02-27-2016, 12:40 AM
I hope I worded this thread appropriately. Sorry if it reads poorly. So anyway, remember that 89% minimum that teams had to meet for actual cash spent? It was a four year window, which started in 2013. Well, that period is up at the end of this season.
Also, while the individual minimum is 89%, the league wide minimum is 95%. So for example, say one team hits their minimum of 89%. You would need another team to spend 100%, and another team to spend 96% just to bring that average back up to 95%. Basically, it would take a minimum of two teams to make up the defecit created by one teams lack of spending.
Any money that a team is short of the 89% has to made up by the team, then gets funneled into the NFLPA, and then redistributed back to that respective team's roster. (Say the Jags end up 5 mil under. 5 mil gets split among the Jags players at the player's association's discretion.) Any money that the league is short of the 95% also goes to the NFLPA and is redistributed league wide.
Long story short. You add the actual cash dollars spent by each team from 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. This has to be equal to 89% of the cap over those four years. Do the same for the league, and this has to be at 95%. These are averages, not single year requirements.
Some of you may ask, What's your point, Toast? Why should I care?
Well, I think this may affect some spending this offseason. Any money a team is short is going to paid either way. Either to actual players who can help their team, or to NFLPA. They have no choice but to hit 89%. One way or another, that money is getting spent. And the same goes for the league average. It's coming out of the owners pockets regardless. For these reasons I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more by the media.
Also, it should be interesting to see the final results. You'll essentially see a number of teams making up the difference for teams that fall under 95%. So I'll be curious to see how that actually looks.
Also, while the individual minimum is 89%, the league wide minimum is 95%. So for example, say one team hits their minimum of 89%. You would need another team to spend 100%, and another team to spend 96% just to bring that average back up to 95%. Basically, it would take a minimum of two teams to make up the defecit created by one teams lack of spending.
Any money that a team is short of the 89% has to made up by the team, then gets funneled into the NFLPA, and then redistributed back to that respective team's roster. (Say the Jags end up 5 mil under. 5 mil gets split among the Jags players at the player's association's discretion.) Any money that the league is short of the 95% also goes to the NFLPA and is redistributed league wide.
Long story short. You add the actual cash dollars spent by each team from 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. This has to be equal to 89% of the cap over those four years. Do the same for the league, and this has to be at 95%. These are averages, not single year requirements.
Some of you may ask, What's your point, Toast? Why should I care?
Well, I think this may affect some spending this offseason. Any money a team is short is going to paid either way. Either to actual players who can help their team, or to NFLPA. They have no choice but to hit 89%. One way or another, that money is getting spent. And the same goes for the league average. It's coming out of the owners pockets regardless. For these reasons I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more by the media.
Also, it should be interesting to see the final results. You'll essentially see a number of teams making up the difference for teams that fall under 95%. So I'll be curious to see how that actually looks.
