Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]Concerning Lavar.....There is no way they should keep him.[/QUOTE]
You're right the is NO WAY they should keep him. He is totally worthless and not worth the air he breathes. He can't play and does nothing for the team. He isn't even a nice guy. Such a malcontent always getting in fights with teammates. Who the heck would want him on their team? Don't forget that the INT he had in the TB game that was a major reason we won wasn't due to anything he did. What a worthless player. Please. Get real man. Ugh.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

the guy has 10 tackles and an interception without playing on third down and he is worthless!on comcast this morning without reading into an interview i get the feeling he will be back,as long as the numbers are right.i want him back minus the soap opera every week.a dynamic force in this league when healthy

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]You're right the is NO WAY they should keep him. He is totally worthless and not worth the air he breathes. He can't play and does nothing for the team. He isn't even a nice guy. Such a malcontent always getting in fights with teammates. Who the heck would want him on their team? Don't forget that the INT he had in the TB game that was a major reason we won wasn't due to anything he did. What a worthless player. Please. Get real man. Ugh.[/QUOTE]


FRPLG, please tell me you're joking! ;)

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]FRPLG, please tell me you're joking! ;)[/QUOTE]
Without a doubt.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

If Arrington will restructure to save cap room, I'm fine with keeping him. But I still wouldn't want him playing on 3rd downs until he gets up to speed a bit more on the defense.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]If Arrington will restructure to save cap room, I'm fine with keeping him. But I still wouldn't want him playing on 3rd downs until he gets up to speed a bit more on the defense.[/QUOTE]
Up to speed? The guy has had over 2 years to learn the D. If he doesn't know it by now I wouldn't expect him to know it ever. I think his lack of explosiveness due to the knee kept him off the field on third downs mostly. He seems to me to fit perfectly into what Williams likes to do. Bring pressure from everywhere. If he comes off on 3rd when you want to bring pressure then that says something about his ability to bring said pressure. I am hoping it is temporary and he'll be back better next year. He can still play I am sure of it. He didn't become a terrible football player all of a audden and I sat and watched Gregg Williams compliment him about how fun he is coach when he is at the top of his game. Williams will keep him if Lavar has sufficiently bought into everything.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10][size=3][b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006: $109.6 million[/b][/size]
[size=3][b]Expected NFL Salary Cap Limit: $93 million[/b][/size]

[size=3]Expected Cuts - Cap Savings:[/size]
Brandon Noble - $1.7 million
Walt Harris - $2 million
Matt Bowen - $2 million
Corey Raymer - $1 million
Antonio Brown - $450,000
Jimmy Farris - $450,000
Derrick Frost - $450,000
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Cuts: $8 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts: $101.6 million[/b]

[size=3]Expected Trades/Post June 1 Cuts - Cap Savings[/size]
Patrick Ramsey - $2.2 million
Lavar Arrington - $7 million
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Trades/Post June 1 Cuts: $9.2 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts: $92.4 million[/b]

[size=3]Roster Bonuses Restructured - Cap Savings[/size]

(assuming 2006 roster bonuses are restructured to become signing bonuses pro-rated for the remaining length of the current contract)

Sean Taylor: $1.8 million
Clinton Portis: $2.5 million
Casey Rabach: $1.5 million
Shawn Springs: $2.5 million
Cornelius Griffin: $2.0 million
Marcus Washington: $1.9 million
Chris Samuels: $3.7 million
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Roster Bonus Restructures: $15.9 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts, and Roster Bonus Restructures: $76.5 million[/b]

[b]Projected Cap: $93 million[/b]

[b][size=3]Expected Cap Room for Signing Free Agents, Draft Picks, and any Contract Extensions beyond Roster Bonus Restructures: $16.5 million[/size][/b][/QUOTE]

Great post Schneed.

I updated my cap sheets (should be up soon) and my starting cap number is $114.5M (including $3.5M in deadcap).

In addition to the savings you mentioned, I would add another $6M for salary restructures on Brunell, Jansen, and Thomas. That brings the cap number down to about $75.5M leaving us about $20M to spend.

