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

[quote=SBXVII;914949]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.[/quote]

No. They actually moved cap expense OUT of this year, probably so they can get Brees handled, and moved it forward into the future. We did the opposite. We took future cap expenses and moved them into an uncapped year which made them disappear cap-wise.

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

[quote=SBXVII;914949]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.[/quote]

If you don't understand the issue, please stop writing on the subject.

It is absolutely fine under normal circumstances to restructure contracts to shift salary cap hit from one year to the next year, either forward or backwards. If both years involved are capped, there is no unfair advantage to be gained. They can only shift future cap hit into this year as long as they still have space this year. In fact, since unused 2011 cap space can be used in 2012, it makes little difference.

However, shifting a ton of cap hit into an uncapped year has the effect of completely circumventing the cap in future years.

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

[quote=skinsguy;914971]2011 wasn't an uncapped year.[/quote]

Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:
[I]
"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a [B]capped[/B] year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."[/I]

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915043]Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:

[I]"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a [B]capped[/B] year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."[/I][/quote]
Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducig the charge in future years.

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;915047]Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducing the charge in future years.[/quote]

Certainly this points to the hypocrisy of the punishment, but unfortunately, hypocrisy and unfairness are not what are being evaluated (most likely). So while we all know that the decision was patently messed up, the overturning of it isn't as clear cut.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915076]Certainly this points to the hypocrisy of the punishment, but unfortunately, hypocrisy and unfairness are not what are being evaluated (most likely). So while we all know that the decision was patently messed up, the overturning of it isn't as clear cut.[/quote]

Yes... our best [I]moral[/I] argument is that we shouldn't be punished for doing something that was not against any documented rules. Arguing that other teams are getting or have gotten away with similar tactics is a losing argument because it is wrong.

I'd like to point out that I strongly believe we've been screwed. I just don't think we were screwed in the manner that some of you seem think we were. The emotional arguments are not going to get us anywhere. Stick to the facts...we did not do anything wrong.

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

[B][U]You:[/U][/B] "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

[B][U]Judge:[/U][/B] Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.

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

At this point, I've grown tired of the whole thing...whatever happens will happen...'skins will get over it and move on.

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;915047]Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducig the charge in future years.[/quote]

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.

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]

Agree that this is well said.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915094]Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.[/quote]

I guess the theory here is that by not having to abide by a spending floor those teams that chose to spend minimally did so by not signing players to contracts. Absent these multi-year contracts these teams theoretically saved future cap-space. Essentially they have more future space since they don't have contracts on the books that they might well have had if a spending floor existed or they spent more freely in the capless year. I think the potential advantage isn't quite as great but it exists to some degree. Or more accurately...I don't see how spending less than an imaginary cap floor is more egregious than spending more than the imaginary cap limit.

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

[quote=Chico23231;914953]yeah disagree, nothing about Skins organization or fan base I would discribe as desperate.[/quote]

Actually yeah...desperate wasn't the right word. Petty is more accurate.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;915081][B][U]You:[/U][/B] "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

[B][U]Judge:[/U][/B] Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.[/quote]


Yes your honor, I do have one of those cards. Several of them in fact.

*reaches in back pocket*


[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4TpCGGKlB4Q/TLajvec84lI/AAAAAAAADiY/UlVH5WYihTU/s1600/1000-bill-front1.jpg[/IMG]

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

[quote=skinsguy;915090]At this point, I've grown tired of the whole thing...whatever happens will happen...'skins will get over it and move on.[/quote]

I was done about 59 pages ago, lol

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

[quote=FRPLG;915078]Yes... our best [I]moral[/I] argument is that we shouldn't be punished for doing something that was not against any documented rules. Arguing that other teams are getting or have gotten away with similar tactics is a losing argument because it is wrong.

I'd like to point out that I strongly believe we've been screwed. I just don't think we were screwed in the manner that some of you seem think we were. The emotional arguments are not going to get us anywhere. Stick to the facts...we did not do anything wrong.[/quote]

I'll agree with you on this. But the league is going to argue that we were causing salaries to go up or salaries for other players cause we were paying our two so much money in such a short amount of time.

But no one cared that PManning got a $100 mill contract? That clearly raised QB salaries especially to any team who had a QB with similar skills, ie; Saints, Giants, and Patriots.

Then there is the $100mill contract for AH. No one complained about that contract being too much for a player and how it would cause a rise in salaries to that positions and possibly force some teams to not be able to sign their DL.

