OFFICIAL CBA Q & A THREAD (Cap Status Link)...Please post all CBA/CAP questions here!

[kTXe]

That's not necessarily true, although Gene Upshaw's rhetoric says that's what will happen. But the CBA still can be extended anytime before the 2007 league year begins, and that could make 2007 a capped season.

Thanks, Adam!

 

[big dog cowboy]

AdamJT13 = Stephen Jones.

Book it.

 

[Dayton Cowboy]

Notice that he's using $92 million as the cap (not the $95 million or so that the cap is expected to be), so he's correct -- for now. But we'll gain about $1.8 million from Dat Nguyen's retirement and about $9.5 million when we get rid of the bogus incentives in the contracts of Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson. We'll also gain some from other incentives and probably cutting Derek Pagel.

When will the cap amount for the '06 season be determined?

 

[TheSkaven]

The uncapped year for 2007, by the way, places restrictions upon teams who make the playoffs this year (see below). Given these rules, if I were Jerry, I would ensure that I have no free agents that I care about up for free agency next year (courtesy of PFT):

1. There will be no limit on what teams can spend on players, but there also will be no minimum, either. Currently, teams are required annually to spend at least 54 percent of the projected Defined Gross Revenues on player costs. In an uncapped year, teams can spend as little as they choose.

2. Only players with six or more accrued seasons will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Players with three, four, or five accrued seasons will be restricted free agents. In other words, Bucs quarterback Chris Simms (who signed a one-year restricted free agent tender on Wednesday), will be a restricted free agent again in 2007. Under normal circumstances, he would be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2007.

3. All teams will have an extra transition tag in 2007. Currently, teams can use either a franchise tag or a transition tag. So next year the teams will be able to restrict two otherwise unrestricted free agents.

4. The final four playoff teams from 2006 will be permitted to sign only their own unrestricted free agents. For each of their unrestricted free agents signed by someone else, they can replace them with an unrestricted free agent signed from another team.

5. The next four playoff teams will be subject to the same rules as the final four. They also will be able to sign one unrestricted free agent at a first-year salary of $1.5 million or more, and one at a first-year salary of less than $1 million (not including signing bonus), with increases of no more than 30 percent of the player's first-year salary.

 

[aikemirv]

For Adam if you have time.

How will FA contracts be structured with the current CBA agreement in effect for this year and 2007?

Is the 30% rule in effect for 2006 to 2007 with contracts initiated after March 2?

Is there a limit on how long the contracts can be for?

What creative things can be done to attract FA's to get them to sign?

Thanks

 

[playit12]

I posted this on the relavent Brunell thread, but that one got hijacked. If you get a chance Adam could you explain further?

According to John Clayton's Insider blog, my hunch was correct, and PFT was wrong. The special master ruled on PRORATED ROSTER BONUSES, not option bonuses. So it looks like PFT got it wrong.

Could you clarify how the CBA defines roster bonuses vs Option bonuses? I didn't get the impression that the bonuses the skin's were referening too were in fact optional? I thought the player was, one way or the other, gaurenteed that money? What distinguishes the two?

 

[jps_tex]

I don't know the specifics of what is going on with some ruling yesterday, but it sounds like it's going to bite the Colts in the ***. Something about bonuses for Manning and Harrison in excess of $17 million that they were planning on restructuring into guaranteed money over the next 4 years. Well, it was decided that this is not allowed and all that bonus money will count against the cap this year.

My question then; is this the same thing that we've heard about over the last few days with Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson? Don't we owe them money that we plan(ned) on changing into guarantee money over the next few years? If so, this would drop our available spending pretty drastically, something like $9 million I think. Am I correct?

 

[Clove]

I don't know the specifics of what is going on with some ruling yesterday, but it sounds like it's going to bite the Colts in the ***. Something about bonuses for Manning and Harrison in excess of $17 million that they were planning on restructuring into guaranteed money over the next 4 years. Well, it was decided that this is not allowed and all that bonus money will count against the cap this year.

My question then; is this the same thing that we've heard about over the last few days with Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson? Don't we owe them money that we plan(ned) on changing into guarantee money over the next few years? If so, this would drop our available spending pretty drastically, something like $9 million I think. Am I correct?

I can't believe you joined back in 2004, and this is your 1st post. wow! Welcome

 

[speedkilz88]

From earlier discussions, those incentives were strictly for passing cap money from one year to the next and not really going to the player, so they will just be removed rather than be turned into bonus.

 

[jps_tex]

I can't believe you joined back in 2004, and this is your 1st post. wow! Welcome

I don't post much on Message Boards. Just my thing. I do, although, love using this Board for, not only Cowboys, but football related news. The posters seem pretty knowledgable and on top of current football events.

I posted this time because I have seen no postings on this subject, and it has the possibilty of hurting us.

 

[playit12]

From earlier discussions, those incentives were strictly for passing cap money from one year to the next and not really going to the player, so they will just be removed rather than be turned into bonus.

I think Adam said that those bonuses were placed in the contract for 30% reasons. However, he latter said that if a deal isn't done, we will have some light restructing but will still get the money minus some small amount. Not sure if the rulling yesterday changes that.

 

[Hostile]

I don't post much on Message Boards. Just my thing. I do, although, love using this Board for, not only Cowboys, but football related news. The posters seem pretty knowledgable and on top of current football events.

I posted this time because I have seen no postings on this subject, and it has the possibilty of hurting us.

Well, and post once in a while at least.

 

[cowboys#1]

don't know if this was posted yet but here is a Q&A about the CBA,from ESPN.

What is the primary issue?
The deadline to extend the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expires at 12:01 a.m. Friday, March 3. This is merely the negotiating period to extend the CBA. The CBA itself does not expire until after the 2007 season.

Why is that deadline important?
Friday is the beginning of the new NFL fiscal year. Every team must be under the salary cap by 10 p.m. ET Thursday, a six-hour reprieve from the original 4 p.m. ET deadline for cap compliance.

Could the negotiating deadline be extended?
That was discussed, but is now highly unlikely. A delay in starting the new fiscal year would have pushed back the start of free agency and, in the event an extension still couldn't be reached, made it easier for teams to come into compliance with the 2006 cap.

Without the extension, though, some teams will have to release some very significant players in order to clear cap room. The 2005 cap was $85.5 million, and teams were anticipating a 2006 cap of around $102 million with an extension to the CBA. However, the actual 2006 cap is going to be $94.5 million, which has some teams scrambling to comply.

What happens if a team doesn't comply with the salary cap?
No team has ever gone over the salary cap, so this is a bit of an unknown. However, teams have been fined in the past for attempts to circumvent the cap. ESPN.com contributor and former Miami Dolphins GM Rick Spielman says NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has wide latitude in fining teams -- and even individual team executives -- or stripping draft picks for failure to comply with the salary cap.

With some teams in dire cap shape, we could see sooner than later just how wide the commissioner's latitude is. The Washington Commanders are one team to watch in this regard, since some other clubs that have studied the Commanders' cap closely have suggested Washington cannot mathematically get into compliance.

Will any of this affect 2006 free agency?
Aside from the player pool growing rapidly as teams cut players to comply with the cap, the biggest change is that teams only will be able to prorate signing bonuses over four years, rather than seven, meaning players seeking large bonuses could be disappointed. And since base salaries can increase by a maximum of only 30 percent per year, the huge contracts we've seen recently (Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, for example) are likely a thing of the past. In short, it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to meet players' financial expectations.

Will any of this affect the 2006 season?
Only to the extent that some teams could look remarkably different heading into training camp than they did at the end of the 2005 season. But the current CBA actually has two more years to run (2006 and 2007), so if there is going to be a work stoppage at all, it's not likely to happen until 2008.

What happens if there is no extension to the current CBA?
Without an extension, the final season of the current CBA (2007) will be an uncapped season, meaning teams would have no limit on the amount of money they could spend on players.

Given the potential absence of a salary cap in 2007, some 2006 free agents might be unwilling to sign long-term contracts, figuring they could earn even more in the uncapped 2007. And NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has said once the salary cap goes away, the players aren't going to accept its return. Also, while unlikely, the potential exists that the owners could lock the players out in 2008. That is one reason the NFLPA will consider decertifying.

How will free agency be different in 2007?
Currently, players hit restricted free agency after three years and unrestricted free agency after four years. Without an extension to the CBA, players won't be eligible for unrestricted free agency until after their sixth year. Players whose contracts end after third, fourth and fifth seasons will be considered restricted free agents and subject to qualifying offers from their current teams.

Does an uncapped season also mean there's no salary minimum?
Yes. Currently, there is a salary minimum, as well as a salary cap. Every team must allocate a certain minimum amount to player salaries. However, when the salary cap goes away, so does the salary floor. Teams could choose not to spend a dime.

What happens to players' benefits (401k plans, health coverage, etc.)?
In an uncapped 2007, owners no longer will be responsible for their annual payments of about $13 million apiece to 401k plans, health coverage, life insurance and other programs under the umbrella of benefits. The NFL matches each player's 401k investments 2-for-1.

How does all of this affect the 2006 NFL draft?
Signing draft choices will be more difficult this year, because teams can prorate signing bonuses over only four seasons. Already, agents figure the most a top draft choice can make under that scenario is $15 million, a major reduction from recent years. That likely will lead to long holdouts by draft choices.

What are the long-term ramifications for the league?
Barring a new CBA, the players either will be on strike or the owners will lock out the players in 2008. The union likely will decertify, and antitrust rules will apply. Also, the NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted into the current CBA. Players coming out of college could be free agents, with no salary restrictions. Open negotiations, including those for rookies coming out of college, will leave it to the players to get what they can get.

