Schefter reveals the framework of the new deal

[RayClay]

No they are selling it to another network be one of the big four or a cable network (TBS, TNT, USA. etc.).

Pleasant surprise. I was sure they'd be force feeding that network down our throat. Budgets tight these days.

 

[DaBruinz]

How do you figure Brady's cap number as 20 million?

Miguel - It was a hypothetical example. Not a real one..

 

[VJCPatriot]

What will be interesting is whether or not the franchise and transition tags have been eliminated. If they have, what does that do to the guys who were tendered and signed their tenders.

If you sign your tender you're stuck for a year. Cos after all it's still a contract and therefore binding. I doubt most guys signed their tender if they knew the lockout was imminent. Any agent worth his salt would have advised against signing until the new CBA was decided.

Just underscores how phony Goodell's "argument" was on the fans' behalf for the 18-game season. He hammered away on the fact that season ticket holders hate paying full price for two preseason games, so one should be made to count. Owners create an alternative cash cow in the Thursday night package and suddenly, no pressing "need" to go to 18 games. But, hey Roger! Weren't you fighting for the interests of the fans? ROGER???!!!

Goodell is a mouthpiece for the owners. Of course he's gonna promote whatever the owners want and at that time it was an 18 game schedule to make more money. Now that a Thursday night package will apparently make just as much money, it's the new 'in thing' to promote. I'm glad the schedule didn't go to 18 games. These players wear down enough already playing a 16 game season.

 

[RussFrancis]

There is a tremendous difference between cap spending and cash spending.
Here is an example.
The Pats sing Tom Brady to a 5 yr 100 mill deal with a 30 mill signing bonus.
The cap is 120mill
Bradys cap number is 20 mill
Bradys cash cost is 40 mill (assuming a 10 mill salary for year 1)

To simplify the example, the Patriots hit the 120mill cash cost by paying the other 52 players a combined 80 mill, all salary.

Their cap number is only 100 mill.

They spend less at 100% cash to cap than at a 110 mill cap floor.

Clearly this is a simplistic example on purpose, but there is no guarantee at all that a cash minimum will be more costly that a cap floor.

I follow your logic. I may have made the mistake of assuming teams would basically spend what their caps suggest they should. The loopholes will continue to exist, I suppose, to allow manipulation of contracts. Point taken.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think that it will be.
Dead money counted against a cap floor.
The use of the in-season LTBE incentive counted against a cap floor. Remember Vince Redd having $3 million plus cap number in 2008 because of a LTBE incentive or Kyle Eckel having a $6 million cap number in 2007 for the same reason.

What makes you think dead money won't still be treated the same way? It all has to be treated some way (counted) against the cap. Do you think teams will no longer be able to amortize signing bonus $$? I don't, because the league is reportedly negotiating for language that will make that money more recoverable under certain conditions and that may well lead to a trend away from guaranteed money and back to signing bonus. Teams will likely still be allowed to manipulate the cap, if just won't be the only measure of required spending.

And changes to the rookie compensation formula should also help the lower revenue teams since many of them seem to get mired in the bottom of the standings where they are more likely to be drafting at the top of the rounds though often reaching for projected impact talent including at QB only to be burned badly financially when said draft projections aren't achieved. This alone should either buffer those financial consequences or bolster trade value for their selections enabling them to better compete with teams whose profile or finances still give them an edge in FA competition.

The cap was poised to top $140M by now. If as reported it is scaled back to $120M or so spending say 95% of it will result in a cash floor of $114M whereas 90% of $140M would have resulted in a cap floor of $126M. If all owners are receiving 52% of TGR as opposed to 48-49% under the old formula...that extra $12M per team should make it easier for small market owners to keep pace. Can the large market teams still outpace them in cash spending? Probably, but that is a matter for the owners to grapple or tinker with amongst themselves once they have a new CBA in place. Perhaps they need to institute a tax on cash spending over a certain % of cap the proceeds of which get redistributed to low revenue teams. That way the haves are not precluded from spending as much cash as they can manipulate under the cap but the have nots get access to additional $$ with which they can exceed cap as well...and if they choose not to they forfeit the extra cash and it goes into say the "88" fund or other safety net funds for post career players (so the union can't complain that the money eventually isn't being spent on players).

The change to 52% revenue to teams should also provide incentive to all owners to grow their portion of the pie to the greatest extent possible, and if they simply refuse to (as opposed to cannot find partners to sell things like naming rights to) they should be precluded from sharing in any redistribution of funds or whining about their lot in life.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

There is a tremendous difference between cap spending and cash spending.
Here is an example.
The Pats sing Tom Brady to a 5 yr 100 mill deal with a 30 mill signing bonus.
The cap is 120mill
Bradys cap number is 20 mill
Bradys cash cost is 40 mill (assuming a 10 mill salary for year 1)

To simplify the example, the Patriots hit the 120mill cash cost by paying the other 52 players a combined 80 mill, all salary.

