PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Why even give these deadlines, as it is apparent they will stay at it until a deal is done(which is a good thing). This is really strating to drag on, and quite frankly after the "were close"-"the players are walking out", exactly what is the hanging point now? Revenue sharing?? Cash over the Cap?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Why even give these deadlines, as it is apparent they will stay at it until a deal is done(which is a good thing). This is really strating to drag on, and quite frankly after the "were close"-"the players are walking out", exactly what is the hanging point now? Revenue sharing?? Cash over the Cap?? 1353939[/snapback] Leigh Steinberg is pretty darn certain this thing is gonna be hammered out tomorrow. Of course, he IS an agent, but a pretty good one with his finger on the pulse of what's going on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Leigh Steinberg is pretty darn certain this thing is gonna be hammered out tomorrow. Of course, he IS an agent, but a pretty good one with his finger on the pulse of what's going on... 1353945[/snapback] So, it basically is down to the owners approving the 59.5%??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 So, it basically is down to the owners approving the 59.5%??? 1353948[/snapback] Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Yep 1353958[/snapback] Thanks BS1-hopefully light at the end of the tunnel, but mark me here...."We said, 58.5..not 59.5, and granted that 1% is some seriuos clams, but we shall see . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithkt Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 So, it basically is down to the owners approving the 59.5%??? 1353948[/snapback] That's a bit of an over simplification, I believe. It is down to the owners accepting and agreement which includes the 59.5% player share of the revenue, but it also requires the owners to agree on what defines that revenue pool and some other issues such as the cap over cash that has been the hot button topic over the last few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) That's a bit of an over simplification, I believe. It is down to the owners accepting and agreement which includes the 59.5% player share of the revenue, but it also requires the owners to agree on what defines that revenue pool and some other issues such as the cap over cash that has been the hot button topic over the last few days. 1353977[/snapback] OK, I got ya, so in essence, the owners will now attempt to make the 59.5% the % their willing to share, and this cash over the cap?? This is honestly the first I've heard af this, is it like cash money vs taxable income?? Ya, know, do a cash job and not report it so it stays off the income taxes?? So, COC would not show up on the actual salary cap?? Edited March 6, 2006 by PantherDave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 That's a bit of an over simplification, I believe. It is down to the owners accepting and agreement which includes the 59.5% player share of the revenue, but it also requires the owners to agree on what defines that revenue pool and some other issues such as the cap over cash that has been the hot button topic over the last few days. 1353977[/snapback] True. The owners own revenue sharing model is the hiccup in all this. 24 yes votes are needed to get the new CBA ratified and as it stands now, there is a large enough bloc of Big Market owners which could well de-rail the CBA. Unless one or two of these guys bites the bullet and sides with the 22 to 23 Small to Mid Market owners, all of this negoitiating could have been for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 OK, I got ya, so in essence, the owners will now attempt to make the 59.5% the % their willing to share, and this cash over the cap?? This is honestly the first I've heard af this, is it like cash money vs taxable income?? Ya, know, do a cash job and not report it so it stays off the income taxes?? So, COC would not show up on the actual salary cap?? 1353984[/snapback] Here you go PD. 'Cash over cap' creating gap among owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithkt Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) OK, I got ya, so in essence, the owners will now attempt to make the 59.5% the % their willing to share, and this cash over the cap?? This is honestly the first I've heard af this, is it like cash money vs taxable income?? Ya, know, do a cash job and not report it so it stays off the income taxes?? So, COC would not show up on the actual salary cap?? 1353984[/snapback] Best explanation I found is here Here's the relative snippet: To understand the concept of cash over cap, one must understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses and with other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Washington Redskins, believed to be the highest revenue producing machine in the league, have had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even though the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. For the fans who can't get their heads around how this works, here's a simple example: Let's say the Redskins signed an unrestricted free agent to a five-year deal that includes a signing bonus of $10 million and a base salary of $1 million for the first season of the contract. In salary cap terms, the Redskins are charged only $3 million, arrived at by prorating the signing bonus over five years and then adding the base salary. But in real dollars expended, or payroll, that player cost the Redskins $11 million for the first year. That's a difference of $8 million between what the player was actually paid and what his cap charge was for the initial season of the contract. EDIT: In the words of the immortal Maxwell Smart, missed it by that much. Edited March 6, 2006 by smithkt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 True. The owners own revenue sharing model is the hiccup in all this. 24 yes votes are needed to get the new CBA ratified and as it stands now, there is a large enough bloc of Big Market owners which could well de-rail the CBA. Unless one or two of these guys bites the bullet and sides with the 22 to 23 Small to Mid Market owners, all of this negoitiating could have been for nothing. 1353988[/snapback] I would imagine that they will get Snider's vote out of necessity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Ah, I see-thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Seem to be that some could infer a penalty, while some could infer a bonus . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) 24 yes votes are needed to get the new CBA ratified and as it stands now, there is a large enough bloc of Big Market owners which could well de-rail the CBA. 1353988[/snapback] Actually, it sounds like it's the low revenue rich bass turds are the ones holding up this deal. as noted earlier this week by ESPN.com, it's actually a well-bonded alliance of nine to 10 low-revenue clubs that has demonstrated far more solidarity in recent days. Sources have suggested to ESPN.com that, in an effort to strike a deal that will preclude them from having to make deep roster cuts, some high-revenue teams have begun to reach out to their low-revenue fraternity brothers. But the lower-revenue teams have not budged from their insistence that they will not ratify an extension to the NFL collective bargaining agreement that does not adequately address their revenue-sharing issues. Edited March 6, 2006 by BillyBalata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Actually, it sounds like it's the low revenue rich bass turds are the ones holding up this deal. 1354090[/snapback] Bottom line....the owners coming to an agreement on their revenue sharing is the potential hold up. Whether it's the low revenue rich bass turds or the high revenue rich bass turds...they need to figure it out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 See you next time on "As the League Turns". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 See you next time on "As the League Turns". 1354251[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.