Romo CAP hit

[PhillyCowboysFan]

I'm sure you meant "the current year cap hit," not "savings," but your mistake also shows why you're wrong. Once the money is paid (or guaranteed), it all gets charged against the cap. The only difference is when it gets charged. From the day Romo signed his contract in 2013 until now, we've paid him roughly $79 million. If we had never restructured his base salary at all. His dead money this season would be $5 million (and $0 next season), compared with $10.7 million this season and $8.9 million as it is -- a difference of $14.6 million. But without the restructures, that $14.6 million would have been already charged against our cap in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Cap room carries over from year to year, so instead of carrying over the amounts that we did, we would have had to have restructured OTHER contracts or would have had to structure OTHER contracts differently just to get to the cap room we currently have. Without Romo's restructures creating more cap room in 2014 and 2015, we would have had -- you guessed it -- $14.6 million less cap room going into this offseason unless we had made OTHER cap-saving movies.

The difference between many fans and the people who actually make decisions in the NFL is that the people who actually restructure contracts and decide whether to release players realize that previous restructures provided previous cap savings, while many fans simply obsess over the future cap hits. So instead of thinking about -- for example -- Romo's dead money total of $19.6 million, they realize that the additional $14.6 million in dead money is a net wash with the $14.6 million of cap room already saved. The same applies to any other player. Previous restructures don't affect the decision whether to keep or cut -- it's all about avoiding paying out more money.

As usual Adam, that was very informative.

Thank you.

 

[Nightman]

As usual Adam, that was very informative.

Thank you.

Same thing I told you but you want to argue with me

 

[iceberg]

Same thing I told you but you want to argue with me

$2 to the first person who can tell me why that might be.

 

[Nightman]

$2 to the first person who can tell me why that might be.

Didn't you learn anything from yesterday

 

[Alexander]

We're gonna be in really good shape cap wise 2018-onward

Now you just hope they behave like someone who maxed out credit cards, had to file bankruptcy and finally learned after that to live within their means.

 

[iceberg]

he isn't here to save you again so you should just run along

heh - you funny.

night john boy. the internet is in awe of you once again tonight and you can sleep easy knowing you have it around to impress tomorrow.

 

[Nightman]

heh - you funny.

night john boy. the internet is in awe of you once again tonight and you can sleep easy knowing you have it around to impress tomorrow.

watch that name-calling ......you don't want to get benched

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

Same thing I told you but you want to argue with me

Arguing? Nowhere in my responses to you is an argument. NOWHERE!

Bro are you ok? Feeling a little sensitive or something? Need a hug?

I was simple asking you questions because I wasn't getting it on why would they spread Romo's cap hit. You answered me and I thanked you for the nuggets (knowledge).

I thanked AdamTJ because his explanation was very detailed and in depth and I came away from reading it with a total understanding on the whole cap hit from guaranties and bonuses.

I went back and looked at some of your post on this forum and you no what........nvm!

 

[Nightman]

Arguing? Nowhere in my responses to you is an argument. NOWHERE!

Bro are you ok? Feeling a little sensitive or something? Need a hug?

I was simple asking you questions because I wasn't getting it on why would they spread Romo's cap hit. You answered me and I thanked you for the nuggets (knowledge).

I thanked AdamTJ because his explanation was very detailed and in depth and I came away from reading it with a total understanding on the whole cap hit from guaranties and bonuses.

I went back and looked at some of your post on this forum and you no what........nvm!

thanks.....you saved me a trip to Dr Phil

If you don't think your responses were argumentative and sarcastic then you are in denial...... but you are a Philly fan so that is the least of your worries

 

[Longboysfan]

I'm sure you meant "the current year cap hit," not "savings," but your mistake also shows why you're wrong. Once the money is paid (or guaranteed), it all gets charged against the cap. The only difference is when it gets charged. From the day Romo signed his contract in 2013 until now, we've paid him roughly $79 million. If we had never restructured his base salary at all. His dead money this season would be $5 million (and $0 next season), compared with $10.7 million this season and $8.9 million as it is -- a difference of $14.6 million. But without the restructures, that $14.6 million would have been already charged against our cap in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Cap room carries over from year to year, so instead of carrying over the amounts that we did, we would have had to have restructured OTHER contracts or would have had to structure OTHER contracts differently just to get to the cap room we currently have. Without Romo's restructures creating more cap room in 2014 and 2015, we would have had -- you guessed it -- $14.6 million less cap room going into this offseason unless we had made OTHER cap-saving movies.

The difference between many fans and the people who actually make decisions in the NFL is that the people who actually restructure contracts and decide whether to release players realize that previous restructures provided previous cap savings, while many fans simply obsess over the future cap hits. So instead of thinking about -- for example -- Romo's dead money total of $19.6 million, they realize that the additional $14.6 million in dead money is a net wash with the $14.6 million of cap room already saved. The same applies to any other player. Previous restructures don't affect the decision whether to keep or cut -- it's all about avoiding paying out more money.

Thank you.

Question on this is - if Romo files retirement papers after June 1.
Can the Cowboys get back, from the NFL in terms of CAP dollars, the money that was part of the re-structure bonus?

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

thanks.....you saved me a trip to Dr Phil

If you don't think your responses were argumentative and sarcastic then you are in denial...... but you are a Philly fan so that is the least of your worries

LOL!

Bro you are absulately a peace of work.

 

[xwalker]

Thank you.

Question on this is - if Romo files retirement papers after June 1.
Can the Cowboys get back, from the NFL in terms of CAP dollars, the money that was part of the re-structure bonus?

Once they cut him, his retirement is meaningless to the Cowboys Cap.

When they cut him, it was their option to either take the complete cap hit now or make him a "designated" June 1st cut which allows them to spread out the cap hit over 2 years. They just have to wait until June 1st before some of the money gets pushed to next year.

