Salary Cap expected to increase to at least $155mil

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamsJunkie

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
2,073
Roger Goodell - C - Free Agent
NFL.com's Rand Getlin reports the salary cap is expected to increase to "at least" $155 million in 2016.

It was $143.28 million in 2015. The number is tied to league revenues. Agents have likely had a general idea of what the cap will be for some time, and factored it into calculations about whether or not to take their clients to the open market.

Source: Rand Getlin on Twitter
Feb 15 - 1:20 PM


Good news for the Rams thats gonna help a ton trying to resign our guys.
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,132
May help, may not.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Other teams get more space and it will drive up what players are askin for.
 

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,847
We have two big money CBs we have to resign, and probably McLeod will get a few bucks as well. Then we can cut or restructure Long and Cook, and have a few bucks left for a QB if need be.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,206
Name
Mack
That just means that the Raiders will have Reality Show level stupid money...

I just hope that the Raiders offer Josh Norman a redonculous amount of jack and leave JJ and Tru alone.

Carolina won't be able to counter and the Raiduhs will have their HUGE splash...

But that's the Rams fan in me.

Frankly, CB is the position and both us and Carolina fans have to be worried about Oakland and that fat wallet of theirs at this point...
 

A55VA6

Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
8,208
So that would put the Rams at what... $30M or so in cap space? Plenty to work with.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,209
Name
Burger man
With rollover cap rules there are some teams with a LOT of space. Oakland was mentioned, so does Jacksonville.

As the cap goes up, so does the salaries.
 

DaveFan'51

Old-Timer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
18,666
Name
Dave
With rollover cap rules there are some teams with a LOT of space. Oakland was mentioned, so does Jacksonville.

As the cap goes up, so does the salaries.
I was thinking of the Jag's too!. I'm not sure who has the most, Roll-over cash + Cap space. But I know they ( The Jags) have to spend it this year or Loose it!
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,085
I was thinking of the Jag's too!. I'm not sure who has the most, Roll-over cash + Cap space. But I know they ( The Jags) have to spend it this year or Loose it!

Counting a $154m cap right now the Jags have $70m and the Raiders have $72 with roll overs. Both are going to have to spend a ton of money or face some issues from the Union.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,085
I think I read somewhere they have to spend a specific amount this year to stay in compliance with the cap floor.
Yes if IIRC from reading the Jaguars would have to go over the cap this year by $2 million and the Raiders by $15 million in order to not have to face fines.

"NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith singled out the Oakland Raiders as being $41 million below the spending floor they must reach by March 2017. The Jacksonville Jaguars are $28 million short of the collectively bargained requirements, Smith added."

So each team would have to spend 89% of the current years cap plus the figures listed above.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,048
Counting a $154m cap right now the Jags have $70m and the Raiders have $72 with roll overs. Both are going to have to spend a ton of money or face some issues from the Union.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

Let's be thankful khan didn't buy the Rams. Trying to make him spend just the minimum amount on his roster is like pulling teeth with pliers for him. His team has had a top 5 pick for the last 5 years.

.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-space-the-minimum-means-as-much-the-maximum/

As to cap space, the minimum means as much the maximum
Posted by Mike Florio on February 18, 2016

gty_cash_wallet_ll_131122_16x9_608-1-e1455832923376.jpg
Getty Images

The billion-dollar breathlessness already has begun regarding 2016 league year, which will feature unprecedented amounts of cap space and, presumably, unprecedented spending.

Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. The salary cap represents the most a team can spend. In any given year, teams can spend less, if they want.

For 2011 and 2012, all teams were required to spend on average 89 percent of the cap, and all teams collectively were required to spend 99 percent of the available money. All teams complied, individually, and collectively.

A four-year window then opened for the next round of compliance: 2013 through 2016. Collectively (and on average), 95 percent of the total cap dollars must be spent. Individually (and on average), teams must spend 89 percent.

So if the cap, to use the easiest numbers to digest, were $100 million every year, each team would be required to average $89 million in spending per year. For each year in which the $89 million is exceeded, less can be spent later. If, for example, a given team spent $100 million in 2013, 2014, and 2015, it would be required to spend only $67 million in 2016 to comply.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, only the Jaguars and Raiders currently are behind the 89-percent minimum based on the first three years of the current four-year window. Once the salary cap is locked in for 2016, the NFL and NFL Players Association will be able to calculate the total amount that each team needs to spend in order to get to the minimum.

