Salary Cap Analysis
 

[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]

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Some of the cuts and moves are debatable, but this is just to show that the Skins can create a fair amount of cap room to fill some holes. We should be able to address several need areas.

And I'd expect that the players scheduled to receive roster bonuses will step up and restructure. Most of them are stand-up guys, and will probably look to help out the team in any way they can.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Everything seems ok great analysis just that the June1 cuts you can't count them because you should be under the cap untill june 1 and after June 1 yo udon0t have a lot of free agents left.

Also you're not couting the Draft poll that counts on your cap you know its at least 4 mill.

and any trade the signing bonus left will afect completly this season/ offseason and all the june 1 cut will be divided half this season half next.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

1. I think Walt Harris stays, especially if the former Chicago coaches (Blache and Lindsey) continue here because Harris is Blache's boy.

2. I think Tupa is gone (good cap saving) and Frost stays.

3. One of the two (Ramsey/Lavar) stays.

4. Agreed that Bowen is gone, but Raymer may be kept simply because we don't have a back-up center. Friedman will be gone.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Everything seems ok great analysis just that the June1 cuts you can't count them because you should be under the cap untill june 1 and after June 1 yo udon0t have a lot of free agents left.

Also you're not couting the Draft poll that counts on your cap you know its at least 4 mill.

and any trade the signing bonus left will afect completly this season/ offseason and all the june 1 cut will be divided half this season half next.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming that we would cut or trade Arrington after June 1. I don't see the team doing it beforehand. There's always the chance we'd keep him. But I'd expect us to need his cap room to sign our draft picks. So yes, the draft picks are factored into the $16.5 million in room. The team will probably use $10 million of room in free agency, and then get rid of Arrington after June 1 to make room for the signing of draft picks.

If you trade or cut a player post June 1, the majority of dead money carries over to 2007, not in 2006.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=hurrykaine]1. I think Walt Harris stays, especially if the former Chicago coaches (Blache and Lindsey) continue here because Harris is Blache's boy.

2. I think Tupa is gone (good cap saving) and Frost stays.

3. One of the two (Ramsey/Lavar) stays.

4. Agreed that Bowen is gone, but Raymer may be kept simply because we don't have a back-up center. Friedman will be gone.[/QUOTE]

Friedman already is gone.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Nice analysis. Did you get the numbers from the NFL Players Association site?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Jez, $109M scheduled? The Skins sure are pushing the envelope on the cap.

I can't see Arrington staying for $7M... out of the question. But if they cut him, what's the hit?

Walt Harris isn't that bad folks. You should see San Diego's secondary. :(

GB

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Friedman already is gone.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the correction. Even more reason that Raymer will still be here then. Who else would be backup center? Despite the fact that Raymer sucked at RG, I think he's serviceable as backup center.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Great post Schneed.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

If there is no new CBA in place there is no "June 1" cap period; all signing bonuses will be accelerated immediately. Also, dont players generally resist restructuring? I can never figure out why, because its the same guaranteed money, but it seems like they do...

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Nice post Schneed10, I'm sticking this for a while.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Supposedly Lavar wants to come back. If he would allow them to do something with that comical cap number that would go a long way.

Does anyone else remember that they had the choice between Lavar and Champ and took Lavar? There is a pretty good chance that Champ will lead his team to the Super Bowl this year. Unbelievable.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper]Supposedly Lavar wants to come back. If he would allow them to do something with that comical cap number that would go a long way.

Does anyone else remember that they had the choice between Lavar and Champ and took Lavar? There is a pretty good chance that Champ will lead his team to the Super Bowl this year. Unbelievable.[/QUOTE]

Champ didn't exactly want to be here like lavar wants to be here.


The champ clinton trade was GREAT for both teams. i can't believe this is still debated.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper] Does anyone else remember that they had the choice between Lavar and Champ and took Lavar? There is a pretty good chance that Champ will lead his team to the Super Bowl this year. Unbelievable.[/QUOTE]

The Broncos are going to the SB for a whole host of reasons. While Champ certainly has been a factor, Jake Plummer playing mistake free football along with the ex-Cleveland Brown defensive front 4 have been the two biggest reasons for their success.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

We weren't going to keep Champ as he wanted out. I don't regret the Champ-Clinton trade one bit.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

i seriously hope lavar isn't gone. I know he wants to finish his career as a redskin and i would hate to see him cut. He might have to restructure his contract, but if he wants to be a redskin he will do it.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Champ wanted out because he felt disrespected that they made no effort to sign him long term.

