A questioon for all capologists.

[DefenseRules]

PFT has a report stating that Kraft is strongly opposed to "Cash over cap".
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Mort also says that it's no guarantee that the owners will approve the deal. Pats owner Bob Kraft, Mort says, is strongly opposed to the package, which addresses revenue sharing via the so-called "cash over cap" issue.

"Cash over cap" is the amount of total money paid to players in a given year. Because high-revenue teams have the ability to dump more money into players' pockets, the unlimited ability to pour future cap dollars into current cap years could, in theory, disrupt competitive balance because the low-revenue teams simply won't have the cash on hand to match a string of deals that rob Peter to pay for a Lombardi. The proposal apparently limits the extent to which a team can spend money in a given year over the salary cap.

Can somebody break this down for me so that I can understand it better? I'm just trying to figure out why Kraft would be opposed to this.
Thanks.

 

[workhorse]

Owners with deep pockets can give out big signing bonuses that other owners may not be able to match. To players, the signing bonus is the only money that is guaranteed in a contract. An owner with lots of cash can give you a 4 year deal that is a $40 million deal that is almost all signing bonus (the bonus is paid out when the contract is signed). An owner that doesn't have that kind of cash lying around can give out a $40 million deal, but it most of it would have to be salary and not a bonus.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I'm with you.

I can't see how this addresses the high-revenue/low-revenue issue (or the "self-funded stadium"/"publicly subsidised facility" or "innovative entrepreneur"/"complacent free-rider" issues)

 

[mgteich]

The owners would be restricted in how mach money can be put in signing and roster bonuses, over and above the cap. This would remove a signficant advantage of the players and of solvent owners. Insolvent owners are bad credit risks and have less access to cash than the solvent owners.

If Upshaw agreed to this, he has made a large mistake, unless he allowed it in knowing a majority of owners would remove this clause.

 

[bosfan]

As long as they don't mess with his local revenue in any way I'm wondering the same thing.

 

[hwc]

I'm just trying to figure out why Kraft would be opposed to this.

I take all of the reports about who is on which "side" and all that with a big grain of salt. Remember, every unidentified "league" or "union" source has a particular axe to grind and therefore a particular set of vilians. Think about it this way. You are going thru a messy divorce. Who are "sources close to your wife" going to say deserves the "blame"?

I can't think of any reason Kraft would be opposed, in theory, to effective limitations on "cash over cap" spending. Since the Belichick regime took over, Pats haven't managed their cap in a way that generates a lot of dead-money hits. They've been more apt to let players walk rather than do excessively backloaded deals.

Now, it is always possible that someone could be in favor of a "pay as you go" cap system and still oppose a specific rule designed to achieve that, simply on the basis of it being a bad rule.

I just don't have any confidence that the "he said, she said" off-the-record reporting that we've been getting from unnamed sources isn't horribly muddled.

 

[workhorse]

PFT has a report stating that Kraft is strongly opposed to "Cash over cap".
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm


Can somebody break this down for me so that I can understand it better? I'm just trying to figure out why Kraft would be opposed to this.
Thanks.

Just a question here, not trying to get killed. If what is being said about Kraft is true, I'm not saying it is, and he is part of the group that shoots down this final proposal, how would you, as football fans, feel about him?

 

[mgteich]

I support Kraft 100%. The patriots were #28 of 28 teams in terms of revenue. If the agreement is stuffed down his throat, I would look for him to view ways to recover his monies in other ways that the current contract. Hartford or selling will look mighty attractive. Basically, he would have been taken for the fool, using his own money when he shouldn't have bothered and let others build the stadium.

Given the info so far today, I look forward to a successful 2006 and 2007 WITHOUT a contract much more than an a contract unfavorable to Kraft. And the real issue isn't cash over cap. While silly, it isn't a dealbreaker. It is the bailout monies that are the dealbreaker. Kraft is supposed to take the monies he gets from naming rights and give a percentage to the so-called
poor teams, including Cleveland that won't sell its naming rights.

Personally, I don't want Kraft to back down to the incompetents or even to those who have already spent the new cap monies and are probably starting to swing toward approving a losuy deal.

mgteich

Just a question here, not trying to get killed. If what is being said about Kraft is true, I'm not saying it is, and he is part of the group that shoots down this final proposal, how would you, as football fans, feel about him?

 

[arrellbee]

Well, we have one 'hard' number from the NFL which would let us do all kinds of calculations - except do we know if the number is an increase over last years cap or over this years cap ??

The NFL has said the deal they have offer at 56.5% is worth 577M more to the players this year. That's 18M per team. So does that mean they are proposing a cap of 103.5 or 112.5M ?? Seems like it would have to be the former. Anybody have a reading onto which basis the number is added ?

 

[patchick]

I support Kraft 100%. The patriots were #28 of 28 teams in terms of revenue. If the agreement is stuffed down his throat, I would look for him to view ways to recover his monies in other ways that the current contract. Hartford or selling will look mighty attractive. Basically, he would have been taken for the fool, using his own money when he shouldn't have bothered and let others build the stadium.

