Jets spending alot less in 2010...Why?

[KINGDIRK]

Per the Post's Mark Cannizzaro: "As of today, the Jets are on the books to pay out about $104 million in salary in 2010, including Ferguson's new money and the $5.25 million they owe departed guard Alan Faneca. That's $24 million less than the $128 million salary cap in 2009, a number that likely would have gone up to $135 million in 2010 had there been a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in place and no 2011 lockout looming".

I've looked around the internet (DN, Post, ESPN, CNNSI, PFW) and I cant seem to find an answer as to exactly why the Jets are are spending relatively less money. Is Woody hurting for cash and if so will this fiscal behavior continue?

I can see not locking up Revis b/c he is under our control for 3 more years - but why not lock up Mangold now then deal with Revis and Harris next season once we know the new CBA regulations?

Thoughts?

[visajets]

PSL sales and the overall economy. Woody Johnson is rich for a reason.

[Maxman]

It just has to be stadium related.

[slats]

Cannizzaro would have you believe that the Jets are all alone in spending less, but the reality is that the whole league is spending a lot less while they wait for a new CBA. Not that the salary cap is likely to go down, but pretending that it might is a great excuse for putting away the checkbook this year.

RFA signings were down, despite the largest RFA class ever. UFA signings were down. Teams aren't extending their own players.

It's a league-wide phenomenon.

And Woody's not only cheap, but he can't sell his PSL's.

[#27TheDominator]

Cannizzaro would have you believe that the Jets are all alone in spending less, but the reality is that the whole league is spending a lot less while they wait for a new CBA. Not that the salary cap is likely to go down, but pretending that it might is a great excuse for putting away the checkbook this year.

RFA signings were down, despite the largest RFA class ever. UFA signings were down. Teams aren't extending their own players.

It's a league-wide phenomenon.

And Woody's not only cheap, but he can't sell his PSL's.

Exactly, plus the Jets were specifically restricted from signing FAs.

The simple reason is because they can. They are spending less despite adding Cromartie, Holmes, Tomlinson, Taylor and Poole.

[Bx Jet Fan]

Anyone have a link to a sight that lists all teams salary situation? It would be interesting to see the 34 teams that could bid on Harris and what their cap situation is for next year. Same thing with Mangold and teams that will need centers.

[El Gringo Loco]

Anyone have a link to a sight that lists all teams salary situation? It would be interesting to see the 34 teams that could bid on Harris and what their cap situation is for next year. Same thing with Mangold and teams that will need centers.

Mr. Sperm would be the one to ask. I think that there only 32 teams in the NFL.

[Bx Jet Fan]

3-4 Defense Senor Loco.

[El Gringo Loco]

3-4 Defense Senor Loco.

Doh! Gotcha, my apologies.

[bitonti]

please remember this when people bring up the cap uncertainty as to why revis isn't signed

the Jets are basically 20 Mil under the old cap... the cap that has never ever gone down

[Larz]

please remember this when people bring up the cap uncertainty as to why revis isn't signed

the Jets are basically 20 Mil under the old cap... the cap that has never ever gone down

this

Definitely true, though I believe he took most of the signing bonus figures into account. My own estimates have the Jets paying about 108M in cash this year not including what they will pay Wilson. That is down from the last two years which were both close to 120M, but the Jets had more restrictions on them this year and this was by far the thinnest free agent crop in ages.

As for the cap numbers he is way way way off. If the cap remained in place the Jets top 51 charges including the salary cuts and money owed Faneca is right around 128M. The assumption that the cap would have been 135M is just pure nonsense. Assuming that the cap grew the same it has since the last CBA it would have been around 129M. Making that assumption is probably a poor one since revenues seemed to be down around the league and it likely would have grown a bit less than the norm.

Cannizaro is taking the Jets salary cap number from 2009 and just adding 6 million onto it. The problem with that is that the Jets 2009 number included an extra 1.4 million pushed into it from cap maneuvers made in 2009 and a cap adjustment due to it being the final capped year of around 5 million. The real cap was only 123M, so assuming normal growth we would only hot 129M in 2010. So the Jets internal accounting has them basically right at the cap this year which is where they want to be to avoid any potential penalties that the league could consider in the new CBA if there is gross abuse of the uncapped season.

[villain_the_foe]

please remember this when people bring up the cap uncertainty as to why revis isn't signed

the Jets are basically 20 Mil under the old cap... the cap that has never ever gone down

AY! Dont you dare relate this to Revis. Remember, giving Revis a blockbuster contract will "destroy" the franchise.