How would you feel if they took the guy who is always out of position instead of arguably the best cover corner in the league.

The trade "worked out". We will see in one or two years when they have to dump Portis because of a major injury. The guy is a workhorse but his body will not be able to keep this up through the remainder of his contract.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=dgack]Nice analysis. Did you get the numbers from the NFL Players Association site?[/QUOTE]

The numbers come from the Cap Info section of The Warpath. Crazy Canuck keeps tabs on that info and does a pretty terrific job of it. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he gathers the info from a hodge-podge of sources, one of which is the Player's Association site. All I did was go through his numbers and identify areas of opportunity for us to save cap room.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Good stuff, Schneed.

About Lavar--isn't the cap hit for a release (not a trade) like $12 mil? I know this goes against going wisdom, but I really think we'll find a way to keep Lavar. He sure sounded like he wanted to be here when asked by Sonny and co in the locker room after the Seattle game. And Gibbs has talked a lot about keeping the team intact. Remember: Gibbs makes these decisions in the end, not Snyder or Cerrato. If it's a smaller hit anyway, my feeling is that Lavar convinced the D coaches of his attitude in the second half of the year. And remember how his teammates rallied to him. He's a leader on this team. Cutting him looks too much like old-style Danny-boy retribution, and not enough like Gibbs. We'll see!

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep]Good stuff, Schneed.

About Lavar--isn't the cap hit for a release (not a trade) like $12 mil? I know this goes against going wisdom, but I really think we'll find a way to keep Lavar. He sure sounded like he wanted to be here when asked by Sonny and co in the locker room after the Seattle game. And Gibbs has talked a lot about keeping the team intact. Remember: Gibbs makes these decisions in the end, not Snyder or Cerrato. If it's a smaller hit anyway, my feeling is that Lavar convinced the D coaches of his attitude in the second half of the year. And remember how his teammates rallied to him. He's a leader on this team. Cutting him looks too much like old-style Danny-boy retribution, and not enough like Gibbs. We'll see![/QUOTE]

Here's the story on Lavar:

He's going to count $12 million against the cap if he stays on the team next year and his contract is not modified.

How a player leaves your team, whether by getting cut or by getting traded, it does not change the cap situation. The date on which he leaves the team does change things.

If he is cut or traded before June 1, we will carry $12.8 million in Dead Money in 2006. Meaning his cap hit for 2006 would go up $0.8 million from it's current position. And he wouldn't even be on the team. So there's no way this would happen.

If he is cut or traded after June 1, we will carry about $5 million in Dead Money in 2006, saving us about $7 million from his current cap number of $12 million. The negative side of that is we'd carry $7 million in dead money in 2007.

It's very possible Lavar could stay and change his $6.5 million roster bonus into a signing bonus. This would save us about $5 million or so in 2006. But it will be interesting to see if GW wants him around, or if he elects to trade him and get something in return.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

As was said earlier there is no 6/1 benefit if there is no CBA extension and even if there is if a player is traded at any time all of the future SB proration accelerates into the current year. [subtract 7M of savings]

Also some of those roster bonuses are not roster bonuses but bogus incentives placed into the contracts to meet the 30% rule that applies to the last capped year. That rule says no increase in salary year to year can be greater than 30% of the player's salary[not including SB proration] of the final capped year. So those incentives stay and so do those roster bonuses unless there is a CBA extension before 6/1. [subtract 15M of savings]

The Skins have 109M of salary commitments for 06 AND 3.5M of dead money already counting against 06. [subtract 3.5M]

I think that 109M was based on about 46 players under contract at the time and you cut about 5 or 6 players so you'll need to add about 10 salaries. Gibbs loves his vets so you better figure about 400K per player so there goes another 4M of space.

I think it spells big trouble unless there is a CBA extension by 3/1 which I think will happen but you can never tell what greed will do.

