New CBA and USA Today - Cash over Cap penalty? (my calculation)

[Vern]

There was some speculation last summer about a new provision in the CBA sometimes called "cash over cap" in which teams that outspent the cap in total cash outlays (nothing pro-rated) might get penalized in future cap years. Now USA Today has their data for 2006, the first such year under this rule.

Here's the total cash spending by team according to USA Today. The Colts, at $130M are tops and WAAAY over the 2006 cap number of $102M, the Pats are around 12th overall, at $105M, just slightly over.

However according to the CBA, the "cash over cap" penalty only is applied if the entire league spent more total cash than the cap. According to USA Today, if you just add up the cash spent by all 32 teams, you get to $3205M, or $100.15M per team. Thus, it seems the top spenders will not be taxed this year, since teams like the Colts were offset plenty well by the low spenders like the Raiders to keep the league average down.

But this was just a back of envelope calculation on my part. Anyone else know more or have done better calculations?

 

[smg93]

That's amazing, $3.2 billion dollars in player only related costs!

 

[Miguel]

I'm pretty sure that the reason that the cap is 109,134,000 is because the 32 teams did not meet the minimum cash spending threshold.

Given how much cap space remains (an average of $9.82 million per team as of last Thursday), it seems rather safe to say that minimum cash spending threshold will not be met again this year which will mean that future caps will be increased.

 

[Miguel]

That's amazing, $3.2 billion dollars in player only related costs!

You are forgetting benefits.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I'm pretty sure that the reason that the cap is 109,134,000 is because the 32 teams did not meet the minimum cash spending threshold.

Given how much cap space remains (an average of $9.82 million per team as of last Thursday), it seems rather safe to say that minimum cash spending threshold will not be met again this year which will mean that future caps will be increased.

Miguel,
I thought the cap was strictly a subset of revenue. Is there allowance for increasing it based on not spending to the limit in a given year?

 

[Miguel]

Miguel,
I thought the cap was strictly a subset of revenue. Is there allowance for increasing it based on not spending to the limit in a given year?

Yes.
See
http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_P_Adjustment_Mechanism_Examples.pdf

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Yes.
See
http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_P_Adjustment_Mechanism_Examples.pdf

Thats interesting, although confusing...

Could this lead to different teams having different caps based on past cap levels? (thats the way I read it)

 

[Miguel]

Thats interesting, although confusing...

Could this lead to different teams having different caps based on past cap levels? (thats the way I read it)

Teams have had different adjusted caps for the longest time already.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Teams have had different adjusted caps for the longest time already.

Yes, but I thought that was based on using various mechanisms like not likely to be earned incentives. If I read this right, how other teams spend to the cap (or not) can be played by a savvy GM.

Is that a proper assessment?