Miguel: Manning ruling?

[hwc]

John Clayton provides a little more detail on the ruling today:

A special master ruled against the several teams trying to convert roster bonuses that were set aside into signing bonuses. The ruling indicated that such conversions had to be subject to the 30 percent rule in which the base salaries had to increase by no more than that amount. Had the special master ruled in favor of several NFL teams that set aside big signing-bonus money, teams would have saved 2006 cap money. Those roster bonuses would have been turned into signing bonuses and their prorations would have been spread over four years, and the base salaries could grow more than 30 percent per year.

Does this sound like a "Manning Ruling" to you? Did Polian get his knuckles rapped when he tried to convert Manning's $9 million roster bonus into prorated signing bonus without considering the 30% rule?

Could explain why the Colts suddenly found themselves $9.7 million over the cap this afternoon, heh?

 

[Miguel]

John Clayton provides a little more detail on the ruling today:



Does this sound like a "Manning Ruling" to you? Did Polian get his knuckles rapped when he tried to convert Manning's $9 million roster bonus into prorated signing bonus without considering the 30% rule?

Could explain why the Colts suddenly found themselves $9.7 million over the cap this afternoon, heh?

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/SPORTS03/603020441/1100

From what I can tell, the Colts can still convert the roster bonus into a signing bonus as long as the future salaries do not increase more than 30%. So, let's say that the Colts do the conversion for Manning, his 2006 salary would then be $1,000,000. Future salary increases would be limited to 30% or $300,000, which severely limits how much compensation Manning will receive in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

 

[ilduce06410]

hereinafter to be known as the Manning Rule

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/SPORTS03/603020441/1100

From what I can tell, the Colts can still convert the roster bonus into a signing bonus as long as the future salaries do not increase more than 30%. So, let's say that the Colts do the conversion for Manning, his 2006 salary would then be $1,000,000. Future salary increases would be limited to 30% or $300,000, which severely limits how much compensation Manning will receive in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

owners won't like that. not the ones who have magazine-cover players, nor the ones who think they'll have them in the future.
that can be covered in the work still going on, right?

 

[hwc]

Thanks for the link, Miquel.

I can't believe the Colts thought they had any shot of pulling off that fast one. It's been obvious from the day the Manning deal was done that the 30% rule (without a CBA extension) would kill their plans to prorate this year's roster bonus.

If the roster bonus were converted to signing bonus this year, his "salary" would be $1 million compared to $11 million next year. That's about as clear a 30% rule violation as I could imagine.

 

[workhorse]

Thanks for the link, Miquel.

I can't believe the Colts thought they had any shot of pulling off that fast one. It's been obvious from the day the Manning deal was done that the 30% rule (without a CBA extension) would kill their plans to prorate this year's roster bonus.

If the roster bonus were converted to signing bonus this year, his "salary" would be $1 million compared to $11 million next year. That's about as clear a 30% rule violation as I could imagine.

Well first of all, it's not just the Colts that have been doing it, many teams around the league have been doing this for years. The Pats probably have done it. All they are doing is spreading a signing bonus out over more years, there is no difference in the contract value, just the cap hit each year. The only reason it is even an issue this year is because the was no new CBA. If there had been, it would have been business as usual and teams would have kept doing this practice. But since there is no new agreement, that 30% rule kicks in for the first time. The Colts weren't trying to "pull a fast one", they were just counting on a new CBA. They rolled the dice, and for now, came up on the short end. I'm pretty sure I heard that they appealed the ruling. If there is a new CBA, it won't even matter.

 

[hwc]

workforce:

They must have submitted an illegal adjusment to Manning's contract (in violation of the 30% rule) for a Special Master to even be involved. Polian had to have known the rule and was trying to pull a fast one.

Fair enough though. As someone on the Colts board suggested, we won't call it 'cheating'. We'll just call it a "point of emphasis".

 

[workhorse]

workforce:

They must have submitted an illegal adjusment to Manning's contract (in violation of the 30% rule) for a Special Master to even be involved. Polian had to have known the rule and was trying to pull a fast one.

Fair enough though. As someone on the Colts board suggested, we won't call it 'cheating'. We'll just call it a "point of emphasis".

It wasn't an issue until they saw that there was not going to be a new CBA. They were counting on the new CBA being reached and then there would be no 30% rule. The 30% rule is attached to that "poison pill" of no salary cap to force everyone to agree to a new CBA. What they are trying to do was perfectly fine last season and would be this season if they had agreed to a new CBA.

 

[hwc]

Until such time as there is a new CBA, the rules and provisions of the current CBA are in effect. Any contract or contract revision submitted to the NFL must comply with the terms of the current CBA. I don't understand why the Colts would even bother submitting a contract in violation of the rules that are currently in effect.

I know that Polian is not stupid. He knew that the 30% rule was in effect. He must have been trying to slide one by.

 

[workhorse]

Until such time as there is a new CBA, the rules and provisions of the current CBA are in effect. Any contract or contract revision submitted to the NFL must comply with the terms of the current CBA. I don't understand why the Colts would even bother submitting a contract in violation of the rules that are currently in effect.

I know that Polian is not stupid. He knew that the 30% rule was in effect. He must have been trying to slide one by.

Since these contracts were signed years ago, this has always been a part of the plan. There must be some wording that made Polian think that this would work. If they are appealing it, they must think that it is not a cut and dry issue.

 

[spacecrime]

Since these contracts were signed years ago, this has always been a part of the plan. There must be some wording that made Polian think that this would work. If they are appealing it, they must think that it is not a cut and dry issue.

What? Because it was signed years ago, changing it now was part of the plan? What kind of nonsense is that?

It's hard to believe that even the Colts are inept enough to make a contract they know won't fly, and have a "plan" to slip it by the NFL. That's stupider than even I give them credit for. (AndI give them a lot of credit for being stupid.)

They just got caught.

Stop crying. Be a man, not a Manning.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I think its time to stop worrying about the Colts,and worry about no football in 2 yrs...

 

[hwc]

Workhorse is correct in one regard. Polian bet the farm on a new CBA.

Brady's contract is similarly structured. The difference is that they took into the account the ramifications of no CBA-extension and Brady's deal does not trigger the 30% rule.

Would they like a CBA extension? Yes. Would they juggle Brady's cap number more aggressively if there were a CBA extension? Yes. But, they are legal and under the cap without it. The structure of the salaries in Brady's deal clearly shows that the 30% rule was taken into account.

 

[tailgater]

Bingo!

Some teams just did not plan adequately. The Pats have said that they were prepared either way it went. They seem to be right. Others? Not so much.