02-28-2016, 12:20 PM
(02-27-2016, 09:18 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: I could be wrong but I don't think it works that way. If you rollover $10 million, it is part of your next year's cap. Otherwise why call it a rollover. Now let's say cap is a static $100 million over 4 years. If you rolled over $10 million every year that means you spent $90 million the first year, and $10 million each of the other 3 years (because you aren't spending the $10 million from the first year. So while you only spent 90% of cap the first year, you really have spent 97.5% of cap on average over the 4 years.
OK here is a breakdown (I rounded the numbers so it would not be such an eye chart)
2011 - Rollover = $15m. Used $109m of $135m: $27m unspent
2012 - Rollover = 0. Used $116m of $120m: $4m unspent
2013 - Rollover = $8. Used $127m of $135m: $8m unspent
2014 - Rollover = $9m. Used $132m of $142m: $10m unspent
2015 - Rollover = $9m. Used $144m of $152M: $8m unspent
There is no question that the ownership's strategy is to not spend to the limit.
We know the results of this strategy have produced ZERO postseason success.
How can this strategy be defended by the fans? I understand SOP's reasoning....more for him. However for the fan the true ROI for our time and money spent is a "real opportunity" to win the superbowl. SMFH!
