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

[DeaconBlue]

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?

Christ, I gotta waste my 1000th post on the likes of YOU ?Oh well I cannot let this pass. You know damn well this impasse isn't the result of Dan's so called inability to control himself. If it wasn't for the CBA coming to a end this year would have passed like any other and you know it. What it does have to do with is other teams stonewalling of the new CBA. Don't kid yourself either that they don't know what the ramifications of thier actions.I don't think its that hard to believe that certian quarters are dragging thier feet on the CBA just to hang others out to dry. I wouldn't want to win that way but YOU do what you want.

[bubba9497]

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.

which states EXACTLY what I am saying

it's a rule that only goes into effect in 2006 if the CBA is not reached.

current contracts are only affected if reworked, and can not exceed 30% increase per year from the orginal contracts 2006 salary.

current contracts that go into 2006 already signed, and not reworked will not be affected.....

[bubba9497]

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

but yet you and westbrook still don't understand it.

[AdamJT13]

it will be more than that

No, it won't. If the Skins cut Bowen, Raymer, Harris and Hall, the net cap savings right now will be $4.775 million. Their cap hits will go from $8,233,334 to $2,218,334, and they will be replaced in the Top 51 by four players making $310,000 apiece. Do the math.

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.

Every contract that extends into 2007 currently complies with the 30 percent rule and always will comply with the 30 percent rule. (The NFL wouldn't approve any changes that would violate the rule.) It's not a temporary rule, it's not a new rule, and it's not just for new contracts. You apparently didn't even know it was a rule until recently, and you obviously still don't understand the rule.

[bubba9497]

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.

yes

[BigDFan5]

which states EXACTLY what I am saying

it's a rule that only goes into effect in 2006 if the CBA is not reached.

current contracts are only affected if reworked, and can not exceed 30% increase per year from the orginal contracts 2006 salary.

current contracts that go into 2006 already signed, and not reworked will not be affected.....

Did you even read it?? Its right there in plain english

No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year

Not In the final capped year into ANY capped year extending "into the Final League Year or beyond "

Damn look at their example they used a contract signed in 2003 extending into the uncapped year as their example!!!!! Obviously this is not 2003

[BigDFan5]

but yet you and westbrook still don't understand it.

Funny since you are the one that is wrong lol

[AdamJT13]

which states EXACTLY what I am saying

it's a rule that only goes into effect in 2006 if the CBA is not reached.

The rule already has been in effect for every contract that extends past 2006. It has been in effect for years, and every contract that extends past 2006 has complied.

current contracts are only affected if reworked, and can not exceed 30% increase per year from the orginal contracts 2006 salary.

current contracts that go into 2006 already signed, and not reworked will not be affected.....

Every single current contract already complies with the 30 percent rule, so obviously any current contracts that aren't renegotiated won't be affected. But all of the current contracts that are renegotiated STILL must comply with the 30 percent rule. EVERY contract must comply with the 30 percent rule ALL of the time.

[bubba9497]

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.

WB meaning it's a new rule, because it does not go into effect until 2006, if the CBA is not reached. not that it was something they come up with this week.

again, current contracts will not be affected.

my wording may not have been clear, but the 30% will only have barring in releationship to the 2006 salary cap to any new contracts signed, and those that are reworked. As you put all contracts extending in to 2007 were already in compliance.

also the assumption that the Skins base salaries of current contracts do not allow for and cap relief becasue they already max out the 30% rule is a false assumption.

cutting players still under contract with bonuses due, or guareenteed salaries will be the last ones any team would want to cut, because it would mean an imediate cap hit for 100% of whats due, and can't break it up after June 1st as in previous years.

