Updated cap spreadsheet

[joeshmo]

Where does the $6M in dead money come from?

The only players with signing bonuses we cut from June 1 2004 until now is Kendall and Fisher and their cap hit was spread over last year as well as this year. Their combined cap hit number shouldn't be higher than $1.5M, so I just don't get it...

They didnt have signing bonuses but they all add up after they were cut after June 1st: Bryan Gilmore, McCaddley, Banks, Young, Roundtree, Dennis Johnson, Frank Garcia, Lavar Fisher. Now again these guys signing bonuses were minimal but when you add them all up.....

 

[40yearfan]

Team Rankings
Statistical Rankings



2005 NFL Salary Cap Figures
March 1, 2005

For the sake of this installment, we have designated teams that are less than $5M under the cap in RED. These are teams that have little money to sign free agents and may need to make cuts or restructure salaries in order to sign all of their draft picks. Note that teams that show NEGATIVE cap space are ALREADY OVER the cap, and will have to make cuts before the March 2 deadline. Teams in BLACK, which are between $5M and $10M under the cap, are teams that look to be in pretty good shape in terms of adding more veterans and signing all of their rookies without having to take drastic measures. Teams in GREEN are teams that are well under the cap and should have plenty of room to sign free agents and rookies.

Based on information we have received about a memo that went out to every NFL team, for 2005 the Salary Cap appears to be approximately $85.5 M.

Keep in mind, many teams are making numerous transactions each day which have a bearing on the salary cap values. These "unofficial" figures are approximate as of February 28, 2005.


Projected 2005 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

Rank Team $ Under the Cap
1 Minnesota Vikings $32.44 M
The Vikings have the cap room to make HUGE strides this off-season. The only problem is that their ownership situation remains up in the air. The current owner is a cheapskate. The possible new owner may not HAVE any money to spend, as questions lurk about whether or not he even has the money to buy the team. The lofty cap space also means that the team could easily absorb the nearly $10 M cap hit they would take in the event that they decide to trade Randy Moss. Minnesota also recently released Terrance Shaw and Cory Withrow to free up even more cap space.
2 Cleveland Browns $19.8522 M
With the entire organization in major overhaul mode, there is no telling what cuts are likely to happen -- and what cap impact such cuts may have on the team. One thing that we know is that Jeff Garcia won't be back in Cleveland, so the Browns saved an additional $3.265 M by releasing him.
3 Detroit Lions $19.78 M
The Lions have a nice young corps of players -- most of whom are still in the early stages of their contracts, meaning that they are cap-friendly. Keep in mind that the Lions really only have about $64 million wrapped up in actual salaries and bonuses (they only have 33 players signed). The Lions recently freed up cap room (they saved $1.2M by releasing S Brian Walker) and the door is open to create more space as Harrington is open to re-structuring his $10 million that would count against the cap this year, and they may be looking to re-structure WR Az Hakim's salary. The Lions have made no secret that they're hunting for help behind Harrington, at Safety, at TE, and along the OL. It's a good thing that they will have plenty of money to spend to improve because they're looking to make that leap into the playoffs next year. This latest figures takes into account Dominic Raiola's new contract.
4 Baltimore Ravens $19.295 M
The Ravens' cap problems appear to be a thing of the past. Their management will continue to exercise caution to avoid falling back into the situation they saw themselves in a few years back. Of course, that doesn't mean that they will pass up a marquee free agent if one should come their way, especially at WR. This latest number takes into account Kevin Johnson's voided contract.
5 Jacksonville Jaguars $19.113 M
Look for the Jags to be one of the big players in free agency this off-season. They have made it no secret that they covet a pass rusher as well as a big play wide receiver, and there should be players available for their liking. This number does take into account the franchise tag on Donovin Darius.
6 Arizona Cardinals $18.1716 M
What do you know? For a change, the Cardinals do not lead the league in cap space. That's because Dennis Green knows that you have to shell out the big bucks to win in the NFL. This year the team will be in the market for a starting QB as well as an every-down RB.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

Looks like joeshmo is right on with his figures.

