Cap question

[Oshkoshpackfan]

For those cap knowledgeable people, I have a question.

Let's say that we don't end up using the $18 mil we have left under the cap, does that money roll over at all? Or is that going to be specifically used to help with the Arod/CM3 contract extensions?

Sorry, but the cap is one aspect I don't really have a lot of info on. Thanks for any help.

 

[adambr2]

Someone a little more knowledgeable than me on this might reply, but my understanding of the cap under the new CBA is that unused cap room does roll over to the next year. The $18M under the cap that is cited right now is not under the actual salary cap but under our own adjusted salary cap from having room left over last year.

Probably if we have unused cap room, most of it will be used up on CM3/Rodgers extensions. I would guess they'll try to front-load whatever they can to try to ease the pain in future years.

 

[TJV]

Yes, a change in the new CBA is teams can carryover unused cap space. According to reports, the Packers rolled over about $7M into 2013 and that's part of the approximate $18M of cap room they currently have (BTW, I don't know if that's been adjusted for the savings on Hawk's contract). Another new feature of the CBA is teams have to spend 89% of the salary cap amount over the four year periods from 2013 - 2016 and from 2017-2020. IOW it's not a season by season requirement but a cumulative one. For example if the caps over the first four years were (just as an example) $130M, $135M, $145M, and $150M, teams will have had to spend $498.4M over that four year period (.89 x $560M). The carryover helps teams manage the cap and the minimum required spending helps players on "cheap" teams.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The OP raises several questions which I have not seen anyone adequately answer. Here's what I'd like to know:

1) Cap carryover is optional. Teams must advise the league of their intent to do so. What are the benefits/incentives to not carrying over cap vs. actually doing so? We might deduce the answer to that question if we had the answers to the following questions:

2) If you don't carryover cap, does that money go into a bank that can be used as carryover in subsequent years? Or is it permanently lost?

3) Can a team execute a partial carryover, or is it an all or nothing proposition? If it is a partial carry over, is the remainder permanently lost?

4) If you do carryover cap, but you don't use it in the current year, is it then available for carryover again to the next year? This touches on the OP question.

5) ThxJack noted the 89% minimum payout under the new CBA. The interesting thing is that the provision calls for 89% of the cap being paid out in cash, as opposed to a cap hit of 89% of the cap. The question here is whether it's 89% of the base cap (e.g., $123 mil this year for all teams) or is it 89% of each particular team's cap including carryover (e.g., $130 mil for the Packers this season including the $7 mil carryover). Further, if the Packers $130 mil is used to calculate the 89%, is the $130 mil reduced to the extent not all of it is used.

I sent an email to Seifert at ESPN suggesting he do a blog topic on this. If anybody wants to sent these to one our beat writers, feel free.

 

[HardRightEdge]

By the by, based on sportrac, we are $18 mil under the cap including the $7 mil carryover.

That does not include any adjustment downward for Hawk.

Restricted FA tender amounts are included for Shields and EDS (the cap could go up or down depending on whether they get signed by the Pack to longer term deals or get signed away).

The figure does not include anything for Brad Jones if they happen to re-sign him. I think he's the last of our UFAs who's status is undetermined.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/cap-hit/

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Thanks for the info. These rules and clauses confuse the **** out of me. Almost have to have a business law degree to understand the details of this cap crap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thanks for the info. These rules and clauses confuse the **** out of me. Almost have to have a business law degree to understand the details of this cap crap.

You're not alone. I see it more as behavioral economics than just a matter of rules. If you want to assess why people do what they do, or try to make predictions about what they will do, you need to understand their incentives and disincentives.

 

[TJV]

All of the answers to your questions in the 4th post are in the link below, HardRightEdge:
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaR...eral/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf
That's a link to a searchable copy of the current CBA. And it only takes 'em 318 pages to sort it all out! I'm not going to spend hours looking into this but from what I can tell:

1) I don't see an upside for teams not carrying over cap space.

2) Here's what I believe is the only relevant passage on carrying over cap space:

Carrying Over Room. A Club may "carry over" Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (1 4) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The NFL shall promptly provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLP A. The amount of Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after the year-end reconciliation.

