Cap rollover from 2020 to 2021 might not happen due to the expiring CBA

[Reed83HOF]

Lost the tweet and will update when I find it (Twitter refreshed and it moved down my feed)

 

Basically with the expiring CBA, you may see teams able to use both a franchise and transition tag (we have mentioned this in a few threads), but also as written this is the final year for rolling over cap space, which means if you don't use it this year - it won't be there next year....

 

Edit:
 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Reed83HOF

[NobesBLO13]

Beane is cheap 

[MAJBobby]

While this very well could be a possibility, I doubt the owners sign any CBA that doesn't have this ability in it.  Additionally, I do not know why the players would also agree to removing it either.

[plenzmd1]

55 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

While this very well could be a possibility, I doubt the owners sign any CBA that doesn't have this ability in it.  Additionally, I do not know why the players would also agree to removing it either.

well, 2 reasons i can think of

 

1) Short term.if it goes away, teams may be willing to spend more of the cap THIS year..bigger bonuses, more guaranteeed money upfront , all good stuff for the players

 

2) longer term..no rollover could result in the same as above..if a team has cap space this year and it is a use it or lose it situation, more teams may extend players, move guaranteed money into current year etc. Seems all good to the players.

 

I think roll over of cap is something teams want, not players..but i am open to why that may not be the case

[machine gun kelly]

The owners won the last deal.  They’ll win this one.  They’ll concede on several things, but not the rollover cap.  They already have to spend 88% on a rollover basis, not in one year.  The players union may make some headway on the 88% per year.  I can see that, but not taking it away.  You’re talking about a union based on 100’s of thousands to multi millions, vs. Billionaires combined times 32.

[MAJBobby]

41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, 2 reasons i can think of

 

1) Short term.if it goes away, teams may be willing to spend more of the cap THIS year..bigger bonuses, more guaranteeed money upfront , all good stuff for the players

 

2) longer term..no rollover could result in the same as above..if a team has cap space this year and it is a use it or lose it situation, more teams may extend players, move guaranteed money into current year etc. Seems all good to the players.

 

I think roll over of cap is something teams want, not players..but i am open to why that may not be the case

it won’t. Teams will ALWAYS leave their 10M or so flexibility into the season. So if that expires that is not ever going to be spent. Allowing it rolled over means more space available to be spent on players while preserving what teams will always preserve going into the season. 
 

this isn’t going to change. 
 

what the players SHOULD TGT is the 3 year running minimum cap spending. That allows teams to really not pay. They should say nope it is a yearly running you need to spend to 90% of your cap EVERY YEAR. 

[Mr. WEO]

Pegs gonna need another money vault

[Malazan]

47 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I think roll over of cap is something teams want, not players..but i am open to why that may not be the case

because the players have supported cap rollover strongly in the past

[MAJBobby]

Higher caps mean more REAL money into players pockets. 
 

So tell me why they would want to reduce a item that allows for increasing the cap every year?

Players should go into CBA like this. Ok we understand you like to keep cap space every year for emergencies. 
 

we did a running AVg over the life of the CBA. That AVG comes out to 12M in space needed for your in season signings. 
 

based on that we want the yearly minimum spending increased to 95% of the cap. 
 

these are hypothetical numbers. But they should be focused on the minimum spending NOT the rollover. 
 

88% of 100M is 88M

 

88% of 150M (rollover) is 132M 

 

the Rollover HELPS the players with real Cash IF they can get the spending limit requirement to 1 year not a 3 year rolling AVG. 

 

 they need to be focused on REAL Cash not all this cap, punishment, drug testing, etc. 
 

as people say eye on the bottom line. Their should be eye on the slice of revenue pie and do everything possible to get close or above 50/50

Edited January 21, 2020 by MAJBobby

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, 2 reasons i can think of

 

1) Short term.if it goes away, teams may be willing to spend more of the cap THIS year..bigger bonuses, more guaranteeed money upfront , all good stuff for the players

 

2) longer term..no rollover could result in the same as above..if a team has cap space this year and it is a use it or lose it situation, more teams may extend players, move guaranteed money into current year etc. Seems all good to the players.

 

I think roll over of cap is something teams want, not players..but i am open to why that may not be the case

 

 

Use it or pocket it would be more accurate I think............no CBA means no way for NFLPA to get their hands on that money or force the owners to spend it to reach their 90% rule.

 

Any concern over this scenario seems unwarranted..........people from both sides want the rollover but by far the most harmed by it going away are the players.......so teams will most likely go business as usual and assume that part of the CBA will be retained.  .    

 

[MAJBobby]

If I was the owners and this was presented that we the players want to get rid of cap rollover. 
 

ok fine we will do that if you concede to give up mandatory spending limit. 

[Matt_In_NH]

leverage, owners

[Mr. WEO]

45 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

If I was the owners and this was presented that we the players want to get rid of cap rollover. 
 

ok fine we will do that if you concede to give up mandatory spending limit. 

the mandatory spending limit is the cap.  Don’t see the owners giving that up.