The whole arguement is BS that the league is making. Lets throw their cards on the table..... they didn't want any one team going out this year and picking up all the good Free Agent talent screwing other teams from either keeping their player or keeping other teams from being able to compete for those players. The owners pissed and moaned and the Exec Committe along with Goodell came up with a cock eyed way of shafting the Skins and keeping them from using the full $36mill in CAP space that they would have used.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;915081][B][U]You:[/U][/B] "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

[B][U]Judge:[/U][/B] Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.[/quote]


lol.... trust me people do use that excuse. Just go to court one day and watch all those people who got a ticket for speeding asking the officer's why he didn't stop all the other cars who were speeding also.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915094]Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.[/quote]


I'd guess:

Less spent money means more pocket money
They didn't spend as much on players as the other teams
They tried to spend less in order to keep salaries down for their advantage

The key issue has been brought up over and over. The reason for an uncapped year was to force the two sides to work harder to come to an agreement in order to keep either side from feeling like they were getting screwed during the uncapped period. In this case neither side could agree, both sides let it get to an uncapped year. Heck the owners wanted an uncapped year and even Locked out the players.

So what is the fear of an uncapped year?

Players: owners not spending as much and keeping more of their money.
Owners: other owners spending $$$ on players raising salaries and CAP.

But that is exactly why the uncapped year was put in place to help force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the uncapped year. It didn't happen. So two teams take advantage of the uncapped year and the league has issue's with the fact. Guess what they never should have let it go to an uncapped year. Basically what it is is the owners wanted their cake and to eat it too. Uncapped year, change in some of the rules, Rookie salary CAP, force the NFLPA to agree to their demands, AND no one team spending too much.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915094]Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.[/quote]

Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.

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

[quote=FRPLG;915097]I guess the theory here is that by not having to abide by a spending floor those teams that chose to spend minimally did so by not signing players to contracts. Absent these multi-year contracts these teams theoretically saved future cap-space. Essentially they have more future space since they don't have contracts on the books that they might well have had if a spending floor existed or they spent more freely in the capless year. I think the potential advantage isn't quite as great but it exists to some degree. Or more accurately...I don't see how spending less than an imaginary cap floor is more egregious than spending more than the imaginary cap limit.[/quote]
That is part of it, but teams were allowed to dump contracts, also. If we had cut DHall and Haynesworth, we would not have got in any cap trouble and we would have been even father under the cap.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915118]Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.[/quote]

I agree about Goodell. The whole situation screams vindictiveness and I think Goodell generally seems astute enough to have not pursued this without being ordered to. I really don't think he would have done this in this manner on his own. He's carrying out his order from the EMC because that's what employees do. Especially ones with million dollar salaries on the line.

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;915138]That is part of it, but teams were allowed to dump contracts, also. If we had cut DHall and Haynesworth, we would not have got in any cap trouble and we would have been even father under the cap.[/quote]

Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;915102]Yes your honor, I do have one of those cards. Several of them in fact.

*reaches in back pocket*


[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4TpCGGKlB4Q/TLajvec84lI/AAAAAAAADiY/UlVH5WYihTU/s1600/1000-bill-front1.jpg[/IMG][/quote]wipe my ass w those
[IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a161/subdubstp/10000dollarbill1928usdFRONT.jpg[/IMG]
keep the change you filthy animal

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915118]Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.[/quote]

Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.

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

[quote=FRPLG;915180]Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.[/quote]

If you give a player $X over Y capped years, you still have to fit the total amount into the caps for those years, and teams have the freedom to decide how much cap hit to take in each of those years. If one year is uncapped, and you dump most of the cap hit into that year, you're essentially getting a good player for very little cap hit in the later years.

If you cut the player, you're not getting the benefit of the player in those future years.

The real point where the Skins got screwed is that if in 2010 anyone had objected or told them there would be action taken based on how they restuctured the contracts, they absolutely would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the 2010 league year in February 2011 instead of holding on to him and trading him for a draft pick. There was no way on earth Haynesworth was going to be on the roster in 2011. The worst punishment that should have come down is to take away a 5th round pick in 2013 (what we got for Haynesworth) and have Hall's contract count $3m against the cap for the next 3 years.

That's the absolute most benefit the Skins have gotten out of restructuring. $36m over 2 years is ridiculous.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915109]I'll agree with you on this. But the league is going to argue that we were causing salaries to go up or salaries for other players cause we were paying our two so much money in such a short amount of time.

But no one cared that PManning got a $100 mill contract? That clearly raised QB salaries especially to any team who had a QB with similar skills, ie; Saints, Giants, and Patriots.

