Wow, if this is true... (1 Viewer)

[bengalbuck]

According to the Bengals beat reporter:

@joereedy Clearing up salary cap stuff -- In 2011-12, there is a 99 percent cash spent for the entire league. No minimums for individual teams ...

@joereedy The floor and minimum cash spends for each team start in 2013

I've been trying to figure out how the Bengals were going to reach the floor this year. They came into free agency $36 million below the cap. Then their highest paid player (Carson) retired. Then they traded (Ocho) and cut (Antwan Odom) their 2nd an 3rd highest paid players and let their only high priced FA (Jonathan Joseph) walk. I believe they are well over $50 million below the cap.

If this report is true though, it doesn't even matter. They can spend as little as they want this year as long as other teams pick up the slack. Disgusting.

 

[butcher boy]

Sounds like they're tanking for Luck.

 

[bengalbuck]

Combine that info of no floor with this recent tweet by John Clayton:

ClaytonESPN John Clayton

With the release of A. Odom, trade of Chad O. and retirement of Carson Palmer, Bengals now have $49 M of cap room.

Wow, this is depressing.

 

[LawFitz]

Wow, I didn't realize until this post that the floor wasn't in effect this season. Interesting.

 

[Ian F]

Not sure if the OP is accurate but the cap minimum only matters at the end of the year so plenty of time for teams to get there with extensions etc. later in the year

Andrew Brandt tweet

 

[sspunisher]

Oh wow, is this for real?

 

[hook014]

Probably the only thing Mike Brown read when he signed off on it.

I'm hating it for Bengal fans. Just when you think you got him......

 

[bigmiiiiike]

Probably the only thing Mike Brown read when he signed off on it. I'm hating it for Bengal fans. Just when you think you got him......

This would also explain why the Bucs aren't on a spending spree.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Not sure that there is no minimum for teams, that seems to be incorrect. However, on further review, it appears that there is no individual team floor until 2013, but an aggregate floor of 99% of the salary cap league wide - see below post #12

LINK From ESPN:

2. Cap stands at $120.375 million: The salary cap is $120.375 million, but each team has the option of using a $3 million exemption this year on a signed player to free up some room. Next year, teams will have the option of designating three player exemptions at $1.5 million each. These are used to transition into a salary cap that decreased from $128 million in 2009. There is also a mandatory cash minimum payroll for each team at 89 percent of the cap, which translates into $107.1 million per team.

LINK

Salary Floor: Another big win for the players in my mind. The CBA includes a league-wide commitment for teams to collectively spend 99% percent of the cap figure in years 1 and 2. After that the number drops slightly, but is still 95% collectively, with each team on the hook to spend at least 89% of the cap figure. Mike Brown couldn’t be happy about this as his frugal spending policies are now severely limited.

 

[dgreen]

Not sure that there is no minimum for teams, that seems to be incorrect.

I've heard it explained a few times as it is in the OP. No team floors until 2013. I think there's supposed to be a league floor until then, but I'm not sure how that would be enforced.

 

[pablito]

So if the league total does not hit the 99%, I wonder who is responsible to make up the difference?

 

[Mark Wimer]

Not sure that there is no minimum for teams, that seems to be incorrect.

I've heard it explained a few times as it is in the OP. No team floors until 2013. I think there's supposed to be a league floor until then, but I'm not sure how that would be enforced.

It looks like you are right - there is no 89% minimum until 2013, but 99% of the salary cap must be spent in cash in aggregate between 2011-2012. However, because of Salary Cap flexibility during 2011, some teams can basically go OVER the cap by 6.5 million: LINK

2011 salary cap flexibility: Even though the salary cap was ostensibly scaled back, teams were given two avenues to make it easier to retain high priced veterans this year. Teams can “borrow” $3 million against future salary caps to pay for veterans. They can also use another $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay to use for veterans.

So the cap really isn’t $120.375 million. It’s basically $126.88 if teams want it to be. An extra $6.5 million won’t save guys that truly deserve to get cut, but it will make life easier for teams near the cap limit.

