Restructuring contracts

[ZootMurph]

Happens all the time in the NFL. Not available in FOF. Any plans to add it?

Just to explain:

Renegotiating is negotiating ANOTHER contract with a player.
Restructuring is keeping the same contract and same bonus, but changing the salary payout to allow a team to remain 'cap friendly'. The player isn't losing money or guarantees, just helping his team in relation to the cap.

For example, I have a player with this left on his current contract:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $13,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000

This year (YR1), I need a little under $2M in cap space to sign my 1st round draft choice. This guy will only accept a deal where I add $12M more to bonus money, give him minimum wage this year, then inflate the hell out of the next 3 years. So I'll continue to have future cap trouble if I renegotiate. However, if this player was willing to RESTRUCTURE his deal, I could easily take $3M off this year's salary and add $1M to each of the last 3 years... This won't kill my cap (I have a couple of aging players with very large contracts which will expire next year), and will save me space for this year.

For game playability, a contract could only be restructured one time, and no renegotiations will be possible (except during a holdout of course). Restructuring would depend on the player's Loyalty and Desire to Win. Just because I CAN do it, doesn't mean it will definitely happen.

[sovereignstar]

Isn't what you're asking for a cap out deal, which is in the game?

[QuikSand]

Players are generally pretty willing to trade off current year salary for bonus, like you describe. The "cap out" is just to extreme version of the same, where all the salary from the current year possible is converted to bonus and stretched out over the current contract's duration.

Not sure where you reached the conclusion this is "Not available in FOF." Cap outs especially happen all the time in FOF, and are (I believe) always accepted by the player (and why wouldn't they be).

[JetsIn06]

Happens all the time in the NFL. Not available in FOF. Any plans to add it?

Just to explain:

Renegotiating is negotiating ANOTHER contract with a player.
Restructuring is keeping the same contract and same bonus, but changing the salary payout to allow a team to remain 'cap friendly'. The player isn't losing money or guarantees, just helping his team in relation to the cap.

For example, I have a player with this left on his current contract:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $13,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000

This year (YR1), I need a little under $2M in cap space to sign my 1st round draft choice. This guy will only accept a deal where I add $12M more to bonus money, give him minimum wage this year, then inflate the hell out of the next 3 years. So I'll continue to have future cap trouble if I renegotiate. However, if this player was willing to RESTRUCTURE his deal, I could easily take $3M off this year's salary and add $1M to each of the last 3 years... This won't kill my cap (I have a couple of aging players with very large contracts which will expire next year), and will save me space for this year.

For game playability, a contract could only be restructured one time, and no renegotiations will be possible (except during a holdout of course). Restructuring would depend on the player's Loyalty and Desire to Win. Just because I CAN do it, doesn't mean it will definitely happen.

Yea dude...Quiksand has it right. I guess it's possible, but what player would give up 3 million this year and take it in 1 million chunks over the next 3? For one, it doesn't make sense financially for the player. Secondly, they take it now because they know they could get cut/injured before that "restructured" money kicks in.

It's converting base salary to bonus that will help save you money, and that's what Quik is saying.

[bmerryman]

Restructuring doesn't exist is FOF. New signing bonus money is the only carrot you can use to lower the impact on your current season's cap. It would be a nice wrinkle to add in the future though - roster bonus too.

[stevew]

The next one desperately needs roster bonus, or at least simply the ability to frontload the contract as much as possible with money in the first year.

And it needs to fix the annoying thing where a guy wants something like.....

3 year 3m bonus, salaries of 800k, 2.5m, 3.5m. And you offer a 2m bonus with salaries of 1.8m, 2.5m, 3.5m..... basically the same damn contract.

Anyways the ability to offer roster bonus, or even to just guarantee base salaries for future years would be huge to me in the next version, as well as the ability to take salary hits all in one year, instead of everything being essentially a june 1 cut.

As to the issue, yes it would be nice if there was a way to restructure which would be in between the capout, and a new contract. I've many times had to cap out a guy just to free up a couple mill in salary space(wasting cap money and pushing it forward), vs just being able to free up that money(2m) alone.

Or the capout-new year thing the skins use quite a bit. "I cap out 6m of your salary this year, and instead of splitting it among the 3 years left on your deal, I add 3 more fake years with huge salary numbers and split it among 6"

[Vinatieri for Prez]

3 year 3m bonus, salaries of 800k, 2.5m, 3.5m. And you offer a 2m bonus with salaries of 1.8m, 2.5m, 3.5m..... basically the same damn contract.



Basically, that's not the same contract. Not even close. It's 1 million less in guaranteed/bonus money. The player can't assume you will keep him the first year.

I would like to see roster bonuses and guaranteed salaries though.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As for the initial thread starter, I really don't see what the problem is. As already stated, why would a player give up any money he will get in the current season and push it to future seasons. Doesn't make sense. And I would like to hear the examples of when "it happens all the time in the NFL." Perhaps you see it with some old vet who is basically told take this restructuring or we will cut you (but I can't see that sort of situation being replicated in FOF). But I think zoot is confusing things with the cap out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The player isn't losing money or guarantees, just helping his team in relation to the cap.



I would argue that under the initial example, the player actually is losing money and guarantees. If you assume he is likely to play in the current season, he is giving up $3 million in guarantees.

[ZootMurph]

I would argue that under the initial example, the player actually is losing money and guarantees. If you assume he is likely to play in the current season, he is giving up $3 million in guarantees.

Actually, he's giving up $3M in salary, not guaranteed money (bonus money is the only money guaranteed). Using the word 'guarantees' in a different context is not an argument, but is instead a changing of the meaning of the premise as a means to create a nonexistent argument.

To sovereignstar, QuikSand, and Jetsin06... My point is that I really have no control over any cap out deal being made. Capping out basically reduces your current year and throws you to the wolves for the future years. In the case I posted, capping out this offer takes me down to about $10.5M in the first year cap hit, but the next 3 are $29M, $32M, $35M. These are estimates from what I remember. So, I only need to save $3M on the upcoming year, not $9M, and I am losing $7M in cap space in the 2nd and 3rd years, and $8M in the final year... which is ridiculous IMO. So, if I offer a reasonable 'cap out' deal, it isn't going to be accepted, even with added bonus money.

Finally, a restructure could also add additional bonus money to sweeten the deal... but the entire point is to have a big name player that wants to win WORK WITH HIS TEAM to help them get there. I can see a 150 year old guy like Brett Favre not caring about his team after the current year and throwing them to the wolves with cap issues... but not a 5th year guy who expects to be with the team for several more years and wants to be in a winning situation.

[QuikSand]

I don't think your initial statement is true, that in the NFL "all the time" players are willing to trade off salary this year for *salary* in future years. It's just not the nature of renegotiations, or restructurings, or whatever you want to call it. I think most players who have any leverage at all are willing to make a now-for-later trade *only* if their future cap-year considerations are guaranteed, meaning bonus or other guaranteed money.

[zbuckley]

The next one desperately needs roster bonus, or at least simply the ability to frontload the contract as much as possible with money in the first year.



This would make MP so much more interesting. When you have a bunch of cap room currently there's no effective way to use it.

[Celeval]

Capping out basically reduces your current year and throws you to the wolves for the future years. In the case I posted, capping out this offer takes me down to about $10.5M in the first year cap hit, but the next 3 are $29M, $32M, $35M. These are estimates from what I remember.

Then you're remembering wrong, or looking at the renegotiation, not the Cap Out button.

Cap out is a static formula - current year goes to minimum salary, future salaries stay the same, difference between current year + minimum salary goes to bonus. So your guy's capout would be:

YR1 - $13,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000

to
+$12,000,00 bonus
YR1 - $ 1,730,000 - $6,030,000 + $3,000,000 bonus
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000 + $3,000,000 bonus
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000 + $3,000,000 bonus
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000 + $3,000,000 bonus

(of course, I don't know what your minsal is, so I made it a nice, easy number for the math. :) )

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, he's giving up $3M in salary, not guaranteed money (bonus money is the only money guaranteed). Using the word 'guarantees' in a different context is not an argument, but is instead a changing of the meaning of the premise as a means to create a nonexistent argument.


Yeah, thanks for the lesson. :rolleyes: No one here is "arguing" but you. The point still stands. The restructuring you are suggesting is simply flat out and bad deal for the player. And I am willing to guess rarely happens in the NFL. I would also point out that most players and agents in the NFL consider first year salary to be pretty much guaranteed if they are a good player because they are going to not get cut in the current season, and if they do they will pick it up on th next contract, so in essence you are indeed asking the player to give up "for practical purposes" a $3 million guarantee in the first year. You theory that it shouldn't be considered a guarantee is complete crap because if you are treating that way, then you should just be cutting the guy anyways instead of restructuring. But because you are interested in restructuring, he must be good and hence the salary he is making now is for all intents and purposes guaranteed with you or the next team that picks him up if you were to cut him. Stop trying to ignore the realities of the NFL in your posts.