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

While this very well could be a possibility, I doubt the owners sign any CBA that doesn't have this ability in it.  Additionally, I do not know why the players would also agree to removing it either.

 

The roll over has been a disaster for players because it encourages owners (particularly cheap owners like the Bengals owner) have constantly rolled over cap space and then let the roll over expire after several seasons. I think having roll over discourages teams to spend to the cap as it can always roll over for a long time and then quietly expire if you don't want to spend it. 

 

I am not against roll over cap space but I think the way it is currently constructed is very much a negative for the players. 

[MAJBobby]

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The roll over has been a disaster for players because it encourages owners (particularly cheap owners like the Bengals owner) have constantly rolled over cap space and then let the roll over expire after several seasons. I think having roll over discourages teams to spend to the cap as it can always roll over for a long time and then quietly expire if you don't want to spend it. 

 

I am not against roll over cap space but I think the way it is currently constructed is very much a negative for the players. 

Has nothing to do with it. See my above example. 
 

what needs to change and the players should be all in on is the minimum spending limit be tied to actual CASH and a yearly roll up. Not a 3 year running AVG. 

 

example is it says must spend Cash at 90% of the Cap space every year. That gets rid of the 3 year running AVG. and also gets rid of Dead money counting in a particular year. 
 

none of that has to do with the actual ROLLOVER. 

[njbuff]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Pegs gonna need another money vault

 

Just take money from the Sabres vault.

 

It wouldn't matter for the Sabres anyways. ?

[Don Otreply]

Vicious rumor....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

[ProcessTruster]

Great.   Just when the Bills have a great franchise again, the league will go on strike and mess it all up.   What year was that when the bills were 5-1 and rolling , then the strike came? 

[Aireskoi]

It's worth keeping an eye on, but I expect business as usual after the new CBA.  Teams followed the CBA even when it expired last time, except the Skins and Cowboys who found out there is a "spirit of the cap" even if the cap is not in place.  

[MAJBobby]

What I am interested in it this offseason teams have the ability to use 2 tags. So how many of the available 64 tags will be used. That is going to really hurt the depth of the UFA market 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

so instead of reserving $25 Mil, they only reserve $5 to $10 Mil.

 

the reserve money is for late season emergencies IF they have to place players on IR  

[Malazan]

20 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 they need to be focused on REAL Cash not all this cap, punishment, drug testing, etc. 
 

as people say eye on the bottom line. Their should be eye on the slice of revenue pie and do everything possible to get close or above 50/50

 

I agree with you, but they did that last time. Negotiate on money, sue the league on everything else. It didn't go well. Unfortunately, DeMaurice Smith is likely to get clowned again which isn't good for the players or the league. They key is they should tie the other issues directly to money. You want the disciplinary system as is? That's 3% revenue. 

[formerlyofCtown]

21 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

because the players have supported cap rollover strongly in the past

It gives teams the ability to give mega deals more easily.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

This sets up perfectly for long term deals for our core players using roster bonuses that become guaranteed nearly immediately.   

[Reed83HOF]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

What I am interested in it this offseason teams have the ability to use 2 tags. So how many of the available 64 tags will be used. That is going to really hurt the depth of the UFA market 

The UFAs I like are on the teams that are very very tight to the cap, but they are also very pricey. Looking at the market, I'm still not sure that a lot of tags will be used, there usually are a couple Franchise tags a season, but no one has been using the transition tag at all. This is an option that could only be used for the few teams who use the franchise tag. Let's say there are 5 franchise tags, maybe at best, you might get 2 or 3 transition tags from those teams you normally wouldn't get. Dallas could fit into that mold with Dak & Cooper

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Reed83HOF said:

The UFAs I like are on the teams that are very very tight to the cap, but they are also very pricey. Looking at the market, I'm still not sure that a lot of tags will be used, there usually are a couple Franchise tags a season, but no one has been using the transition tag at all. This is an option that could only be used for the few teams who use the franchise tag. Let's say there are 5 franchise tags, maybe at best, you might get 2 or 3 transition tags from those teams you normally wouldn't get. Dallas could fit into that mold with Dak & Cooper

It will be interesting to watch and I could see alot more than 7 tags being used in the final year of the CBA.  Current cap space also means nothing can always create space

[Reed83HOF]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

It will be interesting to watch and I could see alot more than 7 tags being used in the final year of the CBA.  Current cap space also means nothing can always create space

In the case of ATL, Jax & Tenn they will lose a lot of depth and other starting players to cut down and sign their big guys. ATL for instance to resign hooper, would have to cut their starting center and a bunch of other players that they have no backups for. Jax would have to cut quite a bit to keep Yannick (they should), but they are a team destined for a rebuild IMO - the Foles contract has killed them for the next few years. Tenn again, resign their RT & RB or cut other parts of the team down - a team that went to the divisional round. Jax is the only one who might cut more players to keep their guy and to do so, would likely cut Calais and at that point, he is a top target for us as well. 

