MASSIVE cap space.

It's Friday...weekly troll/inciter sightings. Don't feed em AB!

J/k

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
You're seriously going to insult my intelligence? It doesn't get pocketed, because it's not cash, it's cap room, George Atallah, who is Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs at the NFLPA knows more than me, Maiocco, and you guys do, and I asked if owners pocketed the unused cap room, and he said NO they don't.

The minimum cash spending doesn't matter here, because why would a team like Oakland, and Jacksonville carryover $30M each, and not just pocket it.

You guys are just trying to get under my skin, and it's working, you're both pissing me the f**k off, I'm done, go f**k off if you don't want to see what I said, I'm done, I gave proof, and you still blindly follow a troll like Sus, sorry if I get warned but no one insults my intelligence. So f**k off both of you.

i made it simple math for you

Did you even read what the Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs at the NFLPA George Atallah wrote to me, they don't pocket the unused cap room, he is with the f**king NFLPA, he knows more than two fans, and a beat writer does. Done, I'm sick of being insulted, you and Sus can go f**k yourself if you keep on insulting my intelligence. I've forgot more about the salary cap than both of you have ever known about it.

So you don't understand the simple math?

And apparently you don;t understand simple english, and sentences, cause you're ignoring what George Atallah is saying.

So you don't understand is the players salary comes out of a teams pockets. So if they only spend 89% , the other 11% stays.

Why don't you go read the Green Bay Packers accounting , it is public info.i can help you

Uh technically it comes from revenue generated by the league itself, and not from owners pockets each year.

Why is it so hard to see what Atallah said, he works for the NFLPA, and knows what the rules are, and teams don't keep cap room not used, simple as that.

the revenue from the league is split amongst the teams and goes into the owners pockets.

And then the teams pay the players. What they don't pay , stays in their account.

Why is that so difficult?

IT DOES NOT STAY IN THEIR ACCOUNT, why do you ignore what a NFLPA member says? He said they don't pocket unused cap room, simple as that, how hard is that tell me that?

Oh really? Where does it go?

Show me on the Green Bay Packers statement sheet that is public where it goes.

So...What do you call money generated from saving on expenses ?

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

its not profit when you save on expenses

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

Thank you.

They are making the money by not spending it.

AB is taking about money literally "disappearing"

So if you use the required 89% of the cap, you can roll over 11% for four years?

If you use 89% four years in a row, but don't use the 11%, you have to give the NFL back 11%?

What benefit is there to having such big cap space if you don't use it to actually improve your team. This is why Baalke is the ultimate bean counter and should not be a GM. In his spreadsheet he piles up draft picks like any good accountant to show he is plus on the bunch of draft picks coulumn and piles up the cap space so he can show he's a plus on that column too. Then he can say, "Hey I'm a great GM, see, look at my pretty spreadsheet". Great, go be a fricken bookeeper for the local McDonald's Trent and let real footbal men build a Super Bowl team.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

its not profit when you save on expenses

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

Thank you.

They are making the money by not spending it.

AB is taking about money literally "disappearing"

And it does disappear, it no longer exists if the team doesn't carry it over, but they would never do that cause they forfeit the money like the Saints did, the 89% doesn't matter in this, because the Jags and Raiders both never hit 89% in those first 3 seasons, and still carried over $30M+ each year, and not pocketed any of it, because it's against the CBA, and everything bargained by the NFLPA for the players, the money is designated for players, not for owners, they don't keep it if they elect not to use it, it ceases to exist, plain and simple, and if you don't believe me, or what George Atallah said, than that's your problem.

And with that Mods please just close this damn thread, so I don't get into more trouble. I'm done with people insulting my intelligence.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

its not profit when you save on expenses

It doesn't necessarily result in profits but it can. Savings on certain expenses can lead to more profit if the revenues are not spent on something else.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

So if you use the required 89% of the cap, you can roll over 11% for four years?

If you use 89% four years in a row, but don't use the 11%, you have to give the NFL back 11%?

Some believe it disappears in thin air lol

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
So if you use the required 89% of the cap, you can roll over 11% for four years?

If you use 89% four years in a row, but don't use the 11%, you have to give the NFL back 11%?

It's because it's not actual money, it's cap room, and not cash, thus it disappears, and has disappeared for years under the CBA.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

Thank you.

They are making the money by not spending it.

AB is taking about money literally "disappearing"

And it does disappear, it no longer exists if the team doesn't carry it over, but they would never do that cause they forfeit the money like the Saints did, the 89% doesn't matter in this, because the Jags and Raiders both never hit 89% in those first 3 seasons, and still carried over $30M+ each year, and not pocketed any of it, because it's against the CBA, and everything bargained by the NFLPA for the players, the money is designated for players, not for owners, they don't keep it if they elect not to use it, it ceases to exist, plain and simple, and if you don't believe me, or what George Atallah said, than that's your problem.

And with that Mods please just close this damn thread, so I don't get into more trouble. I'm done with people insulting my intelligence.

Lol it doesn't literally disappear. It just doesn't get allowed to be used the following year.

89% is the minimum wage. 100% of the salary cap is the maximum wage.

If the employer only pays minimum wage, they don't hand over the differences

I can't make it any more simple for you bro

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erphan:
I think the discussion needs to get away from a term like "pocket it". It's way too vague. What pocket are we talking about - the revenue "pocket" or the profit "pocket" or some other kind of "pocket"? It would be better to talk in terms of profit to the owner because that has a pretty tightly defined meaning - generally means what is left over for the owner from the revenues after the expenses are paid.

That just muddys the water , and gives the two intransigents wiggle room to twist things farther.

Bottom line is the owners make no extra money from manipulating a low cap number. Which is completely a red herring anyway. They just hate Jed and want to complain.

I think it does clarify things. Profit is generally what is left to the owners of the corporate revenues after deducting expenses. If management chooses to spend money on players only up to the floor of the cap (after four years) rather than spending up to the ceiling of the cap, then that is 11% less expense to be deducted from revenues. If the owner doesn't spend that amount on some other expense(s), then what is left over is profit.

Thank you.

They are making the money by not spending it.

AB is taking about money literally "disappearing"

And it does disappear, it no longer exists if the team doesn't carry it over, but they would never do that cause they forfeit the money like the Saints did, the 89% doesn't matter in this, because the Jags and Raiders both never hit 89% in those first 3 seasons, and still carried over $30M+ each year, and not pocketed any of it, because it's against the CBA, and everything bargained by the NFLPA for the players, the money is designated for players, not for owners, they don't keep it if they elect not to use it, it ceases to exist, plain and simple, and if you don't believe me, or what George Atallah said, than that's your problem.

And with that Mods please just close this damn thread, so I don't get into more trouble. I'm done with people insulting my intelligence.

Lol it doesn't literally disappear. It just doesn't get allowed to be used the following year.

89% is the minimum wage. 100% of the salary cap is the maximum wage.

If the employer only pays minimum wage, they don't hand over the differences

I can't make it any more simple for you bro

And I gave you proof from a member of the NFLPA that it does not get pocketed by owners, and thus disappears. Why don't you understand that, it's not that difficult. Teams don't pocket cap room not used since it's designated for players, ask anyone who works for an NFL team, or works for the NFLPA, and they will tell you the same as I am, same for any other person who covers the salary cap for their team, they will say the same.