[Cody Tanner]

The restructuring you are suggesting is simply flat out and bad deal for the player.

Help me understand this part.

The numbers given were:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $13,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000

and OP wants to make it:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $10,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $7,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $7,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $7,030,000

So if we assume that the first year is largely guaranteed (and I agree that it is) then the deal is neutral for the player and positive for the team. In the first, the player is getting 37,850,000 in guaranteed money and in the second the number is the same.

I can think of a similar example from the NFL this past year. It deals with Roster bonuses (something that def needs to be implimented) but it's still a neutral player/positive team deal.

Before the season, Peyton Manning agree to convert his 8 mil roster bonus to a signing bonus. He was still promised the same amount of money, but the Colts were able to spread it over the next 4 years and not take that hit all at once.

I can't see an issue with what OP is proposing, except that it's already in the game.

Cody

[sovereignstar]

Help me understand this part.

The numbers given were:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $13,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $6,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $6,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $6,030,000

and OP wants to make it:

Salary/Bonus
YR1 - $10,730,000 - $6,030,000
YR2 - $16,270,000 - $7,030,000
YR3 - $18,870,000 - $7,030,000
YR4 - $20,860,000 - $7,030,000

So if we assume that the first year is largely guaranteed (and I agree that it is) then the deal is neutral for the player and positive for the team. In the first, the player is getting 37,850,000 in guaranteed money and in the second the number is the same.

I can think of a similar example from the NFL this past year. It deals with Roster bonuses (something that def needs to be implimented) but it's still a neutral player/positive team deal.

Before the season, Peyton Manning agree to convert his 8 mil roster bonus to a signing bonus. He was still promised the same amount of money, but the Colts were able to spread it over the next 4 years and not take that hit all at once.

I can't see an issue with what OP is proposing, except that it's already in the game.

Cody

He doesn't want to add any bonus to the deal. He wants to take 3 million in current salary and spread it over years 2-4.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

He doesn't want to add any bonus to the deal. He wants to take 3 million in current salary and spread it over years 2-4.

Correct. Cody, everything you say is correct, however, that isn't what was proposed in the first post.

[Cody Tanner]

Correct. Cody, everything you say is correct, however, that isn't what was proposed in the first post.

Haha whoops. My fault, I read "add 3M to the last three years" as meaning bonus, not salary (partly because I thought that was obvious :D ).

[QuikSand]

I just did a spot check, and all six players to whom I offered a "partial capout" offer immediately accepted it. So, it certainly seems that this works exactly was one would expect -- players are perfectly willing to accept a trade of current year salary for bonus, whether it's a full capout or just some share of the current salary.

[stevew]

Wow, nice catch Quik. I've played hundreds of seasons, and never even though to try that.

[Cody Tanner]

I just did a spot check, and all six players to whom I offered a "partial capout" offer immediately accepted it. So, it certainly seems that this works exactly was one would expect -- players are perfectly willing to accept a trade of current year salary for bonus, whether it's a full capout or just some share of the current salary.

It gets better, my players will often take a pay cut just to convert some later salary to bonus. That's not shocking, but what is shocking is the rate at which they'll give up money.

I had a player, well call him D. Freeney, no that's too specific, let's call him Dwight F.
Anyway, Dwight F. had a very big contract that read something like:

Y1-5,000,000 2,500,000
Y2-7,000,000 2,500,000
Y3-9,000,000 2,500,000
Y4-12,000,000 2,500,000

and I was messing around with contracts and offered him a "restructuring bonus" of:

Bonus: 10,000,000
Y1-900,000
Y2-900,000
Y3-900,000
Y4-1,000,000

so his deal became:

Y1-900,000 5,000,000
Y2-900,000 5,000,000
Y3-900,000 5,000,000
Y4-1,000,000 5,000,000

and he accepted it without question.

He gave up a ton of cash in the later years to lock up some money now. It borders on insane.

In my mind there's a translation mechanism that weights later year salary less then sooner-year salary in terms of willingness to convert to bonus money up front, but no matter the multiplier that deal was nuts. And before you ask, neither his "Loyalty" or "Wants Winner" were so high that it would make sense.

[ZootMurph]

I just did a spot check, and all six players to whom I offered a "partial capout" offer immediately accepted it. So, it certainly seems that this works exactly was one would expect -- players are perfectly willing to accept a trade of current year salary for bonus, whether it's a full capout or just some share of the current salary.

