|
The difference in the numbers is related to when the budget surplus exists.
For example, if you have a $100M budget and have spent $75M for the current year, you could spend $25M on FA for the current year. In the same scenario, if your contractual obligations for next year were $100M, you wouldn’t have any room for extensions. The reason is that extensions wouldn’t kick in until the next year.
I find myself in the reverse situation more frequently. For example, with the same $100M budget, I’ll often have no room for FA because I’ve spent all $100M. Because I prefer shorter contracts, I’ll often have several expiring at the end of a given season, and thus I might have $25M for extensions.
Ultimately the answer to your question is that money for FA is if you have a surplus in the immediate season and money for extensions is if you have a surplus in following seasons. Maybe a little oversimplified, but I think this will answer your question.
|