LevysEraII Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 $102 million for 2006 and $109 million for 2007. He also added free agency will begin in 24 to 48 hours. Per NFL Network interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevysEraII Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 With Mike Williams' and possibly Eric Moulds' contracts off the books in 2007 Buffalo should be a huge player in free agency the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 With Mike Williams' and possibly Eric Moulds' contracts off the books in 2007 Buffalo should be a huge player in free agency the next two years. 621816[/snapback] With many other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 With many other teams. 621832[/snapback] Yep. Its amazing how everyone thinks that the extra 10 million bucks was just for the Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 wow! a 7 million dollar jump from 06' to '07 that seems like alot of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The problem is I think regardless of what the cap number is the Bills will spend under it. They would have actually been better off with the 90 something million number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevysEraII Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 wow! a 7 million dollar jump from 06' to '07 that seems like alot of money 621835[/snapback] 7 million dollar jump plus 8.6 mil back in dead cap space= 15.6 mil in cap space for Buffalo in '07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The problem is I think regardless of what the cap number is the Bills will spend under it. They would have actually been better off with the 90 something million number. 621838[/snapback] The way I understood it, if they spend under the "official" cap number, they don't get any help from the revenue-sharing deal. Like Jones et al. have said - why should they pay more so the Bill Bidwills of the world can afford to be cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Lower revenue teams that spend to the cap in current year and/or over in cap dollars in future years get revenue sharing money. It would make zero sense not to spend as much as allowed and having the best team possible every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I agree Dr. Fong. For this year, the cap remaining the same would of helped us more in this free agency period. Hopefully we'll still do some good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nate Clements agent is doing the jig right now. His long term deal price definately just went up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The way I understood it, if they spend under the "official" cap number, they don't get any help from the revenue-sharing deal. Like Jones et al. have said - why should they pay more so the Bill Bidwills of the world can afford to be cheap? 621848[/snapback] Well the way I understand it is that deal hasn't been signed yet. Plus there's got to be a range where teams can be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nate Clements agent is doing the jig right now. His long term deal price definately just went up. 621857[/snapback] I don't thinkk Nate is. I bet he's pissed and plays like a pansy all next year so he doesn't get injured. Then he will be doing the jig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The way I understood it, if they spend under the "official" cap number, they don't get any help from the revenue-sharing deal. Like Jones et al. have said - why should they pay more so the Bill Bidwills of the world can afford to be cheap? 621848[/snapback] i think that is pretty fair......................that has always been one of the things george steinbrenner of the yanks always had with the luxury tax in baseball.....................he would give the lesser teams money and they would pocket it and not put it into payroll or teams interest.i know baseball and football are very different and baseball does not have a mininum salary a team must spend,but its is still the same basic principal.i love the bills and i think the high revenue teams shouldn't be able to spend big money that the small market teams cannot afford to do like..................buying the elite coaches and and having all the scouts....i just think over a hundred million dollar payroll is alot of money.and 7 million dollar a year esculators can hurt a small market team,but it is fair if you dont spend it all that you dont get a sort of rebate either lol.go bills in'06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well the way I understand it is that deal hasn't been signed yet. Plus there's got to be a range where teams can be in. 621858[/snapback] From Tags: low-revenue teams can't draw from the fund until they've spent up to the midpoint between the salary cap and the "cash over cap" numbers. Of course, we don't have yet have any idea where that "cash over cap" thingy stands. Hopefully it'll be a reasonable percentage, set low enough so that Dannyboy $nyder and his ilk can't hand out all those megabucks "signing bonuses" designed solely to circumvent the cap rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts