What happens in 2006 if 2007 is uncapped

[Miguel]

1.) Cap number - It has been reported to be in the 92 to 95 million
range. With an extension the cap number is likely to be over $100
million.

2.) Amortization. Amortized bonuses can only be prorated over four years. In 2005 they were allowed to be prorated over 5 years. If the CBA were extended, they would be prorated over the life of the contract or 7 years, whichever is the shorter time period.

3.)Limited salary increases. The 30% rule will take effect. Future increases in a player's salary is limited to 30 percent of a player's base salary in 2006 plus his LTBE incentives. Example - A player whose 2006 base salary was 1,000,000, the maximum increase from year to year for the rest of his contraact could be no more than 300,000(30% of 1 million). Paraphrasing eaglescap - "for the purposes of the 30% rule salary is defined as base salary, plus
roster bonus, plus LTBE incentive. Signing bonuses do not count in
calculation for the 30% rule, but prorations from option bonuses do.

4.) June 1 has no significance - Clubs are usually able to cut players from their roster after June 1 to defer some of the dead-money hit to the following league year. With no salary cap in 2007, whenever a club releases a player in 2006 all of his unamortized signing bonus proration will hit the 2006 cap

5.) LTBE/NTLBE incentives - NLTBE incentives won't count against the 2006 cap until they're earned. LTBE incentives will count against the cap until they cannot be earned. Adamjt13 provides this example - "So, for example, if a team has $500,000 of cap room late in the season and a player is approaching an NLTBE incentive that would earn him $1 million, the team has to open up another $500,000 of cap room when he earns it. On the other hand, if a player has an LTBE incentive, that money becomes available under the cap as soon as it can't be earned (for example, if a player is put on IR before reaching the necessary statistics to earn the incentive).

6.) Free agency - At the end of the 2006 League players will need 6, not 4 accrued seasons, in order to become an UFA

Edited to number the factors and to add the free agency factor.

 

[Mike the Brit]

For completeness sake

Unless I am completely mistaken, one very important consequence is that the rules on free agency change -- that an extra year is tagged on before free agency hits at the end of rookie contracts. I imagine that this is extremely important since it would mean that there is less incentive to sign rookies coming to the end of their contracts at the end of next season (Branch, for example, in our case).

Could you kindly explain how this would work? (Would it apply to Seymour, whose rookie contract has been re-worked, IIRC? -- Oh, and will the 30% rule apply to players signing new, post-rookie contracts?)

 

[DaBruinz]

Unless I am completely mistaken, one very important consequence is that the rules on free agency change -- that an extra year is tagged on before free agency hits at the end of rookie contracts. I imagine that this is extremely important since it would mean that there is less incentive to sign rookies coming to the end of their contracts at the end of next season (Branch, for example, in our case).

Could you kindly explain how this would work? (Would it apply to Seymour, whose rookie contract has been re-worked, IIRC? -- Oh, and will the 30% rule apply to players signing new, post-rookie contracts?)

Actually, Mike, 2 years are tacked on. If 2007 is uncapped, players with less than 6 years of accrued time are considered restricted free agents (possibly exclusive rights free agents). This wouldn't apply to Seymour as he'd have his 6 accrued years. But it would apply to players like Deion Branch, Daniel Graham and Daniel Koppen.

The 30% applies to everyone, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Actually, Mike, 2 years are tacked on. If 2007 is uncapped, players with less than 6 years of accrued time are considered restricted free agents (possibly exclusive rights free agents). This wouldn't apply to Seymour as he'd have his 6 accrued years. But it would apply to players like Deion Branch, Daniel Graham and Daniel Koppen.

The 30% applies to everyone, if I am not mistaken.

Now that's significant -- I imagine it completely blocks contract negotiations with those players.

Another question occurs: is it a matter of a two-year period being added to those with four-year rookie contracts and one year being added to those with five-year ones? (I don't know who they are, but that was the reason why Ben Watson held out of camp his first year, wasn't it?)

 

[Miguel]

Unless I am completely mistaken, one very important consequence is that the rules on free agency change -- that an extra year is tagged on before free agency hits at the end of rookie contracts. I imagine that this is extremely important since it would mean that there is less incentive to sign rookies coming to the end of their contracts at the end of next season (Branch, for example, in our case).

Could you kindly explain how this would work? (Would it apply to Seymour, whose rookie contract has been re-worked, IIRC? -- Oh, and will the 30% rule apply to players signing new, post-rookie contracts?)

Hopefully, my edit and DaBruinz's response answer your question.

 

[Pats726]

what other poison pills are there for both sides??

 

[Miguel]

what other poison pills are there for both sides??

The 6 is all that I know about for the 2006 season.

 

[hwc]

The Deon Rule could be an issue in new contracts this year. However, any contract that would trigger Deon proration would almost certainly trigger even more serious 30% Rule problems anyway.

The Colts must be sweating bullets about the 30% Rule right now. The whole structure of Manning's deal was based on converting his roster bonus this year to a new signing bonus on an extended deal. That can't happen as long as the 30% Rule is in effect.

 

[ilduce06410]

johhny unitas and jim taylor gone forever

what other poison pills are there for both sides??

better for the players, i guess. if they work the system right. bruschi still appears to be one those who refuses to give a ****.
the complexity of what is in fact a simple thing is is not, however, a good thing for the fans or for the sport. it doesn't have to be this way.

nfl franchises and the nfl players association hereby agree that:
teams will PAY no more that $X to their 53 PLAYERS players COLLECTIVELY each year. no matter all the multiyear deals, etc. payments to be based on the amounts reported to the state for TAX requirements each year. payments are based on 53 slots, no matter who's in them. for example, eight players could be in the slot. only payments on that slot are counted.
teams that exceed the cap are subject to sanctions by AN arbiters. those sanctions include:
1.
2.
3..
this agreement is signed by the league and the players. for this to work, the league has to resist all proposed modifications, clarifications, and redefinitions to this rule for, say, 5 years.
abuse, machinations, intrigue, quibbling over definitions, hidden payroll, bonuses, minimum payrolls for vets and for rookies, whatever, is, relentessly of NO CONCERN. all that stuff will go on, but it will be ignored for the purpose of the sgreement. all the franchises have to do is meet the payroll standard for a given year. things will be just as foolish among the owners, front offices, management. they can do whatever they want with player contracts, it doesn't matter. none of that matters for the purpose of the cap.

the owners, collectively, designate the nfl to hire an ARBITER of violations. the ARBITER will serve in that capacity for period of 14 months the ARITER's REPORT will be taken as gospel, no redefinitions. either total payments ABOVE, or BELOW, the established limit. each team held to only ONE KIND of violation: payroll in excess of limit. for each given year, the ARBITER defines the standard. franchises, nflpa, players, have no say.
all of that exists now.
the league and th players have only to adhere to that standard..