Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 824151">I mistyped "signing" instead of "roster" confusing the issue.  My appologies.What I'm looking for is a link that says the the Packers would have been exempt from paying the roster bonus had they designated his cut as being post-June 1.  I'm finding nothing to that affect in the various references I've looked at.If your proposition is incorrect, then the reason for not using that designation is clear:  dumping $4.8 million in roster bonus/cap for the priviledge of moving cap space around from year to year would be pretty dumb.If you are correct, which remains in question, the reason to choose one option or the other has nothing to do with not wanting to see Perry's dead cap number in the dead cap list through next year.  That's just an unfortuante reminder without financial implications.  The cost is sunk no matter what year you put it in.  The option under this scenario is either taking the $3.7 million in savings now vs. carrying a large amount of cap in Perry's name until June 1.  Taking the cap savings now may be needed to stay under the Top 51 cap, either now or with anticipated draft costs.  But that's just a conjecture pending some evidence the roster bonus would not have been paid under this scenario.</blockquote>

Total: 522 (members: 2, guests: 520)