(I assume year-end reconciliation has to do with bonuses likely to be achieved and bonuses unlikely to be achieved that were achieved as well as players being waived mid-season, etc.) Carry over is clearly optional since the word "may" is used but there's no mention of money not carried over surviving in any sense to I believe the answer to this is "permanently lost".

3) From the language it looks like a team can do a partial carryover and again it looks to me like the rest is permanently lost.

4) It looks to me like the answer is yes. For example if the Packers have $9M in cap room left at the close of this season (EXTREMELY unlikely) I think they can carry over $9M irrespective of the $7M carried over into this season.

5) Here's the only language I found on this question:

Minimum Team Cash Spending: (a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 201 3-201 6 and 2017-2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013-1 6 and 201 7-2020 are $100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))

It doesn't spell it out clearly but this language "If the Salary Caps for the (two four-year periods)… each Club shall have a minimum…" indicates to me the CBA is referencing the cap figures not including specific team carry overs.

I encourage anyone to delve deeper into this - for the length of the agreement it seems unlikely these two excerpts would be the only pertinent ones on these issues.

 

[HyponGrey]

Downloaded and Grazie

 

[HardRightEdge]

All of the answers to your questions in the 4th post are in the link below, HardRightEdge:
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaR...eral/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf
That's a link to a searchable copy of the current CBA. And it only takes 'em 318 pages to sort it all out! I'm not going to spend hours looking into this but from what I can tell:

1) I don't see an upside for teams not carrying over cap space.

2) Here's what I believe is the only relevant passage on carrying over cap space: (I assume year-end reconciliation has to do with bonuses likely to be achieved and bonuses unlikely to be achieved that were achieved as well as players being waived mid-season, etc.) Carry over is clearly optional since the word "may" is used but there's no mention of money not carried over surviving in any sense to I believe the answer to this is "permanently lost".

3) From the language it looks like a team can do a partial carryover and again it looks to me like the rest is permanently lost.

4) It looks to me like the answer is yes. For example if the Packers have $9M in cap room left at the close of this season (EXTREMELY unlikely) I think they can carry over $9M irrespective of the $7M carried over into this season.

5) Here's the only language I found on this question: It doesn't spell it out clearly but this language "If the Salary Caps for the (two four-year periods)… each Club shall have a minimum…" indicates to me the CBA is referencing the cap figures not including specific team carry overs.

I encourage anyone to delve deeper into this - for the length of the agreement it seems unlikely these two excerpts would be the only pertinent ones on these issues.

That's a nice piece of research, ThxJack. The only other passage I find that might be relevant is the definition of Salary Cap (see below).

I find your reading quite plausible, but it begs the question why the carry over would be optional. If there is no advantage at any time for any team to forgo carry over, why require the formality of a letter requesting it? It just begs for fallout and turmoil of the fax malfunction variety or some like screw up. The union also would want carry over to be automatic since it would maximize cap spending.

Perhaps there is an issue in your reading of the second quotation in your post that relates to question (5).

"Salary Cap" is defined as "the absolute maximum amount of Salary that each Club may pay or be obligated to pay or provide to players or Player Affiliates...at any time during a particular league year...."

Perhaps the 89% is calculated off of cap including carryover based on that definition? Then cheap teams would have an incentive to not carry over...teams would have a plausible choice they need to act upon. Under this reading, cheap teams could minimize their cash outlays by minimizing the cap value against which the 89% is calculated by not carrying over, while still having to pony up to 89% of the league base cap.

Perhaps there are letters of understanding between the union and the owners that clarify these issues. An insiders perspective would be helpful.

As far as the Packers are concerned, I agree with your reading that any unused carry over into one year could be in turn carried over to the next.

 

[rodell330]

With contract extensions needing to be done for Clay Matthews and Aaron Rodgers unless you are going to play for peanuts don't expect for TT to make any real effort to sign anyone smh.

 

[adambr2]

With contract extensions needing to be done for Clay Matthews and Aaron Rodgers unless you are going to play for peanuts don't expect for TT to make any real effort to sign anyone smh.

Why does every new thread need to involve you "shaking your head" about your perceived methods of a very successful NFL GM?