Student's parents had an issue with this?

i straight up didn't understand the conversation this morning about the Cowboys, yearly cash, and the salary cap. Here's the thread from twitter

WHY AREN'T THE COWBOYS SPENDING MONEY ON PLAYERS???!!!!

Why are they one of the lowest cash spending teams in the league despite being the most valuable??

It's time to put our tin foil hats on and go for a ride through the world of the N. Texas ultra wealthy

BIG TIme THREAD ME pic.twitter.com/IRd52fCzYk

— Joey Ickes (@JoeyIckes) March 22, 2024

Junior had a Bob-worthy question in the middle that took up half the segment.

I didn't listen too closely but it seemed like the idea was that they can get a better rate of return by investing in other things than in player personnel right? While I can see how that's a fun theory, it's doubtful in my mind.

Most people that own multiple businesses like the Jones family operate those businesses in silos. The Jones RE holdings are not sharing money with the Cowboys, or their catering company, or their new oil and gas, etc. So the idea that the family would invest in oil and gas this year instead of a corner back is pretty low. The team was #6 in payroll last year and will probably be top 10-12 this year I'd bet. People are just freaking out because they haven't spent big money on any free agents yet. Typical knee jerk to all things Cowboy related.

Stive said:

---

I didn't listen too closely but it seemed like the idea was that they can get a better rate of return by investing in other things than in player personnel right? While I can see how that's a fun theory, it's doubtful in my mind.

Most people that own multiple businesses like the Jones family operate those businesses in silos. The Jones RE holdings are not sharing money with the Cowboys, or their catering company, or their new oil and gas, etc. So the idea that the family would invest in oil and gas this year instead of a corner back is pretty low. The team was #6 in payroll last year and will probably be top 10-12 this year I'd bet. People are just freaking out because they haven't spent big money on any free agents yet. Typical knee jerk to all things Cowboy related.

---

I would like to know how much the cowboys clear in profits each year. If their revenue is $1.1b in 2023, what is their profit? The overall company payroll has to be significant along with other overhead expenses.

I fundamentally didn't understand the concept that the cash outlay year to year could be in excess of the salary cap.

I'm not saying I buy this guys take 100%, but your point doesn't hold much water, IMO, when you look at it against the backdrop of the rest of the league. How many times have we seen or talked about teams heading for cap hell and then the talk just kinda goes away?

It seems everyone in the league can manage the cap fine, but it's always this 'thing' for the Cowboys.

Managing and maneuvering the cap is one thing. There are obviously things they could do in order to be able to sign a free agent this year (such as give Dak an extension), which may or may not be smart decisions.

My point is that it doesn't save the Cowboys cash does it? Like, they aren't refusing to spend in free agency to put more cash in the Jones' pockets. If they signed more guys this year, and maneuvered the cap, then maybe they'd spend a little more cash this year, but it would mean that they could not spend as much cash in future years. So it's a wash in cash savings for the Jones family.

ETA: Am I missing something? I guess I don't understand what the guy is arguing. I don't have a twitter account so I haven't seen his whole argument.

Maybe I'm missing your point but, No, they aren't spending cash. Really at all comparatively speaking. Didn't his stat say they have spent the second lowest FA money in the last like 5 years, I think it was?

I mean, that's the whole point. We can't know their motivation. All we know is they are simply not spending money and being competitive in FA. They're nibbling around the edges.

I think the point we need to establish is just because there is a salary cap of say $100 million and two teams spend $99 million up to the cap, that doesn't mean that those two teams have spent the same amount of money to acquire talent.

You aren't missing anything.

Theoretically, a team could get into cash flow issues while still being under the cap, but the cap is just an arbitrary "accounting" system.

I haven't seen any evidence of the Jones family skimping on spending for the Cowboys and using the money on another venture.

They Cowboys problem has never been spending money.

They really haven't spent money on notable FA's.