Their cap number is only 100 mill.

They spend less at 100% cash to cap than at a 110 mill cap floor.

Clearly this is a simplistic example on purpose, but there is no guarantee at all that a cash minimum will be more costly that a cap floor.

Using your example Brady's cap hit would be $16M ($10M year 1 salary + $6M in amortized signing bonus of $30M divided by 5).

The logical reason a cash cap minimum at say 95% could be less than a 90% cap minimum would be the tradeoff of a reduced cap as a result of the pie being split 52/48 vs. 49/51 or 40/60 after the expense deduction of whatever. And they did say there will still be some expense deduction related to stadium construction.

 

[lamafist]

What makes you think dead money won't still be treated the same way? It all has to be treated some way (counted) against the cap. Do you think teams will no longer be able to amortize signing bonus $$? I don't, because the league is reportedly negotiating for language that will make that money more recoverable under certain conditions and that may well lead to a trend away from guaranteed money and back to signing bonus. Teams will likely still be allowed to manipulate the cap, if just won't be the only measure of required spending.

And changes to the rookie compensation formula should also help the lower revenue teams since many of them seem to get mired in the bottom of the standings where they are more likely to be drafting at the top of the rounds though often reaching for projected impact talent including at QB only to be burned badly financially when said draft projections aren't achieved. This alone should either buffer those financial consequences or bolster trade value for their selections enabling them to better compete with teams whose profile or finances still give them an edge in FA competition.

The cap was poised to top $140M by now. If as reported it is scaled back to $120M or so spending say 95% of it will result in a cash floor of $114M whereas 90% of $140M would have resulted in a cap floor of $126M. If all owners are receiving 52% of TGR as opposed to 48-49% under the old formula...that extra $12M per team should make it easier for small market owners to keep pace. Can the large market teams still outpace them in cash spending? Probably, but that is a matter for the owners to grapple or tinker with amongst themselves once they have a new CBA in place. Perhaps they need to institute a tax on cash spending over a certain % of cap the proceeds of which get redistributed to low revenue teams. That way the haves are not precluded from spending as much cash as they can manipulate under the cap but the have nots get access to additional $$ with which they can exceed cap as well...and if they choose not to they forfeit the extra cash and it goes into say the "88" fund or other safety net funds for post career players (so the union can't complain that the money eventually isn't being spent on players).

The change to 52% revenue to teams should also provide incentive to all owners to grow their portion of the pie to the greatest extent possible, and if they simply refuse to (as opposed to cannot find partners to sell things like naming rights to) they should be precluded from sharing in any redistribution of funds or whining about their lot in life.

"Dead money" will still work the same way w/r/t to cap figures, but does not figure into calculations of cash figures.

I don't know what the exact salary floor was in 2009, but the cap was $127 million and the Chiefs were paying $82 million, or 64% of the cap, in actual payroll. 7 teams were paying less than 75% of cap value in actual payroll. All but two of those teams were in the bottom half in terms of cap number -- so it's not like their actual payroll was being constrained by 'cap hell.'

Even if the cap would have been dropped to $120 under the new rules, with a cash floor close to 100% of the cap, as reported, that's almost a quarter of the league that would need to increase actual payroll by $25-40 million.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Andrew Brandt adds his assessment of the proposed deal parameters. He notes as others now have that a Thursday night package probably doesn't go into effect until 2014, but also states that part of it may remain with NFLN. Supposedly ESPN is expected to pay upwards of $2B for MNF in it's next deal which further justifies the potential value of the TNF package as $1B (or $500M if they only sell 8 games to a network).

He also forsees a cap of around $140M including benefits or $121M in salary cap. And a chaotic FA period where many players may be disappointed due to a lower cap and glutted market.

Traces of a deal? | National Football Post

 

[lamafist]

Andrew Brandt adds his assessment of the proposed deal parameters. He notes as others now have that a Thursday night package probably doesn't go into effect until 2014, but also states that part of it may remain with NFLN. Supposedly ESPN is expected to pay upwards of $2B for MNF in it's next deal which further justifies the potential value of the TNF package as $1B (or $500M if they only sell 8 games to a network).

He also forsees a cap of around $140M including benefits or $121M in salary cap. And a chaotic FA period where many players may be disappointed due to a lower cap and glutted market.

Traces of a deal? | National Football Post

Interesting piece; thanks for the link.

Didn't see anything about the valuation of the TNF package in the Brandt piece -- where's that info coming from?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Interesting piece; thanks for the link.

Didn't see anything about the valuation of the TNF package in the Brandt piece -- where's that info coming from?

Other articles have mentioned that based in part on the record price just paid for the Olympics ($4B). ESPN is paying $1.1B for MNF now. By 2014...

