View Full Version : Salary Cap for Each NFL Team & Cash to Cap Crap
Bills: $31M under the Cap
- we have opportunity to sign some good FAs
- have to completely abandon 'Cash to Cap' philosophy after considering the following facts:
Top Teams in great Cap situations
Green Bay: 33.1M
Denver: $29.4M
Indianapolis: 45.2M
Seattle: 25.6M
Cincinnati: 40.8M
* Having a Top QB (Manning/Rogers) with a recent contract doesn't mean that your Cap should go to ****! How is it that teams Like Denver & GB can have top talent & pay their QBs 20M/yr and still have better Cap than the Bills?
Poor Teams with Top Cap Space
Jags: 68.2M
Browns: 53.7M
NYG: 24.2M
NYJ: 51.4M
Raiders: 55.4M
Titans: 44.4M
- Each of these teams had made it to playoffs in past 15 years; however their Cap is far more reflective of their winning than our.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378636-2015-nfl-free-agency-a-cap-space-guide-for-every-team
Night Train
03-01-2015, 06:32 AM
How many players under contract for each team as of now ? They may be that far under because they have to fill 20 roster spots or more. Deceiving rant.
I look at Denver and they have a bunch of expiring contracts and FA's. Doesn't leave a big roster, currently.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/denver-broncos/
You should check out the other teams before reading some article and shooting from the hip.
streetkings01
03-01-2015, 07:19 AM
Green Bay cap situation is the way it is because they rarely sign free agents and they replace guys with rookies. If Rodgers were to miss a season thats a 3-5 team at best much like Indy if Luck were to go down.
YardRat
03-01-2015, 07:43 AM
I don't know why some have such issue with cash-to-cap, one can't run a business continually pumping funds into the revenue side of the ledger without eventually going broke, I don't care how many billions they sport in their bank account.
The Jokeman
03-01-2015, 12:33 PM
I don't know why some have such issue with cash-to-cap, one can't run a business continually pumping funds into the revenue side of the ledger without eventually going broke, I don't care how many billions they sport in their bank account.
The issue I have with the cash to cap philosophy is it means we're never maximizing our funds. I mean what benefit do the Bills have leaving $18m in their bank when the players they have on the field aren't good enough. Pony up that extra cash and bring in a better player. I mean as good as Corey Graham was last year just imagine how much better our D would have been with Aqib Talib last season? This isn't a knock on Graham as think he was a great addition last year but think we'd be that much better with Talib.
YardRat
03-01-2015, 05:04 PM
The issue I have with the cash to cap philosophy is it means we're never maximizing our funds. I mean what benefit do the Bills have leaving $18m in their bank when the players they have on the field aren't good enough. Pony up that extra cash and bring in a better player. I mean as good as Corey Graham was last year just imagine how much better our D would have been with Aqib Talib last season? This isn't a knock on Graham as think he was a great addition last year but think we'd be that much better with Talib.
Well, that's the problem with the perception, they're not leaving $18mil in their bank, they're leaving $18mil in an accounting practice. Real money vs 'fake' numbers.
The Jokeman
03-01-2015, 05:55 PM
Well, that's the problem with the perception, they're not leaving $18mil in their bank, they're leaving $18mil in an accounting practice. Real money vs 'fake' numbers.
I get the reason to be a cash to cap from a business model but from a football/sport model it's not as wise. That's all I am saying.
Meathead
03-01-2015, 05:55 PM
cash to cap bad deferred liabilities good terry iz cheap
Meathead
03-01-2015, 05:57 PM
me so done with team
I don't know why some have such issue with cash-to-cap, one can't run a business continually pumping funds into the revenue side of the ledger without eventually going broke, I don't care how many billions they sport in their bank account.
YardRat,
Cash to cap is simply a different way of accounting; the difference being on when/how bonuses are paid out. Just like any method, if abused can lead to financially negative consequences.
How many players under contract for each team as of now ? They may be that far under because they have to fill 20 roster spots or more. Deceiving rant.
I look at Denver and they have a bunch of expiring contracts and FA's. Doesn't leave a big roster, currently.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/denver-broncos/
You should check out the other teams before reading some article and shooting from the hip.
Everyteam has pending FAs, Nevertheless they still have $30M to sign some of those players!!!
Also look at that roster & who they have added in the past few years: Manning, Talib, Ware, Sanders, Wes W, etc...