Here is the 30% rule from the CBA.

(b) 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(b)(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.

*Extension Agreement 2/25/98

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Good post. I agree with others than some of the moves are debatable, but that post proves one thing. We are just fine within the salarycap when you really dig into it and look at it objectivley.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Pocono]As was said earlier there is no 6/1 benefit if there is no CBA extension and even if there is if a player is traded at any time all of the future SB proration accelerates into the current year. [subtract 7M of savings][/QUOTE]

The NFL's fiscal year switches over on June 1. If you cut him or trade him after June 1, the hit accelerates to 2007, not 2006.

[QUOTE=Pocono] Also some of those roster bonuses are not roster bonuses but bogus incentives placed into the contracts to meet the 30% rule that applies to the last capped year. That rule says no increase in salary year to year can be greater than 30% of the player's salary[not including SB proration] of the final capped year. So those incentives stay and so do those roster bonuses unless there is a CBA extension before 6/1. [subtract 15M of savings][/QUOTE]

Crazy Canuck would have to confirm, but I don't think he includes incentives (likely or unlikely to be earned) in his cap figures. I remember when Ramsey triggered his incentives a year ago, Canuck's cap figures for Ramsey changed. So most of the $15.9 million of restructures remains possible. But you are right that if any incentives got triggered this year, that would still need to be considered. But even if incentives are included in cap figures, incentives come in the form of increased base salary or incentive bonuses, either of which can also be renegotiated.

[QUOTE=Pocono] The Skins have 109M of salary commitments for 06 AND 3.5M of dead money already counting against 06. [subtract 3.5M][/QUOTE]

The $3.5 million in dead money (Barrow, Morton, McCants & other miscellaneous) is already included in the $109 million.

[QUOTE=Pocono] I think that 109M was based on about 46 players under contract at the time and you cut about 5 or 6 players so you'll need to add about 10 salaries. Gibbs loves his vets so you better figure about 400K per player so there goes another 4M of space.[/QUOTE]

This sounds about right. Part of the space we have to play with will be taken up by Ryan Clark, Robert Royal, Demetric Evans and others.

[QUOTE=Pocono] I think it spells big trouble unless there is a CBA extension by 3/1 which I think will happen but you can never tell what greed will do.[/QUOTE]

I'm in total disagreement here. All of the moves listed above are possible.

[QUOTE=Pocono] Here is the 30% rule from the CBA.

(b) 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, [b]excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus[/b] as defined in Section 7(b)(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, [b]excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus[/b], in each of the three additional League Years covered by the Contract.

*Extension Agreement 2/25/98[/QUOTE]

The 30% rule does not apply to signing bonuses, which the Skins can circumvent by converting the scheduled roster and workout bonuses into signing bonuses. This will not be a limitation. Several players restructured in this very manner last year, like Reynaldo Wynn and Mark Brunell.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

I think we have to agree to work from the same CBA.

[b]Page 102[/b]

(ii) [b]Acceleration.[/b]

(1) For any player removed from the Team’s roster on or before June 1, any unamortized signing bonus amounts will be included in Team Salary for such League Year. If such acceleration puts a Team over the Salary Cap, the Team will have seven days to conform with the Salary Cap, but may not sign any players until there is Room to do so under the Salary Cap.

(2) For any player removed from the Team’s roster after June 1, any unamortized signing bonus amounts for future years will be included fully in Team Salary at the start of the next League Year.

* During any League Year immediately preceding an Uncapped Year, the provisions relating to acceleration of unamortized signing bonuses applicable on or before June 1 of that League Year shall apply during that League Year after June 1.

[right]*Side Letter 11/1/95: Sec. 2[/right]



(3) In the event that a player who has had a signing bonus allocated over the years of his Player Contract is traded, or whose Contract is assigned to another team pursuant to the NFL’s waiver procedure, then such signing bonus shall be accelerated as in subsection (ii)(1) above and the assignee Team’s Team Salary will not include any portion of the signing bonus.


In the final capped year the league mandates a team must have the cap space to absorb any reached incentive. Samuels Wynn Rabach and Patten have fake incentives in their contracts that go away should a CBA extension be signed. The Eagles have about 6M of these also designed to comply with the 30% rule without actually giving the player more money.

