Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;905122]ROFL. I was thinking the [I]exact[/I] same thing![/quote]

DUDE GET OUT Of MY HEAD!

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

How do you shoot down a moose?
Isnt it already down?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;905122]ROFL. I was thinking the [I]exact[/I] same thing![/quote]

Damn. I thought it was a partially hidden or unfinished Wu Tang sign

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;905132]How do you shoot down a moose?
Isnt it already down?[/quote]

Not when it's a tree sized green alien moose outside a Redskin's fans house. It's only down when Goodell says its down .... AND HE WON'T DO THAT!!!

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;905126]DUDE GET OUT Of MY HEAD![/quote]

That's what you get for taking off your tinfoil hat.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;905122]ROFL. I was thinking the [I]exact[/I] same thing![/quote]

What about the giant turtles in the front yard! ZOMG

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Mattyk;905141]What about the giant turtles in the front yard! ZOMG[/quote]

Look closely, those aren't turtles, IT'S THE BACK OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER SWIMMING UNDER HIS YARD!!!!

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;905146]Look closely, those aren't turtles, IT'S THE BACK OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER SWIMMING UNDER HIS YARD!!!![/quote]

whoever lives there is so F'd

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[SIZE="1"]people shouldn't joke about black helicopters

[*looks around nervously*]
[/SIZE]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/redskins-watch/2012/mar/28/shanahan-isnt-worried-about-possible-bounty-sancti/]Shanahan isn't worried about possible bounty sanctions - Washington Times[/url]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Mattyk;905168][URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/redskins-watch/2012/mar/28/shanahan-isnt-worried-about-possible-bounty-sancti/"]Shanahan isn't worried about possible bounty sanctions - Washington Times[/URL][/quote]

Well is he worried about the black helicopters?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904568]If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the 'Skins actively restructuring existing contracts to move the cap hit forward into 2010. I suppose, in the other owners' minds that's worse than just signing new contracts and taking a big hit in 2010.

The Haynesworth contract was specifically redone to move later cap hits into 2010. Creative accounting designed specifically to free up future cap space.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for trying to free up future cap space under a cap that may or may not exist in the future is another question, but the 'Skins were trying to shift future cap hit into the uncapped year.[/quote]
So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;905173]So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?[/quote]

Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Mattyk;905121]Bottom line, they didn't lose a first rounder... and their situation is much more relevant and significant (with the cover up) vs digging back 5 years to a team that has undergone a total regime change. It's just very doubtful that any picks will be docked. A fine perhaps at the worst. The NFL's ongoing investigation is more about Gregg Williams than it is about the Redskins at this point.[/quote]

My question is who are they going to punish? GW is gone. Gibbs is gone. Most of the players are gone. I could see the league making DS pay a fine maybe.

But the reason the Saints got hammered is because they were asked 3 times about the issue and 3 times the Saints denied it was happening. Thats why they got hammered so hard. Because they lied.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=NC_Skins;905177]Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.[/quote]

I'm like Sandtrap though. I don't care how many time HoopheadVII sells it and I know he's right, but what the league did was just wrong. Yes I'm blinded by B&G but still they had 7 months to do something and they waited until 2 hrs prior to FA? They claim they made it clear teams would get punished. Well they probably did but did they explain what the punishment was going to be?

Besides I'm guessing DS and JJ sat their thinking (not together of course) what will they do? they either deny the deals and get themselves into trouble or approve the deals and were golden. The deals got approved. Which is my issue. The league could have said no these contracts won't work per our agreement.

but as Hoop has said they couldn't because then it would have been clear they were breaking the law in collusion. To me everything else is superfluous, they made an illegal agreement that at the time had it been known they would have gotten into trouble. The Redskins and Cowboys chose not to break the law. You either reward that or you punish that but I'm telling you by punishing the Redskins and Cowboys their presenting an image that its ok to cheat (the players) and steal (from the players) and break the law (collusion) and if anyone (owners, players) does not want to go along with the program they will punish them (players-lowered CAP) (Redskins/Cowboys-CAP space).

