Do the Bengals need to change the way in which they structure contracts?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-09-2022, 05:12 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: They're publicly owned. 360,584 stockholders to be exact.

Is it correct to assume with that many shareholders the Packers don’t have a billionaire owner like Jerry Jones or Shahid Khan who can dump millions of dollars into the franchise any time they want like casear suggested?

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 05:00 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: We have seen an abnormal number of players leave the Bengals because they were unable to get a deal done or re-sign them. Zeitler, Whit, WJ3, Lawson, now Bates hasn't signed. 

You can't deny a lot of talent has walked over the past few years. 

So if no other teams have lost as many as 5 players over the last 6 years then where are all of these free agents on the market coming from.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 09:06 PM)sandwedge Wrote: I don't know, seems we have done kinda ok in FA the last couple of years... No problem signing guys doing business the old way

This.

Kind of funny seeing people complaining about losing Lawson.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-09-2022, 11:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it correct to assume with that many shareholders the Packers don’t have a billionaire owner like Jerry Jones or Shahid Khan who can dump millions of dollars into the franchise any time they want like casear suggested?

Most likely, the Packers are an anomaly though, it's hard to say. They're grandfathered in as a nonprofit. I've not looked into their cash resources. Your point is definitely duly noted, I'm just not certain how that particular organization's financials are structured. They're not your typical small market team. They did complete a major overhaul of Lambeau not too long ago. 

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 04:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I saw Aaron Rodgers contract includes $153M in guarantees. Where did Green Bay’s owner get that?

I havent looked too deep into their public ownership details but it is a good question how that works, they received an exemption to have this type of ownership.  Also the state of Wisconsin subsidizes their facilities and such unlike other teams with the city carrying the financial load.

The Rodgers deal is a joke to me for a number of reasons.  It will impact us I am sure, just like the stupid ass Adams deal at Safety. I hope the guy never produces one future pro bowl.

[Clark W Griswold]

I think the Packer stock started out legitimately to help start the team. Now they have a brilliant money making/marketing plan. Sell worthless pieces of paper and make millions to pay for stadium upgrades etc. I saw that the one that just concluded in Feb brought in $64 million. Shareholders get voting rights but the main guys make sure they are the majority so your vote is worthless. People line up to pay for it to say they have some ownership in the team and the cost to the Packers is virtually nothing. You can’t sell shares unless it’s back to the team at a fraction of the original cost and it doesn’t pay dividends.

Interesting that the team is a nonprofit organization. I think Rodgers’ new contract will help ensure that!

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 01:44 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: I think the Packer stock started out legitimately to help start the team.  Now they have a brilliant money making/marketing plan.  Sell worthless pieces of paper and make millions to pay for stadium upgrades etc. I saw that the one that just concluded in Feb brought in $64 million.  Shareholders get voting rights but the main guys make sure they are the majority so your vote is worthless. People line up to pay for it to say they have some ownership in the team and the cost to the Packers is virtually nothing.  You can’t sell shares unless it’s back to the team at a fraction of the original cost and it doesn’t pay dividends.

Interesting that the team is a nonprofit organization. I think Rodgers’ new contract will help ensure that!

I think they already had a team but were going or went bankrupt.

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 11:21 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it correct to assume with that many shareholders the Packers don’t have a billionaire owner like Jerry Jones or Shahid Khan who can dump millions of dollars into the franchise any time they want like casear suggested?

I found this article that kind of explains how they function:

https://huddleup.substack.com/p/green-bay-packers-local-revenue-declines?s=r

[WeezyBengal]

(03-09-2022, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if no other teams have lost as many as 5 players over the last 6 years then where are all of these free agents on the market coming from.

I don't understand your question. 

(03-09-2022, 11:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

Kind of funny seeing people complaining about losing Lawson.

The fact remains they tried to bring him back but couldn't. This has been an ongoing trend with some of our best players recently. 

Yes, they have brought in good FAs to replace them, but I'm a bit disturbed with their inability to keep their own recently.