They have been signing Top FA & future HOF players & they are $30M under the Cap!
Last but not least, my point is valid no matter how we dice it up. Just look at GB!
Green Bay cap situation is the way it is because they rarely sign free agents and they replace guys with rookies. If Rodgers were to miss a season thats a 3-5 team at best much like Indy if Luck were to go down.
GB is loaded! They sent 5 players to Pro Bowl last year! And signed players like J. Peppers in FA!
better days
03-02-2015, 08:15 AM
YardRat,
Cash to cap is simply a different way of accounting; the difference being on when/how bonuses are paid out. Just like any method, if abused can lead to financially negative consequences.
Bonuses are all paid out in the same manor, over the life of the contract.
That is why if a team wants to gain cap space, they convert salary into a bonus.
IlluminatusUIUC
03-02-2015, 11:54 AM
Good teams have cap space this year, but they also have a number of expensive fas to sign. Demaryus Thomas, Randall Cobb, Terrance Knighton, etc. And Indy and Seattle specifically have 9 figure qb contracts to give out in the next few seasons.
YardRat
03-02-2015, 03:23 PM
YardRat,
Cash to cap is simply a different way of accounting; the difference being on when/how bonuses are paid out. Just like any method, if abused can lead to financially negative consequences.
Bonuses are all paid out in the same manor, over the life of the contract.
That is why if a team wants to gain cap space, they convert salary into a bonus.
I'm well aware of that Mike, and already addressed it, but the parts in bold from both you and better days is incorrect.
Signing bonuses are paid in full, up front, when the ink is dried...they are not paid out in installments unless the language in the contract specifically states that, and those are usually referred to as something else (roster bonus, workout bonus, etc), most of the time not subject to pro-ration like signing bonuses (the only time a reporting bonus is counted as a signing bonus is if the contract is signed after the beginning of training camp, and the only time a roster bonus is considered a signing bonus is if it is signed after the last preseason game). That's the difference between cap accounting and cash to cap accounting. In the NFL cap world, a $10mil signing bonus on a 5 year contract counts $2mil against cap accounting for each of five years, but the reality is the player gets the full amount in one payment. In the cash to cap world, the team counts the full $10mil against the cap internally.
Also, teams convert salary into bonuses because it gives them accounting relief for cap purposes, but the money is still up front, one time. Win-win because the team can take advantage of an accounting procedure (if they are not running under a cash-to-cap model) and the player gets his money immediately in the form of a bonus instead of having to wait for next year's salary (and maybe subsequent years) to kick in.
Cash to cap is actually a much more conservative model with less risk, because it balances 'real dollar' revenues with 'real dollar' expenses. The only way a team like Buffalo (low revenues) can sustain financial viability without the owner annually pumping money into the franchise (to pay signing bonuses) from his personal wealth is to operate under cash to cap. Buffalo may appear to have been $18mil 'under the cap' in the past (and for NFL accounting purposes they were) but in real dollars/real time that $18mil was spent.
Mr. Pink
03-02-2015, 04:18 PM
Considering the television contract pays for every teams salary cap, doing anything but spending to near the cap is quite, well, pathetic.
Skooby
03-02-2015, 04:24 PM
Considering the television contract pays for every teams salary cap, doing anything but spending to near the cap is quite, well, pathetic.
I think we make a few big splashes this FA period, getting pretty close to the cap.
SpikedLemonade
03-02-2015, 04:37 PM
Considering the television contract pays for every teams salary cap, doing anything but spending to near the cap is quite, well, pathetic.
Plus the cap floor is on a 4 year period and 2016 is the end of the first period.
This is the year to spend rather than next year when teams trying to reach the floor may be throwing money around.
swiper
03-02-2015, 05:03 PM
And the NFL is considering expanding the rosters by 2 players.
Downinfloflo
03-02-2015, 05:04 PM
* Having a Top QB (Manning/Rogers) with a recent contract doesn't mean that your Cap should go to ****! How is it that teams Like Denver & GB can have top talent & pay their QBs 20M/yr and still have better Cap than the Bills?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2378636-2015-nfl-free-agency-a-cap-space-guide-for-every-team
Superior scouting department..
It will be interesting to see what Hughes gets in free agency.
kingJofNYC
03-02-2015, 06:01 PM
It will be interesting to see what Hughes gets in free agency.
Im more interested in seeing how we replace him.
The Jokeman
03-02-2015, 07:14 PM
Im more interested in seeing how we replace him.
