HoosierCat Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 The Steelers do business in almost exactly the same way that the Bengals do, and they're currently holding up the championship trophy.And if you go look at those Forbes numbers they were $9 million cash over cap.But you're acknowledging that it's almost certain that a few maverick owners, round up the usual suspects, will quickly find a way to circumvent the very intention of whatever agreement is signed, AND in a long history of posts, including the one I'm quoting, you implore the Bengals to mimic many of those same maverick practices.So Rooney is a maverick owner now? Of course not. I've never maintained that Mikey should go the route of the Redskins or any other of these "mavericks" you point to. But virtually every team, except the Bengals, plays the cash over cap game, some like the Steelers more judiciously than others. Whether you care about 1993 or not doesn't change the fact that Mikey not availing himself of the same tools as the rest of the league has hurt the team.Again, this cash over cap looks like just another smoke screen. Does anyone really believe that the final stumbling block to getting a deal is restricting teams to spend $2 million more in payroll than the cap limit? Is this why Bob Kraft has already postured to rebuff any approval of the tentative agreement...because he wants to spend $10 million more based on practices that are not absolutely not breaking the rules or getting around the cap.Nuh-uh Bob Kraft is going to b*tch about the proposed agreement for the same reason he gave his last Super Bowl ring to Vladimir Putin. Money. And in his case that will be stadium debt in relation to revenue sharing.I know. Kraft doesn't want to share more of his local revenue because (he claims) he needs it to service his debt. Which is a point I understand and think should be taken into consideration. Where cash over cap comes in, IMHO, is that it's a tool to address the revenue-sharing concerns of the less wealthy clubs: by further limiting cash over cap, the need to expand revenue sharing will be reduced, since the big money teams won't be able to spend any more on football than then smaller-revenue clubs. Their owners will just have fatter bank accounts.In short, I suspect that Kraft is all in favor of a cash over cap limit of some sort as an alternative to increased revenue-sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 I don't get this part at all:NFL Reaches Tentative Labor SettlementThe salary cap figure would fluctuate annually based not only on changes in revenues, the person said, but also on how much money the 32 NFL teams collectively spent above or below the flexible salary cap the previous season.If the teams collectively spent less than the salary cap allotment in a season, the next season's cap would move upward in the players' favor. If the clubs collectively spent more than the salary cap allotment in a season, the cap would move lower the following season to guarantee the players less money.So when teams spend over the cap they would in effect be spending the cap space of the other teams for the following year ?Huh ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well wait a minute ...According to ESPN the adjustments would be on each individual teams' salary cap for the following year.ESPN ...The deal also includes the ability to give credits and make adjustments on individual teams' spending on cash over the cap, according to what Upshaw told Mortensen. It is possible that a team that exceeds the spending limit will have their salary cap adjusted the following year by the amount they spend over the cap...Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Harold Henderson, the NFL's executive vice president for labor relations, said it was never discussed Sunday.That makes more sense ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 I don't get this part at all:NFL Reaches Tentative Labor SettlementThe salary cap figure would fluctuate annually based not only on changes in revenues, the person said, but also on how much money the 32 NFL teams collectively spent above or below the flexible salary cap the previous season.If the teams collectively spent less than the salary cap allotment in a season, the next season's cap would move upward in the players' favor. If the clubs collectively spent more than the salary cap allotment in a season, the cap would move lower the following season to guarantee the players less money.So when teams spend over the cap they would in effect be spending the cap space of the other teams for the following year ?Huh ???I think I understand. So...if the cap were (just to keep things easy) $100 per team, it would be $3,200 leaguewide. If the teams together spent, say, $3,500 that year, then the next year that extra spending (or some percentage of it) would be subtracted from the cap. The cap would still likely rise year-to-year as revenues increase, but this "overspending" adjustment would hold that growth down. Clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well Mortensen seems to think the adjustments would be to each individual teams' salary cap and not be divided by all 32 teams in the league.That makes more sense and I don't think that it would be a very big deal at all.It would take years of spending way over the cap before it got to the point where it would really hurt a team.Even if a team let it snowball on them, until they finally came into a year with zero cap space, all it would mean is that they would have to show all salaries as bonus money and would have one less year to spread it over.On the flip side, I guess a team could sandbag for two or three years and build up a huge pot of cap space and then make a big run at FAs in one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Well Mortensen seems to think the adjustments would be to each individual teams' salary cap and not be divided by all 32 teams in the league.Could be. Who -- aside from Tags and Ushaw -- knows? But it may be all beside the point, since the most likely thing that's going to happen tomorrow is, IMHO, the owners