However like Pocono mentioned, this is all dependent on a new CBA. Without a new CBA we won't be able to restructure the roster bonuses because of the 30% rule, and we won't be able to push the $7M Arrington deadcap to next year. Removing these savings brings our cap number to $98.5M.

So it looks like we definitely need a new CBA in place, or we may be in trouble.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Great post Schneed.

I updated my cap sheets (should be up soon) and my starting cap number is $114.5M (including $3.5M in deadcap).

In addition to the savings you mentioned, I would add another $6M for salary restructures on Brunell, Jansen, and Thomas. That brings the cap number down to about $75.5M leaving us about $20M to spend.

However like Pocono mentioned, this is all dependent on a new CBA. Without a new CBA we won't be able to restructure the roster bonuses because of the 30% rule, and we won't be able to push the $7M Arrington deadcap to next year. Removing these savings brings our cap number to $98.5M.

So it looks like we definitely need a new CBA in place, or we may be in trouble.[/QUOTE]

What if there is no cap. It is thrown out in the agreement? There has been talk out there about that!!!

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Here's what I don't get. If we violate the salary cap, what penalty would there be if there is no more salary cap? Loss of draft choices? We'll just pick up more free agents. Am I missing something?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=JET]Here's what I don't get. If we violate the salary cap, what penalty would there be if there is no more salary cap? Loss of draft choices? We'll just pick up more free agents. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]

It is impossible to disregard the salary cap because the NFL has to approve every contract. They keep track of the cap numbers and implications. So if a contract or acquisition would put a team over the cap they league would simply not allow it; the player would continue to be a free agent and could not play under the illegal contract, or in the case of a trade, returned to his original team.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Salary cap is here to stay.

NFLPA President Gene Upshaw has stated publicly that without a new CBA or an extension of the current CBA it would render the 2007 season as a "cap-less" season. He stated emphatically that if that happened there would be a player lockout and a strike would be inevitable.

Biggest hurdle for the CBA right now, and has really always been, revenue sharing. It basically states that teams that bring in the largest revenues, like Washington and Philly, would be forced to share a portion of those revenues with smaller market teams, like Buffalo.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack]
Biggest hurdle for the CBA right now, and has really always been, revenue sharing. It basically states that teams that bring in the largest revenues, like Washington and Philly, would be forced to share a portion of those revenues with smaller market teams, like Buffalo.[/QUOTE]


And I'm sure you would volunteer Jerry's Cowboy millions to be shared!

What ever happened to a novel idea like Capitalism? Or reaping the benefits of your own labor?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=backrow]And I'm sure you would volunteer Jerry's Cowboy millions to be shared!

What ever happened to a novel idea like Capitalism? Or reaping the benefits of your own labor?[/QUOTE]

I can go on and on all day long about this topic.

In life, I like capitalism and reaping the benefits of your own labor. But not in sports.

In sports, the nature of the business is to put the most exciting product on the field, and generate more fan interest so that you can charge more for tickets, more for merchandise, and reach more eyeballs which brings in more advertising money. Revenue sharing helps ensure that each team is on equal financial footing so that the only place they are competing against one another is on the football field. If teams are competing against each other financially speaking, the competition shifts away from the football field and into the marketplace. Fans of small market teams will begin to perceive their teams have no chance and their interest wanes. The KC Royals are a perfect example. Major League Baseball can't get much out of that area, financially speaking, because nobody wants to see the Royals because they stink, nobody wants to buy Royals jerseys, and nobody wants to watch them on TV. But look at the KC Chiefs. Same market, but because of revenue sharing they can always field a competitive team. And because of that the fan interest is there in droves. The NFL can market to the entire country because of their revenue sharing plan. MLB is more limited.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]In life, I like capitalism and reaping the benefits of your own labor. But not in sports.

