The Post has us trimming our 2006 cap number from $113 million to below $90 million..

[wilbur58z]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802276.html

...while Prisco and Pasquarelli, two notorious Snyder haters, come out and say we're going to have to field 15-20 rookies next year if the cap stays at around $93-95 million.

Obviously some people read their reports and forgot the Post report.

In fact, the Post said we would get our cap number so low that we could eat LaVar Arrington's deal ala Coles last offseason if we wanted to get rid of him.

And the Post, I think, gets it right because they correctly went through the list of players we could restructure to get under.

And they also correctly listed the players we could cut and save money.

And they also correctly listed the fact that if we keep LaVar, we'd save even more money toward the 2006 cap.

So, bottom line, the Post is right and Prisco and Pasquarelli, two former CBS Sportsline.com buttboys, are once again throwing truth and logic out the window in their neverending attempt to make Snyder look bad.

Also, I think a lot of people are freaking out because of what these morons wrote and that we're also two weeks away from the deadline and there's been no word that the Redskins have started restructuring contracts yet.

But I'm sure they already have a course of action in place in case a) no new agreement is reached in the next few days and the league does not push back the March 1 cap compliance deadline AND free agency one month as has been rumored.

Because the Redskins should not just go restructuring deals when the deadline could be pushed back a month and a new agreement reached.

So they have to have a good idea of what's going to happen before they start doing something drastic like that.

Thought that might help since clearly some posters have totally jumped the gun and started lashing out in response to baseless stuff...

[AdamJT13]

The Post report doesn't take into account the 30 percent rule. (Ask Jason La Canfora.) If the CBA isn't extended before teams need to be under the cap, the only way the Skins can prorate all of those bonuses and restructure contracts for those savings without violating the 30 percent rule is if those players willingly take massive pay cuts in future seasons with no guarantee of ever getting any of it back.

[wilbur58z]

Ask La Canfora as if he knows or didn't know? So he got the story wrong?

[Fergasun]

The Post report doesn't take into account the 30 percent rule. (Ask Jason La Canfora.) If the CBA isn't extended before teams need to be under the cap, the only way the Skins can prorate all of those bonuses and restructure contracts for those savings without violating the 30 percent rule is if those players willingly take massive pay cuts in future seasons with no guarantee of ever getting any of it back.

Won't the 'Skins be able to compensate whoever is losing money by signing them during the uncapped years to a massive deal they aren't worth?

[Mooka]

Won't the 'Skins be able to compensate whoever is losing money by signing them during the uncapped years to a massive deal they aren't worth?

In theory maybe. Tell that to the player's agents. "Don't worry, we promise we'll give your client a huge contract in a cpl years..."

[Jumbo]

Not to be rude, but that "news" is a month old, and, as with all Redskins news articles from major sources, was posted on this site that day.

You can check such stuff out using the search featire, andcan assume that major items like that hit here within 24 hours of their release.

There's plenty of new threads right now of course on cap-related topics.

[wilbur58z]

Not to be rude, but that "news" is a month old, and, as with all Redskins news articles from major sources, was posted on this site that day.

You can check such stuff out using the search featire, andcan assume that major items like that hit here within 24 hours of their release.

There's plenty of new threads right now of course on cap-related topics.

I know the article is old.

But I brought it back up because I thought it ran counter to what other people were saying.

But evidently the Post article didn't take into account the 30 percent rule and thus is basically totally wrong.

[dfbovey]

I know the article is old.

But I brought it back up because I thought it ran counter to what other people were saying.

But evidently the Post article didn't take into account the 30 percent rule and thus is basically totally wrong.

It's not wrong, but like many people... the author was assuming that there would be a new CBA in place by now.

[AdamJT13]

In theory maybe. Tell that to the player's agents. "Don't worry, we promise we'll give your client a huge contract in a cpl years..."

They can't even do that. The CBA prohibits any verbal agreement not written into the contract and reported to the NFL.

[ImmortalDragon]

Won't the 'Skins be able to compensate whoever is losing money by signing them during the uncapped years to a massive deal they aren't worth?

That would be a horrible way to attempt to fix our problems. We should be going under the assumption that there will be a cap in 07, just in case.

[Major Harris]

You can check such stuff out using the search featire, andcan assume that major items like that hit here within 24 hours of their release.

did you mean 24 seconds?

[bubba9497]

The Post report doesn't take into account the 30 percent rule. (Ask Jason La Canfora.) .

:doh: the moves suggested by the WP, would NOT be effect by the 30% rule.

[AdamJT13]

the moves suggested by the WP, would NOT be effect by the 30% rule.