[NoSaint]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:46 AM, MAJBobby said:

While this very well could be a possibility, I doubt the owners sign any CBA that doesn't have this ability in it.  Additionally, I do not know why the players would also agree to removing it either.

that may come after the open on 2021 fiscal year though 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Reed83HOF said:

In the case of ATL, Jax & Tenn they will lose a lot of depth and other starting players to cut down and sign their big guys. ATL for instance to resign hooper, would have to cut their starting center and a bunch of other players that they have no backups for. Jax would have to cut quite a bit to keep Yannick (they should), but they are a team destined for a rebuild IMO - the Foles contract has killed them for the next few years. Tenn again, resign their RT & RB or cut other parts of the team down - a team that went to the divisional round. Jax is the only one who might cut more players to keep their guy and to do so, would likely cut Calais and at that point, he is a top target for us as well. 

I get all that, But Mack is going to likely take a paycut or get gut anyway.  Very easy to make the room and see what the market brings you.  The cap will go up again next year and likely by alot with the new CBA and Network deals.  So I could easily see alot of kick can restructures and tags placed on players.

Just now, NoSaint said:

that may come after the open on 2021 fiscal year though 

They have over a year to get it done before that happens in terms of the NEW League year.  I think it will be done this summer 

[Malazan]

4 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

It gives teams the ability to give mega deals more easily.

 

Yes. Did you think it needed clarification?

[Doc Brown]

On 1/21/2020 at 2:33 PM, Mr. WEO said:

Pegs gonna need another money vault

I've changed my mind on fracking.  Drill baby drill.  Get enough to build your own "Terrytown" on the Outer Harbor.

[chongli]

11 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

Great.   Just when the Bills have a great franchise again, the league will go on strike and mess it all up.   What year was that when the bills were 5-1 and rolling , then the strike came? 

 

In 1982, the Bills were 2-0, coming off a 10-6 playoff season in 1981, and then the strike game. When action resumed, the Bills went 2-5 to finish 4-5, and were horrible from then until 1986.

[NoSaint]

5 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

I get all that, But Mack is going to likely take a paycut or get gut anyway.  Very easy to make the room and see what the market brings you.  The cap will go up again next year and likely by alot with the new CBA and Network deals.  So I could easily see alot of kick can restructures and tags placed on players.

They have over a year to get it done before that happens in terms of the NEW League year.  I think it will be done this summer 

one would think but we saw replacement refs and before that an uncapped year sooooo not having money rollover wouldn’t shock 

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I've changed my mind on fracking.  Drill baby drill.  Get enough to build your own "Terrytown" on the Outer Harbor.

He has enough

[Thurman#1]

On 1/22/2020 at 2:46 AM, MAJBobby said:

While this very well could be a possibility, I doubt the owners sign any CBA that doesn't have this ability in it.  Additionally, I do not know why the players would also agree to removing it either.

 

 

Yeah, this. It's not in the interest of either side to not allow the rollovers. The only ones who would benefit are the relatively few owners not interested in being competitive if it means spending money, even if it's cap money.

[Thurman#1]

On 1/22/2020 at 3:46 AM, plenzmd1 said:

well, 2 reasons i can think of

 

1) Short term.if it goes away, teams may be willing to spend more of the cap THIS year..bigger bonuses, more guaranteeed money upfront , all good stuff for the players

 

2) longer term..no rollover could result in the same as above..if a team has cap space this year and it is a use it or lose it situation, more teams may extend players, move guaranteed money into current year etc. Seems all good to the players.

 

I think roll over of cap is something teams want, not players..but i am open to why that may not be the case

 

 

These are reasons the players would want it?

 

You're right as far as you go, but if rollovers weren't allowed, why wouldn't an owner not interested in being competitive leave $100 mill unspent cap money this year and then since it doesn't roll over just apply it to his balance sheet and not bother bringing in players with it. This is directly against the interests of the players. Right now owners can do that but must publicly choose to do so, which would drive the fans insane. They wouldn't have to do that if rollovers aren't allowed and the decision publicly announced.

 

On 1/22/2020 at 7:23 AM, billsfan89 said:

 

The roll over has been a disaster for players because it encourages owners (particularly cheap owners like the Bengals owner) have constantly rolled over cap space and then let the roll over expire after several seasons. I think having roll over discourages teams to spend to the cap as it can always roll over for a long time and then quietly expire if you don't want to spend it. 

 

I am not against roll over cap space but I think the way it is currently constructed is very much a negative for the players. 

 

 

 

There's no such thing as rolled over cap space expiring. Each year you can roll over all your space. That ability was not limited under the present agreement.

 

EDIT: I see. MajBobby understood you where I couldn't, and his response is right on point as well. You seem to be talking about the four year moving average thing where a team must spend 90% of their cap. That has nothing to do with rollover, and it also isn't bad for the players. Each year counts for four years, so they're all equal. The players shouldn't mind that either.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Thurman#1