What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary? (1 Viewer)

IIf you'd be willing to take 20% less from either current salary or in your next contract, what


  • Total voters
    65

FUBAR

Footballguy
Obviously stemming from pending NFL free agency (specifically Randall Cobb); would you be willing to make less money than you possibly could? If so, why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
 
Yes, although I've never been put in that situation.

One thing I've learned about myself over the years is that I really don't care very much about my salary compared to most people, including my colleagues. I'm fortunate enough to earn a comfortable income that allows my family and me to not have to worry about most run-of-the-mill financial issues, and my wife and I both prefer a relatively modest lifestyle anyway. If I had to give up 20% of my salary for a clearly more fulfilling job, I'd do it with only a little hesitation. That would especially be true once my kids are out of college.

 
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?

 
One reason a lot of people would take less money is if the job is somewhere with a low cost of living.

Also, I think it depends on how much someone is making. If I'm making $1M/year, I'm sure I'd be ok with dropping down to $800k (especially if I like the job more, it has less stress, more free time, etc). My assumption is I wouldn't put myself into a situation where I needed all $1M to pay bills. Now, if I'm making $50k/year, it's possible that basically every penny is going towards something to get by and going down to $40k would be a big hit and cause a big change in lifestyle.

 
I absolutely would, provided it had other benefits that I want.

In fact, I'm still about becoming a school teacher in a few years . this would be more than 50% salary reduction, but would give me summers off to spend with my kids, would get me out of the corporate rat race, and would give me the chance to help kids get on a good education track.

I would also consider becoming a commercial brewmaster, which would also be a significant pay cut. But then I'd be making, tasting, and talking about beer all day, every day - sounds like a good deal to me.

Of course, it helps that I've been in the grind for almost 20 years and will be in a financial position where I could afford a pay-cut.

 
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?
If Firm C is a considerably better place to work, with better long term potential, absolutely. You're talking about a difference of about $500 hitting your account per paycheck. I wouldn't take that extra money to be miserable if it came down to a bad office or rough commute.

 
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?
:yes:

Or you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm A is offering to raise your salary to $80K. Do you sign with B or stay at Firm A?

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.

 
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?
Makes sense. I did a job switch that resulted in a big paycut and I was very, very happy I made the move. Then again, it was a move out of management consulting and almost any job environment is better than that. I've made up the difference since then in pay.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coming out of law school I had two offers. One was for a law clerk position which at the time paid $29,500, the other was with a personal injury firm specializing in class action suits. The latter was offering $58,000. I chose the lower paying position believing that in the long term I would be more employable and would increase my opportunity to maximize my career earnings. The law clerk position also offered me some distance from an unpleasant relationship break up.

If the salaries were figured on an hourly basis they were quite comparable as first year associates in the P.I. firm typically put in over 70 hours per week.

 
Coming out of law school I had two offers. One was for a law clerk position which at the time paid $29,500, the other was with a personal injury firm specializing in class action suits. The latter was offering $58,000. I chose the lower paying position believing that in the long term I would be more employable and would increase my opportunity to maximize my career earnings. The law clerk position also offered me some distance from an unpleasant relationship break up.

If the salaries were figured on an hourly basis they were quite comparable as first year associates in the P.I. firm typically put in over 70 hours per week.
poll editted to add this.

 
Yes, although I've never been put in that situation.

One thing I've learned about myself over the years is that I really don't care very much about my salary compared to most people, including my colleagues. I'm fortunate enough to earn a comfortable income that allows my family and me to not have to worry about most run-of-the-mill financial issues, and my wife and I both prefer a relatively modest lifestyle anyway. If I had to give up 20% of my salary for a clearly more fulfilling job, I'd do it with only a little hesitation. That would especially be true once my kids are out of college.
I'm at this point in my life also, however I was very driven by money previously. I was aggressive and had myself in a 'change/move up every 2-3yrs' plan.