[Sled21]

(03-08-2022, 07:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In 2019, the NFL salary cap was $182M. Each team received $296M from the league. More than enough to cover all player contracts. Or $114M more than the maximum amount allowed for all player contracts.

It doesn’t matter how “poor” Mike is relative to Jerry Jones. They have the same salary cap. And the NFL gives them more money than they need to sign players before they make a dime locally. Packers made an additional $210M for $506M total. For one year. Despite earning $506M, the Packers could only spend $182M on players just like every other team. Green Bay’s market size is roughly half of Cincinnati’s. Market size is not an excuse when it comes to player salaries.

If Jerry makes more than Mike it’s because of capitalism. In which case, Mike needs to try harder.

Let's wait and see how the Packers fare...

[casear2727]

(03-09-2022, 02:01 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I don't understand your question. 


The fact remains they tried to bring him back but couldn't. This has been an ongoing trend with some of our best players recently. 

Yes, they have brought in good FAs to replace them, but I'm a bit disturbed with their inability to keep their own recently.

True, but J24 made an excellent point. If we can get the same player for the same salary but lower hit on the guaranteed money we must do that now and every year moving forward if we are going to continue to have over 250M in escrow.

We did that with Hendrickson who cost the same  salary but with less guaranteed money and he was a better player for us.  Now you will probably say we got very lucky and I wouldnt disagree.  But the guaranteed money aspect is real. If we dont have the cash in hand to put in escrow to cover every year of every penny of guaranteed money we wont be able to sign players. 

If we had a billionaire owner that could fund the escrow we would be golden. The Saints can still sign players even being -33M in cap space because they can restructure contracts with bonuses and contracts of guaranteed dollars simply due to the ability of their ownership to fund the escrow account with unlimited dollars.  They cleared $52M just in restructures last year.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2022, 02:01 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: The fact remains they tried to bring him back but couldn't. This has been an ongoing trend with some of our best players recently. 

Yes, they have brought in good FAs to replace them, but I'm a bit disturbed with their inability to keep their own recently.

What did they offer Lawson to stay here?  Nothing close to what he got from the Jets.  And do you know why?  .  .  .  

BECAUSE THE JETS WERE STUPID AND OVERPAID FOR HIM.

Why would anyone be upset that the Bengals were smarter than another team that overpaid for one of our free agents?

BTW if the Bengals are the only team losing players to free agency then where are all these free agents coming from?

[THE PISTONS]

Andrew Brandt
@AndrewBrandt

Annual reminder on NFL Cap management:
It doesn't take a Cap guru to restructure contracts with signing bonuses pushing out Cap into future years.
You could do that.
It takes a Cap guru to make sure a team does not have to do that.

[fredtoast]

(03-08-2022, 05:00 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: We have seen an abnormal number of players leave the Bengals because they were unable to get a deal done or re-sign them. Zeitler, Whit, WJ3, Lawson, now Bates hasn't signed. 

You can't deny a lot of talent has walked over the past few years. 

(03-09-2022, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if no other teams have lost as many as 5 players over the last 6 years then where are all of these free agents on the market coming from.

(03-09-2022, 02:01 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I don't understand your question. 

You list 5 players we have lost in the last 6 years and claim it is an "abnormal" amount.  So my question is, if the few players we lose is "abnormally" high then where are all these free agents coming from.  Seems to me that every team loses players to free agency and many of them lose more than the Bengals.

[Whatever]

(03-08-2022, 05:00 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Will that prevent us from getting or retaining players, though? Sure they are great from a business side, but what about from a players interest side? 

We have seen an abnormal number of players leave the Bengals because they were unable to get a deal done or re-sign them. Zeitler, Whit, WJ3, Lawson, now Bates hasn't signed. 

You can't deny a lot of talent has walked over the past few years. 

Among the guys you listed, only Lawson walked over contract structure, though.

We know Whit and Zeitler got much bigger offers.  We know WJIII did not want to be here.  

Lawson we can reasonably say was structure due to the deal he signed and the the deal we gave Hendrickson.

Bates some people are guessing is hung up on guaranteed money, but we have heard no credible source report this.