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904983]I think it's more like this:

- CBA is negotiated in 2006 with potential uncapped year at end

- Uncapped year means teams can spend whatever they want that year

[B]- NFL and NFLPA agree in principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit from previous or later capped years[/B]

- Several specific rules are written into 2006 CBA to prevent this

- League exercises early termination option and 2010 becomes uncapped year

- League reminds clubs of agreed principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit. Apparently multiple times.

- Skins find way to dump future salary cap hit into uncapped 2010 in new way not previously considered.

- Multiple other owners complain to Commissioner

- Commissioner leaves it for later because he's more concerned with getting new CBA done

- Commissioner eventually takes action. Since the action the owners want him to take is outside his direct authority, he gets MCEC to agree it with the NFLPA and let an owner be the face of it.

- Chaos ensues

Frankly, I hope enough chaos ensues that they will reduce the penalties to put an end to it. I think that's our best case scenario (other than this escalting to the point where Snyder is forced to sell the Skins).

However, they are not punishing the Skins for spending too much in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for violating a principle apparently agreed with the NFLPA and apparently agreed amongst the owners.[/quote]

This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;905069]
In most cases that mechanism works fine, simply because it is a small group and everyone needs to parlay support at one point in time. No big deal, and the 3/4's is a super majority needed to sustain any type of decision. If something else were to come before them in that circle, that didn't have an already filed arbitration brief, I am certain that the vote would be much less unanimous. I think the fact that even the Saints and Raiders approved it, when they were somewhat punished, shows that there was more at play than just the merits of the case.[/quote]

I thought we were an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune?

We take turns to act as a sort of Executive Officer for the week.
and all decisions of that officer have to be ratified
at a special bi-weekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of Internal Affairs.
But by a 2/3rd's majority......

What was Goodell waiting for some woman lying in a pond to toss a schimitar at him?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;905243]This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.[/quote]

I think when HoopheadVII listed that, it was more or less him assuming this is what happened. But, commonsense would tell you it would be an odd statement for the CBA to say 2010 is an uncapped year, but you should still treat it as a capped year. Number one, I doubt the owners would go for such a thing, and number two, it makes no logical sense.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;905173]So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?[/quote]

As best I can tell, 6.5 of that 20 in year 1 is signing bonus - which is spread over the life of the contract.

Salary + other non-signing bonuses in year 1 is 13.5, and 11.4 in year 2. Drop is less than 30%, so it's ok.

Spotrac seems to have it wrong - they entered 20m in two different places in year 1, and he didn't get 40.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;905243]This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.[/quote]

You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Mattyk;905149]whoever lives there is so F'd[/quote]

He's just there to borrow some money

Just glad that the story seems to be spreading instead of being buried.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;905310]You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.[/quote]

Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.

Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.

Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;905310]You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

[B]The League [/B]would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they'[B]re saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.[/B][/quote]

I have a serious problem with this. When I submit a document, contract or restructuring to a governing body for approval and they accept it and allow the change to take place, they are participating in the process and supposed "illegal" act. What is the point of submitting the agreements to the NFL offices if they approve it and months or years later say it is illegal and worthy of a $46 Million dollar fine?
If I am a member of the NFL governing body approving contracts and renegotiation, is it not my responsibility to inform the teams when they have error-ed in the contract process? Even if an issue is discovered later (months or years later) would it not make sense to inform the team and give them the chance to correct or negotiate a resolution. Not wait until the day before Free Agency starts AND hit the team with a huge fine? With no time to appeal before Free agency starts.
The 'excuse' above that the multi-$Billion dollar NFL being to busy is not acceptable. They don't have enough money to hire a few extra lawyers to deal with all issues in a timely manner?
Does not pass the smell test. Rotten.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;905359]Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.

Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.

Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.[/quote]

I believe you're missing the point.

Keeping people from paying as much as they want for players in an uncapped year = illegal collusion.

Keeping people from shifting too much salary cap hit into an uncapped year <> illegal collusion.

