|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-05-2009, 10:50 PM | #1 |
A Dude
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 45
Posts: 12,426
|
The 30% Rule
As I'm working through potential ways for the Redskins to reduce their cap number in 2009, I'm bumping up against the 30% Rule, and I'm sure Vinny and the gang are too. I'm starting this thread because I need help on the interpretation of the rule. If anyone has access to a copy of the CBA as written today, that would be helpful, or if you just know the answer or can link to other helpful information, I can proceed down the road of crunching numbers and posting a plan here on the site.
The 30% rule states that any contracts signed during the last capped year (2009) that stretch into years thereafter (2010 and beyond) must have base salary increases (defined as salary + roster bonuses, but not signing bonus allocations) no more than 30% from one year to the next. In simpler terms, if a player's base compensation in 2009 is $1 million dollars, his 2010 base compensation cannot be any more than $1.3 million. This prevents the Redskins from using their standard contract restructuring practice. I've got a way around this, but only if I'm interpreting the 30% rule correctly: My understanding is the 30% limit on increases only applies when comparing 2009 to 2010 base compensation. I haven't seen anything indicating a team can't give more than 30% when comparing 2010 to 2011. In other words, while $1.3 million may be the max a contract can show in 2010, I know of no reason why a team can't just jack up the base compensation in 2011 to $10 million if they want. Does anybody know if this is possible? Or does the 30% rule apply to all future years? Thanks in advance for the info.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them. |
|
|