CBA Salary cap 2011 floor

[dombie]

I have seen various postings and articles about the salary cap and cap floor. Some posting have mentioned the Salary cap or floor cap for 2011 is league wide. I would like to know how it works?

[papazoid]

I have seen various postings and articles about the salary cap and cap floor. Some posting have mentioned the Salary cap or floor cap for 2011 is league wide. I would like to know how it works?

 

for the first two years the "league" (collectively, not individually) must spend in cash 99% of the cap.......

 

 

so theoretically a cheap team....i mean thrifty....err, what the heck....the BILLS....could spend less than 99% if other teams spend more.

[K-9]

for the first two years the "league" (collectively, not individually) must spend in cash 99% of the cap.......

 

 

so theoretically a cheap team....i mean thrifty....err, what the heck....the BILLS....could spend less than 99% if other teams spend more.

 

Ralph is thrifty.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dombie]

What I am wondering is; can a team or teams go over their cap/s?

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

What I am wondering is; can a team or teams go over their cap/s?

No, they can go over in cash and amortize the bonus over the life of the contract. But there is a cap ceiling that they cannot go over.

[dombie]

Thanks! That answered other questions too. Some post made it seem like some teams could go over(ie 105%), if others were under. So would there be a possibility the league could tell the Bills they need to spend more, or tell the bottom 5 teams in spending they need to spend more so league wide they hit 99% mark?

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

Thanks! That answered other questions too. Some post made it seem like some teams could go over(ie 105%), if others were under. So would there be a possibility the league could tell the Bills they need to spend more, or tell the bottom 5 teams in spending they need to spend more so league wide they hit 99% mark?

No, if they don't hit the mark the league will pay the remaining % they are under to the players union. It won't go to one individual player from one individual team or anything like that.

 

 

 

Still, on a league-wide basis, the labor deal requires the NFL to spend 99 percent of the salary cap in cash in 2011 and 2012.

 

So what happens if too many teams spend so little that the league isn’t able to average 99 percent of the cap in actual cash spent? NFL general counsel Jeff Pash, via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, explained Friday night that the league would be required to pay the difference to the players.

 

That said, the league doesn’t believe that it will be a problem, even if teams like the Bucs and Bengals and Chiefs decide to spend as little as possible over the next two years. Based on the money spent to date, the league thinks that the average expenditure of $119 million per team easily will be met.

 

Remember, it’s not cap space but cash spent. So when a team like the Panthers gives defensive end Charles Johnson a $30 million signing bonus on a six-year deal, only $5 million counts against the cap — but $30 million counts against the league’s total spending requirement of $3.8 billion.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/ Edited August 3, 2011 by Ghost of Rob Johnson

[dombie]

Thank u guys for clearing that up!

[Kelly the Dog]

No, they can go over in cash and amortize the bonus over the life of the contract. But there is a cap ceiling that they cannot go over.

This year, and I think next year they can. There is some fund set up where teams can spend up to 3 million over the cap as long it is on veterans (I think their own veterans). It's designed for teams to keep their own guys. And that money can be spent over the cap.

[Doc]

(this is an automated response)

 

Ralph is cheap.

[Cash]

This year, and I think next year they can. There is some fund set up where teams can spend up to 3 million over the cap as long it is on veterans (I think their own veterans). It's designed for teams to keep their own guys. And that money can be spent over the cap.

 

As far as I understand it, it's a 1-time $3mil "cap credit" that a team can use on an existing contract. So if the Bills used it on Lee Evans, his contract would go from counting $5mil against the cap (or whatever it actually is) to $2mil against the cap. Doesn't change the cash paid out, just keeps some from counting towards the cap.

 

There's a similar exemption next year as well, I think. Something like $1.5mil?

[Kelly the Dog]

As far as I understand it, it's a 1-time $3mil "cap credit" that a team can use on an existing contract. So if the Bills used it on Lee Evans, his contract would go from counting $5mil against the cap (or whatever it actually is) to $2mil against the cap. Doesn't change the cash paid out, just keeps some from counting towards the cap.

 

There's a similar exemption next year as well, I think. Something like $1.5mil?

That's the same thing. If a team is exactly at the cap, at say 120 mil, they may spend over the cap up to one million each for three players, and still be at 120. That means they can spend 123 mil instead of 120 mil of cap money. The actual cash is never the same numbers as the salary cap. I was responding to a post that said they cannot spend over the cap ceiling, and this year, and next, they can. It's small, but it's a few million. I think they cannot spend the three mil on one player, it is a limit of one mil per player, but up to three players.

 

http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?view=article&catid=54%3Anfl-labor-news&id=857%3Atext-of-brief-of-new-nfl-cba-to-player-agents&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=79

[Hplarrm]

(this is an automated response)

 

Ralph is cheap.

Actually this is not always true so automated responses are not appropriate. There have been several examples such as Dockery, Walker and Kelsay (twice I think) where the Bills have agreed to contracts which:

 

1. Were not cheap by any measure,

2. Did not result in any production by the player which observers think is justified

3. Seemed to be in the minds of many objective observers seemed to be more than the market demanded to sign these players.

 

I think it is a much bigger problem for the Bills not that Mr. Ralph is cheap, but that he and the underlings he bears the ultimate responsibility for hiring are just not very good at owning and operating an NFL team.

 

Yes, even a totally broken clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. Mr. Ralph is a great businessman who unfortunately is not a very good sportsman.

 

He deserves undying (at least until he is dead then he will be measured by if he leaves the team to the control of the region that loves it), admiration for the great business decision he made to buy and hold the property. He deserves and should also get great credit for hiring Polian and signing the checks which brought Marv, Jimbo, Thurman and a growing host of HoF worthy players to the team.

 

However, deserved along with this praise should be an acknowledgement of the series of toxic relationships he built with Polian, Butler, Wade, Mularkey, TD, etc. The downfall of the Bills to me is directly traceable to Mr. Ralph making a handshake deal with Jimbo which only he Mr. Ralph could make to reward Jimbo in his next FA deal.

 

Even this outside fan could see in the years immediately before he was done that Jimbo though great and having had a legit HoF career IMHO was done.

 

This was the beginning of mistakes which either were clearly directed by Mr. Ralph or if not he should have known.

[Captain Caveman]

John Elway is cheaper.

[Mr. WEO]

John Elway is cheaper.

He should go back to selling cars. He's really struggling with his QB situation.

 

Bringing him in will prove to be another bonehead move by Bowlen.