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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911773]


In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.
.[/quote]

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911776]The arbitrator can't unilaterally decide to expand his own authority than the CBA gives him. While he's at it, maybe he could mandate that the Cowboys play in pink uniforms.[/quote]

He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.

I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.

I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911783]Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:


and

I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.[/quote]

All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911783]
Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.[/quote]

Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911895]Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.[/quote]

ok.

but I don't believe that argument is being made. I think the collusion argument revolves around the owners agreeing(or conspiring to agree) to specific methods outside those agreed to in writing by both parties, in order to affect the outcome of the CBA negotiations.

The parts I highlighted, in my opinion, show that the NFLPA would have wanted to be included in any additional restrictions that may have been placed on teams.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911807]This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.[/quote]

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911892]All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.[/quote]

You and I will simply disagree, because the specific language states "ANY CLUB" may bring suit, so while I understand your point, IF a club felt that there was a violation of the salary cap rules, these documents give them some level of standing to bring it up. That makes the point I highlighted relevant to the discussion.

Overall, this is like the CBA negotiation thread, no ones view is going to change, and in the end we will all have to see how the arbitrator rules.

I love these discussions, but they get pretty line in the sandish after a while, and I think this one has reached that point :(

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

[quote=SBXVII;911814]He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.

I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.

I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.[/quote]

The only thing I'm assuming is that the Commissioner apparently warned the teams 6+ times not to do SOMETHING, that he believes the Skins ignored those warnings and adversely affected competitive balance, and the Skins were subsequently punished for it. Here's a link substantiating that:

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/]NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk[/url]

What's not an assumption is that he has the authority to punish teams under those circumstances. That's specifically written into the NFL bylaws.

What's not an assumption is what authority the arbitrator has. That's specifically written into the CBA (both of them).

What's not an assumption is that the CBA (both of them) says nothing about whether the Commissioner can punish Clubs.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911899]You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.[/quote]

Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911899]You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.[/quote]

Ok so in our circling of issues ...... who hears complaints in regards to owners vs. owners? I'm assuming the Commish and Exec Committe? and if there is no satisfaction? court?

you might be right, however there still is the gentlemans way of handling the whole issue which if you have a problem with your neighbor you should address it with them first and if it goes no where then you call the police. Maybe the appeal process is just that a stepping stone of formality that everyone knows will go no where but should be done before court filing happens. That whay the courts can't ask was it taken to Arbitration first.

I still think there is something your missing though other wise there would be no reason to waist the Arbitrator's time when the two teams know the issue is more fitting for the court process instead of Arbitration.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911908]Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.[/quote]

It doesn't matter what the warning was if the Commissioner believes the Skins acted to the detriment of the NFL and adversely affected competitive balance, and 29 other owners agree with him.

He could have warned the Skins not to serve broccoli in his hospitality suite, and he would still have the power to punish the Skins for dumping cap hit into 2010.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911904]The only thing I'm assuming is that the Commissioner apparently warned the teams 6+ times not to do SOMETHING, that he believes the Skins ignored those warnings and adversely affected competitive balance, and the Skins were subsequently punished for it. Here's a link substantiating that:

[URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/"]NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk[/URL]

What's not an assumption is that he has the authority to punish teams under those circumstances. That's specifically written into the NFL bylaws.

What's not an assumption is what authority the arbitrator has. That's specifically written into the CBA (both of them).

What's not an assumption is that the CBA (both of them) says nothing about whether the Commissioner can punish Clubs.[/quote]

Understood so let me ask.... are the lawyers for the Redskins really as dumb as you point out to file an appeal for an arbitrator to look into if he has no power? or it's not in his job? why file an appeal? why not take it to the appropriate place to begin with? if it's not the arbitrator?

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911914]It doesn't matter what the warning was if the Commissioner believes the Skins acted to the detriment of the NFL and adversely affected competitive balance, and 29 other owners agree with him.

He could have warned the Skins not to serve broccoli in his hospitality suite, and he would still have the power to punish the Skins for dumping cap hit into 2010.[/quote]

So to be clear... what do you think the appeal is about? apparently you have this figured out. The team can't appeal the punishment cause as you say the Commish has autonomy. It's not the warning cause it doesn't matter what the warning was the Commish has ulitmate power to punish if he see's fit. So what is being appealed according to you?

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911898]ok.

but I don't believe that argument is being made. I think the collusion argument revolves around the owners agreeing(or conspiring to agree) to specific methods outside those agreed to in writing by both parties, in order to affect the outcome of the CBA negotiations.

The parts I highlighted, in my opinion, show that the NFLPA would have wanted to be included in any additional restrictions that may have been placed on teams.[/quote]

That argument is definitely being made (bold added):

(although, the last one may need to go to the Head of Referees if he really means illegal collision - sounds like unnecessary roughness to me)

[quote=SBXVII;911117]I'll tell you why. [B]I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. [/B]They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.[/quote]

[quote=FRPLG;911447]I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. [B] In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive.[/B] At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.[/quote]

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;911239]The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. [B]The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist[/B]"[/quote]

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

[quote=SBXVII;911915]Understood so let me ask.... are the lawyers for the Redskins really as dumb as you point out to file an appeal for an arbitrator to look into if he has no power? or it's not in his job? why file an appeal? why not take it to the appropriate place to begin with? if it's not the arbitrator?[/quote]

I think the Redskins would rather eat the penalty than sue in civil court.

Going to the arbitrator is a smaller step that still holds the threat of airing dirty laundry to the NFLPA, and I suspect they're playing chicken with the League in the hope that the League will reduce penalties in return for shutting up.

That's just pure speculation, though.

The other hope is that the arbitrator says the changes to the salary cap for '12 and '13 aren't consistent with the concept of the salary cap written throughout the whole CBA, and says that the whole CBA needs to be rewritten to make those changes - in which case the League might drop or modify the penalties rather than try to re-negotiate the whole CBA.

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

Even reading this thread is getting too much like work. I feel like I should be charging an hourly rate just to open up the thread at this point.

The thing is, the issue is simple on its face but complex in the details. Under the CBA, can the NFL do what it did? Getting to the details on that requires a lot more research than I am going to do for free. Their are strong arguments on each side and lawyers will make lots of money before the issue is resolved.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911913]Ok so in our circling of issues ...... who hears complaints in regards to owners vs. owners? I'm assuming the Commish and Exec Committe? and if there is no satisfaction? court?

you might be right, however there still is the gentlemans way of handling the whole issue which if you have a problem with your neighbor you should address it with them first and if it goes no where then you call the police. Maybe the appeal process is just that a stepping stone of formality that everyone knows will go no where but should be done before court filing happens. That whay the courts can't ask was it taken to Arbitration first.

I still think there is something your missing though other wise there would be no reason to waist the Arbitrator's time when the two teams know the issue is more fitting for the court process instead of Arbitration.[/quote]

I've regurgitated what the NFL Bylaws say over and over in this thread. They are available on nfl.com if you want to read them yourself.

[URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.nfl.com%2Fstatic%2Fcontent%2F%2Fpublic%2Fstatic%2Fhtml%2Fcareers%2Fpdf%2Fco_.pdf"]Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League[/URL]

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

What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911917]So to be clear... what do you think the appeal is about? apparently you have this figured out. The team can't appeal the punishment cause as you say the Commish has autonomy. It's not the warning cause it doesn't matter what the warning was the Commish has ulitmate power to punish if he see's fit. So what is being appealed according to you?[/quote]

My best guess is one of:

1) The way the CBA was modified to include penalties was unfair

2) The modifications to the CBA to include these penalties were unfair because they were clearly intended to punish member Clubs - and anything dealing with how the League punishes its member Clubs doesn't belong in the CBA

3) Changing the salary cap to accomodate penalties in this way is completely inconsistent with the concept of the salary cap as it's written into the CBA, and to change that fundamental concept requires complete revision, not a simple side letter.

4) They're playing chicken with the League and are claiming whatever it takes to get the League to want the case to go away before they start copying the NFLPA on whatever documents the Skins decide might be relevant to the case.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911924]What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.[/quote]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess the Skins could try to include any document the have about anything remotely relevant that the League doesn't want the NFLPA to see.

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

OK, I'm getting very frustrated with these cap penalties.

This morning I heard on Yahoo Sports Radio that Jonathan Vilma's lawyer had the Saints restructure his contract for the upcoming season before the known suspension was announced. They reduced his salary and cap number down to the league minimum for the lost 2012 season and paid him a big bonus, so when he would be suspended, he'd lose the least amount of money possible.


