P. Ram Restructures!

[backrow]

Patrick Ramsey restructures?????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mb9.scout.com/fcpndhardcoref...cID=42238.topic


I don't know if the above will link, but I coppied it fromhailredskins.com.

[SmootSmack]

According to Hail Redskins this is what the link says:

The full post:

Ramsey's new figures:

2005: Base salary dropped from $1.602M to the 4th-year minimum of $455,000
2006: Base salary INCREASED from $1.188M to $1.688M

This could be a couple things:

1. It could be a simple restructuring with his 2005 base salary being reduced from $1.602M to $455,000 with the difference being made up via a signing bonus, with the increase in 2006 due to an escalator (his 2005 base salary recently increased $500,000 from $1.102M to $1.602M because of an escalator, so another $500,000 escalator for 2006 would make sense). In this case, the $1.147M bonus he would receive would be prorated $573,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his 2002 rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.649M, a savings of $573,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M.

2. He could have reduced his base salary from $1.602M to $455,000 with SOME of the difference being paid via a signing bonus, and the rest being transferred to his 2006 base salary. In this case, he would have received a $647,000 signing bonus with the remaining $500,000 being pushed to his 2006 base salary. In this case, the $647,000 bonus would be prorated $323,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.399M, a savings of $823,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M; this would save $250,000 more from his 2005 cap number than the first scenario, but would cost $250,000 more on his 2006 cap number.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by smootsmack

According to Hail Redskins this is what the link says:

The full post:

Ramsey's new figures:

2005: Base salary dropped from $1.602M to the 4th-year minimum of $455,000
2006: Base salary INCREASED from $1.188M to $1.688M

This could be a couple things:

1. It could be a simple restructuring with his 2005 base salary being reduced from $1.602M to $455,000 with the difference being made up via a signing bonus, with the increase in 2006 due to an escalator (his 2005 base salary recently increased $500,000 from $1.102M to $1.602M because of an escalator, so another $500,000 escalator for 2006 would make sense). In this case, the $1.147M bonus he would receive would be prorated $573,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his 2002 rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.649M, a savings of $573,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M.

2. He could have reduced his base salary from $1.602M to $455,000 with SOME of the difference being paid via a signing bonus, and the rest being transferred to his 2006 base salary. In this case, he would have received a $647,000 signing bonus with the remaining $500,000 being pushed to his 2006 base salary. In this case, the $647,000 bonus would be prorated $323,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.399M, a savings of $823,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M; this would save $250,000 more from his 2005 cap number than the first scenario, but would cost $250,000 more on his 2006 cap number.

Your scenario definitely sounds feasible.

I'm still trying to figure out the point of Ramsey restructuring without an extension. It seems all we're doing here is moving some money from 2006 to 2005 (which doesn't make sense).

Nevertheless this is a good sign. I hope PR isn't still bitter about the Brunell signing.

[MTK]

Patrick steppin up to the plate, very nice to see guys we didn't expect to restructure take one for the team.

Chris Samuels where are you in all this? Mark Brunell?

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Patrick steppin up to the plate, very nice to see guys we didn't expect to restructure take one for the team.

Chris Samuels where are you in all this? Mark Brunell?

Seriously. You got Ramsey and Jansen steppin up, showing their leadership on the team, that they are willing to take one for the team. Wynn proving he is a team player and taking a cut; very nice to see.

Note to Samuels and Brunell; neither of you are worth what you're paid. You dont have to take millions and millions of dollars away from yourselves. Every little bit helps out, take one for the team. Brunell ..43 Million?? For what, exactly. Just give back a few million and it will ale be good.

Very nice, Patrick, Jon and Renaldo.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Patrick steppin up to the plate, very nice to see guys we didn't expect to restructure take one for the team.

Chris Samuels where are you in all this? Mark Brunell?

HERE, HERE!

[RedskinRat]

All the players should play for a league established minimum and rely on bonus escalator. Of course I'm not a pro athlete

[diehardskin2982]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

All the players should play for a league established minimum and rely on bonus escalator. Of course I'm not a pro athlete

yeah ur not a pro athelete! Players are just like every other man in this world, on a paper chase. and they like I, they wouldn't take a league min for sh#$ especially if they were a bust like brunnel.

[SmootSmack]

When players restructure they're not necessarily taking paycuts are they. Aren't they just moving around how the money will be distributed to them?

[Redskins_P]

Wow, this is great. Nice start to our offseason.

It would be awesome if Brunell restructured, by then again that's wishful thinking.

[MTK]

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

Are they potentially losing any money by doing this?? After all, the only guaranteed money in these contracts are the bonuses, so I would think players would jump at these opportunities.

I'm sure there's a reason players sometimes balk at restructuring, I just understand why.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

In a simple restructure, you're right. It's simply guaranteeing as much of a year or two's salary by converting it into signing bonus, and then spreading the burden of that money onto future years. It also reduces the chance of a later release or trade, because there is additional bonus to accelerate.

I think one of the reasons Samuels was reluctant to restructure last year was that he wasn't sure the front office could be trusted with his money. I think we can all agree that the Redskins have made some... (retarded? imbecilic? suicidal?) questionable acquisitions in the past, overpaying for limited talent. He also had to have his questions about the direction of the team, and refusing to restructure kept the amount of accelerated bonus the team would eat lower than if he'd done so - giving him a greater chance of escaping the team if it appeared there wouldn't be the atmosphere he desired. That sounds kind of harsh, but given the instability surrounding the team, I can understand.

[monk81]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

In a simple restructure, you're right. It's simply guaranteeing as much of a year or two's salary by converting it into signing bonus, and then spreading the burden of that money onto future years. It also reduces the chance of a later release or trade, because there is additional bonus to accelerate.

I don't understand why players backload their salaries and move the money to future years and then the teams cut or trade them......wouldn't you want to STAY employed.........or stick with a team that's successful. And if I were a player, I think I'd keep my salary reasonable in order to stay in the NFL and with a winning team or a team that is moving towards success and a Super Bowl..........Guess some are money hungry and make hay while the sun is shinning.....

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by monk81

I don't understand why players backload their salaries and move the money to future years and then the teams cut or trade them......wouldn't you want to STAY employed.........or stick with a team that's successful. And if I were a player, I think I'd keep my salary reasonable in order to stay in the NFL and with a winning team or a team that is moving towards success and a Super Bowl..........Guess some are money hungry and make hay while the sun is shinning.....

They actually don't backload, what they do get is alot of upfront cash which counts against the cap over the period of the contract. So instead of making 1 million a year for 5 years, they get paid the minium salary allowed and take the remaining right there and then. So if the min was $500,000 then they would get 2.5 million guarenteed right then and there.

[JudgeJebus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

Are they potentially losing any money by doing this?? After all, the only guaranteed money in these contracts are the bonuses, so I would think players would jump at these opportunities.

I'm sure there's a reason players sometimes balk at restructuring, I just understand why.

One reason why a player would not want to restructure is that it often entails an extension of the contract. For example, Samuels' current contract is only through 2006. Thus, even if he were to restructure and convert all of his 2005 salary to bonus, it would still only be spread out over 2005 and 2006. To really get the benefit of a restructuring, we would need to extend his contract. This is something he might not want to do if he thinks his value is not as high now as it would be later.

You are right, though, that in many cases the player should not care about a restructuring. Where the contract is long enough so that it is just a simple conversion of salary to bonus, then the player still gets the same amount of money at the same time (sometimes earlier)--all that changes is the accounting (the bonus is amortized over the life of the contract).