NFL News & Notes

[Mr Bad Example]

15 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

I mean, it's an objective fact that you can't sell Packers stock for more money than you paid for it  (or really any money at all, since it's non-transferable) but the same is true of a lot of things that people buy because it makes them happy.

It was tongue-in-cheek, Schapp was an unabashed fan of GB and was more than happy to pay for that piece of memorabilia. 

Sure, as an investment it's not really worth anything but if you view it as a piece of memorabilia, none of the game-worn jerseys every bought have the buyer's name on them or say they own a small part of the team, which makes it relatively rare and cool. 

[Old Guy]

36 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

It was tongue-in-cheek, Schapp was an unabashed fan of GB and was more than happy to pay for that piece of memorabilia. 

Sure, as an investment it's not really worth anything but if you view it as a piece of memorabilia, none of the game-worn jerseys every bought have the buyer's name on them or say they own a small part of the team, which makes it relatively rare and cool. 

Probably the greatest marketing scheme in history. The Packers get 100's of thousands of people to buy a useless piece of paper and call it "stock."

[Old Guy]

Caleb Williams seems to already be turning into a whiny little *****. Also, seems to be a know it all. Not good traits. 

C.J. Stroud explains postgame interaction with Caleb Williams - ESPN

[Refugee]

32 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Probably the greatest marketing scheme in history. The Packers get 100's of thousands of people to buy a useless piece of paper and call it "stock."

It’s great and I wouldn’t call it a scheme. People voluntarily buy it and it is a way for fans to directly support the team while receiving some minor fringe benefits. The team can’t spend it directly on operations but can improve facilities etc. which makes them more competitive. In my mind, it’s way more of a scam when teams threaten to leave and put tax payers on the hook for new stadiums/improvements even though many of those taxpayers don’t care about the team or at least not enough to shell out their hard earned money. At least this is a group of fans who don’t mind putting some of their money into the team’s bottom line. 

[ThatJerkDave]

3 minutes ago, Refugee said:

It’s great and I wouldn’t call it a scheme. People voluntarily buy it and it is a way for fans to directly support the team while receiving some minor fringe benefits. The team can’t spend it directly on operations but can improve facilities etc. which makes them more competitive. In my mind, it’s way more of a scam when teams threaten to leave and put tax payers on the hook for new stadiums/improvements even though many of those taxpayers don’t care about the team or at least not enough to shell out their hard earned money. At least this is a group of fans who don’t mind putting some of their money into the team’s bottom line. 

Right.  I got to pay taxes on the Rams stadium just to have them screw over my friends.  

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

perhaps on the balance sheet.  But they don't have a pseudo-unlimited pool of owner money.

 

As MM said most recently:

 

GB is at an inherent disadvantage as they need to be profitable/breakeven in order to accrue cash to support such spending in current and future years.  Other owners can use their existing cash or business ventures to finance any extra spending.

 

Right now teams are spending 3-4M on a policy for a 50M/year player.  If they start spending 30-40M on 260M in total salaries that would pretty much wipe out the entireity of GB Packers profit of 60M.

GB made even more than that $60mil in fiscal year profit on the single year increase of their strategic reserve fund. 

Plus an estimated nearly $100mil boon from the draft next year. 

It's good for leadership to think and talk fiscal conservatism. It's why we continue to be one of the healthiest teams in the league from a dollars and cents standpoint.

Point being: this "loophole" is itself a fiscally conservative option. One we are more likely to benefit from than be harmed by.

[vegas492]

43 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Caleb Williams seems to already be turning into a whiny little *****. Also, seems to be a know it all. Not good traits. 

C.J. Stroud explains postgame interaction with Caleb Williams - ESPN

How did you arrive at that opinion from reading that article?

I read it as CJ trying to give advice and Williams was still upset about losing that close game.

Maybe he (Williams) is a whiny little bi---, maybe he hates losing.  Maybe both.

But my takeaway from the article was nothing like yours.

[vegas492]

19 minutes ago, Refugee said:

It’s great and I wouldn’t call it a scheme. People voluntarily buy it and it is a way for fans to directly support the team while receiving some minor fringe benefits. The team can’t spend it directly on operations but can improve facilities etc. which makes them more competitive. In my mind, it’s way more of a scam when teams threaten to leave and put tax payers on the hook for new stadiums/improvements even though many of those taxpayers don’t care about the team or at least not enough to shell out their hard earned money. At least this is a group of fans who don’t mind putting some of their money into the team’s bottom line. 

