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

[BigDFan5]

Thank you.

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

Thats correct here is an example on a deal with 3 years left

2006 1 mill salary and 3 mill roster bonus Now 4 mill allows them to raise salaries 30% each year which is 1.2 million per year

2007 salary 5.2 mill

2008 salary 6.4 million

Now if you decide to prorate that bonus out over 3 years then 2006 salary is only 1 million so each year after can only raise by 300k

2006 1 million +1 mill pro rate

2007 1.3 million +1 mill pro rate

2008 1.6 mill +1 mill pro rate

So by pro rating that bonus you have to get the player to accept a total of 8.7 million in pay cut for the next 2 years

[AdamJT13]

first the suggested cuts would almost put them in line with the cap.

If the cap gets set at $95 million, the Skins are $20.405 million over right now. The article says the four suggested cuts (Bowen, Raymer, Harris and Hall) would save $6.5 million. Even if that were true, it still would leave the Skins $13.905 million over the cap. But the article doesn't take into account the Rule of 51, either. If the Skins cut Bowen, Raymer, Harris and Hall, the cap savings is only $4.775 million -- leaving the Skins still $15.63 million over the cap.

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 30 percent rule applies to every single contract that extends into 2007 or beyond, whether it was signed five years ago, two years ago, last week, next week or after March 3. There's not a single contract that can violate the 30 percent rule, and there is not a single one that does.

[GSF]

These Eagles fans sure are going to be dissappointed if the Skins don't have to dismantle their roster.

[MrSilverMaC]

Thats correct here is an example on a deal with 3 years left

2006 1 mill salary and 3 mill roster bonus Now 4 mill allows them to raise salaries 30% each year which is 1.2 million per year

2007 salary 5.2 mill

2008 salary 6.4 million

Now if you decide to prorate that bonus out over 3 years then 2006 salary is only 1 million so each year after can only raise by 300k

2006 1 million +1 mill pro rate

2007 1.3 million +1 mill pro rate

2008 1.6 mill +1 mill pro rate

So by pro rating that bonus you have to get the player to accept a total of 8.7 million in pay cut for the next 2 years

But it's only a cut in the sense that the players base is lowered, but the player recieves more up front, right?

And does this rule of 30% void a contract before it's ever apporved by the NFL?? Meaning, if you are making 1 mil the first year, and your salary jumps to 5.3 mil the second year, but 4 mil of it is roster bonus. Since 4 mil can be converted to SB and thus never cause a jump of more than 30% in base salary. So while you are scheduled to have a jump in salary that is prohibited, it never comes to pass, does this still gat denied due to the 30% rule, or do you actually have to violate it by paying them more than 30% base?

[BigDFan5]

But it's only a cut in the sense that the players base is lowered, but the player recieves more up front, right?

No they recieve the exact same amount up front. Yet their salary for the next 2 seasons are cut by over 8 million with nothing in it for them

And does this rule of 30% void a contract before it's ever apporved by the NFL?? Meaning, if you are making 1 mil the first year, and your salary jumps to 5.3 mil the second year, but 4 mil of it is roster bonus. Since 4 mil can be converted to SB and thus never cause a jump of more than 30% in base salary. So while you are scheduled to have a jump in salary that is prohibited, it never comes to pass, does this still gat denied due to the 30% rule, or do you actually have to violate it by paying them more than 30% base?

That would be a violation as roster bonuses are counted as part of base salary so jumping from 1 mill to 5.3 mill is over 500% increase

[AdamJT13]

And does this rule of 30% void a contract before it's ever apporved by the NFL??

A contract that would violate the 30 percent rule would be disapproved by the commissioner's office.

[MrSilverMaC]

A contract that would violate the 30 percent rule would be disapproved by the commissioner's office.

So even though it would never come to pass, it would be vetoed?

[Westbrook36]

These Eagles fans sure are going to be dissappointed if the Skins don't have to dismantle their roster.

I'm just interested to see how this plays out! One week left. Here is what King had to say about talks progressing:

8. I think the owners in the NFL who don't want more revenue-sharing -- in some form -- are looking down the barrel of a long gun right now. The smaller-market teams are simply not going to make a deal when guys like Dan Snyder are making $100 million or more than they are. It's going to come to a head soon and will be a major factor in whether the league can get a new deal done with the players.

[GSF]

I'm just interested to see how this plays out! One week left. Here is what King had to say about talks progressing:

Yeah right!! You're all over this thing like flies on poop. You even admitted in one of your many posts on the subject that you want to see Snyder pay the price for the "way he does business", whatever that means. It's not like he's out there stealing from people man, geez.

I appreciate what you bring to the debate man, but why not just be honest about your motivation. It's easy for us that know you to see how bad you want to taunt us Skins fans about this if it does go down the way you predict.

[Westbrook36]

GSF, one thing is certain, I won't taunt Skins fans. You'll be in enough pain already.

Seriously, anything that weakens any team in the NFC East is great in my book....I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd feel the same.

[dfbovey]

Dan Snyder is a hard working owner, and shouldn't have to prop up the other lazy ass do nothing owners in this league so they can make more money. If they want to make more money, they need to put more into their franchise. The Cardinals are a prime example. Why should they get to coast off of Snyder's hard work (or any other money making machine).

Bunch of friggin leaches.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out though. Has the makings of a major powerstruggle.

[Westbrook36]

db, you can also look at this in another light. Is Snyder willing to share his revenue in order to keep this current team together? One would say that if he would make concessions in revenue sharing, it would be easier to get an extension in the CBA. If he draws a line in the sand, and the CBA isn't extended, he will have basically have knowingly allowed the current team to be blown up and built around a few corps players.....but basically throwing 2006 away.

We all hear how all Snyder wants to do is win. Wouldn't it be ironic if Snyder chose the money over the competitiveness of the Redskins?

