Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

panther4life

Everything you need to know about our cap, potential cuts and free agents.

176 posts in this topic

If Gamble was such a sure cut, why havent they done it yet?

No reason to cut anyone until the plan is figured out. I don't think you can uncut someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine the new GM is sorting through about 20 slightly different ways to "fix" this mess.

I bet currently the focus is on dealing with agents and once they know who they can restruture and have addressed.....heads then roll. Serves no real purpose to cut him today.

yep. you don't cut anyone until you have a better option.

it's like quitting your job before you've gone out to find a better one. it just puts you behind the 8 ball and limits viable options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we aren't the only team in cap trouble....

Albert Breer [email protected]

10 Ravens account for $69M in 2013 cap space. And that doesn't acct for Flacco, Reed, Ellerbe, Kruger, Dickson, Pitta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we aren't the only team in cap trouble....

Albert Breer [email protected]

10 Ravens account for $69M in 2013 cap space. And that doesn't acct for Flacco, Reed, Ellerbe, Kruger, Dickson, Pitta

Well, they really timed that win well then. Apparently Bolden is willing to extend to lower his cap number otherwise they'd have to cut him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing above would be a definite violation of the cap. Not maybe. Definite.

If it was that easy to get around the cap, every club would be doing it.

That is exactly what I said, that it isn't allowed. Hence it not being against the salary cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. there's no way that would be allowed. huge violation. the team would get into a poo ton of trouble. you can not give players anything beyond what is stated in the contract.

I never said it would be allowed. I'm merely giving an example. The guy said paying for gas money affects the salary cap. It absolutely does not. Outside of the fact that no owner would bother to report that to the NFL, it doesn't go against the cap because it isn't in the contract.

What he was initial talking about was salary cap but that long article he posted was referring to team salary. Stuff like that affects that, I guess. But not salary cap.

I wasn't saying that was allowed. I was giving reasons as to why it isn't allowed. Anything paid to a player outside of the contract or special things like retirement and such do not go against the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Stewarts contract equally as restrictive for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is all nice and all. But no, money paid outside of the contract agreed upon by the player and team does not go against the salary cap. Sure, you can count it as the players salary if you want. But it wouldn't go against the cap.

So, if Jerry Richardson paid Newton $3 million for a new house, it wouldn't go against the salary cap because it wasn't in the contract. It would just be Richardson paying his own money to Newton. If Jerry Jones paid $3 dollars to Romo to pay for gas, it would not go against the cap.

Which is why that isn't allowed or else every big market team would do that (pay more money than they are allowed) to pry players to them.

Though, re-reading your post, I hope you know I'm talking about the salary cap (which is what you said). Not a teams salary (how much the team is making). They aren't the same thing.

Well, your wrong again as usual. Perhaps you need to go read the CBA yourself. It doesn't copy & paste well.

What in the world are you talking about salary cap vs salary ? What do mean they are not the same thing? It's SALARY and it HAS A CAP.

The CBA gives the definition of salary, including that: "Salary means the compensation in money, property, investments, loans or anything else of value..."

Then you say "if Jerry Richardson paid Newton $3 million for a new house, it wouldn't go against the salary cap because it wasn't in the contract."

Well, the CBA just said salary includes property or anything else of value. Well, a new house is "property" and you even put a "value on it" .... $3 million according to you. So IF that happens it counts as "salary" and does indeed go against the "salary cap".

The CBA when finishing up what counts against the salary cap says "Any other Salary not listed above paid to players shall be included in Team Salary."

Surely your reading comprehension isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Why on earth would the CBA be talking about "salary" in the "salary cap" section if salary doesn't count against the cap ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites