Salary Cap Analysis

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006: $109.6 million
Expected NFL Salary Cap Limit: $93 million

Expected Cuts - Cap Savings:
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
Total Cap Savings from Cuts: $8 million

Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts: $101.6 million

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

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

Roster Bonuses Restructured - Cap Savings

(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
Total Cap Savings from Roster Bonus Restructures: $15.9 million

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

Projected Cap: $93 million

Expected Cap Room for Signing Free Agents, Draft Picks, and any Contract Extensions beyond Roster Bonus Restructures: $16.5 million

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.

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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?

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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.

[backrow]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by 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.

Amen.

[backrow]

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.

[MTK]

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

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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. 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)

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.