The 109M figure does not include dead money.

I think you should read that 30% rule a few more times. All these special rules for the final capped year are designed to prevent teams from moving cap hits from the last capped year into presently uncapped years. Most of the moves teams make to get under the cap in other years are a no go in the final capped year except for simply cutting a player and even that is made harder because you can't do it after 6/1 and move the cap hit into the following year.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

I just wanted to thank Pocono and Schneed for dispelling the lurid fantasy that working as an NFL agent or in the front office at Redskins Park would be an awesome job.

I might as well have been reading over real estate tax law. :vomit:

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

well last comments lavar had on his contract (two weeks ago?) he said he won't re-work his deal, and at 12million, there ain't no way he can stay. which means we'd need another capable LB (and holdman doesn't count) to either start or backup clemons.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Pocono]I think we have to agree to work from the same CBA.

[b]Page 102[/b]

(ii) [b]Acceleration.[/b]

(1) For any player removed from the Team’s roster on or before June 1, any unamortized signing bonus amounts will be included in Team Salary for such League Year. If such acceleration puts a Team over the Salary Cap, the Team will have seven days to conform with the Salary Cap, but may not sign any players until there is Room to do so under the Salary Cap.

(2) For any player removed from the Team’s roster after June 1, any unamortized signing bonus amounts for future years will be included fully in Team Salary at the start of the next League Year.

* During any League Year immediately preceding an Uncapped Year, the provisions relating to acceleration of unamortized signing bonuses applicable on or before June 1 of that League Year shall apply during that League Year after June 1.

[right]*Side Letter 11/1/95: Sec. 2[/right]



(3) In the event that a player who has had a signing bonus allocated over the years of his Player Contract is traded, or whose Contract is assigned to another team pursuant to the NFL’s waiver procedure, then such signing bonus shall be accelerated as in subsection (ii)(1) above and the assignee Team’s Team Salary will not include any portion of the signing bonus.


In the final capped year the league mandates a team must have the cap space to absorb any reached incentive. Samuels Wynn Rabach and Patten have fake incentives in their contracts that go away should a CBA extension be signed. The Eagles have about 6M of these also designed to comply with the 30% rule without actually giving the player more money.

The 109M figure does not include dead money.

I think you should read that 30% rule a few more times. All these special rules for the final capped year are designed to prevent teams from moving cap hits from the last capped year into presently uncapped years. Most of the moves teams make to get under the cap in other years are a no go in the final capped year except for simply cutting a player and even that is made harder because you can't do it after 6/1 and move the cap hit into the following year.[/QUOTE]

Well aren't you working from the assumption that the CBA will not be extended and that we will enter into this season as the so-called final uncapped year? I personally feel like the NFL will come to an agreement on the extension of the CBA. If you feel otherwise, then yes, you are right. But I'm operating under the assumption the CBA will be extended, in which case this will not be considered "the last year before an uncapped year."

The NFL still has some work to do on the CBA for sure. But I don't buy into these doomsday scenarios indicating that a CBA extension won't happen. These kind of negotiations tend to go into the 11th hour, when progress is usually made quite rapidly.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

If there isn't a new CBA we are not the only team that will have issues in a theoretical "last capped year". Because of that this is great incentive for everyone involved to get a deal done. It is going to cost players money in '06 if they can't get a deal done because a lot of teams will not be able to pay players nearly like the players will want. Of course '07 then would be uncapped so maybe the players suck it up for a year and await the bounty that is the uncapped NFL. The uncapped NFL will be a disaster none of us will want to see in the long run though.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Schneed you have to take in 2 account that the CBA will not get sign for your analysis be complete also if it doesn't get sign before 3/1 it will affect the hole FA period and moves because there won't be any signing bonus and everything will afect the cap this year.

So that will afect any posible trade scenarios and it will be the same 2 keep LA than 2 cut him because no team will absorb his cap hit with all the problems they will face and there is no way your team will eat 12mill of dead money just 2 get rid of him

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Schneed you have to take in 2 account that the CBA will not get sign for your analysis be complete also if it doesn't get sign before 3/1 it will affect the hole FA period and moves because there won't be any signing bonus and everything will afect the cap this year.