You can use this to track it.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tools/offseason/2022/

The point that I think is relevant, is that the Cowboys simply do not do free agency in proportion to the types of revenue that the team generates. The Cowboys easily generate the most revenue in the league, and if you look at that tool that I provided, the best you can really say is that they're middle of the pack. But if you look at a couple of those years, their big free agent signings are re-signing their own guys or other middle of the road for agents.

I hope this makes some sense because I'm doing all this on a mobile

Macarthur said:

---

Maybe I'm missing your point but, No, they aren't spending cash. Really at all comparatively speaking. Didn't his stat say they have spent the second lowest FA money in the last like 5 years, I think it was?

---

Man, I really don't understand it all. Looking at Spotrac now. I don't understand the difference in "active cash" compared to "salary and signing bonus." Apparently, there is a big difference.

Look at what's reported for the Cowboys on the top end compared to the Eagles as far as cash goes.





Compare that to the Salary Cap accounting.





Clearly, I don't understand any of it, because none of this makes sense to me.

It is def confusing.

I think what Joey is suggesting in his tweet thread is almost certainly the truth.

Keep in mind that the way teams "manage" the salary cap is through cash signing bonuses and roster bonuses. If I want to sign a player who wants a higher AAV than I can afford under the cap, I'll pay him a huge signing bonus and amortize it over a longer-term contract. I'd have the last 2-3 years of salary on the contract "voidable" so I can cut him. The downside of this tactic is that at the end of the contract, any remaining unamortized portion of the salary cap is "accelerated" to hit your cap immediately (see Denver & R. Wilson) but it lowers your cap impact for the first 2-3 years of the deal. (And you hope the cap rises enough in 5 years to save you from your mistakes.)

So, teams manage the cap by paying large up-front signing bonuses. Having said all that, keep in mind the following facts:
1) The Dallas Cowboys (like most professional franchises) are HEAVILY levered. Team owners are often "paper rich" and "cash poor" because the only way to unlock franchise value is by selling an equity stake (not desirable) or by borrowing money. All of these other business ventures of the Jones Family have likely been funded by leveraging the increase in franchise value of the Dallas Cowboys over the last 30+ years.
2) Cost of debt has skyrocketed over the past 12-18 months so debt service is probably incredibly costly.
3) Much of the Jones Family wealth is tied up in real estate. Real estate (even in best markets) is largely illiquid or very difficult to lever.
4) The Dallas Cowboys have very predictable cash inflows and outflows, so probably operate very "cash light."
5) The cash required to pay signing bonuses would likely have to come from increased indebtedness of the Dallas Cowboys legal entity (probably not an option) or via cash infusion from the Jones Family Office (mentioned in Joey Ickes tweet thread).

What you're seeing is a team viewed as an "asset" by the controlling family to lever and provide financing for their other ventures. I don't think the Jones family is in any sort of dire financial straits, but I'm sure they're facing some sort of liquidity shortage. I work with a lot of family offices and this is a refrain I'm hearing from many similar organizations.

All this adds up to the fact the team will still have cash to operate and won't ever be "cheap," but do not expect the team to ever extend itself on a cash basis to manage the cap and attract big time free agents.

Macarthur said:

---

Maybe I'm missing your point but, No, they aren't spending cash. Really at all comparatively speaking. Didn't his stat say they have spent the second lowest FA money in the last like 5 years, I think it was?

I mean, that's the whole point. We can't know their motivation. All we know is they are simply not spending money and being competitive in FA. They're nibbling around the edges.

---

I think the point of that tweet that is referenced above and the posts after (and apparently a segment on the musers) was that the Cowboys aren't spending money in free agency so that they can keep more money in the Jones family pockets, or so they can spend that money in other business ventures. That's simply not true.

Are they spending in free agency? No, but that's not saving them money/cash. That's just a strategic decision on the football front. That's my point. Fans (can be mad that they aren't being aggressive in free agency and that it's a poor football decision, but it makes no sense to say that they aren't spending in free agency because Jerry doesn't want to spend money so that he can keep more for himself.

