Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The end of profit sharing what that means for the panthers....

micnificent28

By micnificent28,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
Posted

i ve been hearing alot about this and how its going to affect the nfl. it looks like it will signal the end of small market teams competing with bigger teams for big namers. it also could mean the end of teams that depend on that cash to make ends meet. the jags,bills,vikings ect. it means that the nfl will become more like baseball. the big name teams dallas,the redskins,the patriots will dominate and compete season in season out for the championship. with that being said how will this affect the panthers. will we be forced to move like the jags..what about when it comes time to build a new stadium..its a new ball game ladies and gents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

panthers don't benefit from the revenue sharing. they are among the most profitable teams in the NFL.

just because you are small market doesn't' mean you are destitute.

don't worry about it. it just means the panthers get to keep more of what they earn rather than having to share it with the poorer teams.

also there is little to no chance that it will stay that way. when a new CBA is reached and everything else gets hashed out, revenue sharing will start back up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swarly Newbie

Swarly

Posted
Posted

panthers don't benefit from the revenue sharing. they are among the most profitable teams in the NFL.

just because you are small market doesn't' mean you are destitute.

don't worry about it. it just means the panthers get to keep more of what they earn rather than having to share it with the poorer teams.

also there is little to no chance that it will stay that way. when a new CBA is reached and everything else gets hashed out, revenue sharing will start back up again.

not if Jerry Jones has anything to say about it. and all it will take is one year of no cap and there is no going back. Do you honestly think players will play for cheap(not cheap, but a lot less than what they will be offered during a no-cap era.) after having a taste of a no cap system? Not gonna happen. Say hello to Dallas, Redskins, etc having a roster full of straight up super stars.

Jerry Jones is a fuging asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurb Newbie

Kurb

Posted
Posted

not if Jerry Jones has anything to say about it. and all it will take is one year of no cap and there is no going back. Do you honestly think players will play for cheap(not cheap, but a lot less than what they will be offered during a no-cap era.) after having a taste of a no cap system? Not gonna happen. Say hello to Dallas, Redskins, etc having a roster full of straight up super stars.

Jerry Jones is a fucking asshole.

MOST players could end up making less IMO.

Only so many spots on a roster.

Also keep in mind the effects of tags(franchise and others).

Players need the cap just as much as the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

not if Jerry Jones has anything to say about it. and all it will take is one year of no cap and there is no going back. Do you honestly think players will play for cheap(not cheap, but a lot less than what they will be offered during a no-cap era.) after having a taste of a no cap system? Not gonna happen. Say hello to Dallas, Redskins, etc having a roster full of straight up super stars.

Jerry Jones is a fucking asshole.

jerrah doesn't have as much weight in the league as you think. the last 15 years have been working against him. the league doesn't bend in his favor. the capo will be back and so will revenue sharing.

btw...good job getting around those filters. :rolleyes:

MOST players could end up making less IMO.

Only so many spots on a roster.

Also keep in mind the effects of tags(franchise and others).

Players need the cap just as much as the owners.

this is true. with a cap ceiling there is also a cap floor and teams are forced sometimes to spend more than they would otherwise. the revenue sharing takes away the excuses for them not spending enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Swarly Newbie

Swarly

Posted
Posted

jerrah doesn't have as much weight in the league as you think. the last 15 years have been working against him. the league doesn't bend in his favor. the capo will be back and so will revenue sharing.

btw...good job getting around those filters. :rolleyes:

this is true. with a cap ceiling there is also a cap floor and teams are forced sometimes to spend more than they would otherwise. the revenue sharing takes away the excuses for them not spending enough.

I know he doesn't man, but I'm just going by what I've heard. There are several owners who are pushing for no cap. There were some old owners who were standing their ground and pushing it away(aka Wellington Mara, etc) but I honestly can't see it going back to a cap if it's actually removed.

I just don't want the NFL to turn into the MLB :[

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pstall Newbie

pstall

Posted
Posted

.

btw...good job getting around those filters. :rolleyes:

this is true. with a cap ceiling there is also a cap floor and teams are forced sometimes to spend more than they would otherwise. the revenue sharing takes away the excuses for them not spending enough.

He does right now because of that albatross known as the new Cowboys stadium.