So that will afect any posible trade scenarios and it will be the same 2 keep LA than 2 cut him because no team will absorb his cap hit with all the problems they will face and there is no way your team will eat 12mill of dead money just 2 get rid of him[/QUOTE]

The numbers become entirely different if you assume that the CBA does not get extended, it's not a matter of taking that little variable into account and having things change slightly. Whether the CBA gets extended or not changes the entire landscape of the team's salary cap, it's either the CBA gets extended and we have about $16 million in cap room, or the CBA doesn't get extended and we're releasing players left and right (and many other teams are doing the same). And the main reason why I'd put my money on an extension getting signed is just as FRPLG indicated, a lot of teams would be in a lot of trouble if the agreement didn't get signed. They are motivated to get the CBA extended, because they made the same assumption I did, they built their salary structures with the assumption in mind that the CBA would be extended.

I think it's unreasonable to assume that the CBA is going to come to an end and that salary caps as we know them are done in the NFL.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[url="http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp"]http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp[/url]

I expect an extension also but many teams are in good cap shape and might like nothing better than to see the new CBA delayed past 3/1 and pick up some good players from the teams in most trouble. I think many would love nothing better than to see Al Davis and Danny Snyder put in a horrible position and made to twist in the wind.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Pocono][url="http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp"]http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp[/url]

I expect an extension also but many teams are in good cap shape and might like nothing better than to see the new CBA delayed past 3/1 and pick up some good players from the teams in most trouble. I think many would love nothing better than to see Al Davis and Danny Snyder put in a horrible position and made to twist in the wind.[/QUOTE]

Nice link. But the guys who have been the driving force behind letting the CBA expire have been Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. There are a few other select owners in their corner, but Danny and Jerry are both over the cap according to your link. It's in their interests to see the CBA get extended, and they have previously represented the faction that wanted the end of the CBA. They will cave in the 11th hour, if not before.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Nice link. But the guys who have been the driving force behind letting the CBA expire have been Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. There are a few other select owners in their corner, but Danny and Jerry are both over the cap according to your link. It's in their interests to see the CBA get extended, and they have previously represented the faction that wanted the end of the CBA. They will cave in the 11th hour, if not before.[/QUOTE]

Becuase, correct me if I'm wrong, if the CBA isnt extended, then 2007 (and possibly beyond) is an uncapped year? I know Snyder would LOVE that.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]Becuase, correct me if I'm wrong, if the CBA isnt extended, then 2007 (and possibly beyond) is an uncapped year? I know Snyder would LOVE that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and I think that's why Snyder was driving that push last year. He wants to see uncapped years, partly because his team makes more money and he wants to keep more of it, and partly because he knows he can outspend other owners. But in the short term, he must know that allowing the league to go uncapped would crush his team in 2006. My suspicion is that his stance has changed now that he saw the team go 10-6 and get to the second round of the playoffs. He knows the team is doing well at this point, and he won't want to foul that up/.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Nice link. But the guys who have been the driving force behind letting the CBA expire have been Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. There are a few other select owners in their corner, but Danny and Jerry are both over the cap according to your link. It's in their interests to see the CBA get extended, and they have previously represented the faction that wanted the end of the CBA. They will cave in the 11th hour, if not before.[/QUOTE]
Let's clear up what is actually going on with the CBA.
There are 2 issues causing the problems. First is the agreement amongst the owners as to the sharing of revenues. Then there is the CBA negotiations. Now the CBA will never get agreed upon until the owners have agreed on revenue sharing. The reason the CBA negotiations have dragged on is that the owners simply can't agree on how to share the revenues any more. I am not greatly versed in the revenue sharing specifics but I believe they currently share the TV money, ticket sales, league based apparrel contract money, and some other smaller revenue streams. What they don't share is concessions, local tv revenue, team specific apparell sales and such, and other locally produced monies. These local monies are huge for teams like the Skins and Ciowbys and not very huge for teams like KC or Arizona. Of course the Dan doesn't want to share his extra money because he feels he is better at marketing than most of these other teams so why should he give them the spoils of his work.
Once they work this out the CBA can be tackled in full. They'll be able to negotiate from a position of understanding what monies everyone has so they can better work the deal successfully.

