SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.In doing this, what other UFAs are they at risk of losing?
In doing this, what other UFAs are they at risk of losing?
Thanks for the lookout.
I think Miguel said that the Colts would have about 15+ mill of space after restructuring. This takes up 8.6 of that.
That's incorrect. Since Freeney was already counting against the 2007 cap, the net cap hit is the $8.6 million minus his 2007 salary minus the 2007 proration of prior signing bonuses minus the salary of the player that Freeney displaced from the Top 51 list.
That's incorrect. Since Freeney was already counting against the 2007 cap, the net cap hit is the $8.6 million minus his 2007 salary
Miguel said:minus the 2007 proration of prior signing bonuses
Miguel said:minus the salary of the player that Freeney displaced from the Top 51 list.
That's incorrect. Since Freeney was already counting against the 2007 cap, the net cap hit is the $8.6 million minus his 2007 salary minus the 2007 proration of prior signing bonuses minus the salary of the player that Freeney displaced from the Top 51 list.
Miguel's comments not to the contrary because they don't make sense.
For the record professor Clayton said this AM in his insiders blog that the Colts were "right at the cap" before they restructured Mannings and Mathis contracts thus freeing up $14.8M in cap space. Since Freeney wasn't tagged until later in the day I for my own purposes will assume his $8.6M tag price will now come off of that figure leaving them effectively with $6.2M for the time being irrespective of the rule of 51. Miguel's comments not to the contrary because they don't make sense. And because I want to know what they really have, not just what they can temporarily appear to have.
BTW Manning's restructure just lowered his cap hit from $16M+ to $8M+. That money doesn't just disappear. It is all falling into the next 3-5 years depanding on whether his contract actually voided to 7 years as widely reported for some time now or not. Years when bonuses dry up replaced by double digit salaries. You can guarantee and prorate those too, but eventually you run out of years to dump them into without starting over, which means a big new signing bonus to prorate into years already loaded down with prior amortization - so it's not nearly as palatable as the first time around when you started with a clean slate.
I just read Claytons statement and he did say that they were trying to restucture Marvin Harrisons contract also.
So there is more to come, but right now it does look like they have about $6 mil after Freeney. But, it could be more.
Sure, and they all want to play in Indy rather than some godforsaken place like New England with a dour coach like Bill Belichick.the bottomline (no matter how you cut it), is the Colts are re-structuring their players. Just like us (and every other team in the league), they will have to pay their players.
MoLewisrocks said:Manning's restructure just lowered his cap hit from $16M+ to $8M+. That money doesn't just disappear. It is all falling into the next 3-5 years depanding on whether ]his contract actually voided to 7 years as widely reported for some time now or not.
The only way that Manning's 2007 cap hit can be $8.2 million as reported by Clayton is if the $10,000,000 roster bonus was prorated over 6 years (Not 3 to 5 years) (2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012). Therefore, Manning is signed through the 2012 season as it has been saying on the NFLPA.org site ever since he sign his contract.
http://www.nflpa.org/Resources/ActivePlayerSearch.aspx?id=25927
The Colts still are Gonna have a tough time signing Rhodes, Harper, and June.
Look at the NFLPA.orgBut if his contract was voided awhile back, then his 2007 salary wouldn't be on the books.
My mistake.Why would his signing bonus prorations just disappear? They'd be a charge, not a credit.
If his 2007 salary was already on the books as above, then this wouldn't apply.