Then I open my browser and see this on the news:
[url=http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201205/surprising-player-tops-nfl-salaries]Surprising Player Tops NFL Salaries | ThePostGame[/url]

Charles Johnson is the highest-paid player in 2011? He was paid $34million of a $72million contract in one season? Sounds exactly like what we were handed a salary cap death sentence for.

I expect the Saints to get punished and piled on for the Vilma contract, but the Panthers will probably be held to a different standard than us and Dallas....just like Chicago, Houston and other teams that did the exact same thing as us.

This selective enforcement is really getting old.

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

[quote=Monkeydad;914872]OK, I'm getting very frustrated with these cap penalties.

This morning I heard on Yahoo Sports Radio that Jonathan Vilma's lawyer had the Saints restructure his contract for the upcoming season before the known suspension was announced. They reduced his salary and cap number down to the league minimum for the lost 2012 season and paid him a big bonus, so when he would be suspended, he'd lose the least amount of money possible.


Then I open my browser and see this on the news:
[url=http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201205/surprising-player-tops-nfl-salaries]Surprising Player Tops NFL Salaries | ThePostGame[/url]

Charles Johnson is the highest-paid player in 2011? He was paid $34million of a $72million contract in one season? Sounds exactly like what we were handed a salary cap death sentence for.

I expect the Saints to get punished and piled on for the Vilma contract, but the Panthers will probably be held to a different standard than us and Dallas....just like Chicago, Houston and other teams that did the exact same thing as us.

[B]This selective enforcement is really getting old[/B].[/quote]


Good post. Goodell just really seems lost on this subject and I agree he is wildly inconsistent. I dont see how the arbitrator is going to rule in the NFL favor. My biggest problem is the NFL signed off on our contracts, why?

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

[quote=Chico23231;914877]Good post. Goodell just really seems lost on this subject and I agree he is [B][U]wildly inconsistent.[/U][/B] [B]I dont see how the arbitrator is going to rule in the NFL favor.[/B] My biggest problem is the NFL signed off on our contracts, why?[/quote]


I agree with you on both points. My question is, what else will the arbitrator grant us besides giving us our 18MM back in 2013? The damage has already been done in 2012, so theres not much point in giving us money back this year. If they give us another 18MM next year, it could possibly hurt us more than help, as we would need to spend tons of money to reach the salary floor (which goes into effect next year). we'd essentially have to overspend on big name free agents and i, for one, dont want the skins to go back to that model of running a franchise.

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

[quote=Monkeydad;914872]Then I open my browser and see this on the news:
[url=http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201205/surprising-player-tops-nfl-salaries]Surprising Player Tops NFL Salaries | ThePostGame[/url]

Charles Johnson is the highest-paid player in 2011? He was paid $34million of a $72million contract in one season? Sounds exactly like what we were handed a salary cap death sentence for.

I expect the Saints to get punished and piled on for the Vilma contract, but the Panthers will probably be held to a different standard than us and Dallas....just like Chicago, Houston and other teams that did the exact same thing as us.

This selective enforcement is really getting old.[/quote]

2011 wasn't a uncapped year though. Just throwing that out there, not that I don't agree.

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

there's a cap in place. the money isn't disappearing into a capless hole, so every cent of that 72mill is accounted for in cap space one way or the other. if he got 34mill, some of that is bonus money which is prorated over the life of the contract.

I think the skins penalty is bogus, but that's a completely different cirumstance to the quoted article, which is meaningless in the skins' case.

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

[quote=Chico23231;914877]Good post. Goodell just really seems lost on this subject and I agree he is wildly inconsistent. I dont see how the arbitrator is going to rule in the NFL favor. My biggest problem is the NFL signed off on our contracts, why?[/quote]

We're back to that issue again. The League is approving contracts only to punish the teams for them later? Why not FOLLOW their own rules and disallow a bad contract from the start?

If what I heard about Vilma's contract is true, it would have been blatantly obvious to anyone, especially the League office what the Saints were doing. They knew they were going to suspend him, but they still approve a contract restructuring that is manipulating the salary cap and intentionally trying to minimize the impact of a player's punishment from the League?

"You're going to suspend our guy and take his pay for a year? Well, then we'll slash his salary for the year, move it to next year when he plays and give him a bonus!"

Yeah, that will teach the players a lesson...