[bubba9497]

Funny since you are the one that is wrong lol

no I'm not, and I have backed it up time and time again

[BigDFan5]

no I'm not, and I have backed it up time and time again

By stating that the 30% rule doesnt matter on existing contracts even tho It was shown in the CBA that it does and they are all in compliance. No matter how you try and backtrack now saying you meant didnt matter cause you knew they were in compliance

[bubba9497]

Did you even read it?? Its right there in plain english

Not In the final capped year into ANY capped year extending "into the Final League Year or beyond "

Damn look at their example they used a contract signed in 2003 extending into the uncapped year as their example!!!!! Obviously this is not 2003

you are the one mistakenly reading the rule you posted

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

there's the key phrase.more than 30% of the Salary provide in the FINAL CAP year. The rule was made up in the current CBA to only be in effect to prevent teams from dumping salary into 2007.

If the March deadline passes, signing bonuses on new deals only can be prorated for four years, rather than six. That's bad for teams that like to massage the cap and stretch out contracts.

Of greater concern is the "30 percent rule,'' which says no player's base salary can increase more than 30 percent each year from the start of a deal.

That's the opposite of how teams have operated since the free-agency era commenced in 1994. In the years since, big signing bonuses have negated the need for big first- and second-year salaries, allowing teams to backload deals with the intent to release the player and giving him his movement down the line.

But under the new restrictions, more money up front -- especially when tied to salaries -- would mean less to spread around for the masses.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/football/orl-nflinsider2906jan29,0,2376840.column?coll=orl-sports-football

[BigDFan5]

also the assumption that the Skins base salaries of current contracts do not allow for and cap relief becasue they already max out the 30% rule is a false assumption.

for example?

[cutting players still under contract with bonuses due, or guareenteed salaries will be the last ones any team would want to cut, because it would mean an imediate cap hit for 100% of whats due, and can't break it up after June 1st as in previous years.

According to scout.com the same guy that wrote the article saying the Skins could easily get like 12 mill in cap room, that same guy is now saying Skins would have to cut 11 players and restructure 12 or more contracts to get barely below the cap.

[bubba9497]

By stating that the 30% rule doesnt matter on existing contracts even tho It was shown in the CBA that it does and they are all in compliance. No matter how you try and backtrack now saying you meant didnt matter cause you knew they were in compliance

I never said I knew they were in compliance to the 30%, but correctly they will not be affected....only those contracts that were new or reworked. which is 100% true

I am also correct that the rule is new in as much as has not been applied to any year before 2006, and only will be mandatory if the CBA is not reached by 3-3-06

[BigDFan5]

you are the one mistakenly reading the rule you posted

there's the key phrase.more than 30% of the Salary provide in the FINAL CAP year. The rule was made up in the current CBA to only be in effect to prevent teams from dumping salary into 2007.

Bubba you're proving my point. 30% rule is from the final capped year to the end of the contract, BUT it doesnt matter when the contract is signed if someone signed a 10 year contract in 2000 then in that contract years 2007-2010 had to comply with the 30% rule Therefore its not only for new contracts as you kept saying

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/football/orl-nflinsider2906jan29,0,2376840.column?coll=orl-sports-football

From your link

Of greater concern is the "30 percent rule,'' which says no player's base salary can increase more than 30 percent each year from the start of a deal.

Exactly no matter when the contract was signed the contract salary can not go up more than 30% of the 2006 salary in 2007 and beyond until the contract ends

[BigDFan5]

I never said I knew they were in compliance to the 30%, but correctly they will not be affected....only those contracts that were new or reworked. which is 100% true

I am also correct that the rule is new in as much as has not been applied to any year before 2006, and only will be mandatory if the CBA is not reached by 3-3-06

they are not affected because they ALREADY are in compliance meaning they were already affected. They were affected by the rule when the contract was written.

Reworked as in guaranteeing roster bonuses and spreading the hit thats where the Skins may run into trouble

As for the rule being new no its been in the CBA the entire time. It is ALREADY mandatory hence why all contracts extending into the uncapped year and beyond are already in compliance

[The Batman]

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.

GoGo Action Grammar-Correcting CowboyinDC, I CHOOSE YOU!

