Westbrook36 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 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. Signing bonus's absolutely count against the salary cap. The difference is they can be prorated throughout the remainder of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachingWinsChampionships Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 i think the biggest issue here is are the players and the higher revenue teams, such as the skins, are so blinded by their greed that they don't see that if there is no salary cap, everybody involved in the sport will be hurt in the long term. Sure, Washington and Dallas and the like could assemble a $300 million dollar roster and dominate the league for a few years. Also, the players could hit some HUGE paydays like the NBA and MLB have going on. But the disparity between the have and the have-not teams will erode the fan base and deteriorate the game. A major reason why the NFL is so popular is b/c it is so competitive through many features creating parity. Either team could win on "any given Sunday." Many people don't like to watch baseball b/c they know that the Yankees are pretty much guaranteed to beat 70% of the teams in the league.(in addition to the fact that baseball is such a slow sport!) Bottom line: The wealthy teams need to compromise w/ the less wealthy teams and the players need to suck it up and keep the salary cap, while the league should concede to the players a larger portion of revenues to player salaries. I hope greed doesn't lead to shortsightedness and all parties involved take the necessary steps to keep something close to the current system that has led to their success in place and do it FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME. p.s. I'm new here. Who is andyman? He is so well respected by just about everybody. After all the praise I've seen of him(and the groveling toward His Majesty), I'm quite curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Gude Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 Signing bonus's absolutely count against the salary cap. The difference is they can be prorated throughout the remainder of the contract. OK, but the question still stands; Does the player get the money up front even though it is spread out in terms of counting against the cap? The launguage isn't clear to me. I thought when OCles got here, he got a $13 million dollar signing bonus, got the cash up front but it counts against the cap over seceral years. Does this explain why we, Snyder, spends more actual cash per year than the the cap number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Gude Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 Answering my own question: Props to askthecommish.com: Larry,Yes, typically signing bonuses (SB) are paid up front and their proration counts in equal parts in each year of the contract, including the year in which it was paid -- and each year thereafter. Under the existing CBA, the SB money can only be prorated through 2009, so any contract extending beyond 2009 will have to have all of the SB money accounted for by 2009. There is also a trend these days to have "tiered" signing bonuses. For example, say, a player signs a 5 year deal in 2005 with a $10 M up-front signing bonus and a second signing bonus payable in 2006 for $8 M. Then, the proration of his signing bonus(es) would look like this: 2005: $2 M (first SB) 2006: $2 M (first SB) + $2 M (second SB) = $4 M 2007: $2 M (first SB) + $2 M (second SB) = $4 M 2008: $2 M (first SB) + $2 M (second SB) = $4 M 2009: $2 M (first SB) + $2 M (second SB) = $4 M The catch is that the language in the contract MUST specifically state that each of these bonuses is a "SIGNING BONUS". For, if either is a "ROSTER BONUS", then the full amount of the roster bonus counts against the cap in the year in which it was paid. Lots of legalese... I hope this helps answer your question. The Commish Ask The Commish.com http://www.askthecommish.com I'm feeling educated here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brdawk20 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Truer words were never spoken! The league *should* encourage the owners who are doing it right (Snyder, Kraft, Jones, etc) to speak to the other owners at every years Symposium (or whatever they call it) to walk them through some of the marketing strategies and techniques to make their franchises more profitable Do you consider spending all that cash "doing it right?" I thought success in the league was measured by how many games you won on the field, not how much money you spend. It's not how much you spend, its how wisely you spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Your also forgetting. IF 2007 is uncapped and there is no CBA with the NFLPA disbanding there is no NFL Draft -- its open season on rookies from College. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyeG Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 My head hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 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. The primary purpose of disbanding the union would be to prevent a (legal) lockout. With no union the league would be under anti-trust legislation and would be unable to lock the players out. No union, no labor laws, and thus no lock-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Your also forgetting. IF 2007 is uncapped and there is no CBA with the NFLPA disbanding there is no NFL Draft -- its open season on rookies from College. I think there would be a lockout before this would happen. As far as the revenue sharing goes, the thing that sucks is that the small market teams don't really try to generate local revenue, while owners like Snyder and Jerrah (hate having to give him kudos) work their butts off for it. Then, on top of that, the small market guys aren't even spending the full amount of money allowed now. So, they just want more money to put in their pockets? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Do you consider spending all that cash "doing it right?" I thought success in the league was measured by how many games you won on the field, not how much money you spend.It's not how much you spend, its how wisely you spend it. He's not referring to team winning here, but running a business. That's what the NFL is. The owners should be making money; no one does this better than Snyder. He then turns around and dumps much of that money into the team. In years past, perhpas not so wisely. But I think we're seeing a trend change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 The Gang of 9 are the Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans. That includes the Eagles. The Panthers were once the lowest valued franchise and the Patriots were one of the lowest when Kraft bought them. This is the NFL. If your team is not making enough money, it's your own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 This has been a very informative thread. Thank you, one and all, for the interesting and detailed information. BUT for us, the fans, and season ticket holders, what does all this mean? A parable may illuminate: when the elephants fight, the ants get trampled. The elephants are the team owners and the players union. The ants are us, the fans/season ticket holders. When all the dust settles (and it will settle, either with a new CBA within the next week, or after an ugly strike/lock-out and antitrust litigation), we will pay for it in higher ticket prices, parking fees, concessions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFan63 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 He's not referring to team winning here, but running a business. That's what the NFL is. The owners should be making money; no one does this better than Snyder. He then turns around and dumps much of that money into the team. In years past, perhpas not so wisely. But I think we're seeing a trend change. "I thought you said your dog did not bite?! That's not my dog." LOL! Another PP fan! "Kato, your freezer ambush ploy, I must congratulate you, it was very very good. But Kato, your fly is undone!" Hail!:point2sky I NEED this car!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.