FanNation

Big Ben68 said 03/31, 11:56 PM
Paul Allen is the owner of the Seahawks. Now when I think of the salary cap being removed I picture the franchise's monetary gains as what is being used to sign free agents, draft picks, and coaches NOT how much the owner makes in his/her other endeavors, which would make the Washington Redskins the most viable for top franchise. They've been ranked as the most valuable franchise for 10 consecutive years at $1.4 to 1.5 billion (followed by the Dallas Cowboys). The market the 'Hawks play in is an incredible small one compared to Washington and Dallas. Teams like the Bills, 'Hawks, Jags, Packers, etc. would not be nearly as successful if the cap were removed due to the fact that those franchises make significantly less per year as do the Redskins.

What I'm trying to get at here, Hemo, is that the cap would then be on whatever the franchise itself makes from selling tickets, merchandise, etc instead of what the owner can pour into signing players. The NFL would, inevitably, create guidelines to a 'no cap' league because 'parity' is everything in the NFL. Teams would end up playing by the MLB salary cap rules, whether loosely or strongly, and use a team's profits as its cap.

Big Ben68 said 04/01, 01:29 AM
Ah ha, I said COMPARED to Washington and Dallas it is smaller in terms of the team support. The Redskins benefit from Maryland, Virginia, D.C., West Virginia, Delaware, and pieces of many other southern states. The Redskins are by far a more supported team than the Seahawks, so if you want to talk fan support we can...I KNOW I'd win.

Actually I would think that the majority of the owners would vote yes to no cap because then they could actually go and sign almost as they please even if it were under the restriction that you could only spend what your team makes; this can even things out between the small and the big market teams.

On to Allen: he puts most of his attention and love into his basketball team, the Trail Blazers, than he does the Seahawks. He is usually in the middle of the action with his basketball team, but...he is, strangely, almost never seen when dealing with the Seahawks. I highly doubt he would pour BILLIONS into something he less passionate about than his true love. He'd prefer to put money into the Trail Blazers and watch them climb the ranks of the NBA to win a championship. He'd get far more from that than if his Seahawks came away with a SB ring.

Big Ben68 said 04/01, 02:28 AM
If there is no cap then no player would have a problem coming to Washington and as of now NONE have a problem signing here anyway. Paul Allen has even ADMITTED that he is far more hands on and interested in his basketball team (November 07 SI). That right there tells me he WOULDN'T be willing to put countless billions into the Seahawks. The Redskins also did NOT opt out of Archuleta's contract, they TRADED him away to the Bears.

You saying a player has never requested a trade from Seattle in 40 years is a FLAT OUT lie. No franchise in ANY sport could go that long without some player becoming disgruntled or dissatisfied with his contract and begin demanding a trade.

The best way for the NFL to safely remove the cap and keep the "parity" at least somewhat level is to set the spending restrictions at Franchise net worth, possibly putting luxury taxes and the like on signings of a certain amount. The NFL can help keep its small market teams like Green Bay, Buffalo, and Jacksonville alive and well if they let the money those teams make their 'personal' salary cap. Most of those teams are small spenders anyway.

So, like I've said many times: cap should be the team's net worth.