:laugh:

:logo:

[bubba9497]

No, it won't. If the Skins cut Bowen, Raymer, Harris and Hall, the net cap savings right now will be $4.775 million. Their cap hits will go from $8,233,334 to $2,218,334, and they will be replaced in the Top 51 by four players making $310,000 apiece. Do the math.

Releasing Players Outright

Matt Bowen SS – save $2.0m

John Hall K – save $1.0m

Walt Harris CB – save $2.0m

Cory Raymer C – save $1.0m

Trade Patrick Ramsey QB – save $1.7m (and receive draft pick compensation)

Retirement Brandon Noble DT – save $1.7m

Release and resign deal James Thrash WR – cut and resign to vet minimum deal plus the $25k signing bonus – save .4m

that's a savings of $8.8 million

[Westbrook36]

Releasing Players Outright

Matt Bowen SS – save $2.0m

John Hall K – save 1.0

Walt Harris CB – save $2.0m

Cory Raymer C – save $1.0m

Trade Patrick Ramsey QB – save $1.7m (and receive draft pick compensation)

Retirement Brandon Noble DT – save $1.7m

Release and resign deal James Thrash WR – cut and resign to vet minimum deal plus the $25k signing bonus – save .4m

that's a savings of 8.8 million

How bout the players that have to replace their roster spots, as dictated by the rule of 51? Are they going to play for free? Now, you have 8.8 million, without taking the rule of 51 into account. Let's say you really trimmed 6 million because players making the league minimum will take up over 2 million to replace those players.

Now, how do you account for the other 14 million you'd have to remove to be under the cap? Now that me, Adam, and BigD have schooled you on the 30 percent rule (which you say you knew all along but look at your responses in the beginning of the thread and now :laugh: ) how exactly will the Skins cut the other 14 million and stay in compliance with the rule?

[Westbrook36]

which states EXACTLY what I am saying

it's a rule that only goes into effect in 2006 if the CBA is not reached.

Not true. Doesn't matter if it's reached or not. Current contracts were written when 2006 was the last year so they fell under the 30 percent rule and any further restructures fall under the rule. The WP article you have posted so many times as your "proof" that the Skins will get under the cap doesn't take this into account.

[Westbrook36]

WB meaning it's a new rule, because it does not go into effect until 2006, if the CBA is not reached. not that it was something they come up with this week.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Since 2006 was the last year when the contracts were written, it's not a new rule, not a rule that will only go into effect if there is not an extension of the CBA.

[AdamJT13]

Releasing Players Outright

Matt Bowen SS – save $2.0m

John Hall K – save $1.0m

Walt Harris CB – save $2.0m

Cory Raymer C – save $1.0m

The exact numbers are $985,000 for Raymer and $1.03 million for Hall. But cutting those four players means four players who make $310,000 apiece move into the Top 51 and start counting against the cap (namely, Aki Jones, Jim Jones, Robert McCune and Christian Morton). That's a net savings of $4.775 million.

Trade Patrick Ramsey QB – save $1.7m (and receive draft pick compensation)

Retirement Brandon Noble DT – save $1.7m

Those aren't cuts. And your claim was that "the suggested cuts would almost put them in line with the cap." The only suggested cuts in the article were Bowen, Harris, Hall and Raymer.

Release and resign deal James Thrash WR – cut and resign to vet minimum deal plus the $25k signing bonus – save .4m

that's a savings of $8.8 million

The numbers you listed would add up to $9.8 million, not $8.8 million. But when you take into account the Rule of 51, all of the moves you listed would result in a net cap savings of $7.933 million, leaving the Skins still $12.472 million over the cap.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am gonna hit the gym

I will leave the bean counting to you knowledgable accountants

[BigDFan5]

I am gonna hit the gym

I will leave the bean counting to you knowledgable accountants

Thanks!

[DeaconBlue]

Thanks!

He said "knowledgable" not "Knucklehead" accountants. Pipe down.