Possible movement in negotiations?

[Deus Irae]

Well of course there's a difference, but my original comment was in response to the Dan Snyder example. Someone mentioned they didn't want the NFL to end up like baseball, someone else tried to use Dan Snyder as if to say this was already happening, and the numbers point out this is an entirely ludicrous comparison. What Dan Snyder is doing is NOTHING compared to what happens in baseball, which is why I did the comparison in the first place.

Your words:

Dan Snyder still has to live within the salary cap. The difference is he tries to win with a handful of big names, as opposed to a roster full of solid players. He really doesn't spend any more on players than anyone else does, over the long haul.

 

[Don Kipines]

Your words:

Man, I can't wait till we can actually talk about football again.

 

[Deus Irae]

Man, I can't wait till we can actually talk about football again.

Well, here's something PFT just posted. It's about on-the-field play, and it's about a division rival:

Offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer says Greene will “without a doubt” be the team’s primary rusher after taking a back seat to LaDainian Tomlinson for much of last year.

Schottenheimer eyes workhorse role for Shonn Greene | ProFootballTalk

 

[Joker]

I'm classy so I only have this to say about Shawn Grean...f&#k him...he can go f*&k hisself if he think he gonna take MY job...he's nothin' but a little f*@king ponk...

stay classy, LaTurdian...

 

[BlueThunder]

JO is a BIG fan of Tomlinson

 

[BradyFTW!]

Looks like the question now becomes "is Tomlinson worth a $3.5 million cap hit to be a secondary rusher?" Based on what he showed for the first half of last season before they overworked him and wore him down, I think you could maybe make a case that he is. He'll be far more effective as a #2 guy than as a primary ballcarrier.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, here's something PFT just posted. It's about on-the-field play, and it's about a division rival:



Schottenheimer eyes workhorse role for Shonn Greene | ProFootballTalk

Can Shonn Greene be a workhorse RB? He hasn't shown he is capable. In fact, he has been up and down with a split load in his first two years. Making him carry the majority of the load might make him have more downs than ups.

 

[Triumph]

Some teams do spend significantly more money on players than others, and some teams spend significantly less. The Redskins are among the very top spenders.

No way! The Redskins?

The fact that Tampa and KC are notorious for spending below the cap is meaningless.

The cap is an accounting gimmick, as the owners themselves have acknowledged with their "90%" promise.

That be must be the reason why the owners want the cap lowered this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

No way! The Redskins?

The fact that Tampa and KC are notorious for spending below the cap is meaningless.

Actually, it's part of the point, but not all of it.

That be must be the reason why the owners want the cap lowered this season.

The owners were offering to require an actual cash amount be spent:

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

NFL Owners Detail The Final Offer They Made To The Union - Blogging The Boys

That should have told you all you needed, particularly since you surely know about such things as NLTBE credits/incentives. Apparently, it didn't. Let me try to explain:

There is a salary cap, but there are ways around it. Therefore, the actual number claimed to be spent against the cap is just an accounting gimmick. If you have a problem with my wording, I'm sorry for the confusion. If you have a problem with the concept itself, I suggest you take it up with Miguel, because I've gone over it enough on this board.

 

[Triumph]

Actually, it's part of the point, but not all of it

None of it is news to those who follow the NFL.

The owners were offering to require an actual cash amount be spent:



NFL Owners Detail The Final Offer They Made To The Union - Blogging The Boys

That should have told you all you needed, particularly since you surely know about such things as NLTBE credits/incentives. Apparently, it didn't. Let me try to explain:

There is a salary cap, but there are ways around it. Therefore, the actual number claimed to be spent against the cap is just an accounting gimmick. If you have a problem with my wording, I'm sorry for the confusion. If you have a problem with the concept itself, I suggest you take it up with Miguel, because I've gone over it enough on this board.

The owners are fighting with the players over the issue of lowering the cap for 2011. According to you they are just wasting their time because the owners will just spend above the number that they are fighting to lower.

