There is an incentive. If you don't spend to it, you can never go over it. Thus, never having to pay money out of pocket.
I don't get your logic. You can't spend over the cap unless you get DPs. So that would seem pretty avoidable. The only other way you could spend over the cap is if a player gets injured and is placed on the IR list. In this case, I think ownership pays the salary. But how often does that happen?
You can spend over the cap with allocation money and such as well. Ironically, the Revs just use that to pay down their already low base. They don't want to ever be anywhere near the cap incase they have injuries so they can add some mid salary scraps in the middle of the season. They also have wiggle room every year to do their typical July/August signings to spray water on the deck fire and quell fan unrest by signing some aging international veteran, and be able to fit him under the cap so they don't have to pay out of pocket just to keep fans "happy" It's happened twice in the past two years.
What other teams? Chivas? Most teams spend to the cap almost every year, including us. We've had 3 or 4 years in the past decade in which it would appear we didn't quite get there, but last year wasn't one of those years. We had 3.1 million in salary and allocation on the books.
2009 and 2010 they were at 2.7 and 2.9 respectively, and that was with Taylor Twellman's salary on the cap. 2008 they were at 2.2, but I don't remember what the cap was. 2.5? Last year the only reason they got up to the cap is because they did their typical midseason desperation "gotta save season tickets for next year" international signings.
Allocation money and salary budget come from the same place. An owner cant pocket allocation money. I swear to god there are some idiots on here that think Kraft just pocketed the Demsey alocation, lol. That's not possible. Very true, but several other teams do this as well. If you spend to the cap in January, you can't just add a player as a DP in July. You still need 100-300k available in cap space or allocation. Where's that money going to come from? If you drop paYers, you'd need to drop up to 600k in salaries to open up 300k in cap space (you only get half the dropped salaries back). What LA and Portland (loading their salary budget in January) are doing this year isn't normal. Look at past years. Its rarely happened. Its happening now because of CCL and the new playoffs format which rewards teams for better regular season performance. Its more important now to be in the top 2 and the top 6 than it ever has been. Teams feel like they need to win and they need to win now.
I didn't say he pocketed the allocation money. I swear to god there are some idiots on here that can't even read. hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha That's right, you gotta SAVE the money for when your team is fighting for last place and you need to placate the fanbase so you don't lose all of your season ticket holders. I'm not just talking about what happens in January. I was using last year as an example, because those signings were not made to be competitive. They were made to save a desperate coach, and a desperate management trying to quell fan desperation. The point is, they've rarely spent to the cap. In 2007 they only spent something like 1.7 of the 2.3 million dollar cap. They left almost 25% of the cap unused. You keep throwing it out there that they almost always spend to the cap, and it is patently false.
This has been the attitude in the league forever. You want to field a competitive team in March, but you want to leave room for one or two additions in August so that you can make a successful playoff run. There's no way you have enough information to calculate how much of the salary budget any team has spend in any given year. You can estimate, but it's impossible to tell. I take my data from a source online that listed total team salaries for the last two years. In the last two years, we have spent over the cap. My guess is that this has happened because we had players sitting out the season injured, but half their salary is still charged against the budget. Meanwhile, we have players being dropped in the summer, with half of their salaries still counting against the budget.
Ok, so you admit that your declarative definitive lectures to us about the salary cap are all just based on conjecture. That's good to know that you just destroyed your own credibility. Now I have a reason to not listen to you scolding anyone about the salary cap anymore.
Um. No. We've spent over the cap the last two years. That's based on a NY Times article that listed all the team's salary budget usage in the last two years.
Which is strange considering that Burns/Bilello admitted prior to the 2011 season that they hadn't spent everything in 2010 (but they had in '09).
Probably had something to do with the fact that the NY Times article listed salary data for July, and we dumped Twellman's salary that summer, leaving a huge hole in the fall.
Oh, really? When was the last time I started a lecture on the salary cap? There you go again saying things just to say them and hoping some people take them as truth.
I've offered explanations many times. I think there are basically 2 reasons - one makes sense, IMO, and the other represents a failing operation: - they want to save room to add a player(s) during the season - they've often been unable to find/sign a player(s) to use that space on Which goes back to the simple explanation - they don't spend to the cap because they want to save some space for a potential mid/late season move. And, that's got nothing to do with being cheap. So, people should stop using that as evidence to support their own supposition that he is. I'm not the one that moved them! That whole argument arose out of someone's taking Kraft's reason for not investing in the EPL and trying to use it to explain how he runs his MLS franchise.
I sourced my data from a reputable news paper. You're just pissy because you've been saying for years that the Revs don't spend the cap and that's evidence of them being cheap. I'm saying, factually, you're wrong. There is no financial incentive not to spend the full budget + allocation money. This isn't up for debate. EDIT: The Revs are cheap because they refuse to pay money for a competent FO, GM, DP, and/or extensive youth academy. I only started lecturing when you blatantly avoided the hard facts.
Just noticed this on the BBC website... Mike Grella leaves Brentford after contract terminated bbc.co.uk Viable option? I've no idea if he's any good or not nor if some MLS team already has his rights.
The credibility of your only "source" was refuted by the following poster. The only one pissy in this thread is you. You get a hair across your ass anytime someone says they don't spend to the cap. There is no "factual" proof that you have provided. As you even said before, your entire premise is based on conjecture and assumptions. Yet, you come on here and lecture people daily on this topic of the salary cap. Even though you have no proof what-so-ever. There are no "hard facts" only your assumptions based on conjecture. You are taking a few snippets from online articles, and passing them off as gospel. No wonder the newspapers are still in business, they have people like you who still read them and believe every word they say.