BuffaloRebound Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 If that's what Marv meant, then just move the team already. So we are not going to amortize bonuses going forward for purposes of how much cash we spend, but when it comes to how much cash we spend, we will count the amortized bonuses to get to $109m? What a joke, if true.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 So the quote from Marv is: "We're not going to amortize the future," Levy said. "The cap is $109 million this year. I don't think we're going to 'mortgage the future' type of thing by going beyond the cap." How pray tell do you conclude that they set the budget at $93 million? The budget is set by the league. Teams are FORCED to pay 85% of the cap. So this year, the Bills are forced by the league to spend 93 million in cap dollars. For anyone worried that Ralph doesn't have the cash to pay huge bonuses, do you know how much cash he will spend on the 57 players the Bills have under contract? 54 million. Total. Look at Clump's page. Ralph owes a total of about 47 million in salary and 7 million in bonuses due for those 57 players. That's it. He is going to take in almost 200 million in cash this year, and likely even more than 200. Cash. Granted, he has already paid out 20 million to those players in earlier years that is counting against our cap this year. And he will have to put up several million for the FAs and rookies we sign. But he has ENORMOUS amounts of cash on hand to pay anyone he wants.
Ray Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 No he doesn't---Ralph is moving the team and does not care anymore. Don't you listen to the radio?
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 No he doesn't---Ralph is moving the team and does not care anymore. Don't you listen to the radio? I only listen to Canadian radio and I haven't heard a word about the Bills moving.
Mike formerly from Florida Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Marv says point blank they will spend cash up to the cap but somehow you conclude they will have $16 million they don't use. Kindly elaborate on this defective logic. He's right...your thinking is what is defective. The Bills have to spend 85% of the cap. That is $93MM in cap money. The $109MM in cash Marv spoke about is in real money, not amortized...meaning we can spend $109MM but only get accredited for at least $93MM against the cap. It's another way of saying the Bills will leave lots of money on the table...but they are not mortgaging the future either.
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The budget is set by the league. Teams are FORCED to pay 85% of the cap. So this year, the Bills are forced by the league to spend 93 million in cap dollars. For anyone worried that Ralph doesn't have the cash to pay huge bonuses, do you know how much cash he will spend on the 57 players the Bills have under contract? 54 million. Total. Look at Clump's page. Ralph owes a total of about 47 million in salary and 7 million in bonuses due for those 57 players. That's it. He is going to take in almost 200 million in cash this year, and likely even more than 200. Cash. Granted, he has already paid out 20 million to those players in earlier years that is counting against our cap this year. And he will have to put up several million for the FAs and rookies we sign. But he has ENORMOUS amounts of cash on hand to pay anyone he wants. Again - I ask the simple question. marv says they will spend to the cap of $109. Yet you twist this to mean they will only spend $93 million. way to take an ultra negative view
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 He's right...your thinking is what is defective. The Bills have to spend 85% of the cap. That is $93MM in cap money. The $109MM in cash Marv spoke about is in real money, not amortized...meaning we can spend $109MM but only get accredited for at least $93MM against the cap. It's another way of saying the Bills will leave lots of money on the table...but they are not mortgaging the future either. I don't believe for a nanosecond that what Marv said or meant or even implied that they would spend up to the cap in cash, meaning 109 mil. For them to do that, they would have to spend approximately 55 million dollars in cash, this year, on about 8 players. They are not going to come within 25 million of that.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Again - I ask the simple question.marv says they will spend to the cap of $109. Yet you twist this to mean they will only spend $93 million. way to take an ultra negative view He didn't say that at all. Again, for them to do that they would have to pay 55 million in cash for THIS years salary and bonuses to 8 players. Use your head.
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 He's right...your thinking is what is defective. The Bills have to spend 85% of the cap. That is $93MM in cap money. The $109MM in cash Marv spoke about is in real money, not amortized...meaning we can spend $109MM but only get accredited for at least $93MM against the cap. It's another way of saying the Bills will leave lots of money on the table...but they are not mortgaging the future either. At the end of 2007 the Bills will have far less than $16 million under the cap.
BuffaloRebound Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Again - I ask the simple question.marv says they will spend to the cap of $109. Yet you twist this to mean they will only spend $93 million. way to take an ultra negative view It's the starting point that matters. Do we start at $54m or $74m?
donahoeisgod Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Again, let's wait until the end of April to judge FA and the draft before going off the deep end. The Bills will still be competitive this year....just chill out. None of us are privy to the inner workings at One Bills Drive so, to paraphrase the old Mayor, let's sit back over the next couple months pop open a six pack and see what happens.
daquixers_is_back Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 At the end of 2007 the Bills will have far less than $16 million under the cap. Are you really not understanding this?
Mike formerly from Florida Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Again, let's wait until the end of April to judge FA and the draft before going off the deep end. The Bills will still be competitive this year....just chill out. None of us are privy to the inner workings at One Bills Drive so, to paraphrase the old Mayor, let's sit back over the next couple months pop open a six pack and see what happens. I like your thinking the best...especially the six-pack part!
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 At the end of 2007 the Bills will have far less than $16 million under the cap. The funniest thing about that post is that if the Bills do what you are saying they will do, they will be FAR MORE than 16 million under the cap. Unless they do something that has never been done before in the history of the league, and against everything Ralph stands for.
JoeF Posted February 16, 2007 Author Posted February 16, 2007 The aggregate spend really depends on how creative we are.... Let's look at it this way... Say one of our free agents is: CB X - who signs for 5 years with a two tiered bonus...$7.5 Million up front; $4 Million in 2008 and base salaries $750K; $1.75 Million. $3 Million, $4 Million and $4 Million -- In the Bills New Math the cash is - $8.25 Million, $5.75 Million, $3 Million, $4 Million, $4 Million and we call all of these BASE Salaries -- not a bonus but all base. We can do things here with gauranteed years that don't kill us but may give us some competitive advantages in the market against teams who have mortgaged their futures with amoritization charges In NFL Cap if they are treated as bonuses - $2.25 M, $4.25M, $5.5 Million, $6.5 Million, $6.5 Million So in the first year we take a cash to the cap expense of $6 million more than the NFL's cap hit if we used the amoritized bonus strategy and $1.5 Million more in the second year-in years 3, 4 and 5 the cap hit is actually less allowing us to bring in more talent..my sense is that we will do what Minnesota did a couple years back with Winfield and call these large upfront payments "Salary" for the first year--so we will in fact not leave any cap money on the table but spend to the cap...this also in a wierd way might make the Bills more attractive to the guys we want to keep or attact--rather than taxes being withheld from a large bonus check--taxes are withheld from 17 game checks -- a smaller amount of taxes.. I think there are ways we can use this philosophy to our advantage -- but to state unequivocally that we will not spend to the cap could be less than factual -- what is factual is that we won't leverage the full buying power of the cap the way that other teams who use the amoritization factor to their advantage do..but it makes us more nimble, able to adjust year to year to talent that leaves because we always have room to spare...we just can't go after that "load up for a run" year...
Dibs Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 ......I am certain that part of Marv's strategy in this press conference, if not the sole reason, is to show the fans and the league and whomever will listen that we are in the poor house. Which isn't true. Agreed, it isn't true....they are not in the poor house. They are however in the drastically unfair house......which most fans(& it appears media) don't really understand. The world of the NFL. It's like you having a co-worker who generates more business for the boss than you do.......but in doing so he incurs bigger business expenses....some of which you have to pay. The more money he makes, the more you have to pay. That is what the bigger market teams are doing to the smaller ones. That is why RW is making such a fuss. Does anyone really thinks he should bend over & take it?
MDH Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Mark my words. We will not being into the season with any less than 15 million in cap space. First of all, how can you amortize bonuses over 10 years, if the player has a 4 year contract? They are basically saying we are going to count every dollar we spend, against the cap, even though the league does not count it against the cap. So when we sign a player with a 6 million dollar bonus, instead of counting it only 1 mill against the cap over the 6 years (as the league does), the team will count it the full 6 million. Do that with 5 players (as Chris Bown said), with each having a 6 year contract, the league will only count that as 5 million against the cap for this year (1 mill per player). Yet we will have spent 6 million per player, for 5 players is 30 million. AKA: The league says we are 20 or so million under the cap after signing those players and we say we are AT the cap, because we are counting CASH instead of the amortized deal. And the real issue with this is the team will end up DOUBLE COUNTING dollars. For instance, let's use your above scenario: The Bills sign a player for 6 years and give him a 6 million dollar bonus. The league amortizes the bonus over the next 6 years and counts it as 1 million to the cap in each of those years. The Bills count all of that 6 million to this years cap (the 30 million figure). Cut to next year, the league calculates the Bills cap room and counts the amortized 1 million dollar bonus towards the Bills cap next year. The Bills use that adjusted cap space (which already includes the 1 million bucks from last years bonus) to determine how much they can spend next year. The Bills will count the bonus to this year’s cap AND to each year's cap in the next 5 years. They will be double counting money unless they don't give out signing bonuses at all.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Agreed, it isn't true....they are not in the poor house.They are however in the drastically unfair house......which most fans(& it appears media) don't really understand. The world of the NFL. It's like you having a co-worker who generates more business for the boss than you do.......but in doing so he incurs bigger business expenses....some of which you have to pay. The more money he makes, the more you have to pay. That is what the bigger market teams are doing to the smaller ones. That is why RW is making such a fuss. Does anyone really thinks he should bend over & take it? That is only 1/20th of the issue however. And when you consider the "drastically unfair house" you're completely ignoring the fact, that, for instance, Daniel Snyder and and Jerry Jones and Randy Lerner, by spending what they did on their franchises, MADE Ralph Wilson HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. The Bills franchise, because of the rich fat cat owners, went from being worth 300-400 million to being worth 700-800 million solely because of them. That's really putting Ralph in the poorhouse. Also, one must consider the extent of the money and profits. Lets say an owner has to decide on a 20 million cash payout to free agents. If you make no profit, and you don't spend an extra 20 million on free agents you could be considered smart. If you make 20 million and you don't spend an extra 20 million on free agents you could be considered conservative. If you make 40 million and you don't spend an extra 20 million on free agency you could be considered cheap. If you make 60 million and you don't spend an extra 20 million on free agency you could still be considered cheap. If you make 80 million and you don't spend an extra 20 million on free agency you could still be considered cheap.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 The value of the franchise has no bearing on anything unless/until Ralph sells the team. And how much profit do you envision Ralph is making?
BuffaloRebound Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 The value of the franchise has no bearing on anything unless/until Ralph sells the team. And how much profit do you envision Ralph is making? I would bet that Ralph/Bills grosses around $170m ($125m from TV contract and shared revenues and another $35-40m from tickets, suites, concessions and parking). Coaches/front office/scouting and other expenses can't be more than $15m. That leaves about $155m cash to spend on players. Even if the player cash outlay is $109m this year (which many people doubt), that means Ralph pockets $45m. If his starting point for 'Cash to Cap' includes amortized bonuses, then we are looking at Ralph making $65m. I really don't think there will be enough quality free agents to throw a lot of money at. The top tier guys are going to command unheard-of money and the Bills are either going to overpay or end up not being able to even spend to the cap. Unless Clements is determined to leave, it makes no sense to let him go because there won't be anyone worth spending big money on and he is one of the few worth it.
Recommended Posts