A uncapped year question

[eom]

if you pay 20m year one, you have to pay 10m year 2 or it gets amortized.

so, yeah, you can do that somewhat, just not crazy high in 2010.

 

[jsull87]

yeah thats what i was saying. because as stated above if it is a signing bonus it is amortized throughout the contract is that right? i am just trying to say if u absolutly load that uncapped year then we return to a capped year. and if you can't let it drop below 50%. then e.g peppers deal would go
2010 17million
2011 8.5million
2012 4.25 million
and so on so by year 3 (and some would say year 2...panthers) that you have a superstar at a pretty modest salary... good for the team and also you would have a paid and happy guy because he got all that dosh 1st year. Now if people say peppers wouldn't accept 8 million year 2 e.t.c then you raise the 1st yr sallary (uncpped) untill he is. Now remember this theory is all dependent on kraft being extremely rich and hapy to pay if there were no restrictions 1st year

 

[pats1]

I didn't actually read the op as suggesting we should sign them to 2010 contract's TODAY, but maybe I read it wrong.

You can't do that.

 

[pats1]

yeah thats what i was saying. because as stated above if it is a signing bonus it is amortized throughout the contract is that right? i am just trying to say if u absolutly load that uncapped year then we return to a capped year. and if you can't let it drop below 50%. then e.g peppers deal would go
2010 17million
2011 8.5million
2012 4.25 million
and so on so by year 3 (and some would say year 2...panthers) that you have a superstar at a pretty modest salary... good for the team and also you would have a paid and happy guy because he got all that dosh 1st year. Now if people say peppers wouldn't accept 8 million year 2 e.t.c then you raise the 1st yr sallary (uncpped) untill he is. Now remember this theory is all dependent on kraft being extremely rich and hapy to pay if there were no restrictions 1st year

What matters is 2009. What are you talking about for 2009 numbers? You can't sign Peppers to a contract that begins in 2010, period.

 

[spacecrime]

What matters is 2009. What are you talking about for 2009 numbers? You can't sign Peppers to a contract that begins in 2010, period.

You remind me of an astronomer debating the makeup of the universe with an astrologer. No matter how much logic and common sense and factual information you input, it gets muddied with nonsensical statements. You are have the Cap-equivalent conversation of this:

Astronomer: The planets do not actually get right next to each other when they appear to "align." It is an optical illusion.

Astologist: The effect is even great with Jupiter because it has so many moons.

 

[Fencer]

From the CBA:

Amounts Treated as Signing Bonuses. For purposes of determining Team Salary under the foregoing, the term “signing bonus” shall include:
(5) The difference between the Salary in the second contract year and the first contract year when Salary in the second contract year is less than half the Salary called for in the first year of such Contract;

Can that be finessed by having one year at $20 million, a second at $10 million, and then a bunch of low-salary years?

Of course, that would be suicide the next year absent renegotiations ...

And it's all almost moot anyway, because the new post-uncapped-year CBA could be designed to punish any such shenanigans retroactively.

 

[jsull87]

i know we can't sign peppers now i was just using his contract as an example. It is a hypothertical question... can this be done

 

[AzPatsFan]

Not sure if that is the case..I think many may THINK they can use the floor and gain a lot of profit...BUT if it is such a good thing why are the owners threatening a lockout?? IF it is so good for them..they would not be even thinking of that. I do agree uncapped year will restrict movement of players...but it also might open the door for other things.

The uncapped rules allow an owner to spend to his hearts content on his own players. But the poison pills prevent him from going out and doing that to other team FAs. It gets even stiffer for the winning teams, presumably where most of the players would like to go from doing it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

CBA compliance aside, Kraft doesn't have the cash to do what the op proposes. Not sure any team does although Snyder would come the closest. Doing that would require ownership to spend out of pocket as opposed to out of the revenue stream. Not many would do that if they could, let alone facing labor uncertainty. Paul Allen in Seattle probably could if he chose to, but smart billionaires and multi millionaires seldom risk personal wealth in that manner. And a number of NFL owners have very limited personal wealth beyond the value of their franchise.

The largely TV generated revenue pool covers the cap, but payroll often exceeds that already due to cash over cap expenditures (bonus money) hitting the books over and above the cap. Then you have all your other expenses like coaching and administrative staff, stadium expenses (which here are paid for by Kraft and include quite a bit of debt service since he still owes over $250M on the debt he incurred to construct it). I know according to Forbes our gate receipts are around $80M and net operating income is closer to $30M+. That's really what you have left for new bonuses over operating expenses. Obviously there will be increased earnings from other loosly football related ventures (Kraft wants to see remain apart from gross revenue calculations) like media deals and Patriot Place going forward, but constructing that also involved investing and assuming debt so who knows when that will actually turn a substantial clear profit...particularly given the present economy.

