Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Didn't the league risk it in the first place, by penalizing us. Snyder isn't gonna do anything, they know he won't go nuclear.

Right, he isn't going nuclear, we aren't going to get it negated, so we as fans just need to let it drop.

That said, I wonder if the NFL Exec committee could do something like re-finance the penalty, and make it 9mill this year and 9mill next. Problem is I think they would have to repartition all the splits that the other teams are getting.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Are we still talking about this? The cap money is good as gone. It's not coming back. Not now, not later, but never. It would take Danny and Jerry killing their cash cow (we call it the NFL) in order to get any sort of justice out of this. The bottom line is, Danny and Jerry (or any other owner) care more about making money, than they do about principles or winning.

Thats a completely ridiculous statement and shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

In getting rid of those contracts, Snyder actually PAID OVER 100MM in money to bad players in lump sums, just to get them off the team and free up cap space... so he could spend even MORE OF HIS MONEY on new players who could help the team win.

If Snyder cared more about money than winning, he would have, for example, made fat albert play out his contract, or not dump the money in the uncap year, carrying dead money in future years, which would save him money as he wouldnt be able to spend it on new players.

You said it yourself - the cap money is gone. Snyders only option would be to file a case in against the league in court - one which they'd most certainly lose. And if they won, and the court ruled the league had committed collusion against the union, it would be disasterous for the league. Its a no-win situation.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The thing is, all 32 teams were told NOT to use the uncapped year to dump bad contracts and were warned (in writing) that there would be penalties for teams that did. 28 teams followed that direction and 4 teams were penalized for not colluding. The skins and cowboys did this to an extreme degree, so they were penalized most.

It sucks, and its not "right" but it is what it is. If there's any consolation, its the fact that the skins would be carrng more than 18MM in dead cap in 2012 and 2013 seasons if they hadnt broken the rule. Ultimately, the penalties suck, but we're better off than we would have been if there had been a salary cap.

That is not how I recall it. Obviously these unwritten rules for the uncapped year were verbal because they were illegal, so they were not written anywhere. Which why this punishment should never been enforced. So it is tough to confirm the truth of what the rules were.
But I recall the warning being.....in the uncapped year teams could not go crazy exceeding the prior years cap limit to acquire new players through free agency. I remember a ton of talk about the concern of some wealthy teams (Cowboys & Redskins) might take advantage of the situation to stock their roster with talented free agents. Not once did I ever hear anything about not being allowed to restructuring contracts to accelerate dead money or to free up future years cap money which is what the Redskins did. . I think that is where the I have a major problem with this whole thing. Uncapped means Uncapped.

[CultBrennan59]

Waiting for this thread to be titled "Good news: This thread is now locked because we're not getting any money back"

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thats a completely ridiculous statement and shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

In getting rid of those contracts, Snyder actually PAID OVER 100MM in money to bad players in lump sums, just to get them off the team and free up cap space... so he could spend even MORE OF HIS MONEY on new players who could help the team win.

No idea what I'm talking about yet you post the highlighted. Can you enlighten me when Snyder shelled out over 100MM in the 2010 off-season? Last I checked, they reworked D-hall and Albert's contracts that totaled 36 million. *Gasp* That's the same amount we were penalized. So where is the rest of 100MM you speak of and which bad players did he get rid of? The answer is none. Dhall is still here and Albert would STILL be here if he had played ball. It's not they gave them that type of money and cut them just to rid themselves of the players. Here is another fun fact, that money he gave them was guaranteed money. He owed it regardless so the only thing he did was help ease the salary cap for the future.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If Snyder cared more about money than winning, he would have, for example, made fat albert play out his contract, or not dump the money in the uncap year, carrying dead money in future years, which would save him money as he wouldnt be able to spend it on new players.

Dan can't make Albert play like he should. He was still giving Haynesworth that 20+ mil whether he liked it or not. You can thank Vinny for that gem, and Dan for signing off on it. So why would you want to keep the guy on your team knowing he was going to half ass it? If anything, it would be more of a slap in the face to keep him around. You are a bit misguided about the salary because there is a salary cap floor he HAS to spend.


As far as owners spending money on players, of course they spend money on players. They have to have a draw to hype up the fan base and put excitement in the stands. A shiny new player means more jerseys to sell. Whether that be McNabb or Tebow, it's a draw for the fans. You got to spend money, to make it.

D.C. Sports Bog - McNabb still second in NFL jersey sales

Make no mistake about it, Snyder wants to win. Winning means more revenue and Dan likes that a lot. I give it to him because he's passionate and he truly is a Skins fan to heart. That said, if Dan had to choose between making money or winning, he'd choose the money. This isn't exclusive to just Dan, as I said all the owners. These guys don't buy these teams to win super bowls. They buy the teams to make a shit ton of money and to see their investment grow. That said, the investment grows much faster with a winning team.

[SCRedskinsFan]

This is a discussion that seems to have run its course.

One point I never see mentioned is that, while we got a $36 million cap penalty spread over two years, I believe that "dumping" the Haynesworth and Hall contracts created substantially more cap space than the $36 million. ( I would love to have our cap experts verify the numbers)

I'm not saying that the timing of the penalty just before free agency didn't hurt or that we wouldn't have tried to spread the $$$ over a number of years to mitigate the effect, or that they weren't absolutely wrong in penalizing us for assuming that a capless year meant just that.

