Salary Cap Analysis

I agree that TV revenues drive the cap and we should all be thankful that the sharing of these funds is already in place. While the amounts the owners are arguing about are substantial, they still represent a small part of the total pie. That's why I think they should be able to come up with something that most owners can accept.

The NFL is lucky because they get to negotiate one major tv deal that covers all the clubs. This is why baseball is such a mess in my opinion. The MLB TV market is so fragmented. The Yanks have YES, the Braves have TBS, the Cubs have WGN, etc. The only way to clean up baseball's mess is to merge the tv contracts under one umbrella, so the league can split the revenues evenly.

The only solution I see is to sell the entire MLB package to Fox Sports. They already broadcast the games for many different teams, and they have enough regional networks to cover all the different markets (FSE, FSNW, etc.).

Of course this is a huge pipe dream and I'm not holding my breath. People don't like to share money unless they are forced to. The greater good is of little consequence. That's another reason why the NFL is lucky - they agreed to revenue sharing when there was no revenue.



that is it for certain. you will not see snyder and jerry jones giving up money if they can help it

Another salary cap discussion, man this is dangerous territory. Everyone keeps going down the restructure road, thats fine for a year or two, but you still have to pay the original signing bonuses too. I know the skins have done a great job of circumventing this cap for a while, I just dont see how they are going to be able to keep doing things this way. They are eventually going to either have to start cutting really good players or bite the cap figures.They are just putting it off by restructuring, plus they keep having roster turnover because they have to cut 10 to 15 people every year. I found this about restructing deals.



If a player decides to renegotiate his contract, how does the bonus money he received in the original contract count against the cap? Answer:If a player renegotiates his contract and gets a new signing bonus, the new signing bonus is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND over the extension. The allocation of the original signing bonus remains unchanged.

For example, Player X is currently in the third year of a four-year deal (2000–2003) that paid him a $1 million signing bonus. In 2002, Player X renegotiates his deal extending his contract to the 2005 season while getting a $2 million signing bonus. The original $1 million signing bonus is allocated at $250,000 per year over 2002 and 2003 just as it would be if there were no renegotiations. However, the new $2 million signing bonus is allocated at $500,000 per year over the remaining two years of the original contract (2002–2003) and the extended two years (2004–2005).

ugh here we go again


:insane:

Another salary cap discussion, man this is dangerous territory. Everyone keeps going down the restructure road, thats fine for a year or two, but you still have to pay the original signing bonuses too. I know the skins have done a great job of circumventing this cap for a while, I just dont see how they are going to be able to keep doing things this way. They are eventually going to either have to start cutting really good players or bite the cap figures.They are just putting it off by restructuring, plus they keep having roster turnover because they have to cut 10 to 15 people every year. I found this about restructing deals.



If a player decides to renegotiate his contract, how does the bonus money he received in the original contract count against the cap? Answer:If a player renegotiates his contract and gets a new signing bonus, the new signing bonus is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND over the extension. The allocation of the original signing bonus remains unchanged.

For example, Player X is currently in the third year of a four-year deal (2000–2003) that paid him a $1 million signing bonus. In 2002, Player X renegotiates his deal extending his contract to the 2005 season while getting a $2 million signing bonus. The original $1 million signing bonus is allocated at $250,000 per year over 2002 and 2003 just as it would be if there were no renegotiations. However, the new $2 million signing bonus is allocated at $500,000 per year over the remaining two years of the original contract (2002–2003) and the extended two years (2004–2005).

You're right about how bonuses are allocating. It's just a matter of how much a team can afford to kick down the road. There's often a little more wiggle room than there appears to be, because the cap limit goes up every year. Last year the limit was $85 million. This year it will be $93 million. The next year it will be near $100 million. The key is not to kick too much of the bonus down the road.

For example, Portis originally signed for a bonus of $11.6 million over 8 years. This year, he's due a $3 million roster bonus. If you renegotiate that into a signing bonus, here's the bonus allocation:

2004: $1.45 million
2005: $1.45 million
2006: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2007: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2008: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2009: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2010: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2011: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total

That's adding half a million per year, very manageable. In 2007, he's due another roster bonus in the amount of $1 million. Renegotiating that would add another $0.2 million to each year from 2007 onwards. It's not an extraordinary amount.