 

[DieHardFromMO]

bump

I agree with ajcardfan, I would like to see a "sticky" for this thread.

Thanks for the time/effort joeshmo.

 

[Rats]

bump

I agree with ajcardfan, I would like to see a "sticky" for this thread.

Thanks for the time/effort joeshmo.

I agree....this is by far the the best thread for us this time of year. Thanks Joe...I can now replace the old one with this one. Sticky This!

 

[joeshmo]

Bumped, with updated trade of Starks cap info.

 

[arthurracoon]

Thanks Joe!

 

[ThunderCard]

I also vote for Sticky .. Maybe we could sticky message boards and salary cap on one big thread ??

 

[joeshmo]

Added the 3 players gained on the waiver today. Ned, Nelson, and Davis.

 

[kerouac9]

Added the 3 players gained on the waiver today. Ned, Nelson, and Davis.

They were in the top 51 salaries? Wow.

 

[joeshmo]

They were in the top 51 salaries? Wow.

Two of them were, but it also pushed two $230,000 salaries guys off.

 

[AntSports Steve]

joeshmo, the next time you edit the orginal message at the top, add something like this :

Cards 2005 Current Cap Space For Free Agents :
After the Ross Signing 3/04/2005 $13.9M

Many people have to scroll over (smaller settings) and don't see the total at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Plus, it says total for next year's cap. Maybe it should say the year so everyone knows exactly what's being talked about.

Thanks.

 

[daytripper]

Joeshmo
Thanks for your efforts.
While 18 m in cap space is enticing from a fans perspective I seriously doubt that the team should or could use it all.
Just because the credit limit, if you will, is set at a certain amount doesnt mean its prudent from a long term perspective to spend it all now. Although my wife certainly has an opposing view on this!
Secondly its been said that we were the only team in the league to lose money last year and until the cash flow turns green ( no pun intended) I dont see ownership going overboard.
My SWAG is that we'l bring in two or three more mid level FAs and start the season 6 to 8 M under the cap.

Hasta Luego
GBR 40

 

[joeshmo]

While 18 m in cap space is enticing from a fans perspective I seriously doubt that the team should or could use it all.
Just because the credit limit, if you will, is set at a certain amount doesnt mean its prudent from a long term perspective to spend it all now. Although my wife certainly has an opposing view on this!
Secondly its been said that we were the only team in the league to lose money last year and until the cash flow turns green ( no pun intended) I dont see ownership going overboard.
My SWAG is that we'l bring in two or three more mid level FAs and start the season 6 to 8 M under the cap.

I agree, thats how they have done it in the past.

Altough more then just two or three mid tiers guys can be signed and still have 5 mill in the bank. Thompson, Clement, Shelton, Bryant, Shuan King, and a few others are all on the block or will be traded saving us a pretty penny or two.

 

[AntSports Steve]

They had better not be 5 or 6 million under the cap. That's why they haven't been winning. Lack of getting good players.

Because they play in a shared stadium, they miss out on many revenue chances. They now have the new stadium almost complete. We have talked on several threads why the Cards need to win now so hey can make more money with the new stadium. If they suck, they will probably miss out on $40M worth of revenue.

Also, they had to pay their share of the stadium and cover any costs over budget. They have been saving money under the cap for the last 3 years getting ready for those expenses. So, even if they lost money last year, they saved up for it and were ready for it (you would hope).

With the profit built into the salary cap for the owners, IMHO, teams must spend to the cap, just to be fair to the fans and players. It's only right. Not spending is the same as not trying to win.

 

[daytripper]

They had better not be 5 or 6 million under the cap. That's why they haven't been winning. Lack of getting good players.

Because they play in a shared stadium, they miss out on many revenue chances. They now have the new stadium almost complete. We have talked on several threads why the Cards need to win now so hey can make more money with the new stadium. If they suck, they will probably miss out on $40M worth of revenue.

