Questions RE: the Possible Removal of the Cap in 2010

by bleedbluegold03 on Oct 14, 2009 8:50 AM CDT

So if the cap were to be moved next year how would the Packers as an organization handle the finances of this shift with it being the only team owned by the fans in theory? It probably doesn't work like this but hypothetically couldn't the Packers issue more stock in the company? I really feel like any and every Packer fan would love to own a part of the Packers and those who already have a stock won't care if they own .001% or .00001% of the team but rather that they still own part of the team. It is amazing to ponder this scenario as it would be one of the wierdest things in all of sports for the smallest town in the NFL to sport a NY Yankees type salary and roster. I really feel a move like this would reaffirm the Green Bay Packers as one of the most unique and fanbased organizations in all of sports. Thoughts?

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My thought is...

I hope they get a cap installed!!! I love the NFL for its equality among talent. There is not one team in the NFL that is completely stacked like baseball teams. The NFL had what 5 or 6 different teams in the playoffs last year than from the previous year? Baseball has had the same teams almost every year in the playoffs. What makes that interesting? I love baseball, but football just out weighs it in my mind because its an any given sunday attitude. If a cap is not installed we would see more players losing the sense of why they play the game. It won’t be for the love of the game but rather how much money can they get. This will keep some teams like the Browns, Bengals, Rams, Lions and many others at the bottom of the sellar. There would be no chance for the small market/ small money teams to compete. (I wouldn’t classify GB being a small market since we have fans all over the US.) Take a look at baseballs championship series. They are dominated by the big markets/ big money teams right now! NY, LA, LA, and Philly. Without the cap the football would be dominated like this also. There would not be an AZ team in the superbowl last year or a Cincy team leading the AFC North. So even if the Packers were that top notched team it would be like cheering for the Yankees or Red Sox something that is just an imprudent way of thinking. Also it would be devastating, when was the last time the Yankees won the WS? ’01? ’02? Yeah all that money and no championships in the last 5+ years!

by bizzle4 on Oct 14, 2009 10:44 AM CDT reply actions

Salary Cap

Why do you think Jerry Jones built his 1.250 billion dollar stadium. Seeing he is a advocate of gtting rid of the salary cap. You should call him jerrybrenner. Simply he ( just like the YANKEES ) is trying to buy his championships. Say no to getting rid of the dsalary cap.

by cheddarhead on Oct 15, 2009 5:56 PM CDT reply actions

And the league let Jerry on the negotiating committee with the union.

Pretty sure he’s heading it, if I’m not mistaken. If you look at the list of owners on that committee, there really isn’t a small revenue team represented. The closest is Murphy from the Packers.

So the alternatives are: no deal and no cap in 2010, or a deal negotiated by a Jerry Jones, who’s already said the days of the league subsidizing markets like Minneapolis are over (i.e., goodbye complete revenue sharing). Jones has been trying to kill revenue sharing and the cap for a decade or more now and the labor crisis has given him the opportunity to do it. He sees the Cowboys as the New York Yankees of the NFL. He’s got the team. He’s got the money. Now he just needs to screw up the league’s economics enough to build in a huge advantage for his club. Just like Steinbrenner did for the MLB.

I’m way more worried about the deal that Jones will try to negotiate than I am an uncapped year, particularly since the minute the uncapped year starts, free agency gets kicked back a year (sucks to be you, Nick Collins). The Packers can survive and compete in a league without a cap, particularly as long as Jones and Snyder insist on being their own GMs, but they can’t compete in a league with more limited revenue sharing. Right now the Packers are ok in club revenue, but they’ll get worse with each passing year. There is no 1.3 billion dollar stadium coming in Green Bay, and as monuments to ego go up around the league and teams are allowed to keep more and more of the money generated by their year-round cash generating facilities, the Packers won’t be able to compete. Revenue sharing is more important now than ever and I’m beginning to wonder how much longer the network TV contracts will be big enough (relative to other revenue sources) to permit those small and mid-market teams to compete (at least the ones motivated to do so.)

Personally, I don't give a crap about Brett Favre.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 17, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Handle it with current cash flow

At this point, with good stadium revenues and constant sell outs, the Packers would probably handle any increase on player salaries with their current cash flows. None of the stock offerings have been done to compensate for a sudden spike in operating expenses.

Stock offerings have been done during times of financial crisis, except for the last one in the 1990s. The team would have folded without those early stock offerings, and I doubt removing the salary cap alone would create a financial meltdown. The offering in the 1990s was done with an eye toward stadium renovations, which have been done a couple times over the past 15 years, ending with a major renovation completed early this decade.

Whatever financial scenarios they are looking at in 2010, I doubt a stock offering is on their mind.

by Brandon on Oct 17, 2009 10:28 PM CDT reply actions