ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal

[Defensewins]

Can someone explain this quote form the article:
"Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend."

Do we have $10M to spend or $45M?
Sorry I did not go back and read 5 full pages of this thread to see if this was already discussed.
Brilliant on the part of Allen to free up space during an uncapped year (2010) so we can have extra spending money in 2011. This was the kind of planning we did not have under the rudderless Snyderatto FO....and yes I add Snyder to the equation in our former Cerratto/Snyder FO failure.

[Giantone]

Question,....does the cap room in question also include the "rookie salery cap" or is that a seperate amount of money?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Can someone explain this quote form the article:
"Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend."

Do we have $10M to spend or $45M?
Sorry I did not go back and read 5 full pages of this thread to see if this was already discussed.
Brilliant on the part of Allen to free up space during an uncapped year (2010) so we can have extra spending money in 2011. This was the kind of planning we did not have under the rudderless Snyderatto FO....and yes I add Snyder to the equation in our former Cerratto/Snyder FO failure.

I think that Clayton is suggesting that there may be a cash requirement re: the salary floor that won't be satisfied by the $35 million of deadcap the Redskins will have. After accounting for 53 players on the roster and all of that deadcap, the Redskins probably have 10ish million to spend on a $120 million cap.

But to put it in perspective, the Redskins entire 2006 shopping spree: Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle El, Andre Carter, Christian Fauria, and Todd Collins took up about $10 million of cap room in 2006. But the Redskins SPENT a lot more than $10 million on those players in the fiscal year 2006. They spent at least $40 million on those six players.

[Dirtbag59]

Now the owners are messing things up.

Player sources reaffirmed a setback in talks occurred when owners last week went "retro" on the formula that will divide the estimated $9.3 billion in annual revenue. The players believed the two sides had reached an understanding on a simplified formula in which they would receive 48 percent of revenue, sources say owners reintroduced their previous formula by asking for $400 million to $500 million in expenses as credit off the top.

Mike and Mike in the Morning

Detroit Lions DT Ndamukong Suh says he hears that lockout negotiations are going well. Suh says it's on each player individually to be ready to play when the lockout ends.

More Podcasts »
Players calculate that under the owners' proposal, it would leave them with approximately with a 45 percent take on revenue, an "unacceptable" amount that one player source said "sets us back to March 11 ... before the lockout."

Greedy bastards. 45%? When the NHL pays 53% with guranteed contracts? They're lucky they got 48%. And whats the chance that concession prices and ticket prices continue to increase with this 45% share? Screw the owners.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Now the owners are messing things up.


Greedy bastards. 45%? When the NHL pays 53% with guranteed contracts? They're lucky they got 48%. And whats the chance that concession prices and ticket prices continue to increase with this 45% share? Screw the owners.

...but..but...that can't be true. It's those greedy players responsible for all this! Ask SB!!



Sources: Optimism waning, latest NFL talks trending 'backwards' - ESPN

Player sources said owners have reneged on a simplified formula that would have given players 48 percent of all revenue.

These assholes sound like politicians.

A management source said the owners have not reneged on any revenue split, claiming "it's a negotiation, which is always subject to change"

[NLC1054]

I hope the owners are just floating that out there as a trial balloon and aren't serious. If there's something that's agreed upon you can't take that off the table. That's a cheap tactic.

Hopefully they'll pull that off the table and go back to what was agreed on.

[MTK]

I think it was Pat Kirwan that said today, a deal isn't done until it's done.

These last minute snags are to be expected. Each side is fighting for every concession they can get. It's a roller coaster the closer they get.

[Lotus]

The difference between 45% and 48% is large. 48% was fair.

Doggone it, I was getting hopeful. Now the owners don't seem sensible enough to get something done soon.

[SmootSmack]

I wouldn't get too worried about it, just my opinion, I think the owners are just trying for one last push to see if the players would budge at all.

[Lotus]

^ I hope you are right. I fear that one last for real push would be asking for 47%, not 45%.

[NLC1054]

It's pretty much the owners floating a trial balloon out there seeing if they can get the players to budge.

They couldn't, so it'll likely go back to 48% (or 47% to make them feel better) and they'll leave that alone. There's always a little bit of gamesmanship in these situations. Temporary snag, hopefully things better.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I don't see why the players should be given any percentage of revenue.... They should be given a percentage of profit.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't see why the players should be given any percentage of revenue.... They should be given a percentage of profit.

Epitome of capitalism. Those who are the best, ie: hypothetically the best players make the best teams which make the most money (which is realize is not always the case), make the most profit. It is incentivized to do better so you will make the most amount of money possible.

That is one of the major reasons the USSR and communism failed. Workers have no motivation to make the highest quality product at the lowest price because the government controls everything so the products are crap. No one buys them for this reason and down the toilet goes the economy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I don't see why the players should be given any percentage of revenue.... They should be given a percentage of profit.

How the hell would that work?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

How the hell would that work?

If I have a lemonade stand and hire you to help me run it, I'm not going to split all the cash I make with you. I'm going to take out all the money I invested in lemons, sugar, cups, etc. And then split whatever is left over with you. It's like that.