In sports, the nature of the business is to put the most exciting product on the field, and generate more fan interest so that you can charge more for tickets, more for merchandise, and reach more eyeballs which brings in more advertising money. Revenue sharing helps ensure that each team is on equal financial footing so that the only place they are competing against one another is on the football field. If teams are competing against each other financially speaking, the competition shifts away from the football field and into the marketplace. Fans of small market teams will begin to perceive their teams have no chance and their interest wanes. The KC Royals are a perfect example. Major League Baseball can't get much out of that area, financially speaking, because nobody wants to see the Royals because they stink, nobody wants to buy Royals jerseys, and nobody wants to watch them on TV. But look at the KC Chiefs. Same market, but because of revenue sharing they can always field a competitive team. And because of that the fan interest is there in droves. The NFL can market to the entire country because of their revenue sharing plan. MLB is more limited.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

I like STJack! He comes with a bit of "tude" every time, but not nasty or insulting!

I just like throwing the "sand" back at him!

I see your point Schneed10. Don't like it particularly, but I see it.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

The NFL is where it is today because of revenue sharing.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=backrow]And I'm sure you would volunteer Jerry's Cowboy millions to be shared!

What ever happened to a novel idea like Capitalism? Or reaping the benefits of your own labor?[/QUOTE]

Not my point...but as long as you bring it up the Redskins LEAD THE LEAGUE in revenue. They are higher in revenue than Dallas by about 40 million.

So you need to be mentioning Dan Snyders name way before Jerry Jones.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

If the teams go to some sort of Draconian revenue sharing, what would be the motivation for any club to increase its revenues, or to field a winning team at all? If every team in the league ends up in the same place financially, why not just field a bunch of scrubs and wait for the money to roll in from elsewhere.
The stadium naming example is perfect. If Green Bay wants to continue with the name 'Lambeau' thats fine. How are they entitled to any of the money from teams who choose another way. Likewise why should a team that can sell 100,000 seats at a $100 each be penalized for the loyalty of its fans. It feels like the welfare teams are banding together to stick it to the more succesful franchises. They're already being subsidized as it is but they want even more.
Does anyone know exactly where the various owners stand? Is it part of the CBA negotiation or is it seperate? Does the NFLPA have a stand on this issue? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]If the teams go to some sort of Draconian revenue sharing, what would be the motivation for any club to increase its revenues, or to field a winning team at all? If every team in the league ends up in the same place financially, why not just field a bunch of scrubs and wait for the money to roll in from elsewhere.
The stadium naming example is perfect. If Green Bay wants to continue with the name 'Lambeau' thats fine. How are they entitled to any of the money from teams who choose another way. Likewise why should a team that can sell 100,000 seats at a $100 each be penalized for the loyalty of its fans. It feels like the welfare teams are banding together to stick it to the more succesful franchises. They're already being subsidized as it is but they want even more.
Does anyone know exactly where the various owners stand? Is it part of the CBA negotiation or is it seperate? Does the NFLPA have a stand on this issue? Any help would be greatly appreciated.[/QUOTE]

about scrubs teams: if you're under the salary cap, at the end of the year whatever you're under by gets taken and distributed evenly to all the nfl teams i believe, so its not like there's much to gain there.

again, if you let people reap their own rewards, there's a much higher chance of less income and less interest further down the road. Right now the MLB only has 2-3 teams of any importance and that's really sad.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

I think one point that Snyder should push in terms of revenue sharing relates to public financing of stadiums and facilities. Mr. Cooke spent about 300 million dollars on the Redskins Stadium in the nineties. Since then Mr. S has spent 100 million or more on additional improvements. P.G. County paid for some infrastucture improvements, access roads, etc. Around the same time, Denver succeeded in convincing local voters to authorize funding for their current home Invesco Field. A number of other localities (Baltimore, Cleveland) have done the same for their teams. In terms of real revenue the Redskins are actually operating a defecit as it pertains to these teams. When voters give a team a 500 million dollar stadium shouldn't that be regarded as revenue for that team and payed back to other clubs under a revenue sharing regime? Its not as though the skybox money goes back to the city or state. The team keeps that money. The team may not technically own the stadium, but they benefit from it just as though they did. This is a huge windfall.

