Do teams have to spend a certain % of the salary cap each year?

[Trace Pyott]

I was curious with the lack of signings so far and the somewhat large amount of cap space we have if there is a rule on how much a team has to spend in order to maintain league parity?    Also how long can a team allow their savings to roll over?  For instance there has to be a rule where a team can save 10m under cap for 10 yr and all of a sudden use that 100m in one year right?   

 

  While I'm here do you guys think that possibly Ballard knows luck isn't going to play or that something is wrong with him and that's why he isn't going full steam ahead on free agency?  I like building through the draft but the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both. I just think there has to be some reason why he hasn't went all in on offensive line when it's a no brainer. Could he be wanting to see how the new system works and if luck can get rid of the ball quicker and thus make the line look a lot better than it has with the horrible play calling of the past?  I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.  There has to be a reason right?

[Four2itus]

Calculated over a 4 year span.

[Superman]

No.

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/57076-can-the-colts-cap-be-rolled-over-into-next-year/

 

[TdungyW/12]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

No.

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/57076-can-the-colts-cap-be-rolled-over-into-next-year/

 

I thought they had to spend a certain amount of the cap space but allow some of to roll into next season.

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I thought they had to spend a certain amount of the cap space but allow some of to roll into next season.

It's a 4 year requirement, not a year to year requirement.  They could spend 75% one year, roll over that cap to the next and spend 95% of the cap that year.  As long as they spend like 90% of the cap over a 4 year period, it's fine.  Just take the salary cap over the past 4 years, add it together and that's the amount they have to spend during that span.  How much they spent last year is only a penalty if that spent amount plus the amoutn spent the three previous years does not equal the 90% of the sum of the (league wide) salary cap over that same 4 year span.

[csmopar]

35 minutes ago, Trace Pyott said:

I was curious with the lack of signings so far and the somewhat large amount of cap space we have if there is a rule on how much a team has to spend in order to maintain league parity?    Also how long can a team allow their savings to roll over?  For instance there has to be a rule where a team can save 10m under cap for 10 yr and all of a sudden use that 100m in one year right?   

 

  While I'm here do you guys think that possibly Ballard knows luck isn't going to play or that something is wrong with him and that's why he isn't going full steam ahead on free agency?  I like building through the draft but the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both. I just think there has to be some reason why he hasn't went all in on offensive line when it's a no brainer. Could he be wanting to see how the new system works and if luck can get rid of the ball quicker and thus make the line look a lot better than it has with the horrible play calling of the past?  I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.  There has to be a reason right?

your answer lies at this website

 

www.google.com

[Peterk2011]

43 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's a 4 year requirement, not a year to year requirement.  They could spend 75% one year, roll over that cap to the next and spend 95% of the cap that year.  As long as they spend like 90% of the cap over a 4 year period, it's fine.  Just take the salary cap over the past 4 years, add it together and that's the amount they have to spend during that span.  How much they spent last year is only a penalty if that spent amount plus the amoutn spent the three previous years does not equal the 90% of the sum of the (league wide) salary cap over that same 4 year span.

 

The rule is about cash spending. Not cap space. The two does not necessarily go hand in hand. For example signing bonus is distributed evenly for the entire length of the contract, while the whole amount counts toward the first year of the contract as cash spending.

 

Anyway, the point is, the Colts can roll over as much cap space for the next season as they want, there is no rule against that. The Jaguars few years ago at one point had more than 100 million dollars of cap space in rollover.

[OffensivelyPC]

28 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

The rule is about cash spending. Not cap space. The two does not necessarily go hand in hand. For example signing bonus is distributed evenly for the entire length of the contract, while the whole amount counts toward the first year of the contract as cash spending.

 

Anyway, the point is, the Colts can roll over as much cap space for the next season as they want, there is no rule against that. The Jaguars few years ago at one point had more than 100 million dollars of cap space in rollover.

The sentence that you bolded was merely the cap of what they could spend. That was the point I was making, the sentence after the bolded statement I thought was pretty much saying what you just said. But I wasn't going for specifics, I was more going for just generalities.

[Peterk2011]

5 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The sentence that you bolded was merely the cap of what they could spend. That was the point I was making, the sentence after the bolded statement I thought was pretty much saying what you just said. But I wasn't going for specifics, I was more going for just generalities.

 

Gotcha!

[Trace Pyott]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

your answer lies at this website

 

www.google.com

Yah I could spend god knows how long looking it up or ask colts fans about it and get an informed opinion and have an actual discussion.  Thanks for the amazing info. I bet you feel much better being a rude smart * for no reason. 

[Coltfreak]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

No.

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/57076-can-the-colts-cap-be-rolled-over-into-next-year/

 

It's a great question and one that probably needs to be stickied for the new members.  

 

These are the the type of learning threads that are important IMO. 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I thought they had to spend a certain amount of the cap space but allow some of to roll into next season.

 

They do, a certain 89% of the cap incash over a 4 year aggregate...

 

This one (4 year period) Is from 2017-2020 I think.

 

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

The rule is about cash spending. Not cap space. The two does not necessarily go hand in hand. For example signing bonus is distributed evenly for the entire length of the contract, while the whole amount counts toward the first year of the contract as cash spending.

 

Anyway, the point is, the Colts can roll over as much cap space for the next season as they want, there is no rule against that. The Jaguars few years ago at one point had more than 100 million dollars of cap space in rollover.

 

Exactly. They Colts have to spend 89% of the cap in cash over a 4 year period, or the league fines them the shortage amount and spreads in out amongst the players on the roster.

[SteelCityColt]

6 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

They do, a certain 89% of the cap incash over a 4 year aggregate...

 

This one (4 year period) Is from 2017-2020 I think.

 

 

Exactly. They Colts have to spend 89% of the cap in cash over a 4 year period, or the league fines them the shortage amount and spreads in out amongst the players on the roster.

 

Wasn't aware that the fine went to the players until now. That seems like a very logical way of doing things. Surely though,  in the era of capologistics, no team should fail to spend the correct amount? 

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Wasn't aware that the fine went to the players until now. That seems like a very logical way of doing things. Surely though,  in the era of capologistics, no team should fail to spend the correct amount? 

 

I agree, it appears to be a non-issue over the previous 9 years, don't expect any over the next few. We'll see...