Then there is the $100mill contract for AH. No one complained about that contract being too much for a player and how it would cause a rise in salaries to that positions and possibly force some teams to not be able to sign their DL.

The whole arguement is BS that the league is making. Lets throw their cards on the table..... they didn't want any one team going out this year and picking up all the good Free Agent talent screwing other teams from either keeping their player or keeping other teams from being able to compete for those players. The owners pissed and moaned and the Exec Committe along with Goodell came up with a cock eyed way of shafting the Skins and keeping them from using the full $36mill in CAP space that they would have used.[/quote]

Covered this earlier - the league is absolutely NOT going to argue what you wrote above - that would be obvious evidence of collusion.

Graziano speculated as to that based on something someone else wrote, but the logic was full of holes. IIRC, it went like this:

- Reports were that multiple teams complained about the Skins and Cowboy moves
- I can think of three teams that had trouble holding onto players because the franchise tag at those positions went up that year
- Those must be the teams complaining and that must be the reason why

Nevermind the fact that 29 owners voted to ratify the sanctions and that 26 of those 29 benefited at least indirectly from the 3 teams losing their players.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;915372]Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.[/QUOTE]
My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.

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

Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

[url=http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=All&y=2013]KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents[/url]

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

[quote=imaskin4life;915389]Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

[url=http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=All&y=2013]KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents[/url][/quote]

The position we need is DB and its not that good, considering Revis isn't going to be a FA next year, the jets reworked his contract. Ed Reed is intriguing but that won't happen because he's always threatening retirement and is a raven for life. Quentin Jammer is old. Mike Jenkins is not that good. Brent Grimes will be 30 and is probably going to get signed by the Falcons this offseason. Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.

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

[quote=CultBrennan59;915390]Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.[/quote]

Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.

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

[quote=imaskin4life;915391]Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.[/quote]

Although looking over your list with the WR's, if we need a good slot guy next year, Greg Jennings, Cruz and Amendola are FA's. Although Cruz and Jennings will probably resign, Amendola may not, but he is injury prone so again, poor options for us next year.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915385]My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.[/quote]

First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915407]First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

[B]Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).[/B]

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.[/quote]

I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915537]I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?[/quote]

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915588]I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.[/quote]

I am glad we agree that the Skins did nothing wrong by the letter of the CBA.

Everything else I understand what your views and points are.

Personally, I hope the arbitrator rules in the Skins/Cowboys favor, or at least scares the NFL enough that they reduce the sanctions, even if that means leaving this year's in place and writing off next year's.

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

When we say that the arbitrator will rule in favor of the skins/boys, what will the ruling be? if its unjust that there was a penalty, should the skins/boys not get some sort of compensation?

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915588]I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.[/quote]

The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.

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

[quote=skinster;915631]The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.[/quote]

I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams.

Basically the reason for the timing was to get the new CBA signed, the NFLPA's law suit dropped, and for the dust to settle before the punishment.

I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915688]I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams. [/quote]

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.

[quote=SBXVII;915688]I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.[/quote]

A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915694]The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.[/quote]

One could say the same thing in regards to the warning....

The "PUNISHMENT" gives credence to the fact that there was some agreement between the owners to not "over spend". By the way the warning was in regards to teams over spending it was not specific to what the Skins did which was rework contracts pushing Bonus money into one uncapped year.

You and the league can argue there was a warning all you want but the warning was not specific to what the Skins did and they thought they found a loophole. Because the other owners complained Goodell and the Exec Committee had to look into it and decide if the two teams (Skins and Boys) got an unfair advantage out of it. The key though is ....

There was no CAP

There was nothing in writing saying they could do what they did

The warning was not specific... Goodell can't think of everything and every loophole that might come up and in this situation they didn't think of this situation but are trying to pull into and under their ..."warning" that was issued.

However I'll do you one better.... No I don't know what exactly the specific warning was no different then you don't know what exactly the spicific warning was. You can go off what Goodell says he told the league but even he's been vague about the specific wording of his warning because I think he knows it was not exactly what the Skins and Boys did.

But that is for the Arbitrator to decide.

Glad the hearing is coming up, but honestly this is just getting started. I believe we won get resolution out I this and will have to decide to either shut up and take the hit or file a lawsuit.

No national writers are even talking about this outside of profootball talk an I think one article by don banks. If we drop a lawsuit and get even a fraction of the pub that the bounty program is getting the nfl may decide to settle quickly rather than have all the dirty laundry aired. I'm hoping we can get closure to this within the next few months. I'm holding out hope for this week, but doubt anything is going to come from it.