 

[Nightman]

LOL!

Bro you are absulately a peace of work.

I guess it is better than a piece of something else

 

[DCBoysfan]

I'm sure you meant "the current year cap hit," not "savings," but your mistake also shows why you're wrong. Once the money is paid (or guaranteed), it all gets charged against the cap. The only difference is when it gets charged. From the day Romo signed his contract in 2013 until now, we've paid him roughly $79 million. If we had never restructured his base salary at all. His dead money this season would be $5 million (and $0 next season), compared with $10.7 million this season and $8.9 million as it is -- a difference of $14.6 million. But without the restructures, that $14.6 million would have been already charged against our cap in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Cap room carries over from year to year, so instead of carrying over the amounts that we did, we would have had to have restructured OTHER contracts or would have had to structure OTHER contracts differently just to get to the cap room we currently have. Without Romo's restructures creating more cap room in 2014 and 2015, we would have had -- you guessed it -- $14.6 million less cap room going into this offseason unless we had made OTHER cap-saving movies.

The difference between many fans and the people who actually make decisions in the NFL is that the people who actually restructure contracts and decide whether to release players realize that previous restructures provided previous cap savings, while many fans simply obsess over the future cap hits. So instead of thinking about -- for example -- Romo's dead money total of $19.6 million, they realize that the additional $14.6 million in dead money is a net wash with the $14.6 million of cap room already saved. The same applies to any other player. Previous restructures don't affect the decision whether to keep or cut -- it's all about avoiding paying out more money.

Thanks for the explanation I was wondering about this, honestly if the Cap info doesn't come from you I bypass from other posters.

 

[xwalker]

THIS is what I've been trying to find out.....thanks for the explanation Dooms......

Also, Romo would technically owe the Cowboys 12.5M if he retired before being cut.

 

[xwalker]

Exactly! Which is why we shouldn't hamper that with restructures, especially since cap space for this year isn't that big of need now thanks to Romo's $14 million.

The restructure itself makes zero difference. They can roll the extra space into the next year.

The only thing that impacts the future is what they spend now. If they spend zero of the dollars created from the restructure, then the restructure has zero impact on the future.

When signing a new player or re-signing a player like Martin, they can either:
1. Give them a backloaded contract with small 1st year cap hit.

2. Give them a evenly weight or front loaded contract.

If they restructure another player and do #2 above, it is the same as not restructuring another player and doing #1 above.

 

[Nightman]

I'm sure you meant "the current year cap hit," not "savings," but your mistake also shows why you're wrong. Once the money is paid (or guaranteed), it all gets charged against the cap. The only difference is when it gets charged. From the day Romo signed his contract in 2013 until now, we've paid him roughly $79 million. If we had never restructured his base salary at all. His dead money this season would be $5 million (and $0 next season), compared with $10.7 million this season and $8.9 million as it is -- a difference of $14.6 million. But without the restructures, that $14.6 million would have been already charged against our cap in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Cap room carries over from year to year, so instead of carrying over the amounts that we did, we would have had to have restructured OTHER contracts or would have had to structure OTHER contracts differently just to get to the cap room we currently have. Without Romo's restructures creating more cap room in 2014 and 2015, we would have had -- you guessed it -- $14.6 million less cap room going into this offseason unless we had made OTHER cap-saving movies.

The difference between many fans and the people who actually make decisions in the NFL is that the people who actually restructure contracts and decide whether to release players realize that previous restructures provided previous cap savings, while many fans simply obsess over the future cap hits. So instead of thinking about -- for example -- Romo's dead money total of $19.6 million, they realize that the additional $14.6 million in dead money is a net wash with the $14.6 million of cap room already saved. The same applies to any other player. Previous restructures don't affect the decision whether to keep or cut -- it's all about avoiding paying out more money.

We pro-rated over 95m of Romo's 127m in salary he was paid and signed dozens of players over the years we otherwise could not have signed

The cap was 123m in 2013 and 167m this year and people still don't believe in restructuring

Thanks for helping to explain the benefits

 

[Nightman]

The restructure itself makes zero difference. They can roll the extra space into the next year.

The only thing that impacts the future is what they spend now. If they spend zero of the dollars created from the restructure, then the restructure has zero impact on the future.

When signing a new player or re-signing a player like Martin, they can either:
1. Give them a backloaded contract with small 1st year cap hit.

2. Give them a evenly weight or front loaded contract.

If they restructure another player and do #2 above, it is the same as not restructuring another player and doing #1 above.

Exactly.......NOT restructuring Dez and taking a 17m cap hit is still spending the cap space but in a much more inefficient way.......it is like over paying your taxes for no good reason

If they restructured Dez and just rolled over the money they would be way ahead with inflation alone

It would have no impact on the decision to cut him next year

 

[Doomsdayblitz]

Girls, girls! Enough, already. They fact is that, after years in salary cap prison, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Jerry is slowly riding off into the sunset, (hopefully they burn his cap credit cards first), & smarter, cooler heads should prevail in the future. Regardless, free agency should not be thought of as the end all, & that we keep our focus on the draft & signing the great players we already have first & foremost. If they manage it like they should, FA should only be used to fill in the final pieces & not a way to build the team.

 

[xwalker]

Exactly.......NOT restructuring Dez and taking a 17m cap hit is still spending the cap space but in a much more inefficient way.......it is like over paying your taxes for no good reason

If they restructured Dez and just rolled over the money they would be way ahead with inflation alone

It would have no impact on the decision to cut him next year

Personal Income tax is an interesting comparison.

You can have extra deducted from your pay and then get money back when you file; however, the total amout that you pay in is the same regardless of whether you paid in 110% or 90% during the year.