bubba9497 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 There already is a minimum cap. of 95%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That'll never happen. Too many egos among rich, middle-aged, white men for them to actually listen to anything Danny Snyder has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Again I say;If no CBA; Who cares? 2007 will be without a cap and Snyder can extend money to be paid that year. Like coach salaries, there's nothing to stop or limit that. If there is a CBA it's gonna go up more than the current projected cap. We will have ZERO money problems either way for 2006. A CBA can be agreed to after March 1st. This means there would be a cap in 2007 but still cap hell for 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Bingo, the Cards, Eagles, and such are the teams that are in the wrong, and the villains.I propose a minimum cap, that all teams MUST use say 95% of the salary cap, or be penalized like the teams who go over the maximum limit. Eagles have spent over 95 percent of the cap the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 A CBA can be agreed to after March 1st. This means there would be a cap in 2007 but still cap hell for 2006. Have you seen Upshaw's statement about, the owners never getting the cap back from the players. The gang of nine will dig in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Have you seen Upshaw's statement about, the owners never getting the cap back from the players.The gang of nine will dig in. The only way 2007 is uncapped is if the 2006 season begins without an agreement. At that point, Upshaw's statement is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The only way 2007 is uncapped is if the 2006 season begins without an agreement. At that point, Upshaw's statement is correct. Upshaw's statement involved him saying that after this week they would allow FA to begin March 3 and 2007 would be an uncapped year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I also have another question regarding Upshaw stating that the players could vote to disband the union. What effects would this have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Upshaw's statement involved him saying that after this week they would allow FA to begin March 3 and 2007 would be an uncapped year. That's not true. An agreement can be reached after March 3rd and NOT make 2007 uncapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I also have another question regarding Upshaw stating that the players could vote to disband the union. What effects would this have. This is grandstanding. Upshaw isn't going to dismantle the table where his bread is buttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Gude Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 because in the current CBA, rules have been set up if an extension is not signed, teams can't dump salaries into uncapped years... that's what the 30% rule everyone is discussing is all about. Bubba, Do you understand this? http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html All non-signing bonus amounts in a players contract that has a tenure greater than 2006 (and all new contracts entered into in 2006) cannot increase by more than 30 percent each year for the remaining life of the contract using 2006 (the final capped year) as the base from which this starts. The parts of the contract included in the 30 percent rule are base salary, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses, LTBE incentives and option bonuses payable in 2006 or in future years even though they are evenly spread like signing bonuses. Signing bonus amounts have no restrictions. Wouldn't that mean they can do what I suggested; just get whomever they need to to toss their old contract, sing a new one and give them a boat load in signing bonus??? Help me here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Bubba,Do you understand this? http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html Wouldn't that mean they can do what I suggested; just get whomever they need to to toss their old contract, sing a new one and give them a boat load in signing bonus??? Help me here. In theory they could do this, but this is one area in which teams can get into trouble to circumvent the cap. Players can redo their deals if they wish, but the deals have to be comparable to the previous deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Good to see Andyman make an appearance. Good points from all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggface gremlin Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 For of course a nominal fee. 10% of revenues generated from the advice. Now thats revenue sharing! I wanna be like Dan!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I also have another question regarding Upshaw stating that the players could vote to disband the union. What effects would this have. If the NFLPA were to disband, ALL players would become Free Agents. This is a good strategy by Upshaw because the small market owners don't want to lose their only money makers and get into a bidding war with the likes of Snyder, Jones, etc. In addition, he is really pushing for a CBA extension to be signed and disbanding the NFLPA is great leverage because all owners don't want to see players salaries double or even triple in less than 1 years time. Which could happen if this scenario pans out: 1) There is no CBA extension signed AFTER the current CBA has expired (after 2007 season). 