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

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;914895]I agree with you on both points. My question is, what else will the arbitrator grant us besides giving us our 18MM back in 2013? The damage has already been done in 2012, so theres not much point in giving us money back this year. If they give us another 18MM next year, it could possibly hurt us more than help, as we would need to spend tons of money to reach the salary floor (which goes into effect next year). we'd essentially have to overspend on big name free agents and i, for one, dont want the skins to go back to that model of running a franchise.[/quote]

agree, 18mil would have to include stipulations where if we didnt spend it wouldnt hurt us as part of the compensation deal. Why not compensatory damages that includes draft picks as well?

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

[quote=Chico23231;914901]agree, 18mil would have to include stipulations where if we didnt spend it wouldnt hurt us as part of the compensation deal. Why not compensatory damages that includes draft picks as well?[/quote]

Maybe we could get a compensatory 3rd rounder or two as the situation is somewhat similar to how the compensatory picks are awarded now - teams who lose more free agents than they sign get compensatory picks (i realize i'm over simplyfing it). In our situation, we lost the ability to sign free agents.

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

All this talk about "why isn't the league office punishing other teams for similar moves" brings to mind the fact that the league office is only the people enforcing the punishment, but they aren't the main reason for the punishment itself. That would be John Mara, head of that committee that made the punishment, and also known as co-owner of one of our closest rivals. He doesn't give a shit what the Panthers, Bears, or any other team did, he saw an opportunity to punish us and he took it.

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

[quote=mooby;914906]All this talk about "why isn't the league office punishing other teams for similar moves" brings to mind the fact that the league office is only the people enforcing the punishment, but they aren't the main reason for the punishment itself. That would be John Mara, head of that committee that made the punishment, and also known as co-owner of one of our closest rivals. He doesn't give a shit what the Panthers, Bears, or any other team did, he saw an opportunity to punish us and he took it.[/quote]

Yeah, really interesting how the two teams hit by major punishments were in the NFC East.

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

[quote=Monkeydad;914872]OK, I'm getting very frustrated with these cap penalties.

This morning I heard on Yahoo Sports Radio that Jonathan Vilma's lawyer had the Saints restructure his contract for the upcoming season before the known suspension was announced. They reduced his salary and cap number down to the league minimum for the lost 2012 season and paid him a big bonus, so when he would be suspended, he'd lose the least amount of money possible.


Then I open my browser and see this on the news:
[url=http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201205/surprising-player-tops-nfl-salaries]Surprising Player Tops NFL Salaries | ThePostGame[/url]

Charles Johnson is the highest-paid player in 2011? He was paid $34million of a $72million contract in one season? Sounds exactly like what we were handed a salary cap death sentence for.

I expect the Saints to get punished and piled on for the Vilma contract, but the Panthers will probably be held to a different standard than us and Dallas....just like Chicago, Houston and other teams that did the exact same thing as us.

This selective enforcement is really getting old.[/quote]

I don't see anything wrong with either of those things.

First, $30m of Johnson's $34m in 2011 was signing bonus. That's prorated over the life of the contract, so his 2011 cap hit is only $9m. ($30m/6yrs + $4m 2011 salary). That's actually less than average.

And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year.

As for Vilma, nothing wrong with that either. They're moving cap hit into the future (capped) years to do him a favor. They may also be doing it to free up cap space to sign Brees, but there's nothing wrong with moving cap hit from one year's cap to another. Heck, any unused cap space in one year can be rolled over into the next year.

FWIW, that's why the Skins aren't completely destroyed by the $18m penalty - they had around $13m unused cap credit rolled over from last year.

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

Do you think WE could get away with a move like they did with Vilma.

Lets say Fred Davis or Trent Williams are repeat morons and light up again...facing a year suspension. Do you think we'd get away with slashing his pay for the suspended year to save cap space and minimize his punishment?

I don't think the Saints will get away with it since they're under a microscope and I get Goodell will take this as them diminishing his power...but it seems pretty obvious they're playing with contracts to get around punishments.


Maybe before we were hammered, I would not care about this, but since we were hit hard for cap maneuvering that wasn't even against the rules and were approved by the league...I guess I want to see every other offender punished just as equally.

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

Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.

