Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[panthers55]

6 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Not exactly true.

Certain teams can spend more than others in certain years but overtime the spending is pretty similar among teams.  There are league minimums put in place for such. Also, those signing g bonuses and restructures do get prorated at some point, that money just doesn't disappear.

You said it yourself, KC could have kept Hill but they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

 

 

Of course the money doesn't disappear. That is an extreme mischaracterization. But if you actually spend 280 million a year and only have to account for 250 in any one year, it is gone for now given the NFL stands for Not For Long.  And you can keep kicking the excess down the line which seems what all the teams are doing these days. So it didn't disappear but it doesn't all show up on the salary cap in the year it was paid. Seems if you aren't doing that then you are at a competitive disadvantage.

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, pantherclaw said:

Still not your money. 

Nice attempt of taking owner ship just because your a fan. 

Ok dude, that’s what I said. NFL fans have every right to think what they want and say what they want because they run the engine despite what you think. Gotta be boring to not think for yourself.

[Aussie Tank]

13 minutes ago, csx said:

It's not the insult you are wanting it to be either

Remember, we are complaining about not taking the great trade offers other teams were willing to make for him 

I wasn’t insulting him at all. Just stating that being the best player on a mid level defense shouldn’t be the main reason to pay him Top 5 at the position money 

[AU-panther]

48 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Of course the money doesn't disappear. That is an extreme mischaracterization. But if you actually spend 280 million a year and only have to account for 250 in any one year, it is gone for now given the NFL stands for Not For Long.  And you can keep kicking the excess down the line which seems what all the teams are doing these days. So it didn't disappear but it doesn't all show up on the salary cap in the year it was paid. Seems if you aren't doing that then you are at a competitive disadvantage.

but then the following year more cap hits your books and then you have less to spend in that year.  Saints had several years where they had huge amounts of dead money counting towards their cap. 

I agree most teams, most years, have some slack in their overall cap.  We can free up enough money for Burns, that isn't the question, but there are limits.  This idea that the cap is some myth is just wrong.  Teams just can't pay everyone, you have to decided the best use of your money.

[WhoKnows]

24 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Nobody is arguing that the NFL could be what it is without their fans, that would be asinine.  The discussion is about whether the money spent by fans on merchandise and products from advertisers goes towards paying the players, which it doesn't, no matter how much or little they spend.

It's only about the number of fans who watch, period.

First, every team gets about $300 million a year from the TV deal while the salary cap is set off that and is about $225 right now.  That's why no matter how much is spent on merchandise, absolutely none of it goes towards the players, that goes towards everything else to run the franchise and why some have better stadiums, facilities, perks, etc, than others.

But I'm glad you brought up another American sport, because it kinda proves my point about why what we spend on advertiser's products doesn't matter either.

First you have to remember, that TV money is paid by the networks, not the brands.  The networks then charge the brands for ad space during the games just like they do for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. 

Those leagues all basically have the same group of advertisers, as they have basically the same target market as the NFL.  More people amongst them regularly watch, which is why the networks charge more for the ad space during NFL games than other sports.  Because TV ad space is sold on ratings, and ratings are based solely on eyeballs, not dollars spent.

So the same group of people are buying the products, the same amount of money being spent on them by said group of people... but these brands are paying significantly more for NFL ad space than in any of the other leagues by a wide margin, hence why the networks pay the NFL so much to get those rights.

Which is why for NFL games you generally only see ads from massive brands in the major categories like autos, phone, movies/tv, daily household items (your P&G stuff), as they're the brands who make so much money that it's a tiny drop in the bucket for them to spend the cost of the NFL ad space.  The NFL is huge and as a collective bring in stupid money, but the amount spent by brands there is a small fraction of their overall ad budgets.

Ford makes $170 Billion in revenue, AT&T $120, Disney $90, P&G $80 etc.... that is why those companies can afford to pay the NFL/networks good money for that ad space.  

Hence why, back to the original point.... saying the fans are paying for the player's contracts with their money spent on the products of their advertisers, is a fallacy.  Those brands are succeeding with or without the NFL advertising, they can just afford to spend the cost of the ad space that the networks charge.

If you want to say the fans interest in the game, sure, that's fair, but not their money spent directly.

Ok, you are doubling down that Ford, P&G, AT&T and Disney make their money on anything other than us consumers? They don’t need the NFL or it’s fans but they can just afford to advertise and pay a premium for no reason because they could succeed without it? That’s a terrible way to run a business by paying premiums for advertising when they don’t need to advertise. There is no fallacy, corporations make money by consumers spending money on their products. They advertise with the networks because they are in business to make money and maximize profits. Acting like companies pay for eyeballs without caring or knowing that they advertisements are actually effective makes no sense. At the end of the day, the networks pay for the rights because they make money from the advertising and the advertisers make money from consumers buying their products.

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

Ok, you are doubling down that Ford, P&G, AT&T and Disney make their money on anything other than us consumers? They don’t need the NFL or it’s fans but they can just afford to advertise and pay a premium for no reason because they could succeed without it? That’s a terrible way to run a business by paying premiums for advertising when they don’t need to advertise. There is no fallacy, corporations make money by consumers spending money on their products. They advertise with the networks because they are in business to make money and maximize profits. Acting like companies pay for eyeballs without caring or knowing that they advertisements are actually effective makes no sense. At the end of the day, the networks pay for the rights because they make money from the advertising and the advertisers make money from consumers buying their products.