Macarthur said:

---

I think the point we need to establish is just because there is a salary cap of say $100 million and two teams spend $99 million up to the cap, that doesn't mean that those two teams have spent the same amount of money to acquire talent.

---

It doesn't mean they've spent the same amount in free agency. But it does mean that the two teams are spending the same amount of money. In other words, signing your guys to big deals and meeting the cap is the same as signing free agents to big deals to meet the cap (from the perspective of what an owner is spending).

ETA: i finished reading the thread, and now I'm more confused. I would think that giving large free agent signing bonuses would cause you to need more cash now but would also save you cash on the back end. So it seems like somewhat of a wash, but I'll admit I don't know enough about how that works. So I could be off there.

Definitely a good listen and theory.

Sooooooo when Jerry passes on will Stephen be a better owner or even worse? I used to think he'd be better because he doesn't want to be Coach Jones like his Dad but now I think he'd be worse AND is responsible for a lot of bad results as of late with them. My preference is to have Charlotte own them and run them outright but that's a ways off if ever. Thoughts?

Gomer95 said:

---

Definitely a good listen and theory.

Sooooooo when Jerry passes on will Stephen be a better owner or even worse? I used to think he'd be better because he doesn't want to be Coach Jones like his Dad but now I think he'd be worse AND is responsible for a lot of bad results as of late with them. My preference is to have Charlotte own them and run them outright but that's a ways off if ever. Thoughts?

---

My preference is for none of the Jones family be involved in the day to day operations.

There is zero indication Charlotte would be better than Stephen.

Well NO Joneses is the best option for everyone but unfortunately that will NEVER happen, at least in my lifetime.

Jeff99 said:

---

I think what Joey is suggesting in his tweet thread is almost certainly the truth.

Keep in mind that the way teams "manage" the salary cap is through cash signing bonuses and roster bonuses. If I want to sign a player who wants a higher AAV than I can afford under the cap, I'll pay him a huge signing bonus and amortize it over a longer-term contract. I'd have the last 2-3 years of salary on the contract "voidable" so I can cut him. The downside of this tactic is that at the end of the contract, any remaining unamortized portion of the salary cap is "accelerated" to hit your cap immediately (see Denver & R. Wilson) but it lowers your cap impact for the first 2-3 years of the deal. (And you hope the cap rises enough in 5 years to save you from your mistakes.)

So, teams manage the cap by paying large up-front signing bonuses. Having said all that, keep in mind the following facts:
1) The Dallas Cowboys (like most professional franchises) are HEAVILY levered. Team owners are often "paper rich" and "cash poor" because the only way to unlock franchise value is by selling an equity stake (not desirable) or by borrowing money. All of these other business ventures of the Jones Family have likely been funded by leveraging the increase in franchise value of the Dallas Cowboys over the last 30+ years.
2) Cost of debt has skyrocketed over the past 12-18 months so debt service is probably incredibly costly.
3) Much of the Jones Family wealth is tied up in real estate. Real estate (even in best markets) is largely illiquid or very difficult to lever.
4) The Dallas Cowboys have very predictable cash inflows and outflows, so probably operate very "cash light."
5) The cash required to pay signing bonuses would likely have to come from increased indebtedness of the Dallas Cowboys legal entity (probably not an option) or via cash infusion from the Jones Family Office (mentioned in Joey Ickes tweet thread).

What you're seeing is a team viewed as an "asset" by the controlling family to lever and provide financing for their other ventures. I don't think the Jones family is in any sort of dire financial straits, but I'm sure they're facing some sort of liquidity shortage. I work with a lot of family offices and this is a refrain I'm hearing from many similar organizations.

All this adds up to the fact the team will still have cash to operate and won't ever be "cheap," but do not expect the team to ever extend itself on a cash basis to manage the cap and attract big time free agents.