2) The payers union votes to disband the NFLPA making everyone a FA. However, if this happens the probability that the owners will lockout the players would be ENORMOUS and it would spell impending doom for the NFL and EVERYONE involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 In theory they could do this, but this is one area in which teams can get into trouble to circumvent the cap. Players can redo their deals if they wish, but the deals have to be comparable to the previous deal one thing to note is that comparable can mean a lot of things. these guys singing 40 mil contracts with 20 mil bonus' spread thoughout, could get the exact same deal but with the 20 mil signing bonus piad at. . . signing! Most players struggle to get the entirety of the bonus money they signed for on the schedule they signed for it. In this case they get it ALL up front. Not to mention paying up front and keeping the contracts the same size STILL smacks the small markets upside their heads. look at those team incomes, then just imagine if they had to try and pay all the bonus' due to their current roster upfront. they couldn't do it, they'd go broke. the skins however. . hehehe *Evil grin* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 one thing to note is that comparable can mean a lot of things. these guys singing 40 mil contracts with 20 mil bonus' spread thoughout, could get the exact same deal but with the 20 mil signing bonus piad at. . . signing! Most players struggle to get the entirety of the bonus money they signed for on the schedule they signed for it. In this case they get it ALL up front. Not to mention paying up front and keeping the contracts the same size STILL smacks the small markets upside their heads. look at those team incomes, then just imagine if they had to try and pay all the bonus' due to their current roster upfront. they couldn't do it, they'd go broke. the skins however. . hehehe *Evil grin* There are many reasons why teams don't give signing bouns money up front. 1) The team simply could go broke, like in the quoted post. 2) Players tend to opt for it to be prorated because it is the only money that is guaranteed and if something happens to the player they can collect without having to worry about if they invested it properly. 3) Fans would not want players to get the entire signing bonus up front because it would be incredibly expensive to go to a fooball game because the team would have to recoup all of that money somehow and what better way to do that with increases in ticket prices, concessions, merchandise, etc. If the NFL is not careful the golden egg can turn rotten in a blink of an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sullivan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 The teams that implode because they are unable to pay the high bonuses players command would not include the Redskins, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sullivan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I am not sure it would be doom for the NFL. I assume the players would be replaced and that there would still be games in the event of a lockout, in 1987 that is what happened and I assume precedent still holds. Now, it would not be as high-level, but I would still tune in to watch the games every Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Westbrook I think you do realize why Upshaw will just go ahead and let the CBA expire after March 1st For teams with plenty of cap room, they would sign players this year with the expectation that there would be no cap in 2007 and thus maimizing what the players can get in deals THIS OFFSEASON Agents would have no idea how to negotiate contracts if they have no idea what future numbers will bear out. Generally there is a pretty good expectation of where the future cap would be, hence why you could plan long term contracts But if teams had in the back of their heads that there would be a CBA signed after 3/1/2006 but prior to 2007, you mess with future expectations If there is no CBA by March 1st, there will be a strike/lockout before the 2008 season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 That's not true. An agreement can be reached after March 3rd and NOT make 2007 uncapped. I was referring to the statement that he stated after such time (March3), the players/union will not agree to the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I am not sure it would be doom for the NFL. I assume the players would be replaced and that there would still be games in the event of a lockout, in 1987 that is what happened and I assume precedent still holds. Now, it would not be as high-level, but I would still tune in to watch the games every Sunday. People would still tune in to see replacement players, but will there be replacement games? No, because in the event of a lockout the owners are the ones acting not the players, therefore they cannot field replacement players (ref. Hockey). Now if there was a NFLPA strike then the owners could field replacement players (scabs) to keep their business running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Gude Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 There are many reasons why teams don't give signing bouns money up front.[ QUOTE]A little help, please. I thought singing bonuses were paid at signing and cap rules allowed teams to prorate the impact over several years which is why we are always over every year in terms of actual dollars Snyder pays out but actually under in terms of the rules? Educate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 does dan snyder have some conflicting interests going on here. on one hand he wants to keep as much of the local revenue as possible for himself. and on the other he needs the cba to be extended to get the redskins out of cap hell so to speak. from what ive heard the biggest hang up in the talks is about the local revenues. i wonder which one he wants more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 There are many reasons why teams don't give signing bouns money up front.[ QUOTE]A little help, please. I thought singing bonuses were paid at signing and cap rules allowed teams to prorate the impact over several years which is why we are always over every year in terms of actual dollars Snyder pays out but actually under in terms of the rules? Educate me. The signing bonuses are not counted toward the cap because it is guaranteed money. Other bonuses are counted such as performance based, roster, and others. Players and teams opt for signing bonuses to be alotted throughout the contract because of the afformentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.