The reality is that what the less entrepenuerial owners want is not revenue sharing but rather revenue redistribution. When its to their benefit they sing the "we have to do what's best for everyone" tune. In circumstances where they benefit from operating unilaterally, as in the example above, they seem to have a less egalitarian spirit. [b]Update: For example, witness Art Modell on the Pete Rozelle "Spotscentury" program I just saw. Modell: "The motto with us has always been 'Think League'". (May he RIP)[/b]

While there are unique situations like New Orleans where teams face legitimate financial hardships, most teams should be creating ample revenue on their own. Is Paul Brown's name more sacred than Mr. Cooke's? Not to me. Cincinatti could sell the naming rights for at least as much as the Redskins did. They choose not to. Furthermore, we have to face the reality that N.O. may no longer be a sustainable market. Teams have moved before.

In the end any additional revenue sharing should be limited to revenue streams that all teams necessarily engage in. These might include radio, preseason ticket, preseason television, concessions, and even parking. Maybe these disincentives will have the unintended benefit of stabilizing the costs to fans. Again, an owner may say why raise prices and anger fans if I'm not getting the money? As Redskins fans that's the most we can hope for.

Finally, am I wrong in assuming that some owners are now using the possibility of an unrenewed CBA as a threat to pry concessions on revenue from other owners? I would really appreciate some instructive engagement from those of you who are so well versed in the financial aspects of all this.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]I think one point that Snyder should push in terms of revenue sharing relates to public financing of stadiums and facilities. Mr. Cooke spent about 300 million dollars on the Redskins Stadium in the nineties. Since then Mr. S has spent 100 million or more on additional improvements. P.G. County paid for some infrastucture improvements, access roads, etc. Around the same time, Denver succeeded in convincing local voters to authorize funding for their current home Invesco Field. A number of other localities (Baltimore, Cleveland) have done the same for their teams. In terms of real revenue the Redskins are actually operating a defecit as it pertains to these teams. When voters give a team a 500 million dollar stadium shouldn't that be regarded as revenue for that team and payed back to other clubs under a revenue sharing regime? Its not as though the skybox money goes back to the city or state. The team keeps that money. The team may not technically own the stadium, but they benefit from it just as though they did. This is a huge windfall.

The reality is that what the less entrepenuerial owners want is not revenue sharing but rather revenue redistribution. When its to their benefit they sing the "we have to do what's best for everyone" tune. In circumstances where they benefit from operating unilaterally, as in the example above, they seem to have a less egalitarian spirit.

While there are unique situations like New Orleans where teams face legitimate financial hardships, most teams should be creating ample revenue on their own. Is Paul Brown's name more sacred than Mr. Cooke's? Not to me. Cincinatti could sell the naming rights for at least as much as the Redskins did. They choose not to. Furthermore, we have to face the reality that N.O. may no longer be a sustainable market. Teams have moved before.

In the end any additional revenue sharing should be limited to revenue streams that all teams necessarily engage in. These might include radio, preseason ticket, preseason television, concessions, and even parking. Maybe these disincentives will have the unintended benefit of stabilizing the costs to fans. Again, an owner may say why raise prices and anger fans if I'm not getting the money? As Redskins fans that's the most we can hope for.

Finally, am I wrong in assuming that some owners are now using the possibility of an unrenewed CBA as a threat to pry concessions on revenue from other owners? I would really appreciate some instructive engagement from those of you who are so well versed in the financial aspects of all this.[/QUOTE]
Pretty good assessment from where I stand. I think you hit on some things that are real issues. I am sure Snyder has these as top of mind sticking points. The issue of communities pitching in is one I hadn't ever considered.

