sydney article about why TT won't spend [Archive]

red

03-20-2007, 02:13 PM

anyone have the packer insider article from harry sydney?

its suppose to talk about why he thinks TT won't spend money

i was interested by the title, but then they wanted money

anyone read it?

ND72

03-20-2007, 04:01 PM

I don't have the article, but listening to the radio today I picked up on something kind of important. Under the new CBA, all NFL teams MUST use 85% of their salary cap. According to the radio, Ted Thompson would have to spend $10 million dollars, not including the rookie money, in order to reach that number. if he doesn't, the league can fine the team the amount they did not use.

red

03-20-2007, 04:05 PM

I don't have the article, but listening to the radio today I picked up on something kind of important. Under the new CBA, all NFL teams MUST use 85% of their salary cap. According to the radio, Ted Thompson would have to spend $10 million dollars, not including the rookie money, in order to reach that number. if he doesn't, the league can fine the team the amount they did not use.

patler has pointed out that the team has until the end of the year to do that though, meaning a year from now

so that should be no problem, they can either pick guys up, or use the cap money on bonuses for our own guys

but by my numbers we're pretty close to that cap floor already, like just 5 million below or so

but that cap floor is something i brough up before talking about the woodson signing last year. if it wasn't for signing woodson and taking the brunt of the cap hit last season, we would have barely been over the floor

ND72

03-20-2007, 04:06 PM

which, is why i wonder why we don't do a Barnett deal, get that done, and get our numbers "ok"....

red

03-20-2007, 04:12 PM

which, is why i wonder why we don't do a Barnett deal, get that done, and get our numbers "ok"....

well, we do have a whole year

who knows, maybe tt is saving all that money in case all our players get hurt this year and we have to replace the whole team midway through the season

Bretsky

03-20-2007, 06:11 PM

which, is why i wonder why we don't do a Barnett deal, get that done, and get our numbers "ok"....

well, we do have a whole year

who knows, maybe tt is saving all that money in case all our players get hurt this year and we have to replace the whole team midway through the season

:laugh: :laugh: :doh: :doh:

MJZiggy

03-20-2007, 06:20 PM

Hey, it happened in '05. :cry:

retailguy

03-20-2007, 06:31 PM

Hey, it happened in '05. :cry:

No it didn't! That was a mirage. Just ask anyone around here.

Merlin

03-20-2007, 06:47 PM

Hey, it happened in '05. :cry:

No it didn't! That was a mirage. Just ask anyone around here.

'05 was under the old agreement wasn't it? Maybe it wasn't a provision then????

Bretsky

03-20-2007, 06:58 PM

anyone have the packer insider article from harry sydney?

its suppose to talk about why he thinks TT won't spend money

i was interested by the title, but then they wanted money

anyone read it?

Where is this article ? I have ESPN Insider and Packer Insider on JS and do not see anything.

retailguy

03-20-2007, 07:03 PM

Hey, it happened in '05. :cry:

No it didn't! That was a mirage. Just ask anyone around here.

'05 was under the old agreement wasn't it? Maybe it wasn't a provision then????

The only "problem" with 2005 was that Sherman was still the coach and he was "forced" to play with the players he drafted. Injuries just happen. Didn't happen to the Packers any worse than any other team. :roll:

red

03-20-2007, 08:08 PM

i have 10 responses to this thread and i still don't have the freaking article

:roll:

Patler

03-20-2007, 09:42 PM

but that cap floor is something i brough up before talking about the woodson signing last year. if it wasn't for signing woodson and taking the brunt of the cap hit last season, we would have barely been over the floor

Naw, they would have met the minimum easily, even without signing Woodson. By the end of the season they reportedly had less than a million dollars of cap space remaining.

Patler

03-20-2007, 09:44 PM

Hey, it happened in '05. :cry:

No it didn't! That was a mirage. Just ask anyone around here.

'05 was under the old agreement wasn't it? Maybe it wasn't a provision then????

There was a minimum in the old CBA but it was a lower percentage, so never really was talked about very often.

Bretsky

03-20-2007, 10:16 PM

i have 10 responses to this thread and i still don't have the freaking article

:roll:

2nd request

Where the heck is this article ? I have PI on JS and it's not there. I'll hack and paste if I can find it

GrnBay007

03-20-2007, 10:33 PM

i have 10 responses to this thread and i still don't have the freaking article

:roll:

Give them a raise, they will work harder for you! :D