incognito_man Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 22 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: 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. What teams are more cash rich than GB? And by how much? What teams are more willing to blow hundreds of millions on this? And what proof do you have of that? Your arguments aren't convincing until you demonstrate this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: What teams are more cash rich than GB? And by how much? What teams are more willing to blow hundreds of millions on this? And what proof do you have of that? Your arguments aren't convincing until you demonstrate this. it's hard to know what teams are cash rich relative to GB since GB is the only one with open books, but common sense would say that the richest owners are the most cash rich, and that GB plays in a small market with much lower local revenues than other markets such as NY or Miami or Dallas or even Philadelphia. Those are 2 factors working against GB. Ultimately, the insurance angle doesn't seem like a bad thing for the Packers right now. the eagles are spending a lot. Supposedly 16 of their contracts are insured. My concern is more what it could turn into. The eagles are leading the way here and if other teams follow suit it could be harder for GB than others to keep up. They have already apparently not fully capitalized on injury insurance with Bakh. What was the calculation in making that call? Premium was too expensive for the Platinum package, so they went with Silver. I would be all for the NFL making all contracts "insured" automatically without a need for a premium. Team doesn't get the money back, player keeps the money, but does get some sort of (probably partial) cap relief in the following year. Might make for some weird shenanigans with teams shutting down players for the wrong reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 22 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: it's hard to know what teams are cash rich relative to GB since GB is the only one with open books, but common sense would say that the richest owners are the most cash rich, and that GB plays in a small market with much lower local revenues than other markets such as NY or Miami or Dallas or even Philadelphia. Those are 2 factors working against GB. Ultimately, the insurance angle doesn't seem like a bad thing for the Packers right now. the eagles are spending a lot. Supposedly 16 of their contracts are insured. My concern is more what it could turn into. The eagles are leading the way here and if other teams follow suit it could be harder for GB than others to keep up. They have already apparently not fully capitalized on injury insurance with Bakh. What was the calculation in making that call? Premium was too expensive for the Platinum package, so they went with Silver. I would be all for the NFL making all contracts "insured" automatically without a need for a premium. Team doesn't get the money back, player keeps the money, but does get some sort of (probably partial) cap relief in the following year. Might make for some weird shenanigans with teams shutting down players for the wrong reasons. Billionaires don't become billionaires by making poor financial decisions. I find it entirely unconvincing that GB is or would be at any disadvantage with this option growing. I don't think common sense is on your side despite claiming it to be. If anything, I think the opposite is true. Doesn't the Jets owner have a few spare dollars? Yet he didn't exercise this option on perhaps the highest risk contract in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, vegas492 said: 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. Or......You could host a gathering and we could sample some of that bourbon collection 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted 1 minute ago Share Posted 1 minute ago 1 hour ago, squire12 said: Or......You could host a gathering and we could sample some of that bourbon collection I too would like to be part of this spirited audit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.