The $20 Million Dollar Discussion - Page 2

BtownJay · October 11th, 2007, 12:38 PM

I'm 99% sure that in the NFL, the signing bonuses count against the cap. They devide the amount of the bonus by the number of years you sign the player for.

klicks · October 11th, 2007, 12:56 PM

thanks Jay - wow, a rule that actually makes sense! If that's the case, then signing bonuses must be done purely to sweeten the pot for the player being signed (settle down Ricky, not THAT kind of pot). I still figure that a signing bonus becomes 100% the player's money once he signs, unless there are clauses in the contract to cover recouping of the bonus in certain conditions. Beer's post about the money being prepayment of future bonuses really muddles this up - if Beers has the terms right, then I agree with him that Vick should pay all or a percentage of it back. I can't quite figure out WHY a team would prepay future bonuses, especially since there is no guarentee the player/team would actually meet the conditions for those bonuses - assuming they are performance based. If the player and/or team did not reach the levels required for the bonuses to kick in, would they player owe them the signing bonus back then?

BaldBil · October 11th, 2007, 01:18 PM

All of that upfront "bonus" money is really just a way to get around the salary cap.

BtownJay · October 11th, 2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaldBil

All of that upfront "bonus" money is really just a way to get around the salary cap.

In a way yes... it still counts against the cap, but makes the players happy when their contract is backloaded. They won't be making as much per year, but it doesn't matter because they got a fat check up front. IE - Peyton Manning, he got a huge signing bonus, and most of his salary is towards the end of his contract. It helps the team have more room now, and they can always re-work his deal later.

klicks · October 11th, 2007, 01:52 PM

But Jay - I thought the signing bonus gets averaged across the years of the contract for salary cap accounting. If that's the case, how do up front bonuses help teams with the cap at all?

BtownJay · October 11th, 2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klicks

But Jay - I thought the signing bonus gets averaged across the years of the contract for salary cap accounting. If that's the case, how do up front bonuses help teams with the cap at all?

I'll give an example... You are a top rated QB and the team is going to sign you, but needs room this year to sign other players.

They offer you a $20 mil signing bonus on a 6 year contract worth $60 million. Then they structure it like this, you get...
(mind you this is just an example)
Year 1 - $3 mil
Year 2 - $6 mil
Year 3 - $10 mil
Year 4 - $15 mil
Year 5 - $15 mil
Year 6 - $21 mil

No way you take that contract if they don't give you a signing bonus because contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL.

As far as the cap goes, $20mil divided by 6 years is $3.34 mil per year added on, so the 1st year the team is only charged $6.34mil against the cap. Hope that makes sense and that i'm correct with it all.

klicks · October 11th, 2007, 02:40 PM

actually, that adds up to $70 Million LOL, but I get your point. So, I then confirm my original opinion, Vick should be allowed to keep the bonus unless there are clauses in the contract that cover the team for some or all of the signing bonus if the player can't or won't complete the 6 years. Given what happenned with Ricky Williams (he had to pay back a percentage of his bonus) and the ruling just handed down for Vick, I am obviously wrong but still stick to my opinion that I shouldn't be. How's that for rant logic?

BtownJay · October 11th, 2007, 02:43 PM

And I work with numbers for a living.

BtownBeers · October 11th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Keep in mind he techinically is in breach of his contract...like it or not he is because of this mess. Also part of that money is roster bonuses which he can't get becuase he won't be on the roster...also the original signing bonus was 30+ mil...they are only going after what they are entitled to attempt to recoup based on the rules of the league, contracts, and in some cases the binding agreement of the players teams and players association.

BtownJay · October 11th, 2007, 03:22 PM

**serious question, not sure how it works**

How is he in breach of his contract? Isn't it the team and league not letting him play.

October 11th, 2007, 01:18 PM	#18
BaldBil illegitimi non carborundum Join Date: 06-15-2006 Location: Salem, MA Posts: 5,767 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournament Wins: 0	All of that upfront "bonus" money is really just a way to get around the salary cap. __________________ The Rant's pre-eminent something or other.

October 11th, 2007, 03:14 PM	#24
BtownBeers Skull Fucker Wannabeeee! Join Date: 08-23-2004 Location: In Mrs. Jays Pants! Posts: 23,864 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournament Wins: 0	Keep in mind he techinically is in breach of his contract...like it or not he is because of this mess. Also part of that money is roster bonuses which he can't get becuase he won't be on the roster...also the original signing bonus was 30+ mil...they are only going after what they are entitled to attempt to recoup based on the rules of the league, contracts, and in some cases the binding agreement of the players teams and players association. __________________ As someone who has been on both ends of a loaded weapon I can only wish you well in your idealized little vision of what the world should be; I will continue to deal the world as it really is. -BaldBil

October 11th, 2007, 12:56 PM	#17
klicks head up, stick down, elbows out Join Date: 07-04-2005 Posts: 1,385 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournament Wins: 0	thanks Jay - wow, a rule that actually makes sense! If that's the case, then signing bonuses must be done purely to sweeten the pot for the player being signed (settle down Ricky, not THAT kind of pot). I still figure that a signing bonus becomes 100% the player's money once he signs, unless there are clauses in the contract to cover recouping of the bonus in certain conditions. Beer's post about the money being prepayment of future bonuses really muddles this up - if Beers has the terms right, then I agree with him that Vick should pay all or a percentage of it back. I can't quite figure out WHY a team would prepay future bonuses, especially since there is no guarentee the player/team would actually meet the conditions for those bonuses - assuming they are performance based. If the player and/or team did not reach the levels required for the bonuses to kick in, would they player owe them the signing bonus back then?

October 11th, 2007, 01:52 PM	#20
klicks head up, stick down, elbows out Join Date: 07-04-2005 Posts: 1,385 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournament Wins: 0	But Jay - I thought the signing bonus gets averaged across the years of the contract for salary cap accounting. If that's the case, how do up front bonuses help teams with the cap at all?

October 11th, 2007, 02:40 PM	#22
klicks head up, stick down, elbows out Join Date: 07-04-2005 Posts: 1,385 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournament Wins: 0	actually, that adds up to $70 Million LOL, but I get your point. So, I then confirm my original opinion, Vick should be allowed to keep the bonus unless there are clauses in the contract that cover the team for some or all of the signing bonus if the player can't or won't complete the 6 years. Given what happenned with Ricky Williams (he had to pay back a percentage of his bonus) and the ruling just handed down for Vick, I am obviously wrong but still stick to my opinion that I shouldn't be. How's that for rant logic?

October 11th, 2007, 03:24 PM	#26
Galatians 2:20 Servant of my Lord & Savior