Thanks for figuring this out for me, QuikSand. I appreciate it.

[Synovia]

Restructuring doesn't exist is FOF. New signing bonus money is the only carrot you can use to lower the impact on your current season's cap. It would be a nice wrinkle to add in the future though - roster bonus too.


Restructuring doesn't exist in the NFL either. When players "restructure" they ALWAYS either get more total money, or more bonus money.

[Synovia]

. I would also point out that most players and agents in the NFL consider first year salary to be pretty much guaranteed if they are a good player because they are going to not get cut in the current season,

With veterans, current year salary IS guaranteed.

[ZootMurph]

Restructuring doesn't exist in the NFL either. When players "restructure" they ALWAYS either get more total money, or more bonus money.

Not ALWAYS. It depends mostly on the agent. I can specifically think of one agent who has had 3 restructuring deals in the past 6 years with no bonus money involved. It has little to do with the player, and everything to do with the agent... the agent doesn't make money if the player isn't making more when the restructure. Very few agents will 'work for free', even after having made tons of cash in the initial deal.

Seriously, does an extra $3M mean anything when the guy has a $70M contract? Not to the player, it doesn't... only to the agent. But there are a couple of young agents who somehow got big players and do whatever they can to put their players in the right situation, including reworking a deal for free. When I say "a couple", I mean literally 2 that I know of.

Unfortunately, like you, I don't have EVERY DEAL that EVERY agent has made, so I don't know if there are more... but I doubt it.

[gstelmack]

Restructuring doesn't exist in the NFL either. When players "restructure" they ALWAYS either get more total money, or more bonus money.

Two Words: Randy Moss.

[Synovia]

Before the season, Peyton Manning agree to convert his 8 mil roster bonus to a signing bonus. He was still promised the same amount of money, but the Colts were able to spread it over the next 4 years and not take that hit all at once.

I can't see an issue with what OP is proposing, except that it's already in the game.

Cody

Peyton accepted a Cap Out. A roster bonus is, for all intents and purposes, salary. He gave up 8M of salary, and added 2M to each of the next 4 years.


Peyton accepts that, because in the real world, he gets more money. Guaranteed money is worth more than salary. YOu can't just push back the cap hit for something, which is what the OP is suggesting. If he increases bonus money, 1/4th (or 1/years left) HAS TO hit this year. Those are the rules the NFL play by, and the rules this game should play by. You can't just push money back a year.


The issue hes having is that the player is BETTER (or more valuable) than when he was initially signed, so in order to renegotiate, he wants to be paid his market value. Thats how it works in the NFL.

[Synovia]

Two Words: Randy Moss.

Okay, "restructuring" only exists in the case of players who would have been cut if they weren't traded first.



And Randy didn't restructure, in all reality. He cut years off a deal he had already received all of the bonus money for, in order to get a new deal. Again, he made more money out of this than had the raiders paid him the whole deal.

[QuikSand]

Two Words: Randy Moss.

Is that a perfect example? Work out of a multi-year deal in order to go to a good team, redo your contract to one flat year, and then you get to hit free agency. Plus, I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't an agreed-to reneg part of NE's condition for trading for him in the first place?

I know what you're saying -- but FOF *generally* does a pretty good job factoring in the value of open-market free agency into the player's decision-making -- witness the logic for accepting rookie contracts (which seems to baffle many people, but really makes a good deal of sense).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

With veterans, current year salary IS guaranteed.

Not entirely true. Veterans only have a once in a career option to get their current year's salary as guaranteed money if they get cut. But effectively, yes, for a veteran on his last legs only anticipating veteran minimum contracts the rest of his career, he can sleep soundly that his current year's salary is guaranteed. When you factor in that good players always will have people lining up to sign them, I think it is accurate to state that for practical effect, every player in the NFL has guaranteed salary in the current year of their contract unless they are washed up or a young scrub.

[bmerryman]

Restructuring doesn't exist in the NFL either. When players "restructure" they ALWAYS either get more total money, or more bonus money.

Teams ask some players to take pay cuts. Performance incentives seem to be a common tactic.

"Under the new agreement, Pennington, who was scheduled to pocket a $3 million roster bonus this month, and earn a $6 million base salary for 2006, will drop his total compensation from $9 million to a guaranteed $3 million. But the contract also provides Pennington the ability to earn back $6 million if he is healthy again and reaches certain predetermined performance levels."