Who needs to go? - Front Office / Coaching Staff

[ice grillin you]

Over the past 5 years only the Skins have paid more money to players than the Eagles. If you look at the ACTUAL money they put out year in year out the Eagles are usually second. They have so much unused cap space because of the loophole Banner created. Phreak or MURP posted an article a few years ago that explained it.

even if this is true why wont they use that loophole AND spend the rest of their cap money on players like the skins do

they are going into each and every year with tens of millions of unspent dollars....where is that money going?...lower ticket prices for fans....free parking for fans?...free agents?...an audible radio broadcast of the game in stadium bathrooms?...

their offseason last year consisted of mike mcmahon....i mean think about that.....their entire offseason was spent on mike mcmahon...thats unfathomable

theres a reason they arent spending that 20+ million they have on the cap

im not saying sal pal is right but id like to know what that reason is

[SD_Eagle5]

You know their philosophy is to build through the draft (not saying they're great at it) and to identify young players and spend on them early to save money down the line. If free agency and the Skins specifically have taught us anything its that building through free agency doesn't work. If the Eagles are spending more money a year on salary than 31 other teams than how is that a problem with debt? They don't blow their wad every year because that money creates cap space for the next year. Again, I'm not saying I don't want them to sign free agents, I thought a guy like Wil Witherspoon, Julian Peterson, or Rocky Bernard would have been solid signings for this defense, but to say they're cheap when it comes to salaries is totally inaccurate when they shell out more dough per year than 31 other teams.

[Cerevant]

If the Eagles owe so much money and are in such dire financial straits, why are they consistently ranked by Forbes as one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568057


Eagles worth: $1,024B. . . that's B as in BILLION, folks.

The actual article is much more useful.  Check out the cryptic "TRPS" - wins vs. salary.  Except for last year, the Eagles have exceeded the average number of wins for the amount of money they spend.  Really good stuff there.

In short, the $1B is how much they could sell the team for, not how much cash they have laying around.  Their debt/value ratio is 33%, meaning the team is still $300M in debt vs. the $1B worth.

[ice grillin you]

you still havent answered me as to where the unspent salary cap money is going


You know their philosophy is to build through the draft

no one is saying trade draft picks...just spend money on free agents

If the Eagles are spending more money a year on salary than 31 other teams than how is that a problem with debt?

because there is 30 other teams in the league spending more money on the cap....could that be a problem because of their debt?

They don't blow their wad every year because that money creates cap space for the next year

cap space that they dont come close to utilizing

[SD_Eagle5]

The Eagles have MORE money to spend under the cap hence they spend more money and have more available cap space. Why don't they spend it? My guess is because of control in case they want to re-sign a player to a long term deal or see a free agent they really like. I'm not saying they shouldn't spend more on free agents and use more cap space, because this offseason I was very irritated that they had so much available cap space and that they sat on their hands while good players signed elsewhere. All that I am saying here is that when the Eagles spend more money on player salaries than all but one team its hard to criticize them.

[ice grillin you]

My guess is because of control in case they want to re-sign a player to a long term deal or see a free agent they really like

in other words the unspent money goes towards their bottom line

thats all i was looking for here

[SD_Eagle5]

How does it go towards the 'bottom line' when they still spend more per year than 31 other teams? I guess 31 other teams that spend to the cap limit but put less out on player salaries are in debt too?

[Cerevant]

Both teams are just mucking with the numbers - taterskins stay under the cap by restructuring and giving new bonuses every year, while the Eagles spread their money over more players, and hide the salary cap stuff in the NLTBE incentives and all that other BS.  Which works better?  You can blame the management of the taterskins for their failures, but who else is out there spending like idiots and actually succeeds?

[ice grillin you]

How does it go towards the 'bottom line'


because they have ten of millions of dollars they ARE NOT SPENDING EACH YEAR...and by not spending that money they positively effect their bottom line

just like they sign undeserving players to long term deals not because its good for the team but because it gives them cost certainty

[SD_Eagle5]

They sign young players to long term deals so they can save money in the future. Like I said, I'd like to see them spend more of their available cap space, you won't get an argument from me there.