So it looks as if the Bengals and the Bucs are betting that enough teams will go OVER the cap in 2011 to keep the aggregate number at 99% of the salary cap, allowing them room in the collective space to keep their team payrolls artificially low until 2013. Huh. Sorry CIN and TB fans...

 

[dgreen]

So if the league total does not hit the 99%, I wonder who is responsible to make up the difference?

Yeah, that's the part I don't get yet.

 

[LawFitz]

So if the league total does not hit the 99%, I wonder who is responsible to make up the difference?

Yeah, that's the part I don't get yet.

Here is where it gets tricky. So if not enough teams go over the cap in 2011, will it be expected that the lower salary teams make up the difference first? Will that mean that teams like the Bucs and Bengals, should they choose to wait it out, would have to then spend dollars on restructuring their own contracts forward or overpaying for the bottom of the barrel remaining FA's?I would be pissed if my team had to overpay for some scrubs just to get the league up to the salary floor simply because my team's management didn't understand the rules properly. But that's jumping to some serious conclusions. Let's see how these teams operate once free agency officially opens. I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around at this point.

 

[Mark Wimer]

So if the league total does not hit the 99%, I wonder who is responsible to make up the difference?

Yeah, that's the part I don't get yet.

Here is where it gets tricky. So if not enough teams go over the cap in 2011, will it be expected that the lower salary teams make up the difference first? Will that mean that teams like the Bucs and Bengals, should they choose to wait it out, would have to then spend dollars on restructuring their own contracts forward or overpaying for the bottom of the barrel remaining FA's?I would be pissed if my team had to overpay for some scrubs just to get the league up to the salary floor simply because my team's management didn't understand the rules properly. But that's jumping to some serious conclusions. Let's see how these teams operate once free agency officially opens. I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around at this point.

There are definitely some details missing about the 99% aggregate spend in the reports I've seen/read this afternoon.

 

[dgreen]

So if the league total does not hit the 99%, I wonder who is responsible to make up the difference?

Yeah, that's the part I don't get yet.

Here is where it gets tricky. So if not enough teams go over the cap in 2011, will it be expected that the lower salary teams make up the difference first? Will that mean that teams like the Bucs and Bengals, should they choose to wait it out, would have to then spend dollars on restructuring their own contracts forward or overpaying for the bottom of the barrel remaining FA's?I would be pissed if my team had to overpay for some scrubs just to get the league up to the salary floor simply because my team's management didn't understand the rules properly. But that's jumping to some serious conclusions. Let's see how these teams operate once free agency officially opens. I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around at this point.

I assume the money could also be spent on "we got some extra money" bonuses, so it wouldn't have to mean low-salary teams are having to give large contracts to scrubs. So, for example, if the league, as a whole only reaches 98% by the end of the year, then maybe that extra 1% is split across the whole league as bonuses.

 

[Abraham]

It's not yhe teams fault that their highest paid player quit.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't followed this stuff at all, so I'm sure there are important details I'm missing, but it occurs to me that in order for the league to reach a 99% floor collectively, every team is almost going to have to spend at least 89% anyway. In other words, even if there isn't a statutory salary floor for individual teams, there's a de facto floor.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

Forget about the cap or the floor...

The fact that an NFL team is obviously making no attempt to get better is pathetic. If Mike Brown gets hate mail, I would understand why. Take the fans money, but not care about the product on the field. Mike Brown is pathetic in football and life if this is how he is as a person.

 

[QuizGuy66]

It all makes sense now.

Who Dey.



-QG

 

[Not Sure]

I don't understand how this organization has any fans or customers. I would never spend a dime on this team or anything else owned by the Brown family.

 

[notdarkyet]

That would explain a lot.

At this point I am hoping he moves the team so I have a valid excuse to jump ship.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

But Mike Brown is showing Carson Palmer who's boss. LOL.

I really do feel bad for you Bengal fans. Why do you do it?

 

[hook014]

It all makes sense now.Who Dey. -QG

The great Bill Veeck once said that people are fans of teams thru the accident of geography.I read his book at a pretty young age and that line always stuck with me. It's a completely enlightened viewpoint and he said it when he owned the Cleveland Indians. The man was a marketing genius and went on to own the White sox and Browns. His father was the president of the Cubs while he was growing up and he even planted the Ivy in Wrigley.So he knew a little about team loyalty and when to follow it. I gotta tell you that what Brown has done to Cinci is really on par with having a brother that's a stone cold criminal. You know you still love him (the team) but you can't have him as part of your regular life. So you get closer to your other brother (a new team) and life goes on a little better than before. There's always room for your criminal brother to get back into the fold but it's really up to him, not you. If he does, you can welcome him back. But to waste the lost yrs with your other brother, while waiting, is a bad time investment on your part. And that's how I became a Bronco fan in 1977, while putting the St Louis Cardinal Football team at arms length. That was my accident, being born in St Louis while Bill Bidwill Sr ran the team. And run it into the ground he did. Taking every dollar, bending every rule while swindling his fans at every turn. And then he moved to the desert. And I watched from afar as he swindled a whole new legion of fans. Yes I had some sympathy for them, for they hadn't gotten to the point I had reached long ago. They still had some hope and didnt know he would dash it when it came to their victory vs his bottom line. Finally he could function no more and his son took over. A man tortured by the years of losing. Heck, that's all he knew growing up. Losing and apologizing while his old man counted the money. He swore it would be different under his watch, but I wasn't gonna be swayed by mere words, I needed to see actions. Imagine my surprise when I watched only two years ago as the son held the NFC trophy on a grandstand over his head as NFC Champs. Meanwhile his senile old man who didn't look like he knew what was happening (he didn't) drooled all over his own tie. So yeah, I watch the Cards some and root them on, I'm even a little excited about the Kolb trade. Hope the kid does well, I really do. Seems to deserve it. But in the meantime I watched Morton suck, Elway light up the league, Terrell Davis become the best player in the league for awhile, Rod Smith get impossible yards, McCaffrey pull down 3rd and 15s, Sharpe demand the ball in the huddle, Mecklinburg stuff many 3rd and 1s, Shanny start q Griffin for a bazillion yards then bench him, Mike Anderson, and Bowlen proclaim "This one is for John!" Man what a good run. Enjoyed it the whole way. Good years and bad, and last year was a doozy. Just horrible. But I enjoyed the run. Point is, and I learned this from Veeck many years ago, don't feel saddled to a team you follow thru an "accident of geography". Life is way too short. Like the criminal brother, if they come around so will you. But it's really on them, not you. Veeck was a huge fan of four teams in his life, not counting the minors, certainly I could squeeze in two. And I did. Best decision I ever made.

 

[bengalbuck]

I haven't followed this stuff at all, so I'm sure there are important details I'm missing, but it occurs to me that in order for the league to reach a 99% floor collectively, every team is almost going to have to spend at least 89% anyway. In other words, even if there isn't a statutory salary floor for individual teams, there's a de facto floor.

I explained this a bit in a different topic, but the 99% floor is Cash. That number will be very different than the salary cap. No team can go over $126 million or so for the salary cap, but many will likely end up well over $150 million in cash spent this year. For example, it was reported that Santonio Holmes only counts for about $2 million on the Jets cap this year, even though with signing bonus and 1st year salary, he is actually receiving nearly $20 million in cash.

So for the 99% number, Holmes counts as $20 million, not $2 million.

You can see based on that example how there would be certain teams with huge cash expenditures this year. Carolina is a perfect example. They paid out huge signing bonuses to Charles Johnson, Jon Beason, DeAngelo Williams, Cam Newton, Ryan Kalil, etc. They could end up paying something like $200 million in cash this year even though much of it will be prorated and count against the cap in future years.

 

[QuizGuy66]

LOL - I can't lean on the geography excuse. I'm from New Jersey. We don't have a team.

Been a Bengals fan 25-years now. It's ridiculous at this point, but it is what it is. I ain't switching. They are compelling in their own bizarre way. And at least I've got the Devils if I want a team that wins stuff (oddly enough with a GM that's pretty iron-fisted and seen as stubborn in his own way, actually).

-QG

 

[bengalbuck]

According to PFT, I was right about this. There are no team minimums at all for the next 2 years:

One of the highlights of the labor deal, from the perspective of the players, comes from the requirement that each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis. “We cannot have teams like KC spend only 67% of the cap like they did in 2009,” Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in an e-mail to his teammates. “It doesn’t matter how high the cap is if they are only going to spend that much. So with a minimum in place, it requires all teams to be at or above that minimum. More money in players pockets.”

The players got what they wanted. But it doesn’t apply until 2013.

Yes, for 2011 and 2012 no minimum cash spending requirement applies on a per-team basis. We were first alerted to this reality on Thursday morning, during a weekly segment with Steve Davis and Ed Norris of 105.7 the Fan in Baltimore. Davis said that Ravens president **** Cass had explained the situation in a recent on-air interview, and Davis forwarded the audio to us later in the day.

The summary of the final deal that we obtained on Monday confirms that, indeed, the “minimum team cash spend” applies on a four-year basis from 2013 through 2016, and from 2017 through 2020. No minimum per-team expenditure applies for 2011 and 2012.

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.

The more relevant point, for the next two years, is that teams like the Bucs, Bengals, and Chiefs can choose to stay as far below the salary cap as they want.

 

[CalBear]

LOL - I can't lean on the geography excuse. I'm from New Jersey. We don't have a team.

Actually it's New York that doesn't have a team.

 

[QuizGuy66]

LOL - I can't lean on the geography excuse. I'm from New Jersey. We don't have a team.

Actually it's New York that doesn't have a team.

Not according to the management of those teams. Screw them.Anyhow, I knew things were suspect when I saw that Mike Brown voted "yes".-QG

 

[League_dont_know_this_one]

Forget about the cap or the floor...The fact that an NFL team is obviously making no attempt to get better is pathetic. If Mike Brown gets hate mail, I would understand why. Take the fans money, but not care about the product on the field. Mike Brown is pathetic in football and life if this is how he is as a person.

This man speaks the truth. Bengals ownership should be embarassed. Unfortunately this is not uncommon from time to time in many sports. :(

 

[CalBear]

LOL - I can't lean on the geography excuse. I'm from New Jersey. We don't have a team.

Actually it's New York that doesn't have a team.

Not according to the management of those teams. Screw them.

I'll take "Things Only People From New Jersey Care About" for $100, Alex. [born and raised in Morris County]

 

[Mark Wimer]

According to PFT, I was right about this. There are no team minimums at all for the next 2 years:

One of the highlights of the labor deal, from the perspective of the players, comes from the requirement that each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis. “We cannot have teams like KC spend only 67% of the cap like they did in 2009,” Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in an e-mail to his teammates. “It doesn’t matter how high the cap is if they are only going to spend that much. So with a minimum in place, it requires all teams to be at or above that minimum. More money in players pockets.”

The players got what they wanted. But it doesn’t apply until 2013.

Yes, for 2011 and 2012 no minimum cash spending requirement applies on a per-team basis. We were first alerted to this reality on Thursday morning, during a weekly segment with Steve Davis and Ed Norris of 105.7 the Fan in Baltimore. Davis said that Ravens president **** Cass had explained the situation in a recent on-air interview, and Davis forwarded the audio to us later in the day.

The summary of the final deal that we obtained on Monday confirms that, indeed, the “minimum team cash spend” applies on a four-year basis from 2013 through 2016, and from 2017 through 2020. No minimum per-team expenditure applies for 2011 and 2012.

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.

The more relevant point, for the next two years, is that teams like the Bucs, Bengals, and Chiefs can choose to stay as far below the salary cap as they want.

A ha. So the cap/floor doesn't really matter in calculating the 99% cash spend. Mike Brown and the other cheapskate owners who want to can put a substandard team on the field for the next two years, and thus also impede their teams' development for the next half-decade by so doing. Sorry Cincinnati fans. Y'all should be over this state of affairs...

 

[bengalbuck]

According to PFT, I was right about this. There are no team minimums at all for the next 2 years:

One of the highlights of the labor deal, from the perspective of the players, comes from the requirement that each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis. “We cannot have teams like KC spend only 67% of the cap like they did in 2009,” Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in an e-mail to his teammates. “It doesn’t matter how high the cap is if they are only going to spend that much. So with a minimum in place, it requires all teams to be at or above that minimum. More money in players pockets.”

The players got what they wanted. But it doesn’t apply until 2013.

Yes, for 2011 and 2012 no minimum cash spending requirement applies on a per-team basis. We were first alerted to this reality on Thursday morning, during a weekly segment with Steve Davis and Ed Norris of 105.7 the Fan in Baltimore. Davis said that Ravens president **** Cass had explained the situation in a recent on-air interview, and Davis forwarded the audio to us later in the day.

The summary of the final deal that we obtained on Monday confirms that, indeed, the “minimum team cash spend” applies on a four-year basis from 2013 through 2016, and from 2017 through 2020. No minimum per-team expenditure applies for 2011 and 2012.

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.

The more relevant point, for the next two years, is that teams like the Bucs, Bengals, and Chiefs can choose to stay as far below the salary cap as they want.

A ha. So the cap/floor doesn't really matter in calculating the 99% cash spend. Mike Brown and the other cheapskate owners who want to can put a substandard team on the field for the next two years, and thus also impede their teams' development for the next half-decade by so doing. Sorry Cincinnati fans. Y'all should be over this state of affairs...

You are right, it is infinitely frustrating as a Bengals fan. I really wish I had been able to spend the first few days of free agency following the signings my team was making with their huge cap space. Instead, I found myself combing through the minute details of the CBA hoping there was something in there that would force my team's owner to spend some money (there isn't). If that right there doesn't sum up how miserable it is to be a fan of the Bengals, I don't know what does.

 

[Mark Wimer]

According to PFT, I was right about this. There are no team minimums at all for the next 2 years:

One of the highlights of the labor deal, from the perspective of the players, comes from the requirement that each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis. “We cannot have teams like KC spend only 67% of the cap like they did in 2009,” Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in an e-mail to his teammates. “It doesn’t matter how high the cap is if they are only going to spend that much. So with a minimum in place, it requires all teams to be at or above that minimum. More money in players pockets.”

The players got what they wanted. But it doesn’t apply until 2013.

Yes, for 2011 and 2012 no minimum cash spending requirement applies on a per-team basis. We were first alerted to this reality on Thursday morning, during a weekly segment with Steve Davis and Ed Norris of 105.7 the Fan in Baltimore. Davis said that Ravens president **** Cass had explained the situation in a recent on-air interview, and Davis forwarded the audio to us later in the day.

The summary of the final deal that we obtained on Monday confirms that, indeed, the “minimum team cash spend” applies on a four-year basis from 2013 through 2016, and from 2017 through 2020. No minimum per-team expenditure applies for 2011 and 2012.

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.

The more relevant point, for the next two years, is that teams like the Bucs, Bengals, and Chiefs can choose to stay as far below the salary cap as they want.

A ha. So the cap/floor doesn't really matter in calculating the 99% cash spend. Mike Brown and the other cheapskate owners who want to can put a substandard team on the field for the next two years, and thus also impede their teams' development for the next half-decade by so doing. Sorry Cincinnati fans. Y'all should be over this state of affairs...

You are right, it is infinitely frustrating as a Bengals fan. I really wish I had been able to spend the first few days of free agency following the signings my team was making with their huge cap space. Instead, I found myself combing through the minute details of the CBA hoping there was something in there that would force my team's owner to spend some money (there isn't). If that right there doesn't sum up how miserable it is to be a fan of the Bengals, I don't know what does.

Sorry dude, I feel for all Bengals fans. Here's a perhaps cheery thought - maybe once the Bungles have to spend 89% of the cap starting in 2013, Brown will sell the team rather than shell out the money....

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

LOL - I can't lean on the geography excuse. I'm from New Jersey. We don't have a team.

Actually it's New York that doesn't have a team.

Buffalo