I do think that the more revenue challenged owners can't possibly be being the ones who are leveraging the current situation in their favor. It is far and away worse for them if the CBA goes unrenewed. Teams like the Skins will spend freely and potentially put teams like the Browns out of business or at least out of contention.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]
Finally, am I wrong in assuming that some owners are now using the possibility of an unrenewed CBA as a threat to pry concessions on revenue from other owners?[/QUOTE]

of course they are, otherwise it'd be signed. last i heard its the revenue sharing and not player % of profit that's really holding things up. And honestly i agree, if another team doesn't want to sell its naming rights, they shouldn't be allowed to profit from those who do... that's really close to stealing. Maybe if they made some clause that if you build your own stadium, there's less local shared revenue owed until the debt is gone and that could get smoe owners on board. Danny likes his local revenue though and wass probably in favor of killing the cba and buying up everyone until gibbs came back and the skins started winning.

some teams will benefit directly from a nuked cba, cause they're 30mill under the cap and teams like the skins wouldn't be able to restructure do to the 30% clause of player contracts in a year without a new cba. That means we'd have to release people right and left and the teams with good caps could just vacuum up cheap talent.

on another note, Gibbs is 2-0 in strike years...

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]I think one point that Snyder should push in terms of revenue sharing relates to public financing of stadiums and facilities. Mr. Cooke spent about 300 million dollars on the Redskins Stadium in the nineties. Since then Mr. S has spent 100 million or more on additional improvements. P.G. County paid for some infrastucture improvements, access roads, etc. Around the same time, Denver succeeded in convincing local voters to authorize funding for their current home Invesco Field. A number of other localities (Baltimore, Cleveland) have done the same for their teams. In terms of real revenue the Redskins are actually operating a defecit as it pertains to these teams. When voters give a team a 500 million dollar stadium shouldn't that be regarded as revenue for that team and payed back to other clubs under a revenue sharing regime? Its not as though the skybox money goes back to the city or state. The team keeps that money. The team may not technically own the stadium, but they benefit from it just as though they did. This is a huge windfall.

The reality is that what the less entrepenuerial owners want is not revenue sharing but rather revenue redistribution. When its to their benefit they sing the "we have to do what's best for everyone" tune. In circumstances where they benefit from operating unilaterally, as in the example above, they seem to have a less egalitarian spirit.

While there are unique situations like New Orleans where teams face legitimate financial hardships, most teams should be creating ample revenue on their own. Is Paul Brown's name more sacred than Mr. Cooke's? Not to me. Cincinatti could sell the naming rights for at least as much as the Redskins did. They choose not to. Furthermore, we have to face the reality that N.O. may no longer be a sustainable market. Teams have moved before.

In the end any additional revenue sharing should be limited to revenue streams that all teams necessarily engage in. These might include radio, preseason ticket, preseason television, concessions, and even parking. Maybe these disincentives will have the unintended benefit of stabilizing the costs to fans. Again, an owner may say why raise prices and anger fans if I'm not getting the money? As Redskins fans that's the most we can hope for.

Finally, am I wrong in assuming that some owners are now using the possibility of an unrenewed CBA as a threat to pry concessions on revenue from other owners? I would really appreciate some instructive engagement from those of you who are so well versed in the financial aspects of all this.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your example regarding stadium naming rights and such. And I'd agree that revenue sharing should be limited to business activities common to every franchise. But that's already largely in place as it is; TV revenues make up for the largest portion of the shared revenue as it is now. The owners are certainly going to argue about stadium naming revenue and items like this, because a few extra million dollars means a lot to them. But it shouldn't mean a lot to us fans, because it doesn't have a big impact on the size of the salary cap. TV Revenues are what really drive the salary cap.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I agree with your example regarding stadium naming rights and such. And I'd agree that revenue sharing should be limited to business activities common to every franchise. But that's already largely in place as it is; TV revenues make up for the largest portion of the shared revenue as it is now. The owners are certainly going to argue about stadium naming revenue and items like this, because a few extra million dollars means a lot to them. But it shouldn't mean a lot to us fans, because it doesn't have a big impact on the size of the salary cap. TV Revenues are what really drive the salary cap.[/QUOTE]

I agree that TV revenues drive the cap and we should all be thankful that the sharing of these funds is already in place. While the amounts the owners are arguing about are substantial, they still represent a small part of the total pie. That's why I think they should be able to come up with something that most owners can accept.