The NFL can't afford for Dallas to fall into the abyss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

well, aside from the redskins and cowboys you won't.

i fully expect them to try.

truth is there probably won't be a whole lot of movement going on, at least not compared to the usual. i can see less of the valuable FAs actually hitting the market. i can also see more college players coming out in the draft trying to get in before the rookie scale hits. there may be a few FAs that are just cut from their teams to make way for the young ones but it will be more to do with future contracts and limited roster space.

one thing to remember is that just because there is no cap doesn't mean that contracts all of a sudden disappear. teams that are bound to their teams will still be bound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
House Newbie

House

Posted
Posted

With the rules they have in place in case of an uncapped year it is not really going to benefit anybody. With top teams being unable to sign a FA unless they lose a FA of equal or greater value, UFA not begining until the 6 year mark, a total of four tags per team, etc. no one is REALLY going to benefit.

The owners would benefit more than the players but not by a massive margin.

The reason they owners decided to do away with revenue sharing is it backs the NFLPU into a corner. By doing away with revenue sharing they pretty much told them to fug off. The union was probably wanting too much of a profit share and the owners weren't going to take it. By cutting revenue sharing they are forcing thier bluff because now all of the NFL players know that if it becomes uncapped then you are down to about 10-12 teams that will be willing to pay big money for players. It was a smart move by the owners. I wouldn't be suprised to see revenue sharing in the final draft of a new CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted

With the rules they have in place in case of an uncapped year it is not really going to benefit anybody. With top teams being unable to sign a FA unless they lose a FA of equal or greater value, UFA not begining until the 6 year mark, a total of four tags per team, etc. no one is REALLY going to benefit.

The owners would benefit more than the players but not by a massive margin.

The reason they owners decided to do away with revenue sharing is it backs the NFLPU into a corner. By doing away with revenue sharing they pretty much told them to f**k off. The union was probably wanting too much of a profit share and the owners weren't going to take it. By cutting revenue sharing they are forcing thier bluff because now all of the NFL players know that if it becomes uncapped then you are down to about 10-12 teams that will be willing to pay big money for players. It was a smart move by the owners. I wouldn't be suprised to see revenue sharing in the final draft of a new CBA.

good points. have any thoughts on the potential lockout if a new CBA isn't reached?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted

panthers don't benefit from the revenue sharing. they are among the most profitable teams in the NFL.

just because you are small market doesn't' mean you are destitute.

don't worry about it. it just means the panthers get to keep more of what they earn rather than having to share it with the poorer teams.

also there is little to no chance that it will stay that way. when a new CBA is reached and everything else gets hashed out, revenue sharing will start back up again.

This..... I really hope we do reach a CBA next year cause I dont want a lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Gapanthersfan
      Would you trade Ickey

      By Gapanthersfan · Posted

      Oh he would absolutely flourish. It’s the panthers way. It’s no different with coaches. Sometimes they reach their expiration date, go somewhere else, and find new success.  Similarly to Burns, how long to wait for the light to finally turn on?  Market forces will demand a salary that the panthers can not responsibly match. Sliding him to guard will fit his skill set better, but he has played LT for 3 years. He will receive offers from other teams wanting to pay him LT money.  At guard, he won’t start with what they have paid Hunt and Lewis. Center then?? Dunno. Maybe? He will become a backup by default once they draft their stud LT. I doubt Dan just stands pat. That’s not his MO.  So where does this put him? Can you match what other teams will offer for a backup LT/guard? Do you dish out franchise LT $ on a guy who still needs significant improvement in pass protection. This team will be DOA in the playoffs with the very first team who has a formidable speed rusher. What if he has hit his ceiling in pass protection already and they sign him long term? It’s a big gamble either way. 
    • travisura
      Cousins benched in Atlanta

      By travisura · Posted

      We're in a great position to see just how big of a misstep it would be, having made so many ourselves
    • SCO96
      BREAKING: Panthers Announce Four Moves Including LB Trevin Wallace To IR

      By SCO96 · Posted

      I didn't say I would have done it. I was just saying that I can see why some in the FO considered it. Everything was done to give Bryce weapons. Solidify the interior line thru FA. Get XL at WR in round 1 and then get the most talented RB in round 2. Take a TE in round 4, etc They were probably "assuming" he'd make a complete recovery during the 2024 season. I'm a skeptical person. I wouldn't have assumed he'd be ok in 2024. I personally would have taken another position in the 2nd for that very reason. But, if I were "influenced" to take him I would've argued to keep him off the field, especially seeing how things were going for us record wise. Conventional Wisdom says most backs don't get back to normal until two years after the ACL surgery. He was injured in Fall 2023. Having him suit up in 2025 would have been almost 2 years since the original injury. You have him for 3 year on low contract. If he balls out, you resign him for a couple of more years b/c he'd only have 3 years of tread on the tires. If he's ok but not great you let him walk. 
×
×
  • Create New...