We still $6M+ under the cap so what happens to that money

[cowboys#1]

a salary cap is a number you cannot go over. jerry doesnt have to spend the exact amount. or am i mistaken with all the revenue sharing rules??

 

[AdamJT13]

Doesn't it have to be a LTBE earned? Because NLTBE don't count against the cap?

ANY incentive added after the start of the regular season is automatically considered LTBE. If we give Evan Oglesby a $6 million incentive if he gets 10 interceptions this season, that $6 million immediately counts against this year's cap.

 

[Bluefin]

I known we've been manipulating the cap to our advantage for several seasons now and we will be in good shape for the foreseeable future.

Out of curiosity, how much dead money are we carrying this season for ex-players such as Drew Bledsoe?

What's the early guesstimate on available room in 2008?

 

[David276]

jerry buys a giant cowboy blimp with it to go along with his stadium.

 

[theogt]

ANY incentive added after the start of the regular season is automatically considered LTBE. If we give Evan Oglesby a $6 million incentive if he gets 10 interceptions this season, that $6 million immediately counts against this year's cap.

I guess that may be true. I'm too lazy to go through all of the possible scenarios. If that is true, though, they certainly could have stated it more clearly.

 

[AdamJT13]

I guess that may be true. I'm too lazy to go through all of the possible scenarios. If that is true, though, they certainly could have stated it more clearly.

"Any new or altered incentive bonuses renegotiated in a preexisting contract after the start of the regular season in which they may be earned automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned” during that season."

 

[theogt]

"Any new or altered incentive bonuses renegotiated in a preexisting contract after the start of the regular season in which they may be earned automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned” during that season."

Like I said, I was too lazy to go through and read all 29 subsections to section 7(c). People get paid $400+ hourly rates to read through mess like this. No sense doing it for free.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I guess that may be true. I'm too lazy to go through all of the possible scenarios. If that is true, though, they certainly could have stated it more clearly.

if it comes from AdamJT13, it is true

 

[theogt]

if it comes from AdamJT13, it is true

Unless he's wrong.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Unless he's wrong.

I have yet to come across him being as such

you on the otherhand...:

 

[theogt]

"Any new or altered incentive bonuses renegotiated in a preexisting contract after the start of the regular season in which they may be earned automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned” during that season."

Of course, at that point, they're no longer NLTBE incentives, but rather they're LTBE. Thus, NLTBE incentives do not count against the cap and cannot be pushed forward.

 

[AdamJT13]

Of course, at that point, they're no longer NLTBE incentives, but rather they're LTBE. Thus, NLTBE incentives do not count against the cap and cannot be pushed forward.

Like I said, any incentive added after the start of the season is automatically considered LTBE and counts immediately against the cap. When it's not earned, the amount of the incentive is "pushed forward" as a credit the next season.

 

[theogt]

Like I said, any incentive added after the start of the season is automatically considered LTBE and counts immediately against the cap. When it's not earned, the amount of the incentive is "pushed forward" as a credit the next season.

Yes, I was just commenting on my initial confusion when you stated earlier in the thread that cap could be pushed through via a NLTBE.

The NLTBE loophole can be used up until the final game of the season.

Technically, a NLTBE cannot be used up until the final game, because if it's used after the contract is in existence, it's not a NLTBE incentive.

 

[AdamJT13]

Yes, I was just commenting on my initial confusion when you stated earlier in the thread that cap could be pushed through via a NLTBE.

That's not what I said. I said it's an NLTBE loophole -- a normally NLTBE incentive that's treated as if it was LTBE. I explained how it works in my very first post in this thread. But you chose to ignore my post, so you came up with some incorrect idea about how it works.

Technically, a NLTBE cannot be used up until the final game, because if it's used after the contract is in existence, it's not a NLTBE incentive.

Technically, you're wrong on several levels, but that has nothing to do with this loophole.

 

[theogt]

That's not what I said. I said it's an NLTBE loophole -- a normally NLTBE incentive that's treated as if it was LTBE. I explained how it works in my very first post in this thread. But you chose to ignore my post, so you came up with some incorrect idea about how it works.

As you later pointed out, such a clause is never an NLTBE. The instant it is in being, it is deemed an LTBE incentive. You can say that such a clause, in other circumstances, would be an NLTBE. But in this circumstance, it's not.

It's okay to be wrong.

Technically, you're wrong on several levels, but that has nothing to do with this loophole.

No, I'm not. You misspoke. A NLTBE incentive does not count against the cap. A clause that can, in certain circumstances, be considered a NLTBE incentive can count against the cap. But when such a clause does count, it is an LTBE incentive and not an NLTBE incentive.

I'm not sure why you ever even included NLTBE. It doesn't even have to be a "NLTBE in other circumstances" to be used to push forward cap space.

