2007 Uncapped Year

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by Pocono

Hello all....The CBA has some rules for the final league year which is uncapped. In a different section of the CBA it tells about severe restrictions on the final 8 meaning the teams which lasted the longest in the playoffs the previous year. They can only sign FA's if they lose FA's. Here is the CBA section for the final capped year.

Ofcourse there are rules. Look at all of Snyders contracts and the lengths. Most of them set us up for our supposed Cap hell in 2007, which then will erase the mess. They have backloaded every contract to end about 2007. They would be able to quickly rebuild based on the so called replace a FA with a FA rule based on the fact they would lose a mass of players to FA and would only be required to sign a replacement for at least that particular players 1st year salary. So they will have a quicker way to get out of the cap hell which usually takes teams 5 years to escape from.

[Pocono]

Thanks TAFKAS and BrudLee. CRT3...I don't think you can make an argument that Snyder is preparing for an uncapped year in 07 when it seems he's gambling everything that there is a CBA extension before 3/1/06. I'm not sure what Cap Hell is but if there is no CBA extension before 3/1/06 it will be very difficult to get the Skins under the cap for the 06 cap year.

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by Pocono

Thanks TAFKAS and BrudLee. CRT3...I don't think you can make an argument that Snyder is preparing for an uncapped year in 07 when it seems he's gambling everything that there is a CBA extension before 3/1/06. I'm not sure what Cap Hell is but if there is no CBA extension before 3/1/06 it will be very difficult to get the Skins under the cap for the 06 cap year.

Read the article in the 1st post of the thread. Experts agree that they would be far from completting a new CBA based on the union wants more of the revenue pie from the owners.

Cap Hell is like what happened to Tennesee this year and Jacksonville 2 years ago. You have to purge all of your star players in order to get under the cap number for that year. And/Or you have such much dead cap money that you can not go out and sign players. I am not talking about one or 2 star players but more like 6 and above. The Redskins are actually fine for 2006, check the numbers. The trade of Coles and the cap hit this year on him leaves us with a great position for next year. With the other players such as Trotter we take a 16 mil hit on dead cap which will not be there next year. Right now we have 32 mil towards bonuses for 2006. We will have to drop one or 2 players next year. But where we would normally have to drop a mass amount of players would be in 2007. Expect in 2007 that the Redskins front load contracts with smaller bonuses and this will enable us to use the uncapped year to our advantage. I am not a lawyer or an accountant but I did go to high scool with Danny, does that count?

[BrudLee]

Nice first post, Pocono.

The relative safety of loading up salaries in the final year is that only a few owners could do it. The majority of the league will scream for a cap shortly thereafter.

[John Hasbrouck]

Sure I want the Skins on top every year. No salary cap and there would not be a better team than the Skins. But the NFL is not one team and the salary cap gives the fans a great level of competition through out the league.

[KLHJ2]

Plus 3 mil, carry the 7, subtract 5 mil. ...... F@#! it, I give up. I am glad that someone keeps up with the business side of things, because I sure as hell cant. To be honest I don't care to either. As long as the sport does not go away, and the skins are always in washington I will be happy.

[drew54]

I don’t want to be a nay-sayer here but 2007 is still 2 years away. Do you guys really think that after watching the NHL debacle and maybe contraction in baseball that the NFL and the players will allow this to happen?

I mean at some point both sides will realize, were going to all be millionaires regardless if its 50 million or 45 million over the length of the contract.

Isn't one of the biggest fears that owners whose team makes more money like our own Dan Snyder plus the two Texas owners, don’t want to share his revenue with low earners like the Colts? SO if there is a strike, it could be Dan’s fault. Hopefully we just win a Superbowl next year and calm down Dan’s ego.

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by drew54

I don’t want to be a nay-sayer here but 2007 is still 2 years away. Do you guys really think that after watching the NHL debacle and maybe contraction in baseball that the NFL and the players will allow this to happen?

I mean at some point both sides will realize, were going to all be millionaires regardless if its 50 million or 45 million over the length of the contract.

Isn't one of the biggest fears that owners whose team makes more money like our own Dan Snyder plus the two Texas owners, don’t want to share his revenue with low earners like the Colts? SO if there is a strike, it could be Dan’s fault. Hopefully we just win a Superbowl next year and calm down Dan’s ego.

Actually unlike the NHL, the NFL has a incredible Brodcast deal. And all NFL teams are making serious money unlike baseball. Some teams could do better if they just realized the extended revenue stream like Danny.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

[BrudLee]

The NFL is so much stronger than Baseball and Hockey - unlike those sports, they have revenues.