Yes they would. Contracts that extend from a capped season (2006) to an uncapped season (2007 and beyond) can't violate the 30 percent rule. That would apply to all of the renegotiations proposed in the Post article.

[bubba9497]

Yes they would. Contracts that extend from a capped season (2006) to an uncapped season (2007 and beyond) can't violate the 30 percent rule. That would apply to all of the renegotiations proposed in the Post article.

Jesus read the article.

first the suggested cuts would almost put them in line with the cap. All the cuts mentioned the players have no remaining bonuses to go against the cap if released.

the couple of suggested contract reworks... even with the evil 30% rule, will still allow for some relief.

all PREVIOUS contracts already SIGNED BEFORE THE MATCH 3 DEADLINE will not be affected, only contracts signed, and reworked after the new physical year will the rule be applied too.

The only thing the rule of 30% means in reality is that teams can't extend the bonuses for extended years past 4, mainly effecting teams looking to convert roster bonus to signing bonuses. Carolina and Indy are hurt more than the Skins if that goes into effect.

The real funny part of Lenny P. article talking about if the Skins reduced everyone base salary to league minimun the still couldn't meet the cap limit... :laugh: That would be the dumbest move any team would try and do with the 30% rule.

• With no extension, what problems would exist for the '06 season?

Because 2006 could be a transition year to no cap in 2007, rules change slightly and they take a lot of money out of the free agency pool. Teams will lose between $2.5 million and $5 million of cap room because of the transition. Because there is no cap in 2007, players who are released from multi-year contracts will have the cap hits on the 2006 cap[/b]. With no salary cap in 2007, there will be no June 1 adjustment date to release players with high cap numbers and delay the cap hits. With no cap in 2007, all incentives will count immediately.

Normally, incentives have to be earned during the season and are posted on the next year's cap. Teams have to leave room for the extra charges and that will take anywhere between $100 million and $150 million of cap room out of the free agent pool. With less room, fewer free agents will get big dollars, and fewer free agents will be signed. Another problem is the 30-percent rule for base salaries. Any contract that extends into an uncapped year limits the increase of a player's base salary to 30 percent a year. That kills the teams over the cap because they can't negotiate simple replacement deals in which they replace base salary with signing bonuses. The base salaries can increase only 30 percent a year so teams would have to negotiate two or three years of reductions. It will be harder for teams to free up money under the cap because of that.

Signing draft choices will be more difficult because teams can prorate signing bonuses for only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That leads to long holdouts by draft choices.

• What does the NFL lose if it doesn't negotiate a CBA extension?

Labor peace. In 2008, the NFL will either be on strike or the owners will lock out the players. That's not going to play well with networks investing a total of $100 million a year in rights fees. The union will decertify and then antitrust rules will apply. The NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted in the current CBA if it expires. Naturally, the NFL will try to implement a system, but the NFLPA will sue and both sides will be spending all of their time in court. To get players out of college, it could be open negotiations. Minimum salaries for all players will be eliminated in 2007, so every contract, including those for rookies coming out of college, has to be negotiated individually and those players get what they can get. Players probably can sue if their contracts are traded. Every single move of the league will be under legal scrutiny.

• What do the players lose if there is no extension?

They will lose some protection. Even though it's more of a procedural thing that has to do with antitrust laws, the union will go out of business if there is no CBA. That will cause uncertainty for the players. Teams can change and cut down the benefits package that players receive, which is considered the best in sports. With no structure, teams can pay young players below the current minimums of $235,000, $310,000 and $385,000 a year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

Late start to free agency? Moving the start of free agency back a week or two is an option as long as the NFLPA gets an agreement in principle before March 3. That only makes sense. The start of the 2006 business year is March 3. If there is no collective bargaining extension before then, the league and the union have to accept the rules as if there is an uncapped year in 2007.

With all incentives counting in 2006 and more dead cap money from players being released, each team will have $2.5 million or $5 million less to spend on free agents. With a new deal, the $92 million cap could jump to around $100 million. It benefits the union to move back the start of free agency as long as it is guaranteed a deal.

There is some optimism a CBA extension could get done. Talks between the union and the league heated up Monday. Conference calls between owners also heated up Monday and Tuesday. This is what Paul Tagliabue calls the 11th hour, so something has to get done in the next 10 days. The process is complex with a lot of issues. There are two topics in which more movement needs to happen -- improved revenue sharing between the high-revenue teams and the low-revenue teams and the players' percentage of the total revenues. The number is negotiable.

Here is how paralyzed things are without a CBA extension. Several teams, including the Panthers and Colts, set aside huge roster bonuses for players that conditionally would turn into signing bonuses in order to create cap room. Those deals are held up until a ruling is made as to whether they fit the 30 percent rule. The Deion Sanders 30-percent rule limits the amount of increased compensation players are allowed to receive during the uncapped season. If the rulings go against the teams that have those huge roster bonuses, they might not clear as much cap room as they expected.