But lost in the discussion seems to be the fact that the Redskins did create a cap benefit for themselves in the process. Just my 2 cents worth...

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Waiting for this thread to be titled "Good news: This thread is now locked because we're not getting any money back"

Exactly. lol

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The thing is, all 32 teams were told NOT to use the uncapped year to dump bad contracts and were warned (in writing) that there would be penalties for teams that did. 28 teams followed that direction and 4 teams were penalized for not colluding. The skins and cowboys did this to an extreme degree, so they were penalized most.

It sucks, and its not "right" but it is what it is. If there's any consolation, its the fact that the skins would be carrng more than 18MM in dead cap in 2012 and 2013 seasons if they hadnt broken the rule. Ultimately, the penalties suck, but we're better off than we would have been if there had been a salary cap.

Um, I understand why we got punished. I still don't think its fair or right which is what I mean when I say I don't get it.

Here's the bigger issue I have yet again: the memo from head quarters was technically illegal. Sending the memo was head quarters requesting all 32 teams to violate an agreement that neither side would collude. 2 teams chose not to violate an agreement the NFL and NFLPA. Because those two teams chose not to play ball head quarters decided a punishment should be given. But to punish would be giving the NFLPA all the proof they needed of collusion by the owners to keep costs down. So the NFL makes an addendum to the rule, they have the NFLPA sign it or lose out on $$$(which is black mail by the way), and then they punished the two teams yet again violating their own rules that it should have been brought before the league of owners prior for a vote on if they should punish...majority rule. After the punishment was doled out they then held their owners meeting and presented that they would spread the wealth around if the other teams voted for the punishment, essentially making the vote issue some what moot.

And the reason they keep losing the battle? Because supposedly it does not matter in the court of law that your being "black mailed" into agreeing to something, nor does it matter that head quarters broke the law first with the memo to collude because the NFLPA supposedly gave up their rights to complain. Personally I think the courts should look at the issue like an accident... the first illegal act is the responsible party. And in this case that would be when the NFL sent out the memo or verbally informed the owners not to spend or cut expenses. The key here is there were no rules. The rules expired. I understand there was a verbal contract but the NFLPA was not apart of that decision and would not have agreed to the owner not spending or cutting expenses.

To me this is nondifferent then your employee embezzling from your company and the only way to prove it is to sign an agreement that you won't procecute. So you sign it because that IS your proof that a crime was committed and the courts keep looking at you and saying sorry you signed your rights away so you have no standing.

Its BS.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thats a completely ridiculous statement and shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

In getting rid of those contracts, Snyder actually PAID OVER 100MM in money to bad players in lump sums, just to get them off the team and free up cap space... so he could spend even MORE OF HIS MONEY on new players who could help the team win.

If Snyder cared more about money than winning, he would have, for example, made fat albert play out his contract, or not dump the money in the uncap year, carrying dead money in future years, which would save him money as he wouldnt be able to spend it on new players.

You said it yourself - the cap money is gone. Snyders only option would be to file a case in against the league in court - one which they'd most certainly lose. And if they won, and the court ruled the league had committed collusion against the union, it would be disasterous for the league. Its a no-win situation.

Disasterous yes, worth it yes. For two reasons

1- Snyder would get the pleasure of saying "I told you so".
2- the Skins would not be monitarily punished. However all the other owners most likely would get fined by the courts and the money most likely given to the NFLPA. I'd presume Goodell would lose his job and hopefully Mara would lose his position on the board.

What is the negative? All the other owners would not be happy with Snyder or JJ, but who cares the other owners really don't have love for them anyway.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

What is the negative? All the other owners would not be happy with Snyder or JJ, but who cares the other owners really don't have love for them anyway.

Two words: Allen Davis. Might know him better as Al. They're business partners. You don't sue your business partner and expect everything to remain productive. It won't work. It may "feel" better but that doesn't make it the smart move.

Jerry may not be liked but he is respected. He's on some of the major committees. Snyder is likely still building respect. All that is worth something.

[Ruhskins]

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Look, you don't like it? think we the few who want to talk about it are beating a dead horse? Then do us a solid and don't come in the thread. Some of us still like to talk about this topic. Some of us still like to vent. If you don't.... don't look.

This is a free country, if you don't like whats on the radio guess what... YOU have the availability to change the channel. If you don't like whats on tv, guess what.... YOU have the availability to change the channel. I'm so tired of others who are offended or don't like the topic being able to dictate what the rest of society should get to listen to or watch or talk about.

PS: have a nice day.

[ethat001]

Then again.. If you should be allowed to rant about "this topic", you'd think that Ruhskins would be allowed to post a picture of a dead horse. You also would have the ability to skip over his post...

Just sayin..

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by ethat001

Then again.. If you should be allowed to rant about "this topic", you'd think that Ruhskins would be allowed to post a picture of a dead horse. You also would have the ability to skip over his post...

Just sayin..

Schneed10 likes this.

[44ever]

...

Originally Posted by Ruhskins