With the 50th pick of the 2015 NFL draft the Buffalo Bills select OLB, Hau'Oli Kikaha from the University of Washington. http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/hauoli-kikaha?id=2552292
Cash to cap is actually a much more conservative model with less risk, because it balances 'real dollar' revenues with 'real dollar' expenses. The only way a team like Buffalo (low revenues) can sustain financial viability without the owner annually pumping money into the franchise (to pay signing bonuses) from his personal wealth is to operate under cash to cap. Buffalo may appear to have been $18mil 'under the cap' in the past (and for NFL accounting purposes they were) but in real dollars/real time that $18mil was spent.
Yardrat,
You have brought up some very good points. Overall, cash to cap is very conservative and a better way to guarantee future Cap Space. However you must consider the following:
1) Teamd don't play the players! All of the players salaries come from the TV contracts and I think the number is something like 65% of TV revenues go to players! From an accounting POV the TV contract money gets split 32 ways & 65% of that money goes to the players. No player money ever comes out of the owners $$$$ pocket!
2) Salary Floors: in the old CBA, cheap owners (bills, bangles, etc) took advantage of the system by spending very little on players & pocketing most of the TV $$$ their franchise received. As a result, in 2008-9 the Bills were in the Top 10 most profitable franchise (made more $$$ than big markets like Jets, Giants, etc) !!!
~>To combat cheap owners greed, the new CBA has a floor, so greedy owners don't pockets TV $.
3) Selling the Bills: cash to cap probably had a very positive effect on the sales price of the Bills. They gave the new ownership the benefit of some very good players without much the corresponding long term liabilities (bonuses were paid). Ralph, through this ownership was generally a very good businessman that put profits above winning!
YardRat
03-03-2015, 05:40 PM
Yardrat,
You have brought up some very good points. Overall, cash to cap is very conservative and a better way to guarantee future Cap Space. However you must consider the following:
1) Teamd don't play the players! All of the players salaries come from the TV contracts and I think the number is something like 65% of TV revenues go to players! From an accounting POV the TV contract money gets split 32 ways & 65% of that money goes to the players. No player money ever comes out of the owners $$$$ pocket!
Of course teams pay the players, you're just trying to make a simple correlation between the TV contracts and player contracts. You're also not taking into account the required team contribution to the players' benefits package, which is upwards of $22mil per club and not part of the salary cap calculations. The league cap may be (for example) $140 mil, but the actual player expenditures the teams are required to make contributions to pushes the expenditures up close to $165mil. You're also neglecting to consider the millions of dollars that make up the rest of the expense side of the ledger...how much on average do you think an NFL team spends annually on front office staff, coaching staff, et al? It adds up pretty quickly (although I admit I've never seen any actual figures) I would guess. Teams with low revenues in the non-shared categories (luxury suites, corporate sponsorship, low advertising marketability, etc) either end up having revenue infused from the owner's bank account, or don't financially compete. The cash for those big signing bonuses need to come from somewhere.
2) Salary Floors: in the old CBA, cheap owners (bills, bangles, etc) took advantage of the system by spending very little on players & pocketing most of the TV $$$ their franchise received. As a result, in 2008-9 the Bills were in the Top 10 most profitable franchise (made more $$$ than big markets like Jets, Giants, etc) !!!
~>To combat cheap owners greed, the new CBA has a floor, so greedy owners don't pockets TV $.
Not spending it on players does not equal 'pocketing it', it's much more likely that the revenue was used to offset other costs associated with the organization, some of which I listed above.
3) Selling the Bills: cash to cap probably had a very positive effect on the sales price of the Bills. They gave the new ownership the benefit of some very good players without much the corresponding long term liabilities (bonuses were paid). Ralph, through this ownership was generally a very good businessman that put profits above winning!
Ralph operated from a sound financial model, and yes it had a positive effect.
Of course teams pay the players, you're just trying to make a simple correlation between the TV contracts and player contracts. You're also not taking into account the required team contribution to the players' benefits package, which is upwards of $22mil per club and not part of the salary cap calculations. The league cap may be (for example) $140 mil, but the actual player expenditures the teams are required to make contributions to pushes the expenditures up close to $165mil. You're also neglecting to consider the millions of dollars that make up the rest of the expense side of the ledger...how much on average do you think an NFL team spends annually on front office staff, coaching staff, et al? It adds up pretty quickly (although I admit I've never seen any actual figures) I would guess. Teams with low revenues in the non-shared categories (luxury suites, corporate sponsorship, low advertising marketability, etc) either end up having revenue infused from the owner's bank account, or don't financially compete. The cash for those big signing bonuses need to come from somewhere.