Also, they had to pay their share of the stadium and cover any costs over budget. They have been saving money under the cap for the last 3 years getting ready for those expenses. So, even if they lost money last year, they saved up for it and were ready for it (you would hope).

With the profit built into the salary cap for the owners, IMHO, teams must spend to the cap, just to be fair to the fans and players. It's only right. Not spending is the same as not trying to win.

I'm not sure that we can assume there is a profit for the Cards by spending to the cap as its an arbitrary limit based upon overall revenues not individual team revenues. I would suspect that the Cards earned several M less than the cap amount amount last season and for the last several seasons as well. So I dont believe that we can truly assume cap savings as profit or income for the team.

GBR 40

 

[ajcardfan]

I'm not sure that we can assume there is a profit for the Cards by spending to the cap as its an arbitrary limit based upon overall revenues not individual team revenues. I would suspect that the Cards earned several M less than the cap amount amount last season and for the last several seasons as well. So I dont believe that we can truly assume cap savings as profit or income for the team.

GBR 40

The cap total is based solely on TV revenue. So, the Cards have always earned more than the cap figure.

 

[AntSports Steve]

The cap includes all TV revenues, all ticket sales, NFL property monies (shirts, hats, all lisensed products), and a few other minor things. All that money is put into one huge pot and divided by 32 teams.

This year that total was $135.4 million. Each team gets that. The salary cap is 63.5% of that total. $135.4 * 63.5 = $85.5 million.

Now, the Cards actually do make less than the other teams, because even thought the ticket sales are included in the cap figure, only 50% of your home ticket sales goes towards the shared pot of cash.

So, say the Redskins have 100,000 seats sold for each of the 10 home games. That's 1 million seats. If they get an average of $50 per seat, that means they keep $25M and give $25 million towards the NFL pot.

Now the Cards have the lowest attendance, lets' say 40,000 per game. That's 400,000 seats and let's set the average seat price at $30. That's $12M. They keep $6M and give $6M towards the NFL pot.

So, when the NFL divides the pot, each team gets $X million. The Cards end up with $X + $6M, while the Redskins end up with $X + $25M.

The Cards are also screwed because they don't get much cash from the following non-shared revenue : parking, stadium naming rights, consessions, and luxury boxes (that's right, the revenue from the best seats is not shared and not included in the cap), and signage.

With the new stadium, the Cards will actually start getting some of this revenue and will slowly approach an equal fininacial footing with the other teams.

But, the NFLPA sees how much of that cash is not included in the cap formula and this next bargining session they will seek to get all this "extra" cash added into the formula. They might not get all of the revenue added in, but they will get a lot of it. That's why the cap is going to go sky high in 2007.

Anyway, the Cards have the cash to spend to the cap if they wish. They just don't have the on-hand cash to dish out huge signing bonuses. They have solved that problem by guarenteeing money or getting players to accept defered bonuses.

 

[Cards Czar]

Dam Steve I was getting this all together and you beat me to the punch.

Good work as always!!!!!!!!


Mike

 

[Shane]

The cap includes all TV revenues, all ticket sales, NFL property monies (shirts, hats, all lisensed products), and a few other minor things. All that money is put into one huge pot and divided by 32 teams.

This year that total was $135.4 million. Each team gets that. The salary cap is 63.5% of that total. $135.4 * 63.5 = $85.5 million.

Now, the Cards actually do make less than the other teams, because even thought the ticket sales are included in the cap figure, only 50% of your home ticket sales goes towards the shared pot of cash.

So, say the Redskins have 100,000 seats sold for each of the 10 home games. That's 1 million seats. If they get an average of $50 per seat, that means they keep $25M and give $25 million towards the NFL pot.

Now the Cards have the lowest attendance, lets' say 40,000 per game. That's 400,000 seats and let's set the average seat price at $30. That's $12M. They keep $6M and give $6M towards the NFL pot.

So, when the NFL divides the pot, each team gets $X million. The Cards end up with $X + $6M, while the Redskins end up with $X + $25M.