The NFL is lucky because they get to negotiate one major tv deal that covers all the clubs. This is why baseball is such a mess in my opinion. The MLB TV market is so fragmented. The Yanks have YES, the Braves have TBS, the Cubs have WGN, etc. The only way to clean up baseball's mess is to merge the tv contracts under one umbrella, so the league can split the revenues evenly.

The only solution I see is to sell the entire MLB package to Fox Sports. They already broadcast the games for many different teams, and they have enough regional networks to cover all the different markets (FSE, FSNW, etc.).

Of course this is a huge pipe dream and I'm not holding my breath. People don't like to share money unless they are forced to. The greater good is of little consequence. That's another reason why the NFL is lucky - they agreed to revenue sharing when there was no revenue.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

All is fair in love, war, and selling commercials on the YES network. They'll have to wait until Angelos and and Steinbrenner(?) and all of their evil seeds die.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

CBA Update from Pasquarelli (I must say he does a good job covering the business aspects of the NFL)

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2305744[/url]

"Indeed, the new league year commences March 1, and free agency begins just two days after that. Without an extension to the CBA, the 2007 season will become a so-called uncapped year, meaning teams will be able to prorate signing bonuses over just four years, the smallest term ever. That will make free agent contracts, along with deals for first-round draft choices, much more difficult to negotiate."

Could it be that the Redskins had the foresight to realize that signing their 2006 first round pick could become difficult, convincing them that it made sense to trade for the rights to select Jason Campbell in 2005? Hard to know if that was their thought process, but if it was, kudos. Good planning.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

"Rumors have been that Tagliabue is poised to move forward with the labor accord, even if it means delaying an internal agreement on revenue sharing among his constituents, but several owners said privately this week they prefer their internecine issues be resolved before they engage NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw again. [i]The fear among the smaller-revenue teams remains that clubs such as the Washington Redskins, who are paying their offensive and defensive coordinators more than several franchises are paying their head coaches, have gained too big a spending edge[/i]."

I have my answer from the hated Lenny P. They're ganging up against us.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]"Rumors have been that Tagliabue is poised to move forward with the labor accord, even if it means delaying an internal agreement on revenue sharing among his constituents, but several owners said privately this week they prefer their internecine issues be resolved before they engage NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw again. [i]The fear among the smaller-revenue teams remains that clubs such as the Washington Redskins, who are paying their offensive and defensive coordinators more than several franchises are paying their head coaches, have gained too big a spending edge[/i]."

I have my answer from the hated Lenny P. They're ganging up against us.[/QUOTE]

On that note, this article says that Upshaw doesn't view it as a roadblock to extending the CBA. Of course he wouldn't because he doesn't represent the coaches, the owners have to decide amongst themselves what to do about this. We'll see what happens with all of this stuff, it seems to be getting more complicated by the day.

[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20060127-114644-3194r.htm[/url]

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Schneed/Canuk,

I am a little confused, we keep talking about this 30% rule. If there is no extension of the CBA, and NO salary cap next year, what does it matter? Couldn't we have a payroll of $200M without a salary cap?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=lifetimeskin]Schneed/Canuk,

I am a little confused, we keep talking about this 30% rule. If there is no extension of the CBA, and NO salary cap next year, what does it matter? Couldn't we have a payroll of $200M without a salary cap?[/QUOTE]

You are correct that with no salary cap our payroll could be as high as we want. However this no-cap environment would only exist in 2007.

The 30% rule has more to do with our cap situation in 2006. The Skins are currently like $20 million over the 2006 cap. We can save about $15 million off our 2006 cap by restructuring a bunch of roster bonuses due to key players. By restructuring we can push a bunch of money to 2007 and subsequent years. Unfortunately the 30% rule would prevent us from doing so, and we'd lose all these potential savings.

So without a new CBA it's gonna be really hard for the Skins to keep their core intact, and make any new free agent signings basically impossible.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

No! Ok? Just No!

