Will Paul Allen spend big in an uncapped NFL?
by Nick Andron on Apr 7, 2009 12:40 PM PDT
Email
PrintI was reading a post about whether we'll have enough cap space to sign a bunch of rookies to large contracts, and BrianL made a comment about the possibility of an uncapped season relieving that pressure.
But would it?
If the NFL succumbed to an uncapped (and thus "unfloored") model, it would be up to the owners (I think) as to how much money they'd be willing to shell out to their team's players.
How would the Paul Allen proceed?
Is he going to be a NY Yankees type owner, that'll pour in as much money as needed, or will he be a Florida Marlins owner and set a cap of 13 cents and an empty pack of chew for the whole team?
It's interesting to think where the Hawks will shake out amongst others in the league.
Thoughts?
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think Paul Allen would be closer to Marlins than Yankees
Yankees can afford to spend that much money because their market makes that much money. Seattle unfortunately does not, so I would see us being more stingy in free agency, given we are not going to be all Ralph Wilson or Glazer but it is all relative to our market. The possible exception if our market enlarges and say the Chinese love the Seahawks and we get TV contracts out there but that is pretty improbable.
How can you forget about Chong?
And if we can get a Lee or a Kim, we might as well be the Shanghai Seahawks.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 7, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's Seattle
Minus the T’s, I like it!
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
Well, with net worth fluctuating a lot lately, I coudl be wrong
but chances are if you’re a top 5 richest person in the world, you’re the richest owner of a pro sports franchise.
also he's a businessman,
and winning makes money. i bet that the cowboys, redskins, and raiders go buck wild and that the hawks are in sort of a second tier of teams that continue to spend at around where the cap would be. if he was worried about pinching pennies he could be spending at the salary floor right now.
As far as markets go
Seattle’s isn’t too bad. I agree with cro-mag; I would expect the Seahawks to be much like the Mariners – not in the top 3-4 of payroll, but within the top 10-15.
I get the feeling that Allen is a “value for money” kind of guy. If you can find a guy that’s undervalued, then sign him up, even if you have to lay down a lot of cash to do it.
He's also a schoolboy at heart.
The guy shelled out of pocket for the stadium. I see him as being somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards getting it done and signing whomever it takes.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
He did lose a ridiculously high percentage of his $ last year.
Microsoft cofounder has lost 36% of his fortune in the last 12 months.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Paul-Allen_1217.html
He still has plenty, though.
Fact?
I mean, It’s not like Bill Gates is living in a shack or anything…
Find me a billionaire without 4+ different homes and then maybe I’ll agree with you.
Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
Richest man in the world last year, I’m not sure where he is this year. Lives on his $100,000 a year salary in a house he bought for $30,000.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 7, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but presumably
he’s winning at monopoly. If you own all the properties and have hotels on all the squares, it’s going to be hard to lose.
He wasn't afraid to spend with the Blazers.
The teams Trader Bob put together were a train wreck, but Allen was more than willing to let him raid his pockets to do it. The current Blazers have cut payroll – but I believe that has more to do with a new GM seeking to clean house and rebuild with young talent instead of any directive from Allen to save $$. And Allen was willing to pay the cost to get Nate down there.
With the ‘Hawks he’s been willing to spend big in the areas not covered by the salary cap – coaching and management, and of course the new VMAC. He’s spent the money to make sure the Sounders FC have got off to the right start.
As a general rule, I hardly think Allen’s a miser. He spends well on his teams and a lot of philanthropic stuff.
If the NFL became no salary cap, I have a gut feeling that Allen would be the best kind of owner – not a media hound or meddlesome like Snyder and Jones, but willing to let his football brain-trust make the decisions and giving them the resources to do it.
They cut salary to get under the salary cap so as to acquire free agents in the off season.
But he was OK with trading for Steve Francis just to buy out his contact as well as being a large amount into the luxury tax as well. He also has been alright with spending money to get talent on draft day.
Jose Lopez roxxorz my boxxorz.
54!
They've been willing buyers of Phoenix's first round picks if I remember right
Which, completely off topic, is a ridiculous practice the NBA needs to squash.
Though he spent alot on the Blazers
He learned from that mistake, that is, the Blazers weren’t all that great that year. At the end of the day I think Allen and Ruskell have alot in common, in that they really value the player as a human and how good his character is. Cap or no cap that will always be here.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
I think that's the experience that will make him better.
Unlike the Snyders, Joneses, or Steinbrenners out there, he seems to have realized that spending money just because you can isn’t a guarantee, and can sometimes hurt more than it helps.
So I think he’ll be willing to let his designated football people run things how they want and to try and build the best team. But if those same people tell him they absolutely need a player or have to spend a big amount of money to do it, he’s more than willing to write the check.
Didn't Allen publicly state that he loves the NBA more than the NFL, and that while
he loves the Seahawks, he mainly bought the team to ensure Seattle kept a football franchise?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Indeed he did.
