CBA Split % Question

[Hoofbite]

In short.....

Revenue - 1B To Owners.

Rest of the money was a 60/40 player split.

Is the 60% player amount the money used to determine the cap number?

If so, what happens to the money from that pool that is not spent. Not every team spends all they can. Where does the excess go?

 

[theogt]

The bottom line of the owners' financial statement.

 

[Hoofbite]

The bottom line of the owners' financial statement.

So the owners get any unspent money that was initially allocated to the players.

 

[theogt]

So the owners get any unspent money that was initially allocated to the players.

The "allocated" amount is only used to determine the maximum cap number -- it's not actually allocated to the players. So, yes, the owners keep any unspent revenue.

Players end up getting around 50% of actual revenue.

 

[Hostile]

Theo is exactly right, hence why I began my CBA stance with the commentary that the players are fighting for the wrong things. The cap is artificial. It always has been. The % is artificial. It always has been.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Subject to being corrected by Adam, this is my understanding of things.

To be clear, when you're talking about the amount allocated to players, what you're really talking about is the salary cap. Under the CBA, the salary cap is determined as a specified percentage (actually a few percentage points below 60%, from 2006-2007, for example, it was 57% and for 2008-2009, it was 57.5%) of "Total Revenues" (which is a term defined in the CBA with great precision), after backing out certain credits. The result of backing out those credits is that players actually receive something closer to 50% of all revenues.

Teams do not have to spend right up to the cap, but there is a salary floor, which started at 84% of the cap in 2006 and increased by an additional 1.2% each year thereafter (meaning in 2009, it was 87.6% of the cap). Provided that they spend up to the floor, teams can retain any balance they don't spend.

 

[jazzcat22]

Theo is exactly right, hence why I began my CBA stance with the commentary that the players are fighting for the wrong things. The cap is artificial. It always has been. The % is artificial. It always has been.

And if they don't get it settled we will have an artificial league....:bang2:

 

[Hoofbite]

Theo is exactly right, hence why I began my CBA stance with the commentary that the players are fighting for the wrong things. The cap is artificial. It always has been. The % is artificial. It always has been.

I don't know why I never thought of it until the other day and it kind of made me more pissed at the whole argument.

If the % is nothing more than a guideline and owners don't have spend anything near that %, this whole argument is about the appearance of who is "winning".

If the % sets the cap and the cap can be manipulated, this whole argument means absolutely nothing.

It's just two groups of people arguing over the direction of the wind.

In theory, the players could get 80% of the split and still get paid what they do today.......even with a salary cap floor.

And this all comes back to the proposal that would have given the players a 90% cash payout. They turned down guaranteed real money in favor of a fictitious amount that guarantees them nothing.

 

[Hoofbite]

Subject to being corrected by Adam, this is my understanding of things.

To be clear, when you're talking about the amount allocated to players, what you're really talking about is the salary cap. Under the CBA, the salary cap is determined as a specified percentage (actually a few percentage points below 60%, from 2006-2007, for example, it was 57% and for 2008-2009, it was 57.5%) of "Total Revenues" (which is a term defined in the CBA with great precision), after backing out certain credits. The result of backing out those credits is that players actually receive something closer to 50% of all revenues.

Teams do not have to spend right up to the cap, but there is a salary floor, which started at 84% of the cap in 2006 and increased by an additional 1.2% each year thereafter (meaning in 2009, it was 87.6% of the cap). Provided that they spend up to the floor, teams can retain any balance they don't spend.

I was under the impression that there was a minimum cap number, not a minimum salary number. I could be wrong.

 

[theogt]

In the owners' March offer, they included a cash floor equal to 90% of the cap. Historically there has been a cap floor at 80%, IIRC.

 

[firehawk350]

I don't know why I never thought of it until the other day and it kind of made me more pissed at the whole argument.

If the % is nothing more than a guideline and owners don't have spend anything near that %, this whole argument is about the appearance of who is "winning".

If the % sets the cap and the cap can be manipulated, this whole argument means absolutely nothing.

It's just two groups of people arguing over the direction of the wind.

In theory, the players could get 80% of the split and still get paid what they do today.......even with a salary cap floor.

And this all comes back to the proposal that would have given the players a 90% cash payout. They turned down guaranteed real money in favor of a fictitious amount that guarantees them nothing.

The salary floor is tied to the salary cap. So they are arguing, essentially, about a percentage of that percentage. The whole situation could be figured out if they let the salary floor be at a lower portion of the cap but let the cap rise but that gets into the idea of small market owners vs big market owners. The small market guys want a cap closer to floor and the floor to be lower so they can field competitive teams while the big market owners don't MIND (I wouldn't say they WANT it) a bigger difference.

 

[firehawk350]

I was under the impression that there was a minimum cap number, not a minimum salary number. I could be wrong.

AdamJT would probably be much better on this, but the "cap number" accounts for every dollar in player salary spent. Signing bonuses and dead cap can be manipulated to a degree, but in the end, every dollar is applied.

 

[Hostile]

In the owners' March offer, they included a cash floor equal to 90% of the cap. Historically there has been a cap floor at 80%, IIRC.

The players should have jumped at that offer. It is far more significant to them than a cap is because the owners do have to be above the floor.

Their representation is awful.

 

[theogt]

The players should have jumped at that offer. It is far more significant to them than a cap is because the owners do have to be above the floor.

Their representation is awful.

The offer included a number of other provisions which the players will never agree to, such as 5 year rookie contracts and provisions limiting veteran players' ability to hold out in contract negotiations.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

The players should have jumped at that offer. It is far more significant to them than a cap is because the owners do have to be above the floor.

Their representation is awful.

The one thing I'll say in defense of the players is that the old CBA, had it not been terminated, would have also included a floor of 90% of the cap in 2011 (based on the 1.2% increase per year, starting with a floor of 84% in 2006).

Thus, from their perspective, they would have been accepting the same floor, and presumably a lower cap, in 2011 than they would have received under the old CBA, had the owners not opted out. It would be hard from their perspective to view that as any sort of concession on the owners' part.

 

[Hostile]

The offer included a number of other provisions which the players will never agree to, such as 5 year rookie contracts and provisions limiting veteran players' ability to hold out in contract negotiations.

They could live with those. If the Floor offer is off the table they screwed themselves.

 

[theogt]

They could live with those. If the Floor offer is off the table they screwed themselves.

If teams spent at the floor, based on the cap numbers the owners suggested, it would have been a reduction in total player compensation from 2009 and 2010.

 

[Picksix]

In the owners' March offer, they included a cash floor equal to 90% of the cap. Historically there has been a cap floor at 80%, IIRC.

So what exactly does a cash floor mean? Is that a specific type of floor?

 

[Hoofbite]

If teams spent at the floor, based on the cap numbers the owners suggested, it would have been a reduction in total player compensation from 2009 and 2010.

You sure?

I had a thread a while back that seems to be a little different.

 

[Hoofbite]

So what exactly does a cash floor mean? Is that a specific type of floor?

The way I understood it, it means that teams will pay players 90% of the salary cap # every year. Whatever value 90% of the cap is, that's how many dollars are spent on salaries.

Not something that was in place before as teams were just required to have salary cap numbers that were 80-90% of the cap. With teams having dead money and working the cap the way the Commanders do, actual cap numbers may not be close (and probably aren't) to what a team is paying out.