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

[quote=HoopheadVII;915728]I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.[/quote]




[URL]http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf[/URL]

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

[quote=skinster;915731]No, I read what you wrote. The clauses that your referring to are extremely vague. They can be used to justify literally anything. No arbitrator on this planet will let the nfl have free reign to do whatever it wants. Vague phrases like that have to be interpreted a little deeper. I'm fairly confident it will be concluded that those clauses can only be applied to actions that have recently been brought to the nfl's attention...not actions that were approved by the nfl 2 years ago.[/quote]

So your argument is:

1) The NFL bylaws are illegal, and

2) An arbitrator appointed under the CBA with only the power to enforce the CBA is going to overturn the NFL Bylaws?

That's what you're saying?

No matter how much you wish it didn't mean what it means, and no matter how much power you wish the arbitrator had, doesn't make it true.

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

[quote=skinster;915732]are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.[/quote]

The concepts are different because they could have paid a player as much as they wanted in a one-year deal in the uncapped year. There was no restriction on how much they could spend in the uncapped year.

There was a restriction on how cheaply they could get players in future years by overspending in an uncapped year.

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

Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.

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

[quote=diehardskin2982;915793]Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.[/quote]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA]Dumb and Dumber 'There's a Chance' - YouTube[/ame]

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

[QUOTE]Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to [B]dump salaries[/B].
[/QUOTE]

[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]

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.

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

If I remember correctly many here were lauding the fact that when the uncapped year came about the Skins should be able to cut/fire Haynesworth and any other big contracts and pay them off and be done with the player and his contract so as not to have to worry about them in the future. We still have Hall on the books and Haynesworth would still be there but he "purchased" his contract back.

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

As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/]McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk[/url]

[QUOTE]Included in Daniel Kaplan’s item on the salary cap totals from Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal was an intriguing assertion from Texans owner Bob McNair.

As to the widely-reported notion that the 2012 salary cap was bumped to $120.6 million per team in exchange for the NFLPA’s agreement to permit a total of $46 million to be stripped from the Cowboys and Redskins in 2012 and 2013 cap space, McNair contends there was no “quid pro quo.” Instead, McNair claims that the union was guaranteed to receive $142.4 million per team in salary and benefits, and that the union adjusted 2012 benefits in order to nudge the per-team spending limit to $120.6 million.

If that’s true, then why did the NFLPA agree to the cap penalties? If the union got nothing in return for agreeing to permit $46 million to be taken from teams that tend to spend all of it and redistributed to teams that may not even spend all the space space they already have for 2012, then why did the union agree to it?

Surely, the union got something. Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return.
[/QUOTE]

The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.

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

I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.

[QUOTE]Here’s the latest. As we already know, the agreement regarding the imposition of the penalties was struck between the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and the NFLPA, making it a revision of the CBA without a vote of the league’s owners or union leadership. That deal happened even though Cowboys owner [B]Jerry Jones was and still is a member of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee[/B].

It’s one thing for the so-called CEC to use its delegation of authority to work out side agreements with the union. [B] It’s quite another for the CEC to do so without knowledge of one of the men who has secured membership on the CEC[/B].

[/QUOTE]

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

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you Hoop, everytime I say "the league approved" the contracts you say "the league doesn't approve contacts." Funny that Jerry Jones seems to side with my opinion;

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/jerry-jones-on-cowboys-cap-penalty-nfl-approved-our-contracts/]Jerry Jones on Cowboys’ cap penalty: NFL approved our contracts | ProFootballTalk[/url]

[QUOTE]“I don’t want to make our case here,” Jones added. “But all of our contracts were approved by the league and you can’t approve a contract that is in violation of league rules. You can’t even get it on the books if it isn’t in sync with league rules. So you start there.”
[/QUOTE]

So for someone who is so smart and business savy it's weird that he has no clue about what the NFL does either.

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

Another good write up;

[url=http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/salary-cap-penalty]salary cap penalty | Tumblr[/url]

[QUOTE]OK. Now the original CBA (Set of agreed rules by which the NFL and NFLPA govern) which was constructed in the 90s was intended to expire in 2010. The makers of this old CBA put in an uncapped 2010 year in place in order to almost scare the two sides into an agreement for a new CBA prior to entering into that unwelcoming uncapped year. But that didn’t happen. Enter 2010. No CBA regulation on spending, teams are allowed to spend as they please. No cap, no floor.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Now here’s what irks me about this whole thing.

1.The teams broke no rules- Imagine driving on the German autobahns and someone warns you that you shouldn’t drive so fast because in two years there is going to be a speed limit and you could get punished for what you did. Rules are time specific and in instances like this retrospective punishment is uncalled for. Evidence that no rule was broken is the fact that the LEAGUE APPROVED ALL THE CONTRACT CHANGES WHEN THEY HAPPENED.

2.It is collusion and conspiracy- The timing stinks of collusion. Why not bring out this issue last year? Well because the NFLPA would have no choice but to call foul at that time because players would realize the proof that there were some “UNWRITTEN rules” the owners colluded by. This would enrage the players because you are penalizing “big spenders” like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and thus taking away money that could be going to the players. Well this begs to ask the question: “Why did the NFLPA agree to these penalties now?” ENTER CONSPIRACY. NFLPA Director DeMaurice Smith’s contract is set to expire this month. Many believe that if he did not continue to elevate the salary cap from years past, his job would be lost. The penalties issued to Dallas and Washington and subsequently redistributed to the other 28 teams puts the cap just above last years. Job secured De! Well done.

3.New Rule inclusion- First off, the New CBA did not even have any punishment for teams that took advantage of the uncapped year. This was a revision to the CBA that was not even taken to vote by the owners but rather changes were made by “side letter agreements.” Something this important should not have been left up to “after the fact” revisions constructed without votes. Additionally, if spending so much more gives you an unfair shot at winning and thus upsetting the “competitive balance” then why doesn’t spending significantly less upset this balance in the opposite direction. The Bucs, Chiefs, and Jags all spent absurdly low amounts of the “floor-less” cap in 2010. People questioned the Malcolm Glazer (Bucs Owner) of using that year to pay off the debts he owed to the Manchester United soccer club he also owned. The New CBA has included a Salary Cap minimum or floor that every team must adhere to. So why weren’t those cheap teams warned of possible penalties for their cheap spending?
[/QUOTE]

A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915849][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]

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.[/quote]

They "dumped" $21m of Haynesworth signing bonus and $15m of Hall roster bonus into 2010 instead of spreading them over the life of the contract.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915909]As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/]McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk[/url]



The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.[/quote]

Of course the union got something - DeMaurice Smith got to keep his job. The league twisted the NFLPA's arm and used up goodwill they should be putting to better future use than punishing their own teams.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915926]I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.[/quote]

Agree this was ludicrous.

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

[quote=SBXVII;915930]Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you Hoop, everytime I say "the league approved" the contracts you say "the league doesn't approve contacts." Funny that Jerry Jones seems to side with my opinion;

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/jerry-jones-on-cowboys-cap-penalty-nfl-approved-our-contracts/]Jerry Jones on Cowboys’ cap penalty: NFL approved our contracts | ProFootballTalk[/url]



So for someone who is so smart and business savy it's weird that he has no clue about what the NFL does either.[/quote]

Meh, it's easier to say approve than didn't disapprove. All I know is what the NFL Bylaws say. It's a minor point - and I only made it to explain why the League didn't take action at the time.