Which is why I’m not salivating over the thought of Allen in an uncapped season – he’ll play conservative, as usual.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 8, 2009 1:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Allen is the one that spent so much on Qwest field though
He put alot of effort into making it one of (if not the best) places to play football in the country.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
I think that might have been more of a requisite to keeping the team in Seattle.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 8, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
It didn't have to be engineered to be the loudest field...ever.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
Paul Allen might do it for a year or two, with the idea that it might help them win a Super Bowl immediately.
But if the team’s revenue doesn’t catch up with is spending, it won’t last very long. In order for that to happen, I would say that it would have to require them at least making it to the Super Bowl.
I don’t see it happening, as the Seahawks are typically not in the top 10 in the league in revenue. No businessman like himself is stupid enough to spend more than he pulls in for a lengthy period of time.
Weez the juice!!
Allen isn't a typical businessman
Lets face it – he was very “right time, right place” with Microsoft. His subsequent business ventures haven’t exactly flown up the Fortune 500 list – in fact, I think the majority of them have posted losses or declared bankruptcy at various points. .
I get the impression the Microsoft money allows him to be a “hobbyist” and not be too concerned about the accounts running dry. He’s taken operating losses on the Blazers every year he’s owned them. Besides, I think the real profit in owning a pro sports franchise isn’t in the yearly operations, it’s in the long-term appreciation of the franchise.
Of course, it’s pretty easy for me to sit at my desk and mentally spend Paul Allen’s money. I definitely don’t think he’s outspend everybody. But like was said earlier, I think we’d be more in line with the M’s – not the richest, but definitely enough to compete, as long as the proper personnel people were in place and not frittering it away.
Agreed totally.
Just because Allen is rich doesn’t mean he’s a businessman at heart. What do you think they brought crazy Steve Ballmer in for?
I also think he won’t spend like crazy. You can be the richest person in the world, but you’re not going to build a lavish apartment building if the fixed cost and the subsequent future costs outweighh the expected future revenue, even if you always wanted to build a really nice building.
I don't think Allen would ever wheel-and-deal money like a Steinbrenner does
but I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that the Seahawks would be one of the top 5-8 teams in the NFL in terms of spending in this hypothetically uncapped scenario.
That's true.
But it’s been over 3 decades since his “right time, right place” situation occured. I am sure that since then, he has picked up a lot of tips about being a businessman. I think he would be smart and spend to the point where he can realistically get at least a 90% return in revenue that he spent on player personnel.
I’m not sure how much the Seahawks pull in on a year-to-year basis in revenue, but to compete with the Redskins, Cowboys, and other big spenders, the Seahawks would have to set their sights on spending a possible minimum of $150 million a year. A complicating factor that could be prohibitive is the fact that the economy is pretty bad right now.
Still, that doesn’t mean that you’re not incorrect about him being a non-typical businessman. He might just do it. I mean, I don’t know him, so I can’t give an educated response on how much he’d spend in an uncapped NFL.
The real profit may be in the long-term operation of a franchise, but wouldn’t you try to turn up a profit on a year to year basis? I know I would.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 8, 2009 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Even if he wanted to spend $1 billion he couldn't
Link – Uncapped rules for 2011
5. A player’s base salary can’t raise more than 30 percent from one year to the next.
The same is true for lowering the salary. If you want to sign a guy for $10 million, his salary can be no less than $7 million the next season.
There are tons of other rules, such as if the Seahawks are one of the top five teams they cannot sign a free agent until one of their’s signs with a new team.
Well that's good to know
So a team’s total salary can’t raise by more than 30%, so at least won’t have complete disparity in the first few years of the uncapped model.
Hnm, good info.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 8, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
But that's just *base* salary, right?
I checked that link and I didn’t see anything about bonuses, etc.
What’s to stop theoretically-insane Paul Allen from giving Tim Ruskell a $1 billion signing bonus fund?
A 30% raise or a 30% cut in your weekly checks doesn’t seem like such a big deal if you already got $38 million up front.
Yacht.
Yatch sounds really dirty to me. Like, Paul Allen has a huge yatch.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 9, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
and maybe Paul Allen would like you to take a ride on his huge yatch
that doesn’t sound dirty at all, like two gentlemen out on a stroll
I was thinking the opposite.
Like Bill Gates likes to stick his yacht in Paul Allen’s yatch.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 9, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 9, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
1. Yatch
the shortened form of the word biatch (B-Yatch)
‘That yatch thinks shes all that.’
I prefer def. 2: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yatch
Irrelevent to me
I think if the NFL chooses to do away with the salary cap it will spell the beginning of the league’s decline. I love baseball for the BASEBALL, but I fucking hate the way they run their business. The fact that the NFL is seriously considering doing away with the salary cap with a recession staring them dumb in the face is bordering on offensive.
In addition to that, why would you take the most profitable of the team sport leagues and make a change commonly labeled as one of the reasons for the decline of the American Pastime? The NFL is a stalwart goose, so you may never be able to kill it, but you certainly can molest it to the point that freaks out and instead of golden eggs it ocassionally shits in your hand.
If the NFL goes uncapped, I will likely stop watching football; I really hope the NFL owners and players aren’t this fucking stupid.
Agreed.
Same with increasing the regular season for more revenue.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 10, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