I give Kraft tons of credit too, but the "building his own stadium" issue is a little more complicated than that. He used his real estate holdings in Foxboro to enable him to buy the team in the first place. And he's leveraging the fantastic job he's done with the team and the stadium to build other non-football businesses, such as the planned "guy mall." He has a ton of debt to finance, but also greater long-term opportunities.

It is the bailout monies that are the dealbreaker. Kraft is supposed to take the monies he gets from naming rights and give a percentage to the so-called poor teams, including Cleveland that won't sell its naming rights.

I'm withholding judgment until I know what the actual proposal is. 100% revenue sharing with no checks and balances would be preposterous. Partial revenue sharing with, say, the creation of a league-wide revenue development program that underperforming teams have to work with could benefit everybody--including the players, who could be looking at a much bigger pie.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Last we heard according to the NFL there was no discussion of revenue sharing on Sunday, the union walked out on the last counter offer from the owners and the NFL negotiators had nixed the final union proposal and made a counter offer which was so heinous Gene and his pomeranian in a pit bull costume ran from the room screaming to the nearest airport.

Figures it's all Bob Kraft's fault.

Mort seems to be the only one spinning this as a tentative agreement. All other outlets are just picking up on his story. All the sides in the actual meeting swore they were making no progress what so ever. Were they lying to us?

There even seems to be some confusion as to who is even proposing this 59.5% which is understandable given the fact that after a full week of this the sides have yet to agree as to what they even disagree about. Mort is calling it a tentative agreement while the NFL seemed to be saying they were merely going to put the final union proposal they had already nixed to a vote at a meeting they had planned not to even hold. It was apparently the only viable tactic for delaying the inevitable - whatever that may be - another 72 hours.

Without expanded revenue sharing the have nots can't afford a deal that hands a hair less than 60% of total gross league revenue to the players. A cap on cash over cap does them no good if they can't even meet the cap. Bob Kraft can meet that cap if he doesn't have to fork over his expanded revenue to the have nots, and would only benefit further if the other teams who can afford to meet such a cap were not allowed to exceed it by more than a few million dollars a year (the only cash over cap % limit we've heard of to date was a 2% one reportedly tied to the 56.5% NFL offer the union reportedly was unwilling to consider).

Now perhaps Bob Kraft is opposed to this particular deal because it's not good for the majority of the league. But it's unlikely he opposes it because it's bad for the high revenue teams or the Pat's per se - unless they have a hidden clause in there that includes the appreciation on your jewelry collection in Total Gross Revenue.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Just a question here, not trying to get killed. If what is being said about Kraft is true, I'm not saying it is, and he is part of the group that shoots down this final proposal, how would you, as football fans, feel about him?

I'm getting to the point that I don't care about the league and about any other team except the Patriots. Up until today, I wanted the same system in place.

As long as my Patriots can stay competitive, in part becasue of the good business practices of the owner, too bad for the rest of the teams who have owners that aren't good businessmen.

I think that the Patriots will be able to remain competitive in any system because of BB, Scott, and Bob Kraft.

 

[flutie2phelan]

I support Kraft 100%. ....

Personally, I don't want Kraft to back down to the incompetents or even to those who have already spent the new cap monies and are probably starting to swing toward approving a losuy deal.

mgteich

WorkColt (if i may say so congenially),
i think mgteich hits this nail on the head.


After weeks of comprehensively reading what Patsfans have put up here,
it is very clear that almost all support Bob Kraft unreservedly.


There are plenty of good wishes for our players ... but there is a clear consensus
that the players' interests are not being well represented by Upshaw and Kessler. The NFLPA isn't nearly synonymous with "the players".

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Can somebody break this down for me so that I can understand it better? I'm just trying to figure out why Kraft would be opposed to this.
Thanks.

I'm not sure if this has been posted in any other threads, but this is a pretty enlightening article about 'cash over cap' from ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2352890

 

[PATSNUTme]

I'm not sure if this has been posted in any other threads, but this is a pretty enlightening article about 'cash over cap' from ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2352890

Good story.

Someone has been busy doing the bogo's. I can almost see an Andy Kaufman routine going on.:singing:

And I was just about to log out but something held me back. Now, I know.

 

[Fumblerooski]

PFT has a report stating that Kraft is strongly opposed to "Cash over cap".
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm


Can somebody break this down for me so that I can understand it better? I'm just trying to figure out why Kraft would be opposed to this.
Thanks.

IMHO, "cash over the cap" boils down to the "new" SB money and "new" salary money spent by a team in a given year less the common denominator published cap for all teams.

We all know the cap is based on amortized SB (total SB divided by the number of years of the contract) and salaries. Theoretically, all SB money deferred in long contracts will eventually be counted, but it might not be until several years into the future and even after the player is cut, traded or retired. ("dead money")

"Cash over the cap" is a new indicator that a team is trying to buy a Lombardi by spending a large % of it's total cap dollars on SBs. It is an indicator that several players are receiving far more than their "amortized" cap value in a given year.

Small market teams fear the big boys will load up on FAs for a few years by handing out huge Signing Bonus laden contracts and try to buy the Lombardi. Then deal with the inevitable "cap hell" some time in the future.