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

[MrSilverMaC]

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.

Ok, but I was thinking along the lines of Bowen, Ramsey (maybe traded), Noble, Harris, and similar cases where we were already thinking of getting rid of them.

So yeah, probably not starters, but not even quite as many back ups as some mmay like to think.

[Westbrook36]

:doh: current contracts are NOT effected only new ones

Current contracts are NOT effected.....if you keep them exactly in place. BUT, to get under the cap, you will need to renegotiate contracts. THAT is where the 30 percent rule inhibits you from getting any real cap savings.

[Westbrook36]

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.

Bubba, you really believe that the Skins can get under the cap, without an extension of the CBA, without having to cut any starters?

Yes or no.

[Westbrook36]

Ok, but I was thinking along the lines of Bowen, Ramsey (maybe traded), Noble, Harris, and similar cases where we were already thinking of getting rid of them.

So yeah, probably not starters, but not even quite as many back ups as some mmay like to think.

Well, what you like to think isn't the same as reducing your salary cap by 20 million dollars.

[zoony]

Well, what you like to think isn't the same as reducing your salary cap by 20 million dollars.

Westbrook... you're in here every off-season towing the 'sky is falling' line about the Redskins' and the salary cap.

So far, you're batting 0.0000000000

Just an idea... you might want to find a new gig. Tell us our players suck, or something like that.

I don't think you're as good at this cap stuff as you think you are. Just sayin'

[BigDFan5]

:doh: current contracts are NOT effected only new ones

I'm sorry but you're wrong bubba

[CowboyinDC]

:doh: current contracts are NOT effected only new ones

I might be mistaken but current contrats are already in compliance with the 30% rule.

Btw, effect is a noun. You were looking for affected. :doh:

[bubba9497]

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..

it will be more than that

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

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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?

IT HAS NO EFFECT ON CURRENT CONTRACTS.......NONE,

The rule is to prevent teams from dumping salary into the uncapped year in '07. Any new contract, or and renegotiated contract would have to comply to the 30% rule. THAT's it. The only current contracts that might be effected are those with big roster bonuses, that a team would want to convert to signing bonus, or salary in future years... then the 30% could apply.... but again a rework would cause it to be effected... nothing else.

any contract currently signed remains the same unless rework.... geez common sense would tell anyone that having to restructure every contract currently signed to conform for a "temporary" rule would be a league office nightmare.

[dirtyleft]

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...

GREAT INFO, I HOPE IT'S TRUE.

[bubba9497]

I'm sorry but you're wrong bubba

no I am not, the 30% rule is only a rule to keep teams from dumping contracts to the uncapped year. and only applies if the CBA is not signed by 3-3-06

read the quotes from several articles

[MrSilverMaC]

Well, what you like to think isn't the same as reducing your salary cap by 20 million dollars.

Lol, what I like to think has nothing to do with the cap. Given my preference, I'd rather not think about the cap at all. But since I am a Skins fan, the matter is one I find myself forced to think about.

Why don't you supply a list of poeple you seem to think will be necessary for us to cut to come under compliance.

[bubba9497]

I might be mistaken but current contrats are already in compliance with the 30% rule.

Btw, effect is a noun. You were looking for affected. :doh:

:jerk: excuse my typo

but the 30% rule is a new rule if the CBA is not signed.

If it was already in contracts then it wouldn't be a problem would it?

[Westbrook36]

it will be more than that

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT HAS NO EFFECT ON CURRENT CONTRACTS.......NONE,

The rule is to prevent teams from dumping salary into the uncapped year in '07. Any new contract, or and renegotiated contract would have to comply to the 30% rule. THAT's it. The only current contracts that might be effected are those with big roster bonuses, that a team would want to convert to signing bonus, or salary in future years... then the 30% could apply.... but again a rework would cause it to be effected... nothing else.

any contract currently signed remains the same unless rework.... geez common sense would tell anyone that having to restructure every contract currently signed to conform for a "temporary" rule would be a league office nightmare.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. All contracts are already in compliance with the 30 percent rule, Bubba. They would never have been allowed by the commissioner's office if they weren't. Where the 30 percent rule becomes tricky is if you restructure current contracts that are already in compliance.

In your mind, you believe you can do whatever you want with current contracts as long as future contracts comply. You are as wrong as I have ever seen you wrong on this forum.

[CowboyinDC]

:jerk: excuse my typo

but the 30% rule is a new rule if the CBA is not signed.

If it was already in contracts then it wouldn't be a problem would it?

Not really a typo since you have done it this entire thread.

