The Warpath presents: Salary Cap 101

I realized I forgot to include a section about incentives.

Thanks to Hijinx for pointing it out. I will add a section to discuss incentives in the next couple days.

Matty & CC, you guys are tops when it comes to understanding salary issues.

Thanks but don't forget about Schneed...

Matty & CC, you guys are tops when it comes to understanding salary issues.

Schneed10 and CrazyCanuck deserve all the credit here for being our cap experts.

Quick Question - concerning the Deion Sanders rule: With players usually recieving a crazy backloaded contract with money they will never see, I don't see the effectiveness of this rule. I would think the NFL would catch onto this and try to close this loophole if a lot of the lower revenue owners started complaining too much. Agree?

i very much appreciate the post Matty, thanks.

sorry, thanks to the CrazyCanuck as well

i thought the cap was up to 62-64% of revenue, not 58%

it's a good read though. thorough.

Can anyone remember the league office granting cap relief for "special circumstances"? I thought this was possible, however I couldn't find a story where it happened. I mean if the Skins didn'tqualify for the loss of ST what does.

Another few questions even though the NFL has profit sharing there is quite a difference in earning between teams. There is usually more than $100 million difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. What makes for this difference, just merchandising and concession sales?

This really means that for some teams the 50% min(about $100 mill) is almost a hardship. For example the Skins's revenue is usually the highest at about $315 million that means the skins will spend between 31.7% and 36.8% of their revenue on players. However for a team like the Vikings, with a revenue of about $180 million, they will spend about 55.6% to 64.4% of their revenue on players. That seems like a huge difference.

Perhaps is is no surprise that the lowest revenue teams(Vikings,49ers, Jags, Raiders, Falcons) seem to be doing poorly.

Can anyone remember the league office granting cap relief for "special circumstances"? I thought this was possible, however I couldn't find a story where it happened. I mean if the Skins didn'tqualify for the loss of ST what does.

Another few questions even though the NFL has profit sharing there is quite a difference in earning between teams. There is usually more than $100 million difference between the top teams and the bottom teams. What makes for this difference, just merchandising and concession sales?

This really means that for some teams the 50% min(about $100 mill) is almost a hardship. For example the Skins's revenue is usually the highest at about $315 million that means the skins will spend between 31.7% and 36.8% of their revenue on players. However for a team like the Vikings, with a revenue of about $180 million, they will spend about 55.6% to 64.4% of their revenue on players. That seems like a huge difference.

Perhaps is is no surprise that the lowest revenue teams(Vikings,49ers, Jags, Raiders, Falcons) seem to be doing poorly.

it's like a cut, which is like a retirement. and it was a very very small amount of money. technically danny can sue the taylor family to get some of it back, but that'd be pretty low, and it'd net only 2mill or so if he won.

i thought the cap was up to 62-64% of revenue, not 58%

From: Ask The Commish.com - Salary Cap FAQ (http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp)

"Under the old DGR model, the CBA Percentages were as follows:
1998-2001 63%
2002 64%
2003 64.25%
2004 64.75%
2005 65.5%
2006 64.5%
2007 Uncapped Year

However, when the model was changed and the DGR expanded, the players and owners agreed to a smaller set percentage of the larger pot. The $102 M figure in 2006 was based on a 57% share of the 2006 projected Total Revenues as was the $109 M figure for 2007. In 2008, the percentage jumps to 57.5%, and the same percentage applies to 2009 as well. In 2010 and 2011 the percentage will be 58%."