Now that I have the money, I see the other side of things and wish I hadn't been such a money wh0re. I'm at that "I'd rather be happy and have less money" stage.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Possibly. Only Cobb can decide if staying in GB and catching passes from Rodgers is worth sacrificing millions of dollars that he can never recoup.

Eric Decker comes to mind. He's a good player, but Peyton Manning got him paid. So why didn't he stay in Denver? Because Denver couldn't possibly pay him what he ended being worth on the open market.

Especially in the NFL, where the only guaranteed money a guy has is his signing bonus and current year salary, most guys are going to take the money.

Whatever each guy decides is cool with me. And I will add that I don't agree with people who criticize NFL players for "taking the money."

 
My current salary is about a 25% cut from previous. I took the job because the company is likely to be sold within the next 2 years. At that point, unless something goes wrong, my stock options will more than make up the difference.

 
Our jobs vs the job of an NFL player do not line up real well. Since I believe we are talking about Cobb, he has a short career. At most, he has 10 years left in the NFL. And, as many others have pointed out, his time in the NFL can end at any day. He needs to get the best contract that he can at this point in his career. In a few years, he can go after the contract that most likely leads to a ring.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Possibly. Only Cobb can decide if staying in GB and catching passes from Rodgers is worth sacrificing millions of dollars that he can never recoup.

Eric Decker comes to mind. He's a good player, but Peyton Manning got him paid. So why didn't he stay in Denver? Because Denver couldn't possibly pay him what he ended being worth on the open market.

Especially in the NFL, where the only guaranteed money a guy has is his signing bonus and current year salary, most guys are going to take the money.

Whatever each guy decides is cool with me. And I will add that I don't agree with people who criticize NFL players for "taking the money."
It's a risk for sure, but he absolutely could recoup that money (and more).

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Especially if "Firm B" is the Raiders.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Possibly. Only Cobb can decide if staying in GB and catching passes from Rodgers is worth sacrificing millions of dollars that he can never recoup.

Eric Decker comes to mind. He's a good player, but Peyton Manning got him paid. So why didn't he stay in Denver? Because Denver couldn't possibly pay him what he ended being worth on the open market.

Especially in the NFL, where the only guaranteed money a guy has is his signing bonus and current year salary, most guys are going to take the money.

Whatever each guy decides is cool with me. And I will add that I don't agree with people who criticize NFL players for "taking the money."
Our jobs vs the job of an NFL player do not line up real well. Since I believe we are talking about Cobb, he has a short career. At most, he has 10 years left in the NFL. And, as many others have pointed out, his time in the NFL can end at any day. He needs to get the best contract that he can at this point in his career. In a few years, he can go after the contract that most likely leads to a ring.
Sure, Cobb is the gensis of the discussion but I didn't want to go too far down that rabbit hole. Cobb simply launched the discussion in our own careers, understanding there's a huge difference.

 
If I'm Cobb, I take $8MM from GB over $10MM from Cleveland, no questions asked. He's 24 and will be nicely positioned for another contract after the production he'll continue to put up in GB.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Especially if "Firm B" is the Raiders.
or, say you work for Google and Firm B is Wal-Mart.

 
I think my job has similar issues as say an NFL player as it is sports related. I once turned down a 22k pay raise to go somewhere else because I knew my current team was going to be loaded and be very successful. Since it worked out the way it did (won 2 state championships) I do not regret for a second having turned down the money.

However I am at the point now where the bigger contract would be more important to me. I think if I had the same decision to make without knowing for sure my team would win state or not I would choose the money.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Especially if "Firm B" is the Raiders.
or, say you work for Google and Firm B is Wal-Mart.
:lmao:

Raiders - the Walmart of the NFL.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Especially if "Firm B" is the Raiders.
or, say you work for Google and Firm B is Wal-Mart.
:lmao:

Raiders - the Walmart of the NFL.
https://balladeer.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/aldavis3.jpg

http://www.coachlibrary.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Sam_Walton.jpg

:unsure:

 
If I'm Cobb, I take $8MM from GB over $10MM from Cleveland, no questions asked. He's 24 and will be nicely positioned for another contract after the production he'll continue to put up in GB.
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
Granted, there are significant differences between us and NFL players. One of which is most of us will have longer careers.

I don't know what GB is selling Cobb, but it would be easy to see benefits of staying at his "Firm A".
Possibly. Only Cobb can decide if staying in GB and catching passes from Rodgers is worth sacrificing millions of dollars that he can never recoup.

Eric Decker comes to mind. He's a good player, but Peyton Manning got him paid. So why didn't he stay in Denver? Because Denver couldn't possibly pay him what he ended being worth on the open market.

Especially in the NFL, where the only guaranteed money a guy has is his signing bonus and current year salary, most guys are going to take the money.

Whatever each guy decides is cool with me. And I will add that I don't agree with people who criticize NFL players for "taking the money."
Our jobs vs the job of an NFL player do not line up real well. Since I believe we are talking about Cobb, he has a short career. At most, he has 10 years left in the NFL. And, as many others have pointed out, his time in the NFL can end at any day. He needs to get the best contract that he can at this point in his career. In a few years, he can go after the contract that most likely leads to a ring.
Sure, Cobb is the gensis of the discussion but I didn't want to go too far down that rabbit hole. Cobb simply launched the discussion in our own careers, understanding there's a huge difference.
In that case, I can't say, as I don't earn my income via salary from an employer.

One final point on Cobb: a report I read suggested there could be a $16 million dollar difference in guaranteed money between what Green Bay might offer and what another team might be willing to offer. That's a lot of money to turn down.

But like I said, I support Cobb either way.

 
Took about a 30% cut in the past to get out of a bad situation in a bad work environment. After 5 year making about 25% more than salary at previous organization. Wouldn't/couldn't take that big of a cut again.

 
I'm not sure it's ever fair to compare taking 8MM or 10MM vs. 42K or 50K

When you are at NFL level money you have a lifetime's supply of money if you do things correctly (granted like 70% of those guys ruin the opportunity and donk it up).

with 42 vs. 50 you're talking about some real living money for the person in question.

I have no personal experience with the matter and dental jobs don't really work like that, so I'm not sure what i'd do.

 
I'm not sure it's ever fair to compare taking 8MM or 10MM vs. 42K or 50K

When you are at NFL level money you have a lifetime's supply of money if you do things correctly (granted like 70% of those guys ruin the opportunity and donk it up).

with 42 vs. 50 you're talking about some real living money for the person in question.

I have no personal experience with the matter and dental jobs don't really work like that, so I'm not sure what i'd do.
It's all relative. Kenyans / Afghans / 90% of the rest of the world would view the 42k-50k similar to how we view 8-10M

 
I'm not sure it's ever fair to compare taking 8MM or 10MM vs. 42K or 50K

When you are at NFL level money you have a lifetime's supply of money if you do things correctly (granted like 70% of those guys ruin the opportunity and donk it up).

with 42 vs. 50 you're talking about some real living money for the person in question.

I have no personal experience with the matter and dental jobs don't really work like that, so I'm not sure what i'd do.
It's all relative. Kenyans / Afghans / 90% of the rest of the world would view the 42k-50k similar to how we view 8-10M
great point. The spread between the 1% and the bottom 10% is so gigantic it's hard to fathom.

It is true that as bad as we think our poor and lower middle class have it, that I think even they would be shocked how much better they have it than billions of other people.

 
Have been where there were massive layoffs in my field, so accepted lesser hours in order to try not to be laid off myself. Worked short-term but not long-term.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
No one here knows anything about the Packers discussions with Cobb, any other offers or options Cobb may have, or the motivations that may affect Cobb's career decisions, nor does anyone here have even the slightest basis upon which to meaningfully opine as to what Cobb will or should do. That said, it is a good topic for standard off-season fantasy football message board banter.