You can keep a core group of players together in this manner. We can go through the next five years (assuming the CBA gets resigned) and not have to ditch any of our core 15-20 guys. The problem with running your cap in this manner is that if you try to add a high-priced free agent to the mix, you're talking about having the cap blow up in your face.

PS - 56fanatic, I don't want to rehash this entire argument again. I think it's great that you have a general understanding of how the salary cap works, but the important thing is to understand how those principles apply to the Redskins. The only way this discussion gets anywhere is if we take a look at the Redskins cap projections. If you want them to stop renegotiating bonuses, you must have an idea of when the cap consequences will come due. When?

You're right about how bonuses are allocating. It's just a matter of how much a team can afford to kick down the road. There's often a little more wiggle room than there appears to be, because the cap limit goes up every year. Last year the limit was $85 million. This year it will be $93 million. The next year it will be near $100 million. The key is not to kick too much of the bonus down the road.

Agreed.

For example, Portis originally signed for a bonus of $11.6 million over 8 years. This year, he's due a $3 million roster bonus. If you renegotiate that into a signing bonus, here's the bonus allocation:

2004: $1.45 million
2005: $1.45 million
2006: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2007: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2008: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2009: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2010: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2011: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total

That's adding half a million per year, very manageable. In 2007, he's due another roster bonus in the amount of $1 million. Renegotiating that would add another $0.2 million to each year from 2007 onwards. It's not an extraordinary amount.

With the current CBA you can only prorate 4 years out for 2006. It used to be a max of 7 years, but has been declining every year as the CBA approaches expiry.

So Portis' $3M bonus would be spread out over the next 4 years at a hit of $750K per year. If a new CBA is signed, I'd assume the max proration would go back to 7 years.

A few thoughts on the Sportsline article about the cap.

First, it seems to me to be shoddy reportage to rely on other teams' cap people to comment, without giving the Redskins a chance to reply. As usual, these sources are anonymous. Que Cosell's rant about the de plor a bull state of sports jour na lism.

Second, if there is no new CBA, my understanding is that a number of teams will have to make radical cutbacks in 2006-not just the Skins. After 2006 it's Katey bar the door (as Ken Beatrice used to say) and we can spend as much as we like.

Third, if there is a new CBA and I realize the clock is ticking, the overall revenue pool will go up because of the demand from smaller teams to include more revenue streams. In addition, the players share of that overall pie will be higher because this is Upshaw's central demand and he cannot face his members without some victory on this front. Therefore isn't it likely that a renewed CBA means that the cap will spike way up and save the Redskins from the article's hellish scenario? Would this increase the 2006 cap or would the affect/effect be delayed?

I would like to hear from our resident experts, Schneed and Canuck. Their projections are a little more crowd pleasing. Am I right in my basic asessment? No CBA = bad news for us and all other teams over the cap in 2006 and, Renewed CBA = much higher caps bail us out. I know we've been over this but the article makes it seem that we are screwed regardless and I don't see it that way.

new cba would only spike if lots of new revenue came in (new tv contract etc, a couple luxury boxes aren't the same thing). and post 2006 in a capless NFL you WOULD have limits on getting players and spending if you ever made the playoffs.

Agreed.

With the current CBA you can only prorate 4 years out for 2006. It used to be a max of 7 years, but has been declining every year as the CBA approaches expiry.

So Portis' $3M bonus would be spread out over the next 4 years at a hit of $750K per year. If a new CBA is signed, I'd assume the max proration would go back to 7 years.

True that. I forgot about that. I tend to live in the land of milk and honey, where the beer flows like beer, there are no hephalumps or woozles, and the CBA never has a chance of expiring. It may be a bit utopian and the danger of the CBA expiring is surely real and tangible at this point, but I really don't think either side wants to let it expire. I think they'll get it done at the last minute, even if it takes postponing the March 3 start of free agency.

You mean where the beer flows like wine and the women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano.