But that is the argument I have.. I don't think there is a gap as you think there is.. maybe.. but I haven't read anything to that effect.
"pack93z" wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by a gap. On the 3rd of January, 2010:
You can sign a player to whatever the hell you want to sign him for.
That is how things stand.
"dfosterf" wrote:
Where are you getting that date from?
This 2009 season continues until the 2010 season begins.. just because payroll will end on the final week of the regular season, I don't believe the 2009 NFL season expires on this day. Contracts don't expire until after the league calendar ends..
The gap I am talking about is the accounting gap..
"pack93z" wrote:
(beating head to a pulp against computer)
Ask yourself this question.
If the last day to sign a player under the 2009 salary cap is the 2nd of January (which it is) What happens if you sign him on the 3rd of January?
"dfosterf" wrote:
LOL..
Yes.. it can't be applied to the 2009 cap.. however.. the CBA doesn't expire on the 2nd of Jan.. so any contract signed would carry forward to the 2010 season right.
So.. the league calendar year is still in play through the end of the playoffs.. so it still operates under the 2009 rules.. which include a cap.
So if the Union and league agree to extend the CBA between that and the start of the 2010 league calendar and accounting season.. any contract would be carried forth.
In other words.. until the 2010 league calendar begins.. there is a cap structure in place..
"pack93z" wrote:
One thing you need to understand about those dates.
On that final Sunday of the regular season, you could sign a guy and go as high over the cap as you wanted to FOR the NEXT YEAR. You were not required to be in compliance with the following year's cap in any way until February 27th (that changes slightly, but that is within a day or so)
Not because of the league year, but because that is the day (27th of Feb) that the Veteran Free Agency begins. That has always been the rule, and without a cap, there will be no requirement to comply, and further, they could not enforce a "new" cap on signings that occur, because that would in fact be retroactive, because they would be changing the circumstances under which the contract(s) were signed. e.g. - We sign everyone on the 3rd of Jan with no impending cap limit on the 27th of Feb, but then they say there is a new one after the fact? Couldn't even do that legally...the player's themselves could take them to court. What could the NFL try and do, void the contracts?
Also important as to the "why" behind the 27th of Feb to get "into compliance"
The 19th of Feb is the deadline to designate franchise and transition players, but then...
Feb. 26 -- Deadline for submission of qualifying offers by clubs to their restricted free agents whose contracts have expired and to whom they desire to retain a right of first refusal/compensation.
Feb. 26 -- Deadline for clubs to submit offer of minimum salary to retain exclusive negotiating rights to their players with fewer than three seasons of free-agency credit whose contracts have expired.
Feb. 27 -- Free agency begins. Trading period begins.
It kept teams from designating everyone they could, to a degree---You couldn't just spend will-nilly and figure it out later...Now you can, lol (Notice how everyone is planiing on "eating up" all those "tags" this year? They are not required to figure out how to do so and get under the cap..
As far as the links go. This is all extrapolating from the 2009 season.
I don't think the links exist yet for 2010. The Jan 2nd date is from a Brandt article that I published (somewhere) in here, the 26th and 27th of Feb dates are from "Wiki"--I forget...it's as confusing as the upcoming season. I am basing my "position" on what is known now. I know the league (and media) are saying that the uncapped year starts in March, but I don't think they ever made any provisions for it "in practice". The way it stands right now, from what information is publicly available..."in practice" means after the last Saturday of THIS year...Brandt (for example, usually "best" example) has stated they made NO accounting provisions for 2010 and the cap--this is what I am attempting to convey.
btw--Remember, there is a 30% rule in effect going into 2010...so when I say "whatever the hell they want to sign him for" -- that is true in the cumulative, but not in the singular---
When we start thinking about waiting to sign these guys and what possibilities exist as to why, remember that rule too, not just the potential to get a new CBA.