For most teams, that won’t be an issue, making the achievement of the 95-percent league-wide number easier to hit. For some teams, it will be necessary to dig deep and find players to whom plenty of money will be given.

That still doesn’t mean the Jaguars and Raiders, or anyone else, will go nuts in free agency. For every team that has sailed over the 89-percent number, this is the reconciliation year in which they can both spend less and also carry over any unused cap space for the next four-year window, which opens in 2017 and closes in 2020.

The teams know how much they’ve spent, and they’ll know how much they need to spend. Ultimately, the predetermined budget for a given team means much more than the salary cap. And the 2016 budgets for most teams already have been determined.

As to the Jaguars and Raiders, there’s another important reality to keep in mind. The 2016 league year begins in March 2016 and end in March 2017. After Week 17 of the 2016 season, both teams will see key young players become eligible for second contracts — and both teams will have full coffers of earnings from a full season of football, including the new money from the expanded Thursday Night Football package.

Whatever the deficit may be at that point, the Jaguars and Raiders can cure it with a stroke of the pen on the inevitable second contracts that Blake Bortles, Allen Robinson, and Allen Hurns and Khalil Mack and Derek Carr, respectively.

Will it be good for this specific business if teams bust the juke-a-box next month? Absolutely. But the availability of so much cap space doesn’t necessarily mean that the league will suddenly be transformed into a gang of drunken sailors the moment the new league year begins.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Let's be thankful khan didn't buy the Rams. Trying to make him spend just the minimum amount on his roster is like pulling teeth with pliers for him. His team has had a top 5 pick for the last 5 years.

.

A Rams fan who's team is owned by Stan Kroenke just said this LOL.

@kurtfaulk I love ya but do you really think Kroenke cares about winning more than Khan?
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,048
A Rams fan who's team is owned by Stan Kroenke just said this LOL.

@kurtfaulk I love ya but do you really think Kroenke cares about winning more than Khan?

The only way to gauge the care factor is how much money he spends. I believe owners that spend the money care more than the owners that hold onto the money.

.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
The only way to gauge the care factor is how much money he spends. I believe owners that spend the money care more than the owners that hold onto the money.

.

That's not an accurate gauge at all IMO. It could also be dumbass contracts that puts a team at or over the cap, there are too many variables to just make the assumption that because money got spent an owner cares more. Especially since most owners aren't involved in contract negotiations these days.

Kroenke is far more concerned with parking, concession and other revenue streams than he is about titles. His history has brought that to light and it's why I wasn't jumping for joy when he took full control like many people were. The amount of posters that were proclaiming "he's rich he can just spend spend spend and win Super Bowls" cracked me up. Ask anyone who follows the NBA or NHL.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,085
That's not an accurate gauge at all IMO. It could also be dumbass contracts that puts a team at or over the cap, there are too many variables to just make the assumption that because money got spent an owner cares more. Especially since most owners aren't involved in contract negotiations these days.

Kroenke is far more concerned with parking, concession and other revenue streams than he is about titles. His history has brought that to light and it's why I wasn't jumping for joy when he took full control like many people were. The amount of posters that were proclaiming "he's rich he can just spend spend spend and win Super Bowls" cracked me up. Ask anyone who follows the NBA or NHL.
Funny you bring up the Avalanche, who have been to the playoffs as much as the Blues during his tenure and won a Stanley Cup. Oh and the Nuggets who were a perennial playoff team until Carmelo had a melt down and demanded a trade to the Knicks. Neither the Knicks or Nuggets have made the playoffs since then.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Funny you bring up the Avalanche, who have been to the playoffs as much as the Blues during his tenure and won a Stanley Cup. Oh and the Nuggets who were a perennial playoff team until Carmelo had a melt down and demanded a trade to the Knicks. Neither the Knicks or Nuggets have made the playoffs since then.

The Nuggets have (I believe) the NBA record for most one and dones in the playoffs. And making the playoffs in the NBA and NHL isn't that hard since almost half the teams get in. Just above average is the reputation for both of those teams. The Nuggets have never been a threat to do anything. Anthony was on the roster a few years before Kreonke bought the team and guess why he wanted to leave..........in his opinion the team didn't do enough to have a chance to win a title.