taking the NFLPA's proposal and consigning it to the trash heap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 I see something getting done this time around. I believe the owners and the players know there is just to much to lose and NO ONE can afford a strike. God knows that would piss off many fans !!!WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hey, if all the owners get to vote on it maybe we get a deal that includes revenue-sharing and excludes cash-over-the-cap.That'd be way too simple apparently. It sounds like the NFLPA proposal includes cash-over-cap, which seems like that would most likely prove to be a concession on their part if it includes that adjustments can be made to lower either an individual team or the total cap for a subsequent year. The ongoing impasse still sounds like an issue for the owners and probably why Tags has got the landlords all meeting in Dallas for one last gasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 So what are you worried about? You first insisted on DC's huge money being a dominant competitive advantage, yet now say it doesn't work. Meanwhile, teams like the Steelers, who take small steps into the cash over cap business when needed, prosper. And that's all I expect the Bengals to do. But they don't, and there's no doubt that's been part of the franchise's problems. Again, it is the personality making the decision that defines whether the strategy works or fails. In the Washington example, Daniel Snyder has repeatedly undermined the past CBA like few others, but due to his long and colorful history of incompetent football related decision making, he has squandered much of the competive advantage he gained. Frankly, that's great comedy made even richer by the idea that it is Snyder who now needs a new CBA to bail him out, but it tends to obscure the reality that the system IS broken, and it needs to be fixed before a smarter man follows the same path and simply buys a championship. The NFL needs a hard salary cap or a way to level the playing field when teams violate the spirit and intent of the CBA. And the example Mort spoke of where a teams individual cap space is adjusted after a team spends over the cap is a great place to start. Last, the Bengals have spent over the cap. No kidding, I think the last example was two or three years ago. Pretty sure you wrote about it at the time. But they clearly don't do it often, nor do they need to because the way they prefer to do business doesn't require it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Frankly, that's great comedy made even richer by the idea that it is Snyder who now needs a new CBA to bail him out, but it tends to obscure the reality that the system IS broken, and it needs to be fixed before a smarter man follows the same path and simply buys a championship.Here we're just goiong to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think "buying a championship" is going to be a big danger, even in an uncapped NFL. I've gone into some of the reasons for that elsewhere. Yes, having someone smarter than Dan Snyder spending the money might lead to some better results -- but then again no one would call Robert Kraft, Bill Belichik and Scott Pioli idiots, and New England spent $120-130 million in payroll last season and only limped into the playoffs thanks to a complete collapse of the rest of the division.Last, the Bengals have spent over the cap. No kidding, I think the last example was two or three years ago. Pretty sure you wrote about it at the time. But they clearly don't do it often, nor do they need to because the way they prefer to do business doesn't require it.The Bengals have ended up over the cap a touch several times, typically due to injuries (which more than exhaust their annual cushion) and/or players hitting NLTBE incentives. But as a strategy in FA, they reject it every year. While I'd like to see them show more flexibility on that front, the fact that's the way they "prefer" to do business, doesn't bug me half as much their neverending whining that this is the way they have to do business because everyone else is so rich and we're so poor, etc., etc., etc. that sets my teeth on edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 I heard the NFL Owners still can't agree on cash over cap and will now try to blame the refs for the lack of a deal..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whur CHad At? Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 I heard they are blaming Janet Jackson's breast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9288840 A silver-screen perspective on the current state of labor negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 The Bengals have ended up over the cap a touch several times, typically due to injuries (which more than exhaust their annual cushion) and/or players hitting NLTBE incentives. But as a strategy in FA, they reject it every year. While I'd like to see them show more flexibility on that front, the fact that's the way they "prefer" to do business, doesn't bug me half as much their neverending whining that this is the way they have to do business because everyone else is so rich and we're so poor, etc., etc., etc. that sets my teeth on edge. It is what it is. The Bengals ARE poor when measured against the financial resources of those they compete against. Again, according to Mort, the Redskins can play endless cap games that result in a series of high profile FA signings and their resulting hit represents only 40% of their franchise revenue. Meanwhile, the Bengals define free agent conservatism, settling for the occasional 2nd tier signings, and their payroll expense still comes to nearly 70% of their total revenue. So they're simply not in a position that allows them to consider setting the market price for FA talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 It is what it is. The Bengals ARE poor when measured against the financial resources of those they compete against. Again, according to Mort, the Redskins can play endless cap games that result in a series of high profile FA signings and their resulting hit