Seriously though, This is great news. We have financial options. Outside of the Revis situation, Edwards and Holmes are FA's next year. We have to lock atleast one of them up. I actually say we should lock both of them up.

[Integrity28]

Per the Post's Mark Cannizzaro: "As of today, the Jets are on the books to pay out about $104 million in salary in 2010, including Ferguson's new money and the $5.25 million they owe departed guard Alan Faneca. That's $24 million less than the $128 million salary cap in 2009, a number that likely would have gone up to $135 million in 2010 had there been a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in place and no 2011 lockout looming".

I've looked around the internet (DN, Post, ESPN, CNNSI, PFW) and I cant seem to find an answer as to exactly why the Jets are are spending relatively less money. Is Woody hurting for cash and if so will this fiscal behavior continue?

I can see not locking up Revis b/c he is under our control for 3 more years - but why not lock up Mangold now then deal with Revis and Harris next season once we know the new CBA regulations?

Thoughts?

I have to guess they are preparing for the reality that they have drafted so many valuable players the past 4 years that they know that keeping them starts yesterday.

[Greenranger]

With the current 80 man roster the Jets owe a total of $120,668,764 in salary. That will go down between 10-15 million once the final 53 man roster is made.

[visajets]

It just has to be stadium related.

Max remember the stadium is funded by 2 teams. If the JETS were building it alone id buy that excuse.

[flgreen]

Max remember the stadium is funded by 2 teams. If the JETS were building it alone id buy that excuse.

This is a valid point. What would be going on if the Jets had gone it alone in the WSS

[Klecko73isGod]

please remember this when people bring up the cap uncertainty as to why revis isn't signed

the Jets are basically 20 Mil under the old cap... the cap that has never ever gone down

And the cap that is all but guaranteed to go down once the new CBA is signed. In all liklihood, the cap will decrease by about 10-15% once the new CBA goes into effect and pretty much every team is spending less money this year because of that.

Stop acting like this is unique to the Jets. I know that's a narrative you are desperate to advance but it just doesn't ring true.

[bitonti]

And the cap that is all but guaranteed to go down once the new CBA is signed. In all liklihood, the cap will decrease by about 10-15% once the new CBA goes into effect and pretty much every team is spending less money this year because of that.

Stop acting like this is unique to the Jets. I know that's a narrative you are desperate to advance but it just doesn't ring true.

i've seen people bring the housing market into this... as if people who thought the housing market would never go down are as foolish as those who thought the cap would never go down.

the difference is that, historically year over year the housing market has had periods of decline. It _has_ happened.

The salary cap has literally never gone down. And if the owners want 2 more regular season games it's not going down. if you hear news that the tv contract with Directv and the networks (each worth billions) gone down then maybe the cap will fall. But revenues across the board have always gone up... despite the economy. The NFL economy is far healthier than the actual economy.

[Bleedin Green]

Since when are salaries the only thing that count against a salary cap? If we want to have a make believe salary cap then we should consider the make believe cap implications of non-salary related cap hits in the year. Big ole fail for Mr. Cannizzaro

[MadBacker Prime]

Not knowing what the future holds must be a big part of it.

Woody has said that the stadium and the team are two different budgets, I know that's either true or completely BS.

I really do think the absence of CBA is a huge hindrance and only makes signing these big name players that much more difficult.

David Harris is entering the final year of his contract and will earn $900,000. It's been said he is looking for a deal close to Bart Scott's, which is about a average salary of 8 million with bonuses included in that average.

David is a restricted free agent after this season, and he did have better numbers then Scott last year, but in large part to Scott and Rex guiding him.

Bart had 92 combined total tackles, 1 sack, and 1 PD.

David had 127 combined total tackles, 5.5 sacks, 3 PD's, and 2 int's.

Even being cheap, if our core 4 average 10 million a year that is 40 million a year for 4 players. That leaves 84 million if the cap were 124 in 2011 for the remaining 48 roster spots. That might be tough-

[Klecko73isGod]

i've seen people bring the housing market into this... as if people who thought the housing market would never go down are as foolish as those who thought the cap would never go down.

the difference is that, historically year over year the housing market has had periods of decline. It _has_ happened.

The salary cap has literally never gone down. And if the owners want 2 more regular season games it's not going down. if you hear news that the tv contract with Directv and the networks (each worth billions) gone down then maybe the cap will fall. But revenues across the board have always gone up... despite the economy. The NFL economy is far healthier than the actual economy.

Pretty slick attempt at obfuscation there bit. The problem with your little analogy there is that the NFL salary cap has existed for all of 15 years. Pretty small sample size compared to the housing market, for which we have data for over 100 years.

The economy was good for the first 12 of those 15 years and during the last three they had ever increasing money from the last TV deal.