The 2006 CBA had several clauses agreed between the League and the NFLPA to prevent the latter. It's clear they agreed on the principle.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Defensewins;905360]I have a serious problem with this. When I submit a document, contract or restructuring to a governing body for approval and they accept it and allow the change to take place, they are participating in the process and supposed "illegal" act. What is the point of submitting the agreements to the NFL offices if they approve it and months or years later say it is illegal and worthy of a $46 Million dollar fine?
If I am a member of the NFL governing body approving contracts and renegotiation, is it not my responsibility to inform the teams when they have error-ed in the contract process? Even if an issue is discovered later (months or years later) would it not make sense to inform the team and give them the chance to correct or negotiate a resolution. Not wait until the day before Free Agency starts AND hit the team with a huge fine? With no time to appeal before Free agency starts.
The 'excuse' above that the multi-$Billion dollar NFL being to busy is not acceptable. They don't have enough money to hire a few extra lawyers to deal with all issues in a timely manner?
Does not pass the smell test. Rotten.[/quote]

No doubt. The process of this is an absolute mess.

As far as not disapproving within 10 days, I'm guessing the Commissioner read the contracts, saw what they were doing, but wasn't going to take action. Then, he got complaints from a bunch of owners later and had to act. It's not a case of not reading what was in the contracts.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;905395]I believe you're missing the point.

Keeping people from paying as much as they want for players in an uncapped year = illegal collusion.

Keeping people from shifting too much salary cap hit into an uncapped year <> illegal collusion.

The 2006 CBA had several clauses agreed between the League and the NFLPA to prevent the latter. It's clear they agreed on the principle.[/quote]

Hopefully, my last entry on this, because until it's ruled on we just keep banging heads.

The fact that the 2006 CBA had several clauses defining illegal actions that were agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA may or may not prove it was a shared concern. BUT what it DOES prove is that our actions [U]met the letter of the law as it was written in 2006[/U]. To extrapolate out and say that somehow the CBA as written proves a spirit or intent on the NFLPA's part is ludicrous. We did not use a heretofore unused scheme. Option bonuses and voidable options were expressly allowed in the salary cap era, and NOT expressly disallowed in the uncapped year.

IF the NFLPA agreed on the principle, then in the 2006 CBA, or at some later date prior to the beginning of the uncapped league year, the NFL should have gotten an amendment to the CBA stating that the uncapped year should not be used to play tricks with the salary cap going forward. BUT, the NFLPA's express position was that if the salary cap died, it was not coming back. And if it hadn't come back, which was a valid possibility at the time the contracts in question were written, then there would have been no issue as to the salary cap techniques used.

Bottomline, there is no elastic clause in the 2006 CBA that says " and other salary cap manipulations that a team may use". It clearly defines which were illegal, and any other techniques used before, and again after the uncapped year, should be presumed legal and valid, and not subject to league sanction.

Awaiting Mara's[hoophead] response

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;905243]This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.[/quote]

So why didn't the NFLPA grow a set and say this is BS. $46 mil is a lot less than what they could be losing this year, but what about the unknown # of $$$ mils they likely lost during the uncapped year due to the "collusion"?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;905418]So why didn't the NFLPA grow a set and say this is BS. $46 mil is a lot less than what they could be losing this year, but what about the unknown # of $$$ mils they likely lost during the uncapped year due to the "collusion"?[/quote]

They had already agreed to set aside their collusion lawsuit as part of the omnibus agreement that ended the lockout and brought in the new CBA. So unless new compelling evidence is entered they can't just moan and say BS. Plus, maybe a part of them hoped DS/JJ would go the nuclear route and give them that specific new information. As it is now, the arbitration may walk a fine line around that as is.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

BTW, if anybody has the time to read over the 2006 CBA, here is the link:

[URL="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/cba/nfl-cba-2006-2012.pdf"]http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/cba/nfl-cba-2006-2012.pdf[/URL]

Admittedly, I don't have time to go and read the entire thing to see where Hoopguy is getting all of his information about the 'skins and 'boys moves in 2010 being illegal, but maybe if anybody has the time, they can look through this and find it. Only thing I had time to find was the salary cap chart.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;905418]So why didn't the NFLPA grow a set and say this is BS. $46 mil is a lot less than what they could be losing this year, but what about the unknown # of $$$ mils they likely lost during the uncapped year due to the "collusion"?[/quote]