[f_trizzy]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we do have to dismantle and still sweep the Eagles next year?

[dfbovey]

db, you can also look at this in another light. Is Snyder willing to share his revenue in order to keep this current team together? One would say that if he would make concessions in revenue sharing, it would be easier to get an extension in the CBA. If he draws a line in the sand, and the CBA isn't extended, he will have basically have knowingly allowed the current team to be blown up and built around a few corps players.....but basically throwing 2006 away.

We all hear how all Snyder wants to do is win. Wouldn't it be ironic if Snyder chose the money over the competitiveness of the Redskins?

Well, Snyder is a player in this, but there are other powerful owners in this league who don't like the idea of sharing what they've earned. So even if Snyder would make concessions... would it be enough to be a deal maker? I don't know. Dan Snyder is only one owner.

And yeah, Snyder wants to win. But this is also a business. IMO caving in for the Arizona Cardinals of the world would set a bad benchmark for the league.

[Butz65]

db, you can also look at this in another light. Is Snyder willing to share his revenue in order to keep this current team together? One would say that if he would make concessions in revenue sharing, it would be easier to get an extension in the CBA. If he draws a line in the sand, and the CBA isn't extended, he will have basically have knowingly allowed the current team to be blown up and built around a few corps players.....but basically throwing 2006 away.

We all hear how all Snyder wants to do is win. Wouldn't it be ironic if Snyder chose the money over the competitiveness of the Redskins?

Hello old friend. Actually - holding the line on revenue would only impact the Skins for 2007. Without a CBA for 2008 the "haves" would have a Yankee-esque advantage over the rest of the league. Do I think Snyder would sacrifice one season to have a decided advantage in the future - you bet!

[fdarugar]

Hello old friend. Actually - holding the line on revenue would only impact the Skins for 2007. Without a CBA for 2008 the "haves" would have a Yankee-esque advantage over the rest of the league. Do I think Snyder would sacrifice one season to have a decided advantage in the future - you bet!

There would definately be rules put in place so teams couldnt do those types of things, it would be similar to 2007...basically this new CBA needs to get done.

[Butz65]

Ultimately I think a deal will get done at the 11th hour. All of the news coming out is posturing. In addition to the other items discussed in this thread, the players would get hurt without a deal in place because the eligibility period for free agency would go from 4 years to six. How many players would want to have to play six years before carving out a new deal? The 30% rule looks like a burden on the teams but it's also a burden on the players. Teams over the cap will have to shed players. Teams under the cap will only have so much cash and cap to pick them up. There won't be a whole lot of room to increase salaries and most deals will be short term until the labor issues are settled.

[AdamJT13]

So even though it would never come to pass, it would be vetoed?

Yes, because when the contract is signed, there's nothing to guarantee that it wouldn't happen. The NFL won't approve a contract that would violate a rule unless it's changed or gives a team the option of violating a rule.

[fdarugar]

Ultimately I think a deal will get done at the 11th hour. All of the news coming out is posturing. In addition to the other items discussed in this thread, the players would get hurt without a deal in place because the eligibility period for free agency would go from 4 years to six. How many players would want to have to play six years before carving out a new deal? The 30% rule looks like a burden on the teams but it's also a burden on the players. Teams over the cap will have to shed players. Teams under the cap will only have so much cash and cap to pick them up. There won't be a whole lot of room to increase salaries and most deals will be short term until the labor issues are settled.

Lets hope so, everybody seems pretty pissy right about now...alot of talk should heat up once everyone gets together for the combine.

[Westbrook36]

Ultimately I think a deal will get done at the 11th hour. All of the news coming out is posturing. In addition to the other items discussed in this thread, the players would get hurt without a deal in place because the eligibility period for free agency would go from 4 years to six. How many players would want to have to play six years before carving out a new deal? The 30% rule looks like a burden on the teams but it's also a burden on the players. Teams over the cap will have to shed players. Teams under the cap will only have so much cash and cap to pick them up. There won't be a whole lot of room to increase salaries and most deals will be short term until the labor issues are settled.

I disagree. There are many teams way under the cap right now. I bet they are salivating at the opportunity at adding Denver, Oakland, and Washington starters who will have to be cut.

I think there will be an agreement but it will be after March 2nd when the purging occurs from big market teams who are way over the cap.

[fdarugar]

I disagree. There are many teams way under the cap right now. I bet they are salivating at the opportunity at adding Denver, Oakland, and Washington starters who will have to be cut.

I think there will be an agreement but it will be after March 2nd when the purging occurs from big market teams who are way over the cap.

If that does happen then a new cap would be set and those teams would be able to rebound with some of what was lost...this cba issue is really stressing me out, I can't imagine what pressure the NFL and NFLPA is feeling.

[MrSilverMaC]

I disagree. There are many teams way under the cap right now. I bet they are salivating at the opportunity at adding Denver, Oakland, and Washington starters who will have to be cut.

I think there will be an agreement but it will be after March 2nd when the purging occurs from big market teams who are way over the cap.

From everything I've read, even if we had to cut players we would rather not, it's still not going to be as many as the Skins haters seem to think.

[bubba9497]

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.

:doh: current contracts are NOT effected only new ones

[bubba9497]

From everything I've read, even if we had to cut players we would rather not, it's still not going to be as many as the Skins haters seem to think.

no starters,

just wishful thnking. cutting players would be a 100% cap hit in '06. Common Sense dictates that cutting players due bonuses or guareenteed money aren't moving.

[fdarugar]

no starters,

just wishful thnking. cutting players would be a 100% cap hit in '06. Common Sense dictates that cutting players due bonuses or guareenteed money aren't moving.

worse comes to worse and no deal is done...what do you think we will do?