represents only 40% of their franchise revenue. Meanwhile, the Bengals define free agent conservatism, settling for the occasional 2nd tier signings, and their payroll expense still comes to nearly 70% of their total revenue. So they're simply not in a position that allows them to consider setting the market price for FA talent.Well, we'll have to go wait for Mort to go argue with Forbes, because according to their numbers the Skins' payroll chews up 46% of their revenues, versus 49% for the Bengals. So maybe Mort and Steve F. can go slap each other around with the winner getting to "flat tax" the loser, eh? But in any event, as I've already pointed out, comparing the Bengals and the Redskins isn't the point. Nearly every franchise will look "poor" in that comparision. The question is, why aren't they competitive with the Bills or Jaguars or Vikings or Steelers or Raiders or Colts, etc., all of whom reside in that same "low revenue" bracket? Because they don't choose to be, right? Well, okay-fine. But I'd appreciate if they spare me the annual "poverty" smokescreen.Meanwhile, the carnival sideshow in Dallas/Ft. Worth continues. Reports are no decision tonight, maybe tomorrow, unless they're still talking tomorrow night in which case FA may be delayed...again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 From the most official dot.com.... Not only are the clubs first faced with dealing with the NFL Players Association’s proposal for players receiving 59.5 percent of the new designated revenues that now include stadium and merchandising streams, but they must figure out how to share the revenue among themselves. It’s believed a cadre of small-market owners led by the Jaguars’ Wayne Weaver and including Bengals president Mike Brown will quash any CBA agreement if it doesn’t include what they call a plan for the large markets to “bear cap responsibility.” Let the quashing begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Unfortunately it seems the small cadre may have been misquoted. It seems they plan to play SQUASH until a CBA agreement is done.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2358857Among other provisions starting to leak out is limiting the cap spread of signing bonuses to 5 years rather than the life of the contract. This seems like it should partly appease small-market teams with the cash over cap issue because it it will force more cap hit on players who sign contracts longer than 5 years (except for the 6-year max in 2007). That could translate into $5 to $10 million for teams who rely on the longer term contracts yearly to reshuffle and restructure contracts to get under the cap. A 2-percent cash over cap limit would amount to $2 million yearly on a $100 million cap and be more restrictive on teams willing to spend $10 or more over each year, but the shortened signing bonus pro-rate would provide some regulation. I doubt that cash over cap issue causes the small-market block of owners to balk.BTW, Jerry Jones has $80 million in loans pending NFLPA and owner approval for a new stadium. He's been positioning himself as the reluctant hero in all of this for the media so expect him to vote for the CBA extension, leavinga hardcore group of naysaying a$$wipes remaining -- Snyderbrenner, Bobby "I'll give my Super Bowl ring to the Russian president" Kraft, Bob McNair, and Jeff Lurie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Does anyone know how many owners need to agree to finish this? It's not all of them is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I doubt that cash over cap issue causes the small-market block of owners to balk.The cash over cap chatter is directly related to the revenue-sharing issue, in that the former appears to be being presented as a substitute for doing more of the latter. Basically, the high-revenue teams don't have to share any more money than they are now, but are prevented from using their extra loot on players' compensation.The sticking point, of ocurse, is that the cap is based on total football revenues, so even tho the high-revenue teams can't spend the money on football, increases in that still drive the cap up. In short, I agree that the low-revenue teams won't balk at a cash over cap cap -- in fact I expect they would welcome it -- but they are still going to demand more sharing by the high-revenue clubs. IMHO, if anything blows up this deal, that's the issue.Does anyone know how many owners need to agree to finish this? It's not all of them is it?24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 They can't get 24 freaking people to agree to avoid a strike? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Still jawing...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2359300 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Someone send them a box of Jawbreakers each and a big fat pen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schweinhart Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 The sticking point, of ocurse, is that the cap is based on total football revenues, so even tho the high-revenue teams can't spend the money on football, increases in that still drive the cap up. In short, I agree that the low-revenue teams won't balk at a cash over cap cap -- in fact I expect they would welcome it -- but they are still going to demand more sharing by the high-revenue clubs. IMHO, if anything blows up this deal, that's the issue.If it does blow up based on the revenue sharing -- which if I'm understanding this right has no direct connection to the language of the CBA document itself -- it's solely because of the owners. At least Tags got the spotlight where it should be -- 9 or more owners who prize their own wealth more than the stability of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Cue the "Looney Tunes" theme...here we go again... NFL | Salary cap deadline pushed back two hoursWed, 8 Mar 2006 15:33:43 -0800ESPN.com's John Clayton reports the NFL's waiver deadline to get below the salary cap has been moved back two hours, from 9 p.m. ET Wednesday, March 8, to 11 p.m. ET. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.