If the market opens without a CBA extension, it would make contract negotiations much more complicated. Signing bonuses can be prorated for only four years instead of what is usually a maximum of seven in the first year of a new CBA. With no extension, 2007 will be an uncapped year. As a result, the money in all new contracts, other than signing bonus, would be subject to the "30% rule" going into an uncapped year. That means if a player signs a deal for $1 million in base salary and roster and reporting bonuses in 2006, he can't get more than $300,000 (30%) increases in succeeding years.

[zoony]

I think the argument that it (Arrington situation) is about MONEY, not cap space is dead on. I've said as much... the WP owes me a royalty check.

[Jumbo]

did you mean 24 seconds?

Yeah, I didn't want to be discouraging though:laugh:

[chrisbcbu]

it is harder to get under the cap with the 30%rule but it doesnt mean its impossible. The Skins just have to renegotiate contracts in further years also instead of just 1 year at a time, to stay within the 30%rule. So its not impossible and is very likely that both Jansen and Brunell are going to have their contracts restructured. The rest will not be effected by the 30% rule, since we are only converting their Roster bonus/Signing bonuses and extending them for another 4 years. All which is very likely and doable.

[Jumbo]

I know the article is old.

But I brought it back up because I thought it ran counter to what other people were saying.

But evidently the Post article didn't take into account the 30 percent rule and thus is basically totally wrong.

Wilbur, I ain't trying to flog a dead horse (though that is one of our favorite pastimes :laugh: ), I was just suggesting for future reference that your take on a month old article would have been a nice contribution on one of the existing threads disussing this stuff rather than starting a new one with an attention grabbing tagline...but no biggy, guy, really.

[BigDFan5]

PCinOZ from the other Skins board who wrote the glowing article about getting 12 mill in cap room being so easy that everyone on here loved has changed his stance

Now he states in order to get barely under the cap the Skins would have to

cut 12 players - no big names, then rework the contracts of 11-13 players to both save cap room in 2006 and keep within the 30 percent rules.

http://mb20.scout.com/fcpndhardcorefrm1.showMessage?topicID=55430.topic

[bubba9497]

too many people seem to not understand what the EVIL 30% RULE

Bill from Jacksonville: Could you review the “30 percent rule” for the uncapped year?

Vic: The “30 percent rule” is a salary cap invention that forbids teams from dumping money into the uncapped year, which would be 2007.

The “30 percent rule” begins in 2006 and, until the CBA is extended, will continue through 2009. Very simply, the rule forbids teams from increasing a player's salary by more than 30 percent of his 2006 salary (excluding signing bonus) from one year to the next. Here's an example of what it does: Say a team wants to re-structure a player's contract to create cap room in 2006 and let's say that player has a salary of $5 million a year for each of the next four years. In normal times, the team would do a standard salary to signing bonus conversion. They would take $4 million, for example, of the '06 salary, give it to the player in the form of signing bonus and amortize that amount over the remaining years of the contract; $1 million worth of proration in each year. The team would've created $3 million in cap room in '06. These are not, however, normal times. The “30 percent rule” would require the team to automatically lower the player's salary to $1.3 million in '07, $1.6 million in '08 and $1.9 million in '09. Now, tell me, what player is going to agree to that salary reduction? What if he does? Would you be suspicious of money moving under the table?

will it make contracts reworks more difficult... yes, will it stop them NO, will it help reduce the Salary Cap figures... YES.. not as much, but will help.

[BigDFan5]

too many people seem to not understand what the EVIL 30% RULE

will it make contracts reworks more difficult... yes, will it stop them NO, will it help reduce the Salary Cap figures... YES.. not as much, but will help.

The Redskins are already up against the 30% rule wall . Their salaries already comply so in order to rework contracts or prorate roster bonuses that would put the Skins in violation therefore the players would have to agree to take major paycuts with nothing in return.

[MrSilverMaC]

How are roster bonuses treated?

Are they regarded as base salary or are they conted as SB money?

[BigDFan5]

How are roster bonuses treated?

Are they regarded as base salary or are they conted as SB money?

Roster bonuses are counted as salary

[Westbrook36]

too many people seem to not understand what the EVIL 30% RULE

will it make contracts reworks more difficult... yes, will it stop them NO, will it help reduce the Salary Cap figures... YES.. not as much, but will help.

After reading all the responses in this thread, it appears that you are the only one that doesn't understand it, Bubba. No offense.

[MrSilverMaC]

Roster bonuses are counted as salary

Thank you.

So as base salary, they would also count toward this 30% rule?