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

[quote=Monkeydad;914938]Do you think WE could get away with a move like they did with Vilma.
[/quote]
Yes. What advantage did they gain?
[quote]
Lets say Fred Davis or Trent Williams are repeat morons and light up again...facing a year suspension. Do you think we'd get away with slashing his pay for the suspended year to save cap space and minimize his punishment?
[/quote]
As long as it conformed to the cap rules then yeah we could.
[quote]
I don't think the Saints will get away with it since they're under a microscope and I get Goodell will take this as them diminishing his power...but it seems pretty obvious they're playing with contracts to get around punishments.
[/quote]
Exactly what did they do to "get around a punishment"? They gained no advantage that I can see.
[quote]
Maybe before we were hammered, I would not care about this, but since we were hit hard for cap maneuvering that wasn't even against the rules and were approved by the league...I guess I want to see every other offender punished just as equally.[/quote]
You don't like that we were punished for actions that were not in violation of any rule so your response is that everyone else should get punished similarly? I think the high ground usually provide better footing.

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

^^^
Good question. I think it's been mentioned before and the team would be S.O.L. I thought that was why the team tagged him and possibly to evaluate his commitment.
Tough decisions at TE. Cooley aging and not a big guy. Davis is one failed test away.
IMO- Cooley gets paid a lot and cant be held beyond this year. Davis should be tagged another year before drafting 1-2 TE's.

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

[quote=FRPLG;914943]Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.[/quote]

Well said.

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

I think at this point my biggest issue is Goodell and the league waiting until the eve of Free Agency in order to enact a punishment. It all could have been avoided had the league simply notified the Skins and Boys their contracts were not falling within the agreed perimaters, or had they issued a punishment right away, or had they issued the punishment back in Sept. or Oct. Clearly the punishment was planned to be dealt at the opportune time so both teams could argue and win and get their CAP space back in time to use it in this yrs FA. Basically the league got what it wanted by force. In reality when the two teams appealed the decisions the whole CAP should have been returned and the teams able to use them. If after the Arbitrator heard the issues he/she felt the league was right then the two team would have had to either pay a heafty fine or find a way to give back their CAP space that was taken.

Then you have Bountygate. I don't have a problem with the coach's being punished and it was timely and it allows them to appeal and gives them time to get back with their teams prior to the season starting if they won. But what I do have a problem with is the league again takes its time and waits until after the draft, then decides to make a punishment that hinders the teams those player play for now and those teams are now unable to make adjustments through the draft to fill those spots until the player are allowed back.

I think its the timing and the blatent attempt to screw the teams over instead of the teams having time to appeal, or adjust to whatever punishment has been decided. As in our case all that needed to have been done was the Exec Committee having told the Skins and Boys what the punishments were going to be and informed them that at the next owners meeting there would be a vote on the issue and after that then the two teams could appeal. No. Goodell nabbed the CAP space and said you can't use it in order to hinder us with out allowing a proper procedure to having all the owners vote on it prior to actually following through and not giving the two teams time for an appeal.

I guess my issue is nothing was done until the last minute and then it couldn't happen fast enough. It had to be done right then and there. No waiting and thinking about it, no looking to see if it should even be done, no vote by the owners. Why? because it would have been too late and would not have mattered. So the league rushed our punishment. Now look at Bountygate; why not rush it, why not hurry with it, because then the teams who have these 4 players on their teams would be able to adjust their drafting in order to fill those spots until those players could come back. So why not wait until after the draft, take their time, then dole out the punishment so the teams miss personel they were counting on this year.

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

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

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

[quote=FRPLG;914943]Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...[B]and it looks desperate[/B].[/quote]

yeah disagree, nothing about Skins organization or fan base I would discribe as desperate.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;914936]I don't see anything wrong with either of those things.

First, $30m of Johnson's $34m in 2011 was signing bonus. That's prorated over the life of the contract, so his 2011 cap hit is only $9m. ($30m/6yrs + $4m 2011 salary). That's actually less than average.

[B]And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is an uncapped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year.[/B]

As for Vilma, nothing wrong with that either. They're moving cap hit into the future (capped) years to do him a favor. They may also be doing it to free up cap space to sign Brees, but there's nothing wrong with moving cap hit from one year's cap to another. Heck, any unused cap space in one year can be rolled over into the next year.

FWIW, that's why the Skins aren't completely destroyed by the $18m penalty - they had around $13m unused cap credit rolled over from last year.[/quote]

2011 wasn't an uncapped year.