Well, I think the NFLPA heard what Goodell had to say and thought well we just went through a huge offseason of legal battles. To not agree will put us in a situation of losing money from each team in a huge total sum and the players will be pissed about that. Then there is bringing it before a legal entity which would make the current CBA void because of a collusion claim and another bad offseason of court filings and agreements to be made along with court. Easier to just look the other way as long as they don't lose money. Although I feel their hand was forced... "take this or we are going to cost you money by doing that." < that alone has to have some legal ramifications but in any legal issue you have to have a victim. If the NFLPA or players themselves don't want to complain then there is no victim.

Which is why I also think DS and JJ added the NFLPA in their complaint so the Arbiture can look to see if the NFLPA might have been forced to agree to something.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;905396]No doubt. The process of this is an absolute mess.

As far as not disapproving within 10 days, I'm guessing the Commissioner read the contracts, saw what they were doing, but wasn't going to take action. Then, he got complaints from a bunch of owners later and had to act. It's not a case of not reading what was in the contracts.[/quote]

Ok so lets say right now the league makes a deal with Garcon, what happens? it doesn't get looked at for 2 yrs? Goodell just rubber stamps the contracts cause he assumes they are done correctly? No, you and I both know thats not true. All contracts get sent to the league for review and approval. Probably before both sides sign it because it's legal and binding.

Why have a review process if no one is looking at the contracts? The league had 2 yrs. Don't make it sound like the league was in constant negotiations with the NFLPA and didn't have time to review it or deny it because there were many of times where we heard through media sources both sides were taking a break from the issue's. Neither side would hear from the other for long periods of time. They had plenty of time to say something to both teams, but we all know had they denied or returned the deals to the owners and told them to rework the contracts the NFLPA would have had it's proof the league was already breaking the law and there would have been the legal battle the league was trying to avoid.

In essence they agreed to the contracts by both teams to avoid a legal battle in court over collusion. They get a new CBA signed. They make an offer to the NFLPA that make it hard for them to refuse. Then they punish the two teams 2 hrs prior to FA so the two teams can't file a grievance or get it reversed prior to FA and both team buy up the talent pool.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;905431]They had already agreed to set aside their collusion lawsuit as part of the omnibus agreement that ended the lockout and brought in the new CBA. So unless new compelling evidence is entered they can't just moan and say BS. Plus, maybe a part of them hoped DS/JJ would go the nuclear route and give them that specific new information. As it is now, the arbitration may walk a fine line around that as is.[/quote]

The agreement Goodell forced the NFLPA to take was the new evidence needed for a collusion law suit.

But I do agree with you I think DS and JJ are playing a game at this point. They found a way around the rules, but not breaking them. The other owners are pissed and complain. Nothing is done until now and it's done 2 hrs to FA to hinder both teams as a form of punishment. Do I think it will be reversed? yes, but the other owners are not going to make it easy. Plus I think some teams used that CAP space for their teams. Kinda hard to give back if its been used.

Now we sit and wait. DS and JJ thought by filing the owners would get nervous and give it back, they didn't. So the closer it gets to the Arbiture stepping in and actually looking at the whole situation could the league change their mind if they don't see DS and JJ backing off? yes, then both teams would drop their Arbitration suit. Could it go to the Arbiture? yes, and he agree with the two teams and the league be forced to give it back (which I actually think will happen). Could the two teams lose in Arbitration? yes, then I'd imagine both owners would have to decide if the Arbiture looked at something specific they feel would over turn everything and if the Arbiture didn't or was not allowed to then I foresee a law suit. Which puts it back to square one.... the other owners possibly giving back the money before it goes to trial or..... DS and JJ either not going the legal battle or calling it off at the last minute and we are just Butt out.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

But wasn't there a CAP floor aswell so why weren't TEAMS penalized for that aswell.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html]Cap Control | National Football Post[/url]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;905502]I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

[URL="http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html"]Cap Control | National Football Post[/URL][/quote]

Yeah I read it ealier but couldn't link it then, then I lost where I had read it.