Kroenke bought the Avs in 2000 before the season started. They won the cup that year with players he had nothing to do with getting and a coach he didn't hire, they were already there. They haven't done as well and haven't made the playoffs in a few years, and in the last 6 have one trip and it was a one and done. He's owned them for 15 years and missed the playoffs 7 times, the team hasn't done better since he bought them. Leading up to his purchase they won a cup and got to the conference finals 4 times. The year after they won the cup (with players and a HC that someone else brought in) they made in to the conference finals.........and it's been early playoff exits ever since.

This is why I was telling people to pump the brakes when Kroenke bought out Chip and Lucia, just because he has zillions doesn't mean he is one of those types of owners that has a passion for winning. His passion is money and keeping fans interested.

While that's better in some ways than Georgia, in some ways it isn't. And like Georgia it'll probably take lightning in a bottle again to win a Super Bowl. However I think he has that in Snead, who IMO is outstanding at selecting talent at every level. Fisher may not stay after next year but the team will able to attract a top flight guy because players who are good to fantastic will be all over the roster. If not and Fisher stays I think he contributes to the lightning in a bottle thing.

Just my humble opinion though..........
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-return-more-than-100-million-to-salary-pool/

Arbitrator forces NFL to return more than $100 million to salary pool
Posted by Mike Florio on February 22, 2016

86177862-e1456202365191.jpg
Getty Images

The NFL has had plenty of public embarrassments in recent years. Here’s one that remained under the radar, until recently.

According to Matthew Futterman of the Wall Street Journal, arbitrator Stephen Burbank has found that owners mischaracterized millions in ticket revenue by creating an improper exemption. The NFL Players Assocation believes that the shortfall exceeds $100 million; this means that more than $50 million will be added to the total, league-wide salary cap.

“They created an exemption out of a fiction and they got caught,” NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told Futterman.

The league called it a “technical accounting issue under the CBA involving the funding of stadium construction and renovation projects.”

As explained by Futterman, the controversy arose from a term in the labor deal that allows teams to exclude certain sums from the vat of money that determines the salary cap. Burbank found that the league created another category of funds that isn’t contemplated by the CBA. Since the money didn’t fit into any of the recognized categories, the money should have been included in the pool that determines the salary cap.

“People have become accustomed to how we protect our rights when it comes to player discipline,” Smith said. “We are equally diligent when it comes to getting our share of revenues.”

The NFLPA understandably characterizes the issue as catching the league trying to pull a fast one. The league understandably says it was an accident. The bottom line is that millions will now flow from the league to the players, driving up the salary cap by at least $1.5 million for each of the league’s 32 teams.
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,132
That's not an accurate gauge at all IMO. It could also be dumbass contracts that puts a team at or over the cap, there are too many variables to just make the assumption that because money got spent an owner cares more. Especially since most owners aren't involved in contract negotiations these days.

Kroenke is far more concerned with parking, concession and other revenue streams than he is about titles. His history has brought that to light and it's why I wasn't jumping for joy when he took full control like many people were. The amount of posters that were proclaiming "he's rich he can just spend spend spend and win Super Bowls" cracked me up. Ask anyone who follows the NBA or NHL.
But there are too many variables to assume the owner wants to win because he spends money....but, not too many variables to assume he does not care about winning despite spending money?
You hazard against making assumptions then make a definitive statement about what Kroenke cares about. To not care about revenue or making money would make one a bad owner as well. Of course, its a business. But, hiring good people and letting them do their thing is smart. The Rams spending money on old vets to try and salvage the last couple of years of "four pillars" was misguided, but, not cheap. Being maxed out against the cap while having the oldest roster in the league was dumb, but, not cheap. Making room to keep the young core in place causes tough choices (see JL and Long) but smart. Not having a bunch of back loaded contracts that cause big overages in the future is smart. In other words, there is more than one way to spend the money. There is a reason the NFL has a minimum spend as well. Its sad but true.
To say Kroenke doesn't care about winning is just assumptive and emotional. He may care about making money as much as winning, and thats fine, its his business. I don't see any evidence regarding him spending money that indicates he is not trying to win.