---

I think there is a lot of truth to this post. I have thought for the past 5 or so years that the Cowboys are cash poor. If they need more money they have to go to the bank. Well they have 9 other businesses that are also with the bank. I believe Legends makes a significant profit for them, the rest including the Cowboys see a modest return if any. As mentioned, real estate only makes them money if sold, Comstock and other energy companies are not netting them serious cash if at all, they have several other businesses and who knows how they perform. I am sure the Cowboys clear 9 figures profit each year but in the scheme of the entire Jones Family portfolio, it is the money to cover their lifestyle.

Jeff99 said:

---

I think what Joey is suggesting in his tweet thread is almost certainly the truth.

Keep in mind that the way teams "manage" the salary cap is through cash signing bonuses and roster bonuses. If I want to sign a player who wants a higher AAV than I can afford under the cap, I'll pay him a huge signing bonus and amortize it over a longer-term contract. I'd have the last 2-3 years of salary on the contract "voidable" so I can cut him. The downside of this tactic is that at the end of the contract, any remaining unamortized portion of the salary cap is "accelerated" to hit your cap immediately (see Denver & R. Wilson) but it lowers your cap impact for the first 2-3 years of the deal. (And you hope the cap rises enough in 5 years to save you from your mistakes.)

So, teams manage the cap by paying large up-front signing bonuses. Having said all that, keep in mind the following facts:
1) The Dallas Cowboys (like most professional franchises) are HEAVILY levered. Team owners are often "paper rich" and "cash poor" because the only way to unlock franchise value is by selling an equity stake (not desirable) or by borrowing money. All of these other business ventures of the Jones Family have likely been funded by leveraging the increase in franchise value of the Dallas Cowboys over the last 30+ years.
2) Cost of debt has skyrocketed over the past 12-18 months so debt service is probably incredibly costly.
3) Much of the Jones Family wealth is tied up in real estate. Real estate (even in best markets) is largely illiquid or very difficult to lever.
4) The Dallas Cowboys have very predictable cash inflows and outflows, so probably operate very "cash light."
5) The cash required to pay signing bonuses would likely have to come from increased indebtedness of the Dallas Cowboys legal entity (probably not an option) or via cash infusion from the Jones Family Office (mentioned in Joey Ickes tweet thread).

What you're seeing is a team viewed as an "asset" by the controlling family to lever and provide financing for their other ventures. I don't think the Jones family is in any sort of dire financial straits, but I'm sure they're facing some sort of liquidity shortage. I work with a lot of family offices and this is a refrain I'm hearing from many similar organizations.

All this adds up to the fact the team will still have cash to operate and won't ever be "cheap," but do not expect the team to ever extend itself on a cash basis to manage the cap and attract big time free agents.

---

Okay, this makes sense. So "cash" as it's being used in these conversations has to do with upfront costs in negotiated contracts compared to salary obligation. In other words, paying big money today in the form of incentives, game/roster bonuses, signing bonuses, restructuring bonuses, etc. compared to contract obligations over time. Does thought sound grossly correct?

Alot of the bad contract recently are under Stephen's watch. Supposedly Stephen likes to low ball everyone and still gets screwed in the end.

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

Alot of the bad contract recently are under Stephen's watch. Supposedly Stephen likes to low ball everyone and still gets screwed in the end.

---

That makes sense. I have heard he is fool in real life. They are an unorganized mess with no real plan or vision, only a 4pm drink to shake off the hangover.

We really need the eclipse to take out the Jones family.

Hardline audio having issues for anyone else? Seems to loop periodically.

Mine has been doing that for years it seems like. Every minute or two a half second clip will replay like 6 times then pick back up. Thought it may have just been a me issue.

The problem yesterday was bigger. But I know what you're talking about. A real brief clip will loop and get progressively louder. The weird thing is that it happens over the air too.

"He can make the bat meet ball,
Like he's a Sicilian"

Can we repeat? Yes we can

I locked my keys in my car today. I called my local locksmith and was greeted by a hold recording from "Dan McDowell of 1310 am The Ticket" on the phone.