Not spending it on players does not equal 'pocketing it', it's much more likely that the revenue was used to offset other costs associated with the organization, some of which I listed above.
Ralph operated from a sound financial model, and yes it had a positive effect.
Your still a bit confused.
Take the Bills for example, who generated $252,000,000 in 2014. A little over $200M came directly from TV revenues and accounted for all of the player expenses 138M; operations cost and overhead, stadiums cost & debt. In the end, the Bills made another $48,000,000 via tickets. And yes, they were Handsomly profitable.
The CBA insures that EVERY TEAM no matter how small of a market can COMPETE with the Big Market Teams for both Talent & SB! If you want living proof, look no further than Green Bay.
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/
YardRat
03-03-2015, 07:59 PM
Your still a bit confused.
Take the Bills for example, who generated $252,000,000 in 2014. A little over $200M came directly from TV revenues and accounted for all of the player expenses 138M; operations cost and overhead, stadiums cost & debt. In the end, the Bills made another $48,000,000 via tickets. And yes, they were Handsomly profitable.
The CBA insures that EVERY TEAM no matter how small of a market can COMPETE with the Big Market Teams for both Talent & SB! If you want living proof, look no further than Green Bay.
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/
I'm not confused at all, don't know if you've read it before but here's a link...https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf
The $138mil in that link is obviously a reference to the salary cap only, not all player expenses required by the league each team has to pay. The article also appears to reflect 2013 numbers, not 2014. The $46mil is gate receipts, not the team's revenue (don't forget the away team's cut from that).
I'm not saying small market teams can't compete with larger markets at all, but do you think $252mil is a big deal for an NFL team? Look further into your link...http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/ ...next to dead-ass last is where Buffalo sits, and if you think the revenue difference between a team like Buffalo and others who rake in 50% to 100% more than that is irrelevant, especially when it comes to cash availability for signing bonuses, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
The Jokeman
03-03-2015, 08:01 PM
It will be interesting to see what Hughes gets in free agency.
I predict at least $10m per season if not more. I could see $50m over 5 years and $25m guaranteed in the first two seasons.
YardRat
03-03-2015, 08:03 PM
Look closer at your Green Bay reference and their revenues...$299mil...$47mil more than Buffalo. Actual cash money that can be spent up front (as it is in real life, not cap life) on signing bonuses...that's significant.
Considering the trade, ballpark numbers. I think, correct me if I am wrong and I'm fine with it, we just cut our number hugely for a running back.
Figuring McCoy is around 10 mil, Alonso was 1.7, it takes about 4 mil for a draft (3.something), we had ballpark 32 mil, we have about 17-18 left ?
I figure that's David Harris and Dawan Landry, with an outside shot at Matt Moore and some change.
The Jokeman
03-03-2015, 08:27 PM
Considering the trade, ballpark numbers. I think, correct me if I am wrong and I'm fine with it, we just cut our number hugely for a running back.
Figuring McCoy is around 10 mil, Alonso was 1.7, it takes about 4 mil for a draft (3.something), we had ballpark 32 mil, we have about 17-18 left ?
I figure that's David Harris and Dawan Landry, with an outside shot at Matt Moore and some change.
Great so no help at TE. Just great the one damn position I've been harping on for two offseason and we again accept Scott "Mr. Inconsistancy" Chandler. MEH!
Look closer at your Green Bay reference and their revenues...$299mil...$47mil more than Buffalo. Actual cash money that can be spent up front (as it is in real life, not cap life) on signing bonuses...that's significant.
I will make deadly Simple:
There is a Salary Cap in the NFL!!!
Just becuase the Cowboys make $500M in revenue does Not Allow them to spend more on players!!!
&
The NFL insures that EVERY Team Can AFFORD to field a Competitive Team by Giving them about $221M (this year) from TV deals which they are only allowed to spend 65% on Players!
If you can't see how this adds up to on field equality than your lost ... Forever ;)
If the NFL is giving you $221M and you still can't make a profit than you -as a businessman- don't belong in the NFL.
Football is one of the most popular sports & it's popularity & $$$ are at all time highs! If you can make $$$ in this environment than its your fault!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.