As for cash spending, not all of that is born of necessity, it is rather fluctuation by design. The Patriots for example tend to go over and under in cycles depending on how they best choose to manage their cap. Ditto teams like Dallas I'm sure who can certainly afford to spend in excess of $90M in any season. Teams may show up atop these cash lists one season only to show up near the bottom the next as they use cash spending to manipulate the cap. I know in the case of KC it had to do with making stadium improvements and then waiting for their revenue stream to close the gap at a time when salaries were increasing dramatically which just so happened to coincide with a change of management and substantial roster turnover and transition.

If the cap drops to $120M the cash floor at 95% would be $114M. At 85% of cap the old cap floor was $107M and had the old CBA continued they'd have been looking at a cap floor of $119M (based on a $140M cap by 2011). If owners are making 3% more of a larger pie than in 2009...let's call it $10B conservatively, I think the vast majority will be better able to handle player cash costs across the board going forward.

 

[DaBruinz]

"Dead money" will still work the same way w/r/t to cap figures, but does not figure into calculations of cash figures.

I don't know what the exact salary floor was in 2009, but the cap was $127 million and the Chiefs were paying $82 million, or 64% of the cap, in actual payroll. 7 teams were paying less than 75% of cap value in actual payroll. All but two of those teams were in the bottom half in terms of cap number -- so it's not like their actual payroll was being constrained by 'cap hell.'

Even if the cap would have been dropped to $120 under the new rules, with a cash floor close to 100% of the cap, as reported, that's almost a quarter of the league that would need to increase actual payroll by $25-40 million.

There are problems with your logic. First and foremost, the USA Today post doesn't take into consideration the signing bonuses paid to players. It is just salary.

There has not been a CASH FLOOR in the league. There has been a cap floor and in 2009 it was 87.6%.

Other sources have mentioned a cap floor of between 90 and 93%. If you read that part of Schefter's article, the information actually came from John Clayton. So the reliability of the information is in question. The other thing is that if you read what is said, they start talking about a CAP Floor and then the example is a CASH floor. And they are two different things.

Also, how dead money was handled would have to change if there was a mandatory CASH floor that was in the 90% range. Either that or signing bonuses would have to get a lot smaller since it will be a lot harder to amortize them.

 

[TheSolderKing]

- All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after the 2010 season are UFAs.


all the accrued talent will be gone by way of URFA... they should remain RFA
this is horse-spit add the h in p spot

terrible CBA I hate it.

 

[lamafist]

There are problems with your logic. First and foremost, the USA Today post doesn't take into consideration the signing bonuses paid to players. It is just salary.

There has not been a CASH FLOOR in the league. There has been a cap floor and in 2009 it was 87.6%.

Other sources have mentioned a cap floor of between 90 and 93%. If you read that part of Schefter's article, the information actually came from John Clayton. So the reliability of the information is in question. The other thing is that if you read what is said, they start talking about a CAP Floor and then the example is a CASH floor. And they are two different things.

Also, how dead money was handled would have to change if there was a mandatory CASH floor that was in the 90% range. Either that or signing bonuses would have to get a lot smaller since it will be a lot harder to amortize them.

Strictly speaking, all of the problems you raise address my set of assumptions, not my logic.

The moral of the story is probably that we need many more details about the next CBA before we can really get into this stuff.

 

[Miguel]

What makes you think dead money won't still be treated the same way?

What makes you think that I think that dead money won't still be treated the same way?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

- All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after the 2010 season are UFAs.


all the accrued talent will be gone by way of URFA... they should remain RFA
this is horse-spit add the h in p spot

terrible CBA I hate it.

All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after any season have been UFA (there is no URFA) since 1993.

Players were only RFA beyond 4 years in one season - 2010 - as part of the rules (poison pill variety) of an expiring CBA preceding an uncapped season...

Really, I've said it before...stop posting and try reading with actual comprehension... if you can actually acquire that ability.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What makes you think that I think that dead money won't still be treated the same way?

The way you referenced it in response to Andy's post...

BTW do you know the link to the 2010 cap page isn't working?

 

[Miguel]

The way you referenced it in response to Andy's post...

I did not say anything that said that dead money would be handled any differently.

 

[Miguel]

BTW do you know the link to the 2010 cap page isn't working?

Now I do.....

 

[Miguel]

I did not say anything that said that dead money would be handled any differently.

I do not know how saying that dead money counted against cap floors but not against a cash floor equates to saying that dead money would be handled differently.

 

[Ring 6]

The 48% applies to league total revenues. Team salary caps are the same for high revenue or low-revenue teams. the minimum 46.5% also applies to total revenues.

What is different (in the new CBA) is that effectively there are mechanisms or formulations that will require low revenue teams to spend close to their cap, eliminating the common practice of 7 to 9 clubs being 10 to 25 million under the cap the past few years because there has not been a required floor. What this does is put the onus on the owners to come to a revenue-sharing agreement that is equitable and fair. This is a problem that has been cleverly kept quiet among the owners but one that could potentially be divisive if not resolved.

There has always been a cap floor.