MASSIVE cap space.

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by 49erphan:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Here;s the proof Sus.

https://twitter.com/GeorgeAtallah/status/756481110884904961

George AtallahVerified account‏@GeorgeAtallah

@Jay_AB81 Good morning. They do not pocket it, no. More complicated as there is a rollover mechanism, min cash spend, etc. Thanks for the Q

I asked George Atallah, who is employed by the NFLPA, and this was the answer above. And no he is not my source on that told me what I told you guys.

Would you mind relating what the question was that you asked him?

@GeorgeAtallah Could you please settle something for me, am I right in saying owners don't pocket any unused cap space, and it disappears

should asked the question if the the 89% was already met.

That unused 11% is the owners money and no one can touch it. There is no "disappearing" of any money. It is just forfeited towards the following year if that team does not formally claim it to roll over.

He asked them is they could pocket any unused cap money and he said no.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Here;s the proof Sus.

https://twitter.com/GeorgeAtallah/status/756481110884904961

George AtallahVerified account‏@GeorgeAtallah

@Jay_AB81 Good morning. They do not pocket it, no. More complicated as there is a rollover mechanism, min cash spend, etc. Thanks for the Q

I asked George Atallah, who is employed by the NFLPA, and this was the answer above. And no he is not my source on that told me what I told you guys.

Does that account for the 89% already spent ?

What does the 89% have to do with this? I gave you proof that it doesn't get pocketed by owners, you were wrong, as was Maiocco.

Lol do you not know what "min cash spend" means ?

This guys must think the NFL hands over a check that says "salary cap" lol

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They "could" pocket it if the 89% has been met in the last year of the 4 year window. They also "could" carry it over if they want.

You are wrong, you get contract numbers but your basic understanding of simple cap workings leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly I'm a bit surprised.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They roll it over because they have to spend 89% of it.

Until then, it is in their pocket.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They "could" pocket it if the 89% has been met in the last year of the 4 year window. They also "could" carry it over if they want.

You are wrong, you get contract numbers but your basic understanding of simple cap workings leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly I'm a bit surprised.

I don't think there is a basic knowledge of accounting around here .

Isn't this like high school math?

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They "could" pocket it if the 89% has been met in the last year of the 4 year window. They also "could" carry it over if they want.

You are wrong, you get contract numbers but your basic understanding of simple cap workings leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly I'm a bit surprised.

I don't think there is a basic knowledge of accounting around here .

Isn't this like high school math?

You would think,

Let's make this simple.

The salary cap in 4 years is 100 million
Every year for a total of $400 million.

A team uses $356 million after the 4th year (89%)

The team could carry over the $44million or forfeit it and keep it.

They aren't pocketing it, it never left their pocket and doesn't have to.

So simple

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Let's make this simple.

The salary cap in 4 years is 100 million
Every year for a total of $400 million.

A team uses $356 million after the 4th year (89%)

The team could carry over the $44million or forfeit it and keep it.

They aren't pocketing it, it never left their pocket and doesn't have to.

So simple

I think they are trolling us.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They "could" pocket it if the 89% has been met in the last year of the 4 year window. They also "could" carry it over if they want.

You are wrong, you get contract numbers but your basic understanding of simple cap workings leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly I'm a bit surprised.

It's crazy to have to tweet to get a simple math answer.

It's even worse for others to rally and cheer lead and wait for such person to get the tweet Bc they can't figure it out themselves.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Let's make this simple.

The salary cap in 4 years is 100 million
Every year for a total of $400 million.

A team uses $356 million after the 4th year (89%)

The team could carry over the $44million or forfeit it and keep it.

They aren't pocketing it, it never left their pocket and doesn't have to.

So simple

I think they are trolling us.

I agree .

They have to be pretending to not understand simple s**t.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

They "could" pocket it if the 89% has been met in the last year of the 4 year window. They also "could" carry it over if they want.

You are wrong, you get contract numbers but your basic understanding of simple cap workings leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly I'm a bit surprised.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

I guess I can;t reason with you guys then, I gave proof, from one of the heads of the NFLPA, he clearly states unused cap room is not pocketed, if the 89% cash spending limit mattered then why would Jacksonville and Oakland keep rolling over $20-$30 million a year? They would just pocket it then right? Nope, because they can't. There done, if you don't believe me then fine, but Sus, and Maiocco are wrong.

Like talking to a box of rocks . when they won't even believe someone from the NFLPA.

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.

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

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.

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.