The problem however is not with the economy, its about greed. The owners want to base the cap number off of a lower percentage of revenue which will in all liklihood cause the cap to decrease. Not to mention that economic indicators suggest strongly that the next TV deal will be the first one that doesn't top the last one.

So while we all know you love to sell this notion that Woody Johnson is cash strapped the reality of the situation definitely suggests otherwise. Please explain why spending is down across the board in the NFL bit. Are all 32 owners strapped for cash?

[Biggs]

i've seen people bring the housing market into this... as if people who thought the housing market would never go down are as foolish as those who thought the cap would never go down.

the difference is that, historically year over year the housing market has had periods of decline. It _has_ happened.

The salary cap has literally never gone down. And if the owners want 2 more regular season games it's not going down. if you hear news that the tv contract with Directv and the networks (each worth billions) gone down then maybe the cap will fall. But revenues across the board have always gone up... despite the economy. The NFL economy is far healthier than the actual economy.

TV add revenue is dropping like a stone. While the NFL may still draw a huge pool a good portion of the TV adds are TV networks promoting their own shows through a captive NFL audience. If these shows ad revenues continue to drop those adds promoting their shows are worth less money.

Up until now the networks have been willing to lose money on NFL games because they get the opportunity to showcase their lineups. As their lineups are worth less and less money it will be interesting to see if they will continue to be willing to lose substantial amounts of money on the NFL by bidding up contracts with the NFL to promote those shows? My guess is as add revenue continues to drop, the value of captive audiences to advertise shows that add revenues continue to shrink on will be worth less and less.

[bitonti]

Please explain why spending is down across the board in the NFL bit.

collusion

biggs and kleck until the tv contracts actually go down the owners have no proof to speculate that they will. It's all ever only gone up. not to mention new revenue streams like people watching games on their smart phones.

[Biggs]

collusion

biggs and kleck until the tv contracts actually go down the owners have no proof to speculate that they will. It's all ever only gone up. not to mention new revenue streams like people watching games on their smart phones.

Until you sell your house, refinace it or get it appraised you don't have proof that the value actually went down.

The Stadium is worth less, the franchise is worth less the Networks that broadcast the games are worth less and the disposable income of the fans has gone down. Stadiums aren't selling out Bit. Franchise values are down.

If Macy's waited to cut inventory until their consumers actually stopped spending, they would be gone right now. The reasons companies are making money right now is they cut the bottom line before their orders stopped. Top line growth right now isn't happening in most of the world except apparently in your fantasy land.

[Klecko73isGod]

collusion

biggs and kleck until the tv contracts actually go down the owners have no proof to speculate that they will. It's all ever only gone up. not to mention new revenue streams like people watching games on their smart phones.

You're using an incredibly small sample period where the number continually increased based primarily on a strong period of economic growth. Well that is no longer the case. In the last three years, the economy has tanked for the first time in the NFL free agency/salary cap era.

Assuming that the cap is going to increase again based solely on the fact that it only ever has is awfully short sighted and doesn't reflect the economic realities at all.

If it doesn't go down it won't necessarily increase, if anything it will stagnate for several years until economic growth catches up.

There is also the FACT that the owners want to base the cap number off of different parameters which include a lower percentage of the total revenue. If the cap is based on less money it will be lower. This isn't a difficult equation and I don't buy the collusion claims.

You can't make long term, large $$$ committments to players without knowing what the cap will be moving forward. That's just common sense. Brick's deal got done because it is cap friendly regardless of the cap figure moving forward. You can't say the same for the type of deal Revis is asking for.

Revis' camp is also making a very naive assumption that there will be no penalties for teams taking advantage of the uncapped year to throw big signing bonuses at players that won't count against future cap numbers. The negotiations have been ongoing. I bet its safe to say that something like exactly that has been discussed.

[bitonti]

Assuming that the cap is going to increase again based solely on the fact that it only ever has is awfully short sighted and doesn't reflect the economic realities at all.

the dow went up something like 500 points in the last week. GDP is growing.

i disagree with the initial assumption that the economy is a game changer

it's volatile but in the end still growing

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

also should be noted that the owners want 2 more regular season games... no way they get that _and_ less player salaries. no way in heck.

[Klecko73isGod]

the dow went up something like 500 points in the last week. GDP is growing.

i disagree with the initial assumption that the economy is a game changer

it's volatile but in the end still growing

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

You've got to be kidding me. You cherry pick my post and THIS is what you choose to respond with and how you respond?

Seriously?

[KSJets]

You've got to be kidding me. You cherry pick my post and THIS is what you choose to respond with and how you respond?

