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

[alancdc]

Clearly since teams go into a season, like SF a few years ago, like 30 mill under the cap you must be able to work it out somehow.

 

[Biggems]

im still waiting for this response from one of our two combatants...and I highly doubt Adam would be the one using it......

im rubber, you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off me and sticks to you......

 

[Big Dakota]

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

Holy HELL!!!:laugh2:

 

[theogt]

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.



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.




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.




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

Again, you were wrong. You misused the terminology. It is not a NLTBE loophope. It should be obvious from anyone that read the thread why it is not a NLTBE loophole. There is no such thing. It does not exist.

Your problem is that you're using the term colloquially when it has a specific legal meaning. It is not a NLTBE incentive. It is legally a LTBE incentive. If the incentive is NLTBE it does not count against the cap and does not push forward.

Whether it is truly likely to be reached has very, very little to do with whether it is a NLTBE or LTBE. Anyone with any knowledge of the cap knows that. A LTBE incentive can actually be less likely to be earned than a NLTBE incentive. It's just a legal fiction.

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

No, my statement was 100% correct. Your misunderstanding comes with your improper use of the terms NLTBE and LTBE.

Again, use the colloquial terms in place of contractually defined terms. Don't. It can make your statements technically incorrect, as they were here.

 

[AdamJT13]

Again, you were wrong.

Not one thing I've said in this entire thread has been wrong. You, on the other hand, didn't have a clue about how the loophole works, even after I explained it in my very first post. But as usual, you try to cover up your glaring error by going off on some irrelevant tangent -- at one point even claiming you were confused by the term "NLTBE loophole." So ... the words "NLTBE loophole" are what made you think the incentive had to be statistically "Likely to Be Earned"? Nice try.

You misused the terminology. It is not a NLTBE loophope. It should be obvious from anyone that read the thread why it is not a NLTBE loophole.

Funny how you were the only one who thinks that.

There is no such thing. It does not exist.

Obviously, it does, given that 23 teams used it last December. It would be difficult for them to use a loophole that doesn't exist, wouldn't it?

Your problem is that you're using the term colloquially when it has a specific legal meaning. It is not a NLTBE incentive. It is legally a LTBE incentive.[/B]

Only because of the loophole, which is why it can be called an "NLTBE loophole."

Like I said earlier, if you use a loophole to get out of paying taxes, it can be called a "tax loophole." Are you claiming that it must be called a "no-tax loophole"? Good luck with that.

Laws that allow someone to escape prosecution for murder even though they killed someone frequently are called "murder loopholes." Why? Because it normally would be considered murder to kill someone. A loophole makes it not murder. It's the same thing here. Incentives that normally would be NLTBE are not NLTBE because of the loophole.

Whether it is truly likely to be reached has very, very little to do with whether it is a NLTBE or LTBE.

That is rarely the case.

No, my statement was 100% correct.

Trust me, your statement was wrong in more ways than one.

It can make your statements technically incorrect, as they were here.

Again, nothing I've stated in this thread has been incorrect, technically or otherwise.

 

[theogt]

LOL. You were wrong dude. Get over it.

NLTBE incentives do not push through cap space.

 

[FLcowboy]

Saw that we are $6m+ under the 2007 cap. Just wondered what happens to that money. Do we lose it or can it be converted to 2008 monies, etc. Appreciate any info.

I'm betting the Jones Family will have a very Merry Christmas this year.

 

[AdamJT13]

LOL. You were wrong dude. Get over it.

NLTBE incentives do not push through cap space.

I never said they did.

 

[theogt]

I never said they did.

No, you just called it a NLTBE loophole, which is technically incorrect. You can call it a "moldy cheese loophole" if you prefer, I guess, but it has nothing to do with mold, cheese, or NLTBE incentives.

 

[AdamJT13]

No, you just called it a NLTBE loophole, which is technically incorrect. You can call it a "moldy cheese loophole" if you prefer, I guess, but it has nothing to do with mold, cheese, or NLTBE incentives.

Murder loophole. Tax loophole. NLTBE loophole.

And you're still wrong.

 

[theogt]

And you're still wrong.

Except I'm not.

 

[AdamJT13]

Except I'm not.

Murder loophole. Tax loophole. NLTBE loophole.

And you are wrong, in more ways than one. The technical workings of salary cap rules are a little too complicated for you, it seems.

 

[theogt]

Murder loophole. Tax loophole. NLTBE loophole.

Still not an accurate description.

But do please continue to stick your head into the ground on the issue.

And you are wrong, in more ways than one. The technical workings of salary cap rules are a little too complicated for you, it seems.

You keep saying this, but haven't proven me wrong in a single instance. Good luck with that.

 

[superpunk]

http://i16.***BLOCKED***/albums/b33/TrespassersW/CatThread.jpg

 

[Wimbo]

FWIW... I thought Adams description was quite lucid. I am not sure how/why theogt got so bent in this thread.

 

[theogt]

FWIW... I thought Adams description was quite lucid. I am not sure how/why theogt got so bent in this thread.

I didn't get bent. I just wondered why he called it a NLTBE loophole. And when I discovered why (his inappropriate perception of the term and how it works in terms of pushing cap space through) I pointed it out. It was a minor error, but he apparently doesn't like being corrected.

 

[BigDave95]

FWIW... I thought Adams description was quite lucid. I am not sure how/why theogt got so bent in this thread.

I agree like I'm sure 99% of everyone else who read this thread does also.

My kids do this too. I call it "pulling a theogt". When it's pointed out that they're incorrect or did something wrong, they just spin and spin and spin and try and get clear of it by talking enough nonsense until you just give up.

 

[theogt]

I agree like I'm sure 99% of everyone else who read this thread does also.

My kids do this too. I call it "pulling a theogt". When it's pointed out that they're incorrect or did something wrong, they just spin and spin and spin and try and get clear of it by talking enough nonsense until you just give up.

Try pointing out where I was wrong.

 

[Wimbo]

I didn't get bent. I just wondered why he called it a NLTBE loophole. And when I discovered why (his inappropriate perception of the term and how it works in terms of pushing cap space through) I pointed it out. It was a minor error, but he apparently doesn't like being corrected.

With all due respect, I don't see this the same way you do. It is clear to me that he understands the term and how it works. I don't understand how you misinterpreted it.

 

[theogt]

With all due respect, I don't see this the same way you do. It is clear to me that he understands the term and how it works. I don't understand how you misinterpreted it.

Because a NLTBE incentive does not push through cap space. Thus, it's not a "NLTBE loophole."

It's a "LTBE loophole." The clause pushing cap space to the next year only applies to LTBE incentives. Not to NLTBE incentives.

It's a minor error. Sorry if pointing it out ruffled his or your feathers.