The Cards are also screwed because they don't get much cash from the following non-shared revenue : parking, stadium naming rights, consessions, and luxury boxes (that's right, the revenue from the best seats is not shared and not included in the cap), and signage.

With the new stadium, the Cards will actually start getting some of this revenue and will slowly approach an equal fininacial footing with the other teams.

But, the NFLPA sees how much of that cash is not included in the cap formula and this next bargining session they will seek to get all this "extra" cash added into the formula. They might not get all of the revenue added in, but they will get a lot of it. That's why the cap is going to go sky high in 2007.

Anyway, the Cards have the cash to spend to the cap if they wish. They just don't have the on-hand cash to dish out huge signing bonuses. They have solved that problem by guarenteeing money or getting players to accept defered bonuses.

:notworthy

As usual Steve you are a god send around here! You really should post more!

 

[AntSports Steve]

I post when I can, but I have my own website to run. If you are looking for a fantasy football league to play in, please give my site a try!

Steve --AntSports

 

[daytripper]

I post when I can, but I have my own website to run. If you are looking for a fantasy football league to play in, please give my site a try!

Steve --AntSports

Thanks for the capology lesson! While I was off base regarding cap vs revenue it still appears there are cash flow isuues re: bonuses etc. ALso the family must have had to dig into their reserves to front the stadium.
It was noted somewhere that we were the only team to lose money last year. If that were true and based upon the figures provided thats a swing in the 10s of mils.

GBR 40

 

[ajcardfan]

Thanks for the capology lesson! While I was off base regarding cap vs revenue it still appears there are cash flow isuues re: bonuses etc. ALso the family must have had to dig into their reserves to front the stadium.
It was noted somewhere that we were the only team to lose money last year. If that were true and based upon the figures provided thats a swing in the 10s of mils.

GBR 40

Two points:

1. It's my understanding ALL of the Cardinals portion of funding the stadium is in the form of loans. And, those loans will be repaid out of stadium revenue. Now, the Cardinals may have fronted some money for infrastructure and land around the stadium. That is possible.

2. The only "note" I've seen that the Cards lost money last season was by john h and, as far as I could tell, he was speculating. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt anything has even been published yet about last year. The last list I saw was for a season, or two, ago. On that list, the Cards were 16th in profit although they were last in revenue.

I "googled" it, and according to Forbes, the Cards did lose money:

 

[joeshmo]

Just so everyone knows I will update the spreadsheet sometime Monday once the Contracts are officially released on NFLPA for Warner, Ross, and Anderson.

 

[Cards Czar]

Thanks for the capology lesson! While I was off base regarding cap vs revenue it still appears there are cash flow isuues re: bonuses etc. ALso the family must have had to dig into their reserves to front the stadium.
It was noted somewhere that we were the only team to lose money last year. If that were true and based upon the figures provided thats a swing in the 10s of mils.

GBR 40

2004 Search Results

Rank Team Curt Val1 ($m) 1-Yr Val Chng (%) Debt/Val3 (%) Revenues ($mil) Operating Income4($mil)

23 Cincinnati Bengals 675 20 1 150 14.2

27 Oakland Raiders 624 8 8 149 26.1

28 San Diego Chargers 622 11 16 148 22.5

29 Indianapolis Colts 609 11 21 145 13.6

30 Minnesota Vikings 604 12 21 144 4.1

31 Atlanta Falcons 603 13 45 144 6.4

32 Arizona Cardinals 552 9 14 131 -4.9

 

[AntSports Steve]

You really can't tell from just 1 year what the Cardinals profit is. Why, because they had (or will have to) pay for their part of the Stadium. Orginally it was going to be $30 Million, but I know the stadium cost more than expected because of the late start. Also the NFL was loaning some money against visiting team revenue.

So, depending on how that works out, they can easily have a negative year cash flowwise.

The Cardinals have been around for what? a 80 years? I think on average they have been making a profit.