Seriously?

Remember, the guy you're arguing with was hellbent on trying to prove that DeWayne Robertson wasn't a bust, so does this really surprise you?

[ECURB]

The JETS are being careful because if the league cuts the cap by the 18% mark swirling around they will be right there... if not over...

[Biggs]

You've got to be kidding me. You cherry pick my post and THIS is what you choose to respond with and how you respond?

Seriously?

I think Bit makes a good argument. The Dow is only down 30% since Revis signed his first contract.

[bitonti]

my point isn't that the economy is awesome... just that it's a mixed bag. There's good and bad news. It's not all bad news. We aren't in a depression.

[MadBacker Prime]

Well according to http://www.nyjetscap.com/salary.html

our current payroll is closer to $110 million.

I contacted him and was told most reporters only account for the money in the salary and what the actual cap value is.

I'm leaning toward the 110 figure being more accurate. I also asked about future salary cap and most owners want a cutback in the cap and from the current 6% annual cap increase.

$125 million is a guesstimate of what the 2011 cap will be.

So $15 million to sign the core 4 in 2010 is not happening.

Here is a list of the 2011 free agents.....

Unrestricted-

Shaun Ellis

Nick Mangold

Steve Weatherford

Brodney Pool

Tony Richardson

Braylon Edwards

Wayne Hunter

Restricted

David Harris

Aundrae Allison

Chauncey Washington

Robert Turner

Jason Davis

Nick Folk

Antonio Cromartie

Rodrique Wright

Lance Laury

David Clowney

Santonio Holmes

Eric Smith

Brad Smith

James Ihedigbo

Drew Coleman

Kellen Clemens

Exclusive Rights

Marquice Cole

Bo Smith

TJ Conley

Josh Mauga

Larry Taylor

Dan Gay

Danny Woodhead

Britt Davis

Matt Kroul

Ty Steinkuhler

Michael Turkovich

Robby Felix

Marlon Davis

Simi Toeaina

Some other notables besides the core 4-

Ellis is likely a gonner, so that is minus 3.3 million, T-Rich prolly gone-minus 1 million, Cro, who knows what will happen but he's currently making 1.7 million.

Kellen, hopefully gone this year is at 1.1 million, Brad Smith who I love and might have a big year depending on his playing time is making 1.7 million, James Ihedigbo another we'll see is making 1.1 million, and Eric Smith is making close to 1.2 million.

If we total these salaries up it comes to 11.1 million that could come off the books in 2011, or some of these players could be getting a raise.

Since there is no cap now we should sign Mangold, Revis, and get Harris done next year.

[bitonti]

let me add another factoid:

the tim tebow rookie jersey is the highest selling rookie jersey ever (since they kept track of this statistic)

legions of chuckleheads buying orange alternate jerseys of the Broncos' emergency quarterback.

does this sound like an economic environment in which a 20 % salary cut is justified?

[Biggs]

my point isn't that the economy is awesome... just that it's a mixed bag. There's good and bad news. It's not all bad news. We aren't in a depression.

The Jets being a tennant have been pre-sold out with a solid waiting list for years. They go out and build one of the best facilities in the country. They aren't sold out and are actively discountint prices that was part of their plan to finance going forward. I'll bet from the NY Jets point of view they are 8 to 9 figures below plan. Significant? Bad news? Mixed bag? I can tell you one thing companies like the Jets and almost every other of the 32 teams aren't raising salaries significantly in that kind of environment.

The rich baby boomers who have been behind the growth of the NFL since the mid 60's have a problem, they haven't funded their pensions to support their life style as they begin to retire. That means they aren't going to games, buying shirts for their grandchildren and they are going to cut back on their gifting to their kids. You can't spend what you don't have.

The economy may well grow again, after all it contracted a significant amount in the last couple of years. Whether that growth will be enough to properly finance our liabilities going forward to start allowing companies and individuals to leverage their finances to afford things like PSL's, season tickets and official NFL jersey's is still a question. That's one of the reasons the league is drawing a line in the sand with the players. If the league actually thought they could continue to inflate their earning year after year they would have no reason not to infalte the player salaries with it.

[bitonti]

Whether that growth will be enough to properly finance our liabilities going forward to start allowing companies and individuals to leverage their finances to afford things like PSL's, season tickets and official NFL jersey's is still a question.

not for the tim tebow fans

as for the building... its just a big shiny boondoggle without Darrelle Revis... and players of his ilk

there is no Jets business without the players. Imagine Woody was selling the Jets tomorrow. What price would he get if he traded Revis first? Probably lower than if he had him long term. REvis is an asset, more valuable than the building.