I think you're getting too hung up on the brands "paying a premium" for NFL game commercial time and what kind of effect paying that premium has on their bottom line.  I also think you believe those relative costs of commercial slots to be much higher than they actually are to these brands as well.

The staggering amount the networks pay the NFL makes it seem like the brands are paying an arm and a leg for commercials 18 Sundays and Thursday/Monday nights a year, but that's just not how it works.  It's kind of like how the money college's football and basketball teams bring in allow the rest of a school's teams to even exist since they don't make money.  The networks sell commercial time in massive bundles, the ones with NFL games cost much more, that's why they pay so much to get the rights to the games, it helps them sell their "worthless" ad slots for more.  Plus, the networks get more out of the deals than just ad sales anyways, but that's besides the point.

But again, that "paying much more" is still a very relative term for the types of brands that run commercials during games......

Look at Ford for example, as I said, they had a $170 Billion a year revenue in 2022 and in that year they had a $1.4 Billion US advertising budget, that's 0.8% of their revenue for their entire US ad budget.  That budget would include their marketing departments, ad agencies, costs to produce commercials, print, radio, outdoor, online, etc ads, and all that before even getting to the costs of the ad space itself.

I've spent over a decade of my career working for Big Auto's advertising agencies and on the automotive accounts (I'm from Michigan), this is an industry that I know very well.

When you whittle it down to the amount of money these brands spend on any TV commercials, even for the NFL, it's not even a drop in the bucket compared to what they bring in each year.  It's literally probably something like 0.000001% of their revenues to run commercials during NFL games.  This again is why you generally mostly see the massive global brands during NFL games, because to them, it's barely even a rounding error to run commercials during an NFL game compared to The Office re-runs.

If the NFL was just not a thing, as if it has never existed, all of those companies would still bring in literally the exact same amount of money as they do with it in existence and them advertising during games.  Ford would still sell the exact same number of cars, McDonalds would still sell the same number of burgers, and the same amount of people would still sign up with AT&T for cell service.  They're not selling more product because the NFL is a thing and they get to advertise through it.

But that doesn't mean they aren't going to spend the money to advertise during the games though, because of how minuscule that cost is to brands of that size.  Getting the commercial time during NFL games versus not getting that time is basically the equivalent of you finding a couple pennies in your couch cushion for these brands.

As you said, brands know the metrics about who needs to see their tv ads, what channels they need to be shown on, and how often they need to run, in order to maximize profits.  So given the comparative cost to revenues, they just pay whatever the networks charge to get the time/channel slots they want.

So if the NFL was never a thing, they would still get their commercials seen by the right people, the right amount of times, because their research has shown they need to in order to maximize profits, just like you say, we agree there.  The only difference is without the NFL's existence, they might save a rounding errors worth of their TV commercial budget.

In essence, the NFL exists as it does right now because both the league and TV Networks are smart and greedy.  They know how much they can help the other make and know they can do so because the people paying them make so much substantially more themselves.  All because of the number of fans who watch the NFL, but in no way because of how much money those people spend on those products BECAUSE of the NFL or the advertisements during the game.

Edited September 7, 2023 by tukafan21

[DanteNoHall]

We haven't been to the playoffs since Burns was drafted unfortunately he's not worth Bosa money 

[tukafan21]

Edited September 7, 2023 by tukafan21

[SmittysLawnGuy]

Late to the party, whatever he was even asking for yesterday, just went up.

[mrcompletely11]

9 hours ago, panthers55 said:

The myth is not that there is a cap. Of course there is a cap. The myth is that you can't sign the players you want or need because of the cap. What I said was that there are many ways to manipulate the cap so it isn't worth all the angst that everyone here gives it.  Look at Hill as an example. You really think Kansas City couldn't have kept Hill if they really wanted to? Of course they could but it might mean coaching up some cheap rookies and UDFAs instead of JAG vets who cost 5 times as much and will still be backups. 

The myth is that the cap, if it 250 million, is all you can spend and it is the same for everyone.  Not true at all. Cash over cap through signing bonuses and restructures allows a team to spend 10s of millions more that gets prorated. Add on some voidable years and incentives and you can fit most any salary you want under the salary cap without having to gut your roster in the process. It favors owners like Tepper who have deep pockets and want to spend the money to bring a SB to Charlotte one day. They can spend cash over cap to get players just like he spent big bucks for coaches but didn't have to worry about a salary cap or have to disclose the salaries.

This is so wrong I am not even sure where to begin

[hepcat]

I would assume the Panthers regret not trading him 

[SmittysLawnGuy]

And for all you idiots who say it's not your money why do you care let's break it down for you. If I have $10 to give out in my neighborhood football league and give $9 to the best one, where do you think players ranked 2-10 are going? Somewhere else not to share $1 Sorry I had to say that, so many buffoons here saying why do you care, its not your money. Totally ignorant to how this plays out.

 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I would assume the Panthers regret not trading him 

Fitt fuged up.  Clear as day now.   

[SmittysLawnGuy]

Expect Burns to sit 7 weeks, play the last 9, get tagged next year. This breaks my heart. As much as I love him he is not worth 30+

I mean I got my mans jersey so don't think I'm a hater. What he obviously wants is not realistic.

Edited September 7, 2023 by SmittysLawnGuy