I read somewhere that the NFLPA uses the Packers income for a bartering tool because we are the only team that makes those numbers public seeing we are the only publically owned franchise...?

[MadScientist]

I thought I read somewhere that the NFLPA uses the Packers income for a bartering tool because we are the only team that makes those numbers public seeing we are the only publically owned franchise...?

The NFL uses them as well, pointing the steep decline in profits for the Packers over the last year. Of course the mitigating factors (BF mess, loosing season, etc.) were not brought up by the NFL.

[pbmax]

There are also two numbers to consider for the Packers. Patler can correct this, but the operating profit for the Packers was still quite high and favorable to past years. But when investments were included, the profit dipped because the various markets the Packers (and everyone else) were in fell precipitously. When those markets regain their lost value, that "cost" will disappear, until the next Great Recession and unlike stadium construction costs.

[RashanGary]

That contract, along with several other of the Packers solid values, are going to go a long way toward us being able to fit more talent under the budget than most teams.

I think the Packers are knocking on the SB door. Some good development, good resignings, maybe a FA or two and a solid draft and I see no reason this team can't be considered and NFC favorite. If half of those things go right, we would have a chance.

[swede]

That contract, along with several other of the Packers solid values, are going to go a long way toward us being able to fit more talent under the budget than most teams.

I think the Packers are knocking on the SB door. Some good development, good resignings, maybe a FA or two and a solid draft and I see no reason this team can't be considered and NFC favorite. If half of those things go right, we would have a chance.

First Kool-Aid sighting of the off-season.

[get louder at lambeau]

That contract, along with several other of the Packers solid values, are going to go a long way toward us being able to fit more talent under the budget than most teams.

I think the Packers are knocking on the SB door. Some good development, good resignings, maybe a FA or two and a solid draft and I see no reason this team can't be considered and NFC favorite. If half of those things go right, we would have a chance.

First Kool-Aid sighting of the off-season.

Young team with a great young QB at 11-5 becoming to a Super Bowl favorite the next year = cult-like ignorance and blind worship?

[swede]

No.

But nice job of pole vaulting over the mouse turd.

[SkinBasket]

No.

But nice job of pole vaulting over the mouse turd.

Seconded.