[Cerevant]

because they have ten of millions of dollars they ARE NOT SPENDING EACH YEAR...and by not spending that money they positively effect their bottom line

I'm curious about that - has anyone seen what the cap difference is after the season is complete?  I know there is a lot of in season statistics, but I've never seen what the cap looks like after the accounting year is done, when all those incentives finally count against this year's cap or next.

[ice grillin you]

You can blame the management of the taterskins for their failures, but who else is out there spending like idiots and actually succeeds?

i think there is an area between the taterskins and being 20 mil under the cap and your offseason consists of mike macmahon

when your team sucks i can see being way under the cap because why go crazy spending on free agents when in all likely hood you will get nowhere by doing so...so you build up money under the cap rebuild thru the draft and then when the time is right stike the fa market hard

but when youre the eagles and made four straight nfl championship games and STILL are way under the cap its inexcusable...and there has to be a larger reason why...and all im asking is could their debt that sal pal talks about be the reason?

[Cerevant]

but when youre the eagles and made four straight nfl championship games and STILL are way under the cap its inexcusable...

You do realize how stupid that sounds, right?  I'm sure there are Packers fans and Lions fans who would give their left nut to have their team go to the NFCCG 4 times in a row.

Really - how many of those losses can be attributed to lack of talent, and not piss poor coaching?

and there has to be a larger reason why...and all im asking is could their debt that sal pal talks about be the reason?

Again, I'm not convinced that when all is said and done they are really that far below the cap.  But to answer your question, yes - every penny the Eagles use to pay off debt increases the value of the franchise.

[ice grillin you]

You do realize how stupid that sounds, right?  I'm sure there are Packers fans and Lions fans who would give their left nut to have their team go to the NFCCG 4 times in a row.

i could give a rats ass about what packer and lion fans think...and id give my left nut for a city championship far more tha theyd wish for a nfcc...it was when the eagles were that close for so long and didnt go all out for a title is when i turned on this regime...it was indefensable

youre actually making my point but saying how hard it is to even make a championship game...so if you do have a team that is doing it you better do something over top to get them to a superbowl title

[PhillyPhreak54]

1. If this is true about Lurie and the huge debt issues, why is this the first time in the four years since Lincoln Financial opened we're hearing about it? I mean we've heard about they have a big debt because many of these teams do. But we've never heard about it affecting the on-field talent.

2. Sal Pal says "ask any owner or agent" but yet we have never heard any agent speak out on this. On the record or anonymously. Why is that? Especially when you have agents who would line up to take a shot at Joe Banner and Jeff Lurie off the record.

3. They don't overpay for free agents because that is their organizational philosophy. That didn't start when they moved across the street. That was the philosophy when they were still in the Vet too. That is the way they run their team. Fans and the vocal media outlets don't like it because FA signings are sexy compared to the draft pick way of building a team. Can anyone remember them going balls out for FA's when they were in the Vet? No, thats because they didn't. They would identify players who they thought were worth the money and then go get them. Troy Vincent, Kevin Turner, Ricky Watters, etc. Just like they have done now with Kearse, Owens, Howard, etc.

The total payroll numbers since moving to LFF. This is actual money paid out, not cap figures or loopholed cash.

2003 = $77,436,900 = 17th in the NFL
2004 = $104,977,331 = 2nd in the NFL
2005 = $72,721,279 = 28th in the NFL

3 year total = $255,135,510
3 year average = $85,045,170

Other teams 3 year totals & 3 year averages;

Washington - $268,897,186 ($89,632,395)
Dallas - $228,686,602 ($76,228,867)
New York - $242,205,571 ($80,735,190)
New England - $253,536,489 ($84,512,163)
Seattle - $278,838,139 ($92,946,043)

Just a sample size, but when you look at the teams over the last several years on many occasions you can see an ebb and flow of one or two years where they are lower in the NFL in spending and then a spike to where they rise and spend more cash.

The 2005 drop off for the Eagles shows that the Eagles didn't spend money like they did in 2004, obviously. Now the argument is whether or not Sal Pal is right and its because of debt services or whether or not the Eagles FO got stupid and believed that they could tinker and add through the draft to the SB team of 2004. I lean towards the Eagles FO screwing the pooch because they thought they were hot shtein and didn't need wholesale additions. Because if what Sal is saying then the Eagles should be lower in these rankings, should they not?