Current rule: 14.10 - The salary of a player with a multi-year contract of no more than four years will increase one million per every additional year. For example, a player with an initial salary of $500k signed to a four year contract will have salaries of $500k, $1.5 million, $2.5 million, and $3.5 million during the four years.
Proposed rule: In addition to above: The salary of a player with a multi-year contract of no more than 3 years (and whose starting salary is no more than 500k) will increase 500k for every additional year. For example, a player with an initial salary of $500k (or less) signed to no more than a 3-year contract will have salaries of $500k, $1 million, $1.5 million during the three years. The current rule would continue to apply to players whose starting salary is more than 500k
My rationale for this change is to allow teams to retain useful backup and mid-range players for more than 1 or 2 years before they're cut. There is a lot of turnover of lower salaried players who are recycled because their contracts become prohibitive. A player who starts at .3k or .5k typically isn't worth 2.3k or 2.5k after 3 years. However, they might be retained for $1M or $1.5M. Very few kickers, for example, are kept more than 1 or 2 years because they become unrealistically priced.
I thought last year or the year before, someone mentioned that if a rule amendment fails, it can't be brought up again for at least a year. It didn't pass and I was glad it didn't pass.
I thought last year or the year before, someone mentioned that if a rule amendment fails, it can't be brought up again for at least a year. It didn't pass and I was glad it didn't pass.
I cannot find anything in the Rule Book that states that. Amending the Rule Book The Rule Book may not be altered except by amendment, or to codify or clarify procedures already in place. During the league business period preceding each season, owners are encouraged to suggest any changes and/or clarifications to the rulebook via the forum. Any amendment getting the support of three other owners shall be placed before the membership for a vote. Members are required to cast either a Yes or No vote on all amendments. Abstention is not permitted. A 2/3rds approval of the active membership is required for passage of all amendments.
There was a proposal two years ago that if an Amendment passed, the rule change would be left in place for a minimum of a year. That proposal didn't make it to the voting stage I think.