So to answer your initial question, I don't think Kraft can remotely afford to hand out half a dozen $20M-$30M bonuses to select players in 2010 to circumvent a potential future cap in an uncapped year. I'm also not sure contracts will toll in a 2011 lockout as they would in a strike situation, so an owner might well be absorbing a lot of sunk cost during a period in which his earnings plummet. And during which if the lockout is protracted his player ages a year removed from the game in his limited prime...and he risks losing staff unless he is prepared to absorb the cost of maintaining them thru a lockout as well...

And were you to do this with players who were UFA in 2010 in order to acquire or retain them, imagine what those becoming UFA post lockout in 2011-2012 would expect and demand in order to retain or acquire them going forward. Guys like Brady...

No one player (or a handful of players) or one time/short term gain is worth the precedent you would set going forward to an astute business man like Kraft, particularly since he already has multiple Lombardi's in his trophy case.

 

[Ring 6]

Ummmm this was my entire point. in that year give richard exactly the money he wants same with wilfork mankins... even peppers. Then structure it as i have stated above. they all still get their money so they are happy and then the team gets to stay strong and get even stronger... i don't see your argument

If you are saying wait until next year, then you are letting them become Free Agents.
If you are trying to do it this year, A you can't and B there is no reason for the player to want to if you could.
I still dont understand what you want to do. Are you saying you think that they could do that this year, they cannot. If you are saying do it next year, I dont understand the value of the idea, because they would already be free agents. Plus as Miguel pointed out most of it would be treated as signing bonus and amortized anyway.

 

[Ring 6]

CBA compliance aside, Kraft doesn't have the cash to do what the op proposes. Not sure any team does although Snyder would come the closest. Doing that would require ownership to spend out of pocket as opposed to out of the revenue stream. Not many would do that if they could, let alone facing labor uncertainty. Paul Allen in Seattle probably could if he chose to, but smart billionaires and multi millionaires seldom risk personal wealth in that manner. And a number of NFL owners have very limited personal wealth beyond the value of their franchise.

The largely TV generated revenue pool covers the cap, but payroll often exceeds that already due to cash over cap expenditures (bonus money) hitting the books over and above the cap. Then you have all your other expenses like coaching and administrative staff, stadium expenses (which here are paid for by Kraft and include quite a bit of debt service since he still owes over $250M on the debt he incurred to construct it). I know according to Forbes our gate receipts are around $80M and net operating income is closer to $30M+. That's really what you have left for new bonuses over operating expenses. Obviously there will be increased earnings from other loosly football related ventures (Kraft wants to see remain apart from gross revenue calculations) like media deals and Patriot Place going forward, but constructing that also involved investing and assuming debt so who knows when that will actually turn a substantial clear profit...particularly given the present economy.

So to answer your initial question, I don't think Kraft can remotely afford to hand out half a dozen $20M-$30M bonuses to select players in 2010 to circumvent a potential future cap in an uncapped year. I'm also not sure contracts will toll in a 2011 lockout as they would in a strike situation, so an owner might well be absorbing a lot of sunk cost during a period in which his earnings plummet. And during which if the lockout is protracted his player ages a year removed from the game in his limited prime...and he risks losing staff unless he is prepared to absorb the cost of maintaining them thru a lockout as well...

And were you to do this with players who were UFA in 2010 in order to acquire or retain them, imagine what those becoming UFA post lockout in 2011-2012 would expect and demand in order to retain or acquire them going forward. Guys like Brady...

No one player (or a handful of players) or one time/short term gain is worth the precedent you would set going forward to an astute business man like Kraft, particularly since he already has multiple Lombardi's in his trophy case.

The other thing that is being disregarded in most of the doom and gloom uncapped discussions is that the owners are smart businessmen who operate to a large extent as partners. I think any suggestions that they will escalate into bidding wars that will drive payroll expense through the roof, and have all of them losing money is short-sighted at best.
Just because there wont be a cap imposed by a CBA does not mean that the owners who intelligently chose to operate under a cap will abandon their senses and spend themselves into bankruptcy.

 

[Ring 6]

yeah thats what i was saying. because as stated above if it is a signing bonus it is amortized throughout the contract is that right? i am just trying to say if u absolutly load that uncapped year then we return to a capped year. and if you can't let it drop below 50%. then e.g peppers deal would go
2010 17million
2011 8.5million
2012 4.25 million
and so on so by year 3 (and some would say year 2...panthers) that you have a superstar at a pretty modest salary... good for the team and also you would have a paid and happy guy because he got all that dosh 1st year. Now if people say peppers wouldn't accept 8 million year 2 e.t.c then you raise the 1st yr sallary (uncpped) untill he is. Now remember this theory is all dependent on kraft being extremely rich and hapy to pay if there were no restrictions 1st year

What are you paying him in 2009?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The other thing that is being disregarded in most of the doom and gloom uncapped discussions is that the owners are smart businessmen who operate to a large extent as partners. I think any suggestions that they will escalate into bidding wars that will drive payroll expense through the roof, and have all of them losing money is short-sighted at best.
Just because there wont be a cap imposed by a CBA does not mean that the owners who intelligently chose to operate under a cap will abandon their senses and spend themselves into bankruptcy.