What are the long-term ramifications for the players?
If the union does decertify, it will cause a lot of uncertainty for the players. Teams could change the benefits package players receive, and there would be no organization to protect players' interests. Teams could offer salaries well below the currently established minimums.

Information compiled by ESPN.com senior writers Len Pasquarelli and John Clayton and ESPN researchers Craig Wachs and Russell Baxter.

 

[SA_Gunslinger]

What are the long-term ramifications for the league?
Barring a new CBA, the players either will be on strike or the owners will lock out the players in 2008. The union likely will decertify, and antitrust rules will apply. Also, the NFL draft will go away in 2008 as part of a clause inserted into the current CBA. Players coming out of college could be free agents, with no salary restrictions. Open negotiations, including those for rookies coming out of college, will leave it to the players to get what they can get.

ummm, HELLOOOOO!

wow!

that is absolutely nuts.

 

[Natedawg44]

Yeah could you imagine. Give me a Chad Jackson, Manny Lawson, Jay Cutler and Throw in a D'Brickshaw Ferguson, Micheal Huff and A.J. Hawk for good measure.

 

[Boom]

Today I've heard Mort state that they are currently discussing the "cash over cap" situation. Does anyone know what that is?

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't know the specifics of what is going on with some ruling yesterday, but it sounds like it's going to bite the Colts in the ***. Something about bonuses for Manning and Harrison in excess of $17 million that they were planning on restructuring into guaranteed money over the next 4 years. Well, it was decided that this is not allowed and all that bonus money will count against the cap this year.

My question then; is this the same thing that we've heard about over the last few days with Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson? Don't we owe them money that we plan(ned) on changing into guarantee money over the next few years? If so, this would drop our available spending pretty drastically, something like $9 million I think. Am I correct?

Nope. The $9.6 million in charges for Rivera and Ferguson is bogus money that they knew they'd never see. It's just there to inflate their 2006 total salary for 30 percent rule purposes. If the CBA is extended, it vanishes. If the CBA isn't extended, we can do simple restructuring of their salaries and cut that $9.6 million to less than $200,000.

The Colts ruling was about roster bonuses that the players will get. The ruling affected how they're handled with the cap and 30 percent rule. And the ruling agrees with the CBA.

 

[AdamJT13]

Today I've heard Mort state that they are currently discussing the "cash over cap" situation. Does anyone know what that is?

How much a team spends above the salary cap. For example, if a player gets a $1 million base salary this season and a $4 million signing bonus, the team would be paying $5 million but would be charged only $2 million of cap space (salary plus bonus proration), so the "cash over cap" for that player would be $3 million. If his salary stays at $1 million for the next season, his "cash under cap" would be $1 million, since the team would pay only $1 million that year but carry a $2 million cap charge. If you calculate that for each player on the team, the net total is the team's "cash over/under cap" for that season.

Apparently, some owners want to put in a "cash over cap" limit to keep the teams from spending wildly in one season and spreading out the cap hit over several seasons.

 

[AdamJT13]

Could you clarify how the CBA defines roster bonuses vs Option bonuses? I didn't get the impression that the bonuses the skin's were referening too were in fact optional? I thought the player was, one way or the other, gaurenteed that money? What distinguishes the two?

A roster bonus is what a player gets paid for being on the team on a certain date (the first day of the league year, June 3, July 15, etc.). Roster bonuses are charged against the cap entirely in the year they're paid, unless they're guaranteed, in which case they're prorated. The special master's ruling said that prorated roster bonuses aren't part of the 30 percent rule calculations, which is exactly what the CBA says.

An option bonus is what a team pays to exercise some sort of option in a contract -- usually to extend the contract. Option bonuses often are "protected," meaning that if the option isn't exercised and the option bonus isn't paid, either there's a penalty fee that the team must pay the player or higher base salaries are triggered. Option bonuses are prorated against the cap, starting in the year the option can be exercised. Option bonus prorations ARE included in the 30 percent rule calculations.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

How much a team spends above the salary cap. For example, if a player gets a $1 million base salary this season and a $4 million signing bonus, the team would be paying $5 million but would be charged only $2 million of cap space (salary plus bonus proration), so the "cash over cap" for that player would be $3 million. If his salary stays at $1 million for the next season, his "cash under cap" would be $1 million, since the team would pay only $1 million that year but carry a $2 million cap charge. If you calculate that for each player on the team, the net total is the team's "cash over/under cap" for that season.

Apparently, some owners want to put in a "cash over cap" limit to keep the teams from spending wildly in one season and spreading out the cap hit over several seasons.

Is this a way the Commanders "mortgaged" their salary cap? It seems like they structure contracts so that most are backloaded and that every few years they hand out extensions and prorate the Signing bonuses out even longer. Am I somewhat close?