Pioli says Chiefs can turn around after 0-2 start

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

So why isn't this going to change when the cap minimum goes into effect next year?

Because it doesn't have to. The "cap minimum" is spending vs. the cap.

They're already satisfying the criteria going into effect.

They could literally not change a thing and be fine, at least that's the way I understand it. I'm not really cap guru, either.

[Black Bob]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Because it doesn't have to. The "cap minimum" is spending vs. the cap.

They're already satisfying the criteria going into effect.

They could literally not change a thing and be fine, at least that's the way I understand it. I'm not really cap guru, either.

Thanks... Hopefully there will be some in depth articles about this going into next year.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

Thanks... Hopefully there will be some in depth articles about this going into next year.

This normally occurs in respect to signing bonuses, Mr. BlackBob. I'll try to explain ...

Let's say you have a cage full of complete morons. Now, the league says you can only have 5 complete morons, but you want 6. What do you do? You acquire a stubborn, verbose idiot and convert him to a complete moron. It's a simple matter of terminology ... or accounting.

For example, a signing bonus of 50 million on a five-year deal can be spread (cap-wise) over the term of the contract ... five years. That's 10 million each year against the cap.

However, the 50 million you spent in the signing bonus is actual, real, hard cash that went from your bank account to someone else's.

In this way, a team can "spend" money above the cap in any given year, yet remain below the cap in terms of how the money is applied.

Hope that helps.

FAX

[Black Bob]

Originally Posted by FAX

This normally occurs in respect to signing bonuses, Mr. BlackBob. I'll try to explain ...

Let's say you have a cage full of complete morons. Now, the league says you can only have 5 complete morons, but you want 6. What do you do? You acquire a stubborn, verbose idiot and convert him to a complete moron. It's a simple matter of terminology ... or accounting.

For example, a signing bonus of 50 million on a five-year deal can be spread (cap-wise) over the term of the contract ... five years. That's 10 million each year against the cap.

However, the 50 million you spent in the signing bonus is actual, real, hard cash that went from your bank account to someone else's.

In this way, a team can "spend" money above the cap in any given year, yet remain below the cap in terms of how the money is applied.

Hope that helps.

FAX

It does help and that's what I thought. Thanks man.

[bigbucks24]

Originally Posted by BlackBob

It does help and that's what I thought. Thanks man.

Well done, Mr. Fax. And welcome back! I was going to explain it like this.

You sign a player to a 5 year contract. The signing bonus is $5MM and each year the salary is $1MM.

According to the cap, it is a 5 year, $10 MM contract. The hit against the cap is $2MM for the next 5 years.

According to the bank account, it looks like this.

Year 1 - $6MM
Year 2 - $1MM
Year 3 - $1MM
Year 4 - $1MM
Year 5 - $1MM

Of course, this is a very simplistic example. There are all kinds of incentives (likely-to-be-earned and not-likely-to-be-earned), roster bonuses, guarantees, and of course, all of the years don't have the same salary.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by FAX

This normally occurs in respect to signing bonuses, Mr. BlackBob. I'll try to explain ...

Let's say you have a cage full of complete morons. Now, the league says you can only have 5 complete morons, but you want 6. What do you do? You acquire a stubborn, verbose idiot and convert him to a complete moron. It's a simple matter of terminology ... or accounting.

For example, a signing bonus of 50 million on a five-year deal can be spread (cap-wise) over the term of the contract ... five years. That's 10 million each year against the cap.

However, the 50 million you spent in the signing bonus is actual, real, hard cash that went from your bank account to someone else's.

In this way, a team can "spend" money above the cap in any given year, yet remain below the cap in terms of how the money is applied.

Hope that helps.

FAX

Thanks. One thing I don't understand about the NFL is the money/business side and how contracts effect the cap etc.

So another words, you can spend out the ass on signing bonuses, as long as the actual contract is under the league mandated cap.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Thanks. One thing I don't understand about the NFL is the money/business side and how contracts effect the cap etc.

So another words, you can spend out the ass on signing bonuses, as long as the actual contract is under the league mandated cap.

Essentially, yes. I haven't studied the new CBA much and am unclear what changes will be made going forward ... or when those changes take effect, but that is how it has worked in the past.

All football players are interested in are the "guaranteed dollars" (and rightfully so) which are typically structured as signing bonuses. The only way the league could retain a salary cap and signing bonuses was to include the bonus as part of the overall contract and amortize the amount throughout the term of the deal.

To be honest, it's really more of an accounting trick than anything else.

FAX

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by FAX

Essentially, yes. I haven't studied the new CBA much and am unclear what changes will be made going forward ... or when those changes take effect, but that is how it has worked in the past.

All football players are interested in are the "guaranteed dollars" (and rightfully so) which are typically structured as signing bonuses. The only way the league could retain a salary cap and signing bonuses was to include the bonus as part of the overall contract and amortize the amount throughout the term of the deal.

To be honest, it's really more of an accounting trick than anything else.

FAX

The "guaranteed" money isn't really guaranteed. Roster bonuses are more en vogue, as they are "guaranteed" money for that year, but you can get out from under the contract easier.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If true, $7 million is an insult.



Fine, then throw in the 2014 first rounder. I don't care to debate value. The point is that Pioli should have given up the ****ing farm to draft RGIII.

I couldn't care less about some "mythical" first round lineman that would somehow save the day.

Dallas started their negotiations with Carr at 7 million per year, too.

That was reported in Dallas news multiple times and after Carr signed there, he said that the Jets (Revis and Carr would have been sick with Cro in the nickel role) and two other teams were in it, but that he never wanted to leave Dallas because that's where he wanted to play since he was a kid.

Those teams drove the price from 7/yr to over 10/yr.

Shortly after he signed, Jerry Jones said he "overpaid" for Carr before retracting and changing his wording to "paid market value".



I was in the group that wanted to sell the farm.

I was merely pointing out that that it was gonna take a lot more than you suggested.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Dallas started their negotiations with Carr at 7 million per year, too.

That's cool. I don't really care to argue or discuss this subject because what's done is done.

The bottom line is that had the Chiefs stepped up to the plate, Carr would be a Chief.

They didn't. End of story.