So you're saying that NFL owners are a different breed than MLB owners. I think on the average that's so, but the problem is on the tail. We know there's far from unanimity in NFL owners' views about revenue sharing, etc. NFL owners have distinct minorities of $ haves and $ have nots. There ARE owners who may if unfettered take disruptive action in misguided self interest.

 

[Ring 6]

So you're saying that NFL owners are a different breed than MLB owners. I think on the average that's so, but the problem is on the tail. We know there's far from unanimity in NFL owners' views about revenue sharing, etc. NFL owners have distinct minorities of $ haves and $ have nots. There ARE owners who may if unfettered take disruptive action in misguided self interest.

I think they are absolutely a different breed than MLB owners.
However, they also have revenue sharing. The vast majority of revenue to teams is the TV contract, which is shared equally. There are very few factors that can allow any team to have SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue that others. They all sell out or come close. The difference in ticket price revenue exists, but it is miniscule compared to the shared TV $$.
Sure, you could have an owner decide to go into the black and take his own moeny to fund his franchise losing money to win bidding wars, but that is bad business. In baseball, especially the large markets at the time that it almost destroyed itself, attracting big name players was a means to generating revenue. In the NFL you wont be able to do that, so there is an entirely different dynamic.
It has been consistently discussed that the strength of the NFL has always revolved around owners recognizing that they are partners and the decisions for the greater good are the ones that need to be made. I just find it hard to believe that these smart businessmen who have acted in accord and with restraint will all of a sudden become self-destructive just because they aren't barred from being self-destructive.

 

[eom]

If you are saying wait until next year, then you are letting them become Free Agents.
If you are trying to do it this year, A you can't and B there is no reason for the player to want to if you could.
I still dont understand what you want to do. Are you saying you think that they could do that this year, they cannot. If you are saying do it next year, I dont understand the value of the idea, because they would already be free agents. Plus as Miguel pointed out most of it would be treated as signing bonus and amortized anyway.

dude, I pointed that out --- I demand credit.

anyway, I think there are a few owners who would be willing to write big checks in an uncapped season, but it might not be so easy to do as everybody thinks because of the numerous fa restrictions that year.
it will most likely happen w/a couple guys, but I doubt you'll see wholesale inflation by the dozens.

also, on a somewhat related note, I hadn't thought about it, but I heard mentioned on sirius nfl network today --- there isn't a rookie pool cap, is there?

 

[Miguel]

dude, I pointed that out --- I demand credit.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/229170-question-salary-structures.html

 

[BradyFTW!]

I didn't actually read the op as suggesting we should sign them to 2010 contract's TODAY, but maybe I read it wrong.

Yeah, this would sorta be the opposite of the 30% rule, if there is one. 30% rule says that a guy's salary can't jump by more than 30%. Can it fall by more than 30%?

What you initially said sounds sensible- that, past a certain drop-off, it would be accounted for as a signing bonus. I'm not sure what the rule is, but if I had to take a guess I'd think that that would be it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think they are absolutely a different breed than MLB owners.
However, they also have revenue sharing. The vast majority of revenue to teams is the TV contract, which is shared equally. There are very few factors that can allow any team to have SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue that others. They all sell out or come close. The difference in ticket price revenue exists, but it is miniscule compared to the shared TV $$.
Sure, you could have an owner decide to go into the black and take his own moeny to fund his franchise losing money to win bidding wars, but that is bad business. In baseball, especially the large markets at the time that it almost destroyed itself, attracting big name players was a means to generating revenue. In the NFL you wont be able to do that, so there is an entirely different dynamic.
It has been consistently discussed that the strength of the NFL has always revolved around owners recognizing that they are partners and the decisions for the greater good are the ones that need to be made. I just find it hard to believe that these smart businessmen who have acted in accord and with restraint will all of a sudden become self-destructive just because they aren't barred from being self-destructive.

I think the benefit, if it could be done, is that you'd be able to lock guys up long-term with a ton of up-front money without having much of a cap burden after 2010, when the cap is presumably reinstated.

 

[eom]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/229170-question-salary-structures.html

haha....well, I'll admit you were the one who pointed it out to me, as everything I learned about the cap has been from around here.
but throw me a bone........

edit: bradyftw -- miguel linked the relelvant cba rule earlier in the thread.
if 2011 is less than 50% of 2010 then 2010 salary is treated as a signing bonus.
so you could have 20m 2010 salary followed by 10m, I believe, but not 20m followed by 1m, if you were trying to dodge amortization.

 

[jsull87]

What are you paying him in 2009?

his contract amount that he signed.