I guess my major issue is there were other teams that violated the agreement and not punished. Why only two teams? It should not matter if it was $1 over or $36 mill over if they violated the unwritten rule then they should be punished also, and that should include teams that spent below the floor limit as well. Heck the NFLPA should be all over that by itself.
Why just two teams? why not the top 3 teams? or top 4 teams?

Then you have the fact the deals were approved. If there were something wrong with the deals the league should have not approved the deals. Simple. Its not like they were too busy. They found time to approve them. This was a clear cut situation. The two owners DS and JJ found a loophole, knew that if the league did not approve the deals then there would have been proof of collusion, which forced the league to approve the deals to keep the NFLPA from filing a law suit. and at this point the league should just be eating it. Taking their lump and moving on. Instead they wait until after a new CBA is in effect with a do not take us to court agreement with the NFLPA, and 2yrs after the league approved the deals, to pull the NFLPA in and say.... hey remember you said you wouldn't file a law suit? Ok, if you don't go along with this we will lower the CAP... if you go along with the punishment we will keep it the same or slightly more then 2011."

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;905411]Hopefully, my last entry on this, because until it's ruled on we just keep banging heads.

The fact that the 2006 CBA had several clauses defining illegal actions that were agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA may or may not prove it was a shared concern. BUT what it DOES prove is that our actions [U]met the letter of the law as it was written in 2006[/U]. To extrapolate out and say that somehow the CBA as written proves a spirit or intent on the NFLPA's part is ludicrous. We did not use a heretofore unused scheme. Option bonuses and voidable options were expressly allowed in the salary cap era, and NOT expressly disallowed in the uncapped year.

IF the NFLPA agreed on the principle, then in the 2006 CBA, or at some later date prior to the beginning of the uncapped league year, the NFL should have gotten an amendment to the CBA stating that the uncapped year should not be used to play tricks with the salary cap going forward. BUT, the NFLPA's express position was that if the salary cap died, it was not coming back. And if it hadn't come back, which was a valid possibility at the time the contracts in question were written, then there would have been no issue as to the salary cap techniques used.

Bottomline, there is no elastic clause in the 2006 CBA that says " and other salary cap manipulations that a team may use". It clearly defines which were illegal, and any other techniques used before, and again after the uncapped year, should be presumed legal and valid, and not subject to league sanction.

Awaiting Mara's[hoophead] response[/quote]

I agree with what you wrote above. What the Skins did was not expressly disallowed by the CBA. I get what the Skins did and why.

I think the punishment is harsh and the process was ridiculous. The best way to handle it would have been for the Commissioner to pick up the phone and say, "Danny, you're trying to do something here we agreed we wouldn't do. I'm not going to disapprove it, but it's going to make other owners angry. If they push back enough, I may eventually have to take action, and you may not like it. Do you want to re-do this?"

Dropping it two years later, with a punitive amount, on the brink of free agency sucks.

The only points I'd add are:

1) Agreeing to not do this was not collusion

2) The NFLPA did not have a problem with agreeing to limit how much salary cap hit could be shifted into an uncapped year

3) Given the structure of the NFL and the powers given to the Commissioner, the Skins were playing with fire if they intentionally and obviously went against this apparent agreement between owners

I went into this thinking the Skins had a great case, the Commissioner and Mara had screwed up, and we were going to get something back. After reading the NFL Bylaws, the 2006 and 2010 CBAs, and seeing the owners 29-2-1 vote, I think our best case is that they agree to reduce the penalty to make this go away quietly.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;905501]But wasn't there a CAP floor aswell so why weren't TEAMS penalized for that aswell.[/quote]

For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;905502]I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html]Cap Control | National Football Post[/url][/quote]

That's by far the most accurate article I've seen written yet on this subject. Thanks for posting.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;905949]For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.[/quote]

Show me in the 2006 CBA where it clearly states a team cannot do this during the uncapped year.