arvydas1221 wrote:Sacramento has signed Marvin Williams to an offer sheet
Yr 1 13,095,238
Yr 2 12,047,619
Yr 3 11,000,000
Yr 4 9,952,380
Yr 5 8,904,761
Modern_epic wrote:The decreases allowed in a contract follow the same formula as the increases, so no, neither of those are allowed.
yr 1 13,095,238
yr 2 13,095,238 dived by 1.08 = 12.125,220
yr 3 13,095,238 dived by 1.16 = 11,288,998
yr 4 13,095,238 dived by 1.24 = 10,560,675
yr 5 13,095,238 dived by 1.32 = 9,920,634
therefor i believe this signing is invalid
Are you sure that it's divided by 1.08; or is it multiplied by 0.92 which is what was originally done for the signing.
13,095,238 x 0.08 (8%) = 1,047,619 (that's an 8% decrease from year 1 to year 2)
13,095,238 - 1,047,619 = 12,047,619 (which agrees with the contract that he has been offered in the first place)
-Another way to look at it is when you multiply by 1.08 for an increase; you are multiplying the contract x (1.08/1; which is 8%)
-But when you divide; ( and you multiply by 0.92, contract x 0.92/1, which is -8%; but if you divide the contract by 1.08, you get contract x 1/1.08, which is about 7.4%)
-I'm not 100% certain either way, but that's how we got the salaries for the signing.
I looked at Ronny Turiaf's contract on shamsports.com; 08/09 = 4,500,000; and 09/10 = 4,140,000
4,500,000 x 0.92 = 4,140,000
4,500,000/1.08 = 4,166,667
-So I think that multiplying it by 0.92 is correct since it works for Turiaf's contract; and if we were to divide by 1.08 than Turiaf would have signed an illegal deal since it would be more than an 8% decrease.