So Snyder is not directly holding the CBA up but he is indirectly.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Let's clear up what is actually going on with the CBA.
There are 2 issues causing the problems. First is the agreement amongst the owners as to the sharing of revenues. Then there is the CBA negotiations. Now the CBA will never get agreed upon until the owners have agreed on revenue sharing. The reason the CBA negotiations have dragged on is that the owners simply can't agree on how to share the revenues any more. I am not greatly versed in the revenue sharing specifics but I believe they currently share the TV money, ticket sales, league based apparrel contract money, and some other smaller revenue streams. What they don't share is concessions, local tv revenue, team specific apparell sales and such, and other locally produced monies. These local monies are huge for teams like the Skins and Ciowbys and not very huge for teams like KC or Arizona. Of course the Dan doesn't want to share his extra money because he feels he is better at marketing than most of these other teams so why should he give them the spoils of his work.
Once they work this out the CBA can be tackled in full. They'll be able to negotiate from a position of understanding what monies everyone has so they can better work the deal successfully.

So Snyder is not directly holding the CBA up but he is indirectly.[/QUOTE]

My big issue is with sharing revenue from stadium naming rights. If Snyder wants to take in millions from calling his place FedEx Field, why should he have to share that money because KC wants to keep playing in "Arrowhead" or Cinci in "Paul Brown" or the Browns in "Cleveland Stadium" (which is a crappy name anyway)? That to me is profoundly unfair; if these teams want the money from it, sell the name.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=amorentz]My big issue is with sharing revenue from stadium naming rights. If Snyder wants to take in millions from calling his place FedEx Field, why should he have to share that money because KC wants to keep playing in "Arrowhead" or Cinci in "Paul Brown" or the Browns in "Cleveland Stadium" (which is a crappy name anyway)? That to me is profoundly unfair; if these teams want the money from it, sell the name.[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree(I'm a capalistic pig) but the league has enjoyed profound success by the completely uncapitalistic idea of sharing money so all teams had a chance. I tend to want them to stick with what got them to the dance.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Let's clear up what is actually going on with the CBA.
There are 2 issues causing the problems. First is the agreement amongst the owners as to the sharing of revenues. Then there is the CBA negotiations. Now the CBA will never get agreed upon until the owners have agreed on revenue sharing. The reason the CBA negotiations have dragged on is that the owners simply can't agree on how to share the revenues any more. I am not greatly versed in the revenue sharing specifics but I believe they currently share the TV money, ticket sales, league based apparrel contract money, and some other smaller revenue streams. What they don't share is concessions, local tv revenue, team specific apparell sales and such, and other locally produced monies. These local monies are huge for teams like the Skins and Ciowbys and not very huge for teams like KC or Arizona. Of course the Dan doesn't want to share his extra money because he feels he is better at marketing than most of these other teams so why should he give them the spoils of his work.
Once they work this out the CBA can be tackled in full. They'll be able to negotiate from a position of understanding what monies everyone has so they can better work the deal successfully.

So Snyder is not directly holding the CBA up but he is indirectly.[/QUOTE]

Right, that's what I mean when I say that Snyder and Jones have been the driving force. They are holding up a new CBA because they can't agree on the revenue sharing. Danny partly wants to keep more of his own money, plain and simple. But he also knows that if he holds up the issue on revenue sharing, a new CBA can't be put in place. And if a new CBA can't be put in place, he knows the league will go uncapped, and he'll be able to outbid for free agents just like the Yankees.

But now he knows his team is close to success and he must know that going uncapped would mean a big part of his team will be dismantled. I think this will cause him to back off his stance a little bit.

Plus his stance wasn't that realistic to begin with. He had a minority on his side, but when he lost Bob McNair, he really doesn't have the votes. I'm sure he's acutely aware of all these factors.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Concerning Lavar. Much of the discussion here seems premised on the idea that Lavar can still play. He looks like he gained thirty pounds during the season this year. He is fat and slow. There is no way they should keep him.