 
Horribly constructed poll. The second and third questions are confusing enough as it is, but the third question is missing an answer. The question starts with " IF YOU'D BE WILLING.....", but provides no possible response to those who are NOT willing to take a lesser salary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?
His first question doesn't say that. There is no discussion of trade offs - its like ...or what? Not have a job? Have to move? Tougher assignments??

 
I don't follow this:

Would you be willing to take 20% less in salary when signing a new contract - provided the new amount is still higher than your current salary?
He means you currently make $50,000 at Firm A, Firm B is offering you $100K and Firm C is offering $80K. Would you take Firm C's offer?
His first question doesn't say that. There is no discussion of trade offs - its like ...or what? Not have a job? Have to move? Tougher assignments??
Of course my first question doesn't say that. It's the 2nd question.

The trade offs are in the 3rd question.

Horribly constructed poll. The second and third questions are confusing enough as it is, but the third question is missing an answer. The question starts with " IF YOU'D BE WILLING.....", but provides no possible response to those who are NOT willing to take a lesser salary.
fair point on the 3rd, assumed there could be a reason everyone might be willing at some point.

as to the phrasing, it doesn't seem too complicated if you indeed have "well above average intelligence" ;)

 
Not now, but i did a few years ago.

Right now, very happy with the decision. Had to sacrifice the vacation fund and stop going out to eat so often, but with two children under five neither of those are things we really wanted to be doing too much anyway.

 
Cobb is going to leave and take the guaranteed millions more. He knows much better than any of us that his career could be over in an instant. And, I would not be surprised if he ends up somewhere other than Oak or Jax.

 
Is this what GB is trying to sell Randall Cobb?

One reason players rarely do this is they know their careers are always one play from ending.

Make the money while you can.
No one here knows anything about the Packers discussions with Cobb, any other offers or options Cobb may have, or the motivations that may affect Cobb's career decisions, nor does anyone here have even the slightest basis upon which to meaningfully opine as to what Cobb will or should do. That said, it is a good topic for standard off-season fantasy football message board banter.
But there are reporters who talk to people in the know and report stuff to us.

Reports indicate GB doesn't want to pay Cobb more than Jordy (about $9mm a year, $14mm guaranteed).

Other reports suggest there are teams that might be willing to offer as much as $30mm guaranteed.

Granted, we can't know for sure how accurate these reports are.

But what we do know is that an employer who wants to retain an employee will pay as little as it takes to keep him, and not a dollar more. Conversely, an employee will fight for every dollar he can get.

I agree no one should say the word "should" unless the word "I" comes before it.

But, opining is what we do here.

So if I were in his shoes, I'd take strike while the iron is hot and get as much guaranteed money as I could.

 
Cobb is in a much different situation than any of is. The money Cobb is making is more than enough for him and his family for their entire lives. 20 percent less does not mean he will have to sacrifice anything. If we took a 20 percent cut, it would probably mean we would have to work longer or cut back on vacations.

 
Another thought is "net pay." Some teams use the fact that their states do not have a state income tax as a luring benefit. If Team C was in an income tax state and Team B wasn't, the net difference is closer!

 
If I'm Cobb, I take $8MM from GB over $10MM from Cleveland, no questions asked. He's 24 and will be nicely positioned for another contract after the production he'll continue to put up in GB.
Sure you would.
If you haven't noticed, an important part of being a receiver is having someone to throw the ball to you. Anyone choosing the uncertainty of Cleveland over a future HoF smack in the middle of his prime is nuts.

 
It depends on your age. In your prime earning years, you really should not take a 20% or lower salary. You may regret it later in life when you have much less saved for retirement. In professional sports, there are other significant considerations such as having an elite QB and a shot at winning a title. So I can't argue with Cobb taking slightly less money for that chance, since getting paid but not having that chance sucks. See Eric Decker.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top