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]You are correct that with no salary cap our payroll could be as high as we want. However this no-cap environment would only exist in 2007.

The 30% rule has more to do with our cap situation in 2006. The Skins are currently like $20 million over the 2006 cap. We can save about $15 million off our 2006 cap by restructuring a bunch of roster bonuses due to key players. By restructuring we can push a bunch of money to 2007 and subsequent years. Unfortunately the 30% rule would prevent us from doing so, and we'd lose all these potential savings.

So without a new CBA it's gonna be really hard for the Skins to keep their core intact, and make any new free agent signings basically impossible.[/QUOTE]

Ditto.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Lawyer Bill]No! Ok? Just No![/QUOTE]

You add NOTHING to these message boards. I wish banishment upon you. If only one of the Mod Gods would heed my prayer...

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

If only I could have banning power. God knows I'm on here often enough to know who is causing problems.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

instead of only 4 years to pro rate salaries,you could jack up the players salary to say,10 million for the uncapped year instead of giving a bonus without any problems?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]If only I could have banning power. God knows I'm on here often enough to know who is causing problems.[/QUOTE]

Riiigggghhhht. Like we could trust a drunken fool like you with such power.

See, right there - Bam - banned just for calling it as i see it. :laughing2

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Football season is over. My drinking at noon days are done until fall. :(

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]instead of only 4 years to pro rate salaries,you could jack up the players salary to say,10 million for the uncapped year instead of giving a bonus without any problems?[/QUOTE]

if you make the playoffs your ability to get free agents is seriously impaired and there's some 30% salary increases and such to prevent that.

If you don't make the playoffs I think you can, during the uncapped year, sign the huge SB/one year salaries and have trailing years of vet min...

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10][size=3][b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006: $109.6 million[/b][/size]
[size=3][b]Expected NFL Salary Cap Limit: $93 million[/b][/size]

[size=3]Expected Cuts - Cap Savings:[/size]
Brandon Noble - $1.7 million
Walt Harris - $2 million
Matt Bowen - $2 million
Corey Raymer - $1 million
Antonio Brown - $450,000
Jimmy Farris - $450,000
Derrick Frost - $450,000
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Cuts: $8 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts: $101.6 million[/b]

[size=3]Expected Trades/Post June 1 Cuts - Cap Savings[/size]
Patrick Ramsey - $2.2 million
Lavar Arrington - $7 million
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Trades/Post June 1 Cuts: $9.2 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts: $92.4 million[/b]

[size=3]Roster Bonuses Restructured - Cap Savings[/size]

(assuming 2006 roster bonuses are restructured to become signing bonuses pro-rated for the remaining length of the current contract)

Sean Taylor: $1.8 million
Clinton Portis: $2.5 million
Casey Rabach: $1.5 million
Shawn Springs: $2.5 million
Cornelius Griffin: $2.0 million
Marcus Washington: $1.9 million
Chris Samuels: $3.7 million
[size=3]Total Cap Savings from Roster Bonus Restructures: $15.9 million[/size]

[b]Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts, and Roster Bonus Restructures: $76.5 million[/b]

[b]Projected Cap: $93 million[/b]

[b][size=3]Expected Cap Room for Signing Free Agents, Draft Picks, and any Contract Extensions beyond Roster Bonus Restructures: $16.5 million[/size][/b][/QUOTE]

good analysis

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack]Salary cap is here to stay.

NFLPA President Gene Upshaw has stated publicly that without a new CBA or an extension of the current CBA it would render the 2007 season as a "cap-less" season. He stated emphatically that if that happened there would be a player lockout and a strike would be inevitable.

Biggest hurdle for the CBA right now, and has really always been, revenue sharing. It basically states that teams that bring in the largest revenues, like Washington and Philly, would be forced to share a portion of those revenues with smaller market teams, like Buffalo.[/QUOTE]


not if they decertify the union. then there would be no lockout.

the league does not want a work stoppage for certain