I asked for, and received that memorabilia as a present at Christmas.  I had it framed it hangs on my bar wall, now.  My father also bought that memorabilia, had it framed and since he passed, it resides on a wall in my work office.  It's kindda cool to look at.  But it is just that, memorabilia.  I haven't bought a jersey since young Favre days, so this is a piece that I personally wanted.  To me it's much cooler than a jersey.  Kind of an organization versus player kind of thing.

Edited 4 hours ago by vegas492

[incognito_man]

47 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Caleb Williams seems to already be turning into a whiny little *****. Also, seems to be a know it all. Not good traits. 

C.J. Stroud explains postgame interaction with Caleb Williams - ESPN

That has always been his red flag. 

He was tailor made for that franchise 

[vegas492]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

GB made even more than that $60mil in fiscal year profit on the single year increase of their strategic reserve fund. 

Plus an estimated nearly $100mil boon from the draft next year. 

It's good for leadership to think and talk fiscal conservatism. It's why we continue to be one of the healthiest teams in the league from a dollars and cents standpoint.

Point being: this "loophole" is itself a fiscally conservative option. One we are more likely to benefit from than be harmed by.

Yeah, it's like that, only simpler.

It's insurance.  In the end, the premium is supposed to by far outweigh the payout.  But we buy it for peace of mind.  It's odd seeing it applied to high contracts, but I get it.  And yeah, if you can, you insure your most prized possessions.   Which reminds me, I need to itemize my bourbon collection and get that scheduled now.

[skibrett15]

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Point being: this "loophole" is itself a fiscally conservative option.

loophole lets you possibly convert cash into cap space.  Most of the time it turns cash into nothing though. 

It's a cash loss proposition in the long run, but one which can provide some cap relief.  If you assume the inevitability of NFL injuries, then if your only concern is winning, the best move is to insure all of the contracts you can. 

Which gives you the most future cap room in the form of end of year adjustments.

 

Quote

The CBA labels insurance proceeds as a "refund from the player," which qualifies the amount as a cap credit for the club for the following season. In the simplest terms, if a player who eats up a significant portion of a club's salary cap misses significant time with injury or illness, a club doesn't have to take it as a total loss, but can recover space for the following year. Plus, insurance premium payments don't count against the salary cap.

"That's the crux of the loophole," the former club executive said. "You effectively can use cash to create cap space from scratch. In a closed system, that is one of the few ways to buy cap space."

 

Edited 4 hours ago by skibrett15

[vegas492]

In regards to Williams/Stroud....

The more I see Stroud, the more impressed I am.  I liked him over Young, but that didn't take much.  I didn't see him having this kind of success in the NFL, let alone having it so quickly.  

[incognito_man]

12 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

loophole lets you possibly convert cash into cap space.  Most of the time it turns cash into nothing though. 

It's a cash loss proposition in the long run, but one which can provide some cap relief.  If you assume the inevitability of NFL injuries, then if your only concern is winning, the best move is to insure all of the contracts you can. 

Which gives you the most future cap room in the form of end of year adjustments.

 

 

I understand how it works. You've failed to explain why/how it harms GB.

[skibrett15]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I understand how it works. You've failed to explain why/how it harms GB.

in the situation where this becomes more and more used, this increases the cost of payroll above and beyond the salary cap in order to maintain competitive parity. 

It has a lot of room for abuse for teams that are more cash rich than GB.  Let's say in 3-4 years if this takes off, teams are spending 50, 60, 70% of the cap on insurance premiums which protect against even fairly likely events - say a player missing a week or 2.  Premium on that may be 50, 60, 70% of the player's salary.

 

GB doesn't have mechanisms to abuse this because they need to be financially viable.  Other owners don't.  They may be more than happy to blow hundreds of millions on this to operate at a huge loss if it gives them an edge.

[skibrett15]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I understand how it works. You've failed to explain why/how it harms GB.

why wasn't david bakhtiari's/JA's deal fully insured from signing?

competitively makes no sense.  So it was a cost consideration?