 

[Deus Irae]

None of it is news to those who follow the NFL.

Perhaps you should try reading the thread. It would help you to follow what's going on, rather than having you continue to make posts that are meaningless because of their tangential or irrelevant nature.

The owners are fighting with the players over the issue of lowering the cap for 2011. According to you they are just wasting their time because the owners will just spend above the number that they are fighting to lower.

That's not what I wrote, at all.

 

[Ring 6]

The NFL prior to 2010 and theoretically in the future has had a hard cap and floor. The fact that singing bonusses and performance bonusses require the calcualtion to be something other than cash spent makes it no less of a hard cap.
To call the cap an accounting gimmick is simply moronic.

 

[BSR]

That should have told you all you needed, particularly since you surely know about such things as NLTBE credits/incentives. Apparently, it didn't. Let me try to explain:

There is a salary cap, but there are ways around it. Therefore, the actual number claimed to be spent against the cap is just an accounting gimmick. If you have a problem with my wording, I'm sorry for the confusion. If you have a problem with the concept itself, I suggest you take it up with Miguel, because I've gone over it enough on this board.

That's an awful lot of NLTBEs. There is something misleading about those numbers. The disparity seems too big. Of course there are some ways around the cap and much of it timing of bonuses but that doesn't mean the cap number is meaningless by any means. Its about as much of a gimmick as Revenue is in comparison to bookings.

 

[Ring 6]

That's an awful lot of NLTBEs. There is something misleading about those numbers. The disparity seems too big. Of course there are some ways around the cap and much of it timing of bonuses but that doesn't mean the cap number is meaningless by any means. Its about as much of a gimmick as Revenue is in comparison to bookings.

The fact that every team does not spend the full cap does not make it a gimmick, it makes it a limit that some teams choose to max and some do not.
NLTBEs do not REPLACE spending the shift it from one year to another, yet another misrepresentation in this thread.

 

[Triumph]

The NFL prior to 2010 and theoretically in the future has had a hard cap and floor. The fact that singing bonusses and performance bonusses require the calcualtion to be something other than cash spent makes it no less of a hard cap.
To call the cap an accounting gimmick is simply moronic.

There are consequences for reckless cap management.

Just ask the Titans or Jaguars.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's an awful lot of NLTBEs. There is something misleading about those numbers. The disparity seems too big. Of course there are some ways around the cap and much of it timing of bonuses but that doesn't mean the cap number is meaningless by any means. Its about as much of a gimmick as Revenue is in comparison to bookings.

The cap number isn't meaningless, it's just not a hard requirement. It's the number where financial slight of hand becomes important rather than gratuitous, and it became much less important under the last CBA due to the rapid increases.

 

[TruthSeeker]

To the best of my knowledge, the only money paid out to players that is not totally accounted for under the cap has to do with a veteran's exclusion where then can get somewhere around $700,000 for the season while only having a cap hit of somewhere around $400,000.

This makes the salary cap an extremely effective way of leveling salaries out over the course of a number of years for those teams that want to spend near the salary cap limit every year.

 

[Ring 6]

The cap number isn't meaningless, it's just not a hard requirement. It's the number where financial slight of hand becomes important rather than gratuitous, and it became much less important under the last CBA due to the rapid increases.

That sounds a lot different than 'accounting gimmick'.
There were NUMEROUS transactions year in and year out motivated by the cap. Players were cut because of a cap number, contracts were renegotiatied to free up cap room, teams manuevered to stay under the cap.

 

[NEPats1]

SIGNS OF HOPE!!!

Twitter

Multiple sources continue to tell me a deal could be struck between owners and players before 8th circuit rules in July.

 

[Triumph]

Perhaps you should try reading the thread. It would help you to follow what's going on, rather than having you continue to make posts that are meaningless because of their tangential or irrelevant nature.

Youre thread is idiotic.

The Redskins found a way to sacrifice quality depth and wins so they could spend to brink of bankrupt every season. No other team wants to read "Management secrets of the Washington Redskins."