 

[AdamJT13]

As you later pointed out, such a clause is never an NLTBE. The instant it is in being, it is deemed an LTBE incentive. You can say that such a clause, in other circumstances, would be an NLTBE. But in this circumstance, it's not.

It's okay to be wrong.

I'm not wrong because I never said it would an NLTBE incentive. I said it was an NLTBE loophole -- a bogus, unreachable incentive that's counted as if it was LTBE. That's how it works. If you want to pretend it's something else, feel free. As long as you finally understand how it works, that's all I care about.

No, I'm not.

When you said, "Technically, a NLTBE cannot be used up until the final game, because if it's used after the contract is in existence, it's not a NLTBE incentive," you were wrong in more than one way. But like I said, that doesn't have anything to do with the loophole, and it's not worth it for me to try showing you the ways you were wrong.

 

[theogt]

I'm not wrong because I never said it would an NLTBE incentive. I said it was an NLTBE loophole -- a bogus, unreachable incentive that's counted as if it was LTBE. That's how it works. If you want to pretend it's something else, feel free. As long as you finally understand how it works, that's all I care about.

It's wrong, because it's not a NLTBE loophole. The clause is never a NLTBE. It's even possible that the clause used, even if not for Section 7(c)(xxii), is not under any circumstance an NLTBE incentive. There's absolutely no reason to call it an "NLTBE incentive."

I understood perfectly fine how it worked. Your lack of precision with the terminology threw me off.

When you said, "Technically, a NLTBE cannot be used up until the final game, because if it's used after the contract is in existence, it's not a NLTBE incentive," you were wrong in more than one way. But like I said, that doesn't have anything to do with the loophole, and it's not worth it for me to try showing you the ways you were wrong.

No, I wasn't wrong. If it's negotiated in a preexisting contract after the season started, it's not an NLTBE. It's automatically deemed a LTBE, as you yourself pointed out.

Your problem is that you're confusing definitions. You understand how it works conceptually, but you're being imprecise on your terminology.

 

[smarta5150]

http://i87.***BLOCKED***/albums/k158/smarta5150/Ummm___not_Larry___not_Bob___I_give.jpg

 

[AdamJT13]

It's wrong, because it's not a NLTBE loophole.

It is an NLTBE loophole because it's an incentive that's not likely to be earned (usually impossible, actually), which normally is treated as a Not Likely To Be Earned incentive but instead is treated as a Likely To Be Earned incentive. Call it whatever you like -- NLTBE loophole, LTBE loophole, incentive loophole, it doesn't matter. I've called it all of those things, because it doesn't even have a name. It doesn't matter what you call it.

What you're doing is like saying you can't call something a "tax loophole" if it allows you to avoid paying taxes on something.

There's absolutely no reason to call it an "NLTBE incentive."

Again, I didn't call it an NLTBE incentive. I called it an NLTBE loophole. And the biggest reason to use that term is so people like you don't think it has to be a reachable incentive in the first place -- like you did earlier in this thread. Most people (with some cap knowledge) know that LTBE incentives are Likely To Be Earned and therefore realistic and reachable, and they know that NLTBE incentives are Not Likely To Be Earned -- or somewhat unrealistic or unexpected. And what type of incentive is used to exploit the loophole, one that is realistic and reachable, or one that is unrealistic and unexpected? If you think it's the former, then you're completely wrong. If you realize that it's the latter, then you know why it could be referred to as an NLTBE loophole.

I understood perfectly fine how it worked.

So why did you post this?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1793928&postcount=20

LTBE means "likely to be earned." Under the CBA, if the goal is something that the player accomplished in the previous season, it's likely to be earned.

So, you could easily set it up as something that absolutely cannot be accomplished.

For example, last season Julius Jones had 267 carries. You could give him an LTBE incentive that says if he's rushes for 267 carries in 2007, he'll earn an extra $6 million. However, once he gets to 266, you can simply not give him another carry, thus ensuring that the incentive is not reached.


Or this?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1794183&postcount=25


I guess that may be true. I'm too lazy to go through all of the possible scenarios. If that is true, though, they certainly could have stated it more clearly.

Or this?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1794229&postcount=27

Like I said, I was too lazy to go through and read all 29 subsections to section 7(c). People get paid $400+ hourly rates to read through mess like this. No sense doing it for free.

You obviously didn't understand "perfectly fine" how it works. Your idea was to use a stat that the player achieved the previous season. And you didn't know that any incentive added after the start of the regular season is treated as if it was LTBE.

Your lack of precision with the terminology threw me off.

What terminology? There is no official name for the loophole.

No, I wasn't wrong.

Like I've said several times, your statement WAS wrong on two accounts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the loophole.

 

[burmafrd]

Gee, OGT, you really like to bang your head against stone walls. Adam OWNS everyone in these kinds of discussions.