Please numerate the moves that will put the Skins below the cap without letting starters go. Considering they're multiple reports that the cap will be at 93 million.

[Westbrook36]

:jerk: excuse my typo

but the 30% rule is a new rule if the CBA is not signed.

If it was already in contracts then it wouldn't be a problem would it?

It is already in contracts. It is not a new rule. All current NFL contracts are in accordance with this rule.

What you are not taking into account is most of the ways of cutting salary cap charges as outlined in the scout.com article and the WP article does not take into account having to stay within the 30 percent rule parameters, thus making those restructures illegal and sure to be shot down by the commissioner's office.

[Westbrook36]

Westbrook... you're in here every off-season towing the 'sky is falling' line about the Redskins' and the salary cap.

So far, you're batting 0.0000000000

Just an idea... you might want to find a new gig. Tell us our players suck, or something like that.

I don't think you're as good at this cap stuff as you think you are. Just sayin'

There is a search function on this website. Please find one thread where I predicted the sky was falling in regards to cap matters for the Redskins. JUST ONE, zoony.

Previous to this year.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Another thread for the wannabee accountants and lawyers

[BigDFan5]

no I am not, the 30% rule is only a rule to keep teams from dumping contracts to the uncapped year. and only applies if the CBA is not signed by 3-3-06

read the quotes from several articles

Article Article XXIV

Section 8

(No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year and extending into the Final League Year or beyond may provide for an annual increase in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section 7((iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary provided for in the Final Capped Year, per year, either in the Final League Year or in any subsequent League Year covered by the Player Contract. For example, without limitation on any other applicable example, if neither party exercises any right to cancel the extension of this Agreement, a four-year Player Contract signed in the 2003 League Year (assuming it is a Capped Year) may not provide for annual increase of more than 30% of the 2003 League Year Salary, excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus, in each of the three additional League Years covered by the Contract.

[SkinsHokieFan]

What is this salary cap hell part 5?

Seriously, there is a reason Mr. Schaeffer was hired, and Mr. Snyder has some big ass 3 ring binder he carries around with him all the time

We will see what happens in 2 weeks

[Westbrook36]

BigDFan, don't post parts of the CBA.....Bubba can counter with web articles that he clearly doesn't understand. :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

What is this salary cap hell part 5?

Seriously, there is a reason Mr. Schaeffer was hired, and Mr. Snyder has some big ass 3 ring binder he carries around with him all the time

We will see what happens in 2 weeks

Actually, part 1. The last few years, everyone pointed to 2006. Now, it is 2006. To make this more palatable, many have been posting ad nauseum that it's the same thing every year. That isn't true. 2006 was ALWAYS the year that everyone pointed to.

Here we are. 9 days left.

[DeaconBlue]

To Westbrook and the dallas fans buzziing around this issue like a bunch of vultures.. If everything that you seem to think is going to come to pass does, do you think that any new success that YOUR team may have against ours will then be cheapened by the way your teams had to garner that success? Oh and CowboyinDC only *****hats gripe over grammar.

[Westbrook36]

Article Article XXIV

Section 8

(No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year and extending into the Final League Year or beyond may provide for an annual increase in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section 7((iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary provided for in the Final Capped Year, per year, either in the Final League Year or in any subsequent League Year covered by the Player Contract. For example, without limitation on any other applicable example, if neither party exercises any right to cancel the extension of this Agreement, a four-year Player Contract signed in the 2003 League Year (assuming it is a Capped Year) may not provide for annual increase of more than 30% of the 2003 League Year Salary, excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus, in each of the three additional League Years covered by the Contract.

This perfectly illustrates where Bubba is mistaken. This isn't a NEW RULE. It is a rule that effects every single contract in the NFL since it covers contracts which extend from a capped year to the final league year. This covers every contract written which extended to 2006, thus, every contract in the NFL has to be in compliance of the 30 percent rule. In order to renegotiate contracts and reduce cap numbers for the current year, the 30 percent rule still has to be followed.

[Westbrook36]

To Westbrook and the dallas fans buzziing around this issue like a bunch of vultures.. If everything that you seem to think is going to come to pass does, do you think that any new success that YOUR team may have against ours will then be cheapened by the way your teams had to garner that success? Oh and CowboyinDC only *****hats gripe over grammar.

If the Skins had to be blown up because of Snyder's inability to control himself would any success the Eagles had against the Skins be cheapened? Is that what you are asking?

[BigDFan5]

BigDFan, don't post parts of the CBA.....Bubba can counter with web articles that he clearly doesn't understand. :laugh:

lmao CBA states it clear as day not much disputing what the actual document says