Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[Dirtbag59]

Goodell: Yep
Mara: Yup

[PWNED]

i bet mara has his hand on goodells ass...

[ethat001]

Haha. I knew the post would generate discussion. I should clarify with a more careful choice of words - what I meant was: again I don't believe we broke any rules. I don't think we should lose any cap money.


BUT we did to spend more than others in the league (within the rules) to get rid of a bad contract we signed (Haynesworth). We normally would not have been allowed to do this, and this gave us a competitive advantage -- which to my knowledge was completely within the rules.

Just saying, it is odd that others did not restructure their contracts and create tons of cap room.. Although we stayed within the rules, we did do more than most other clubs, and certainly gained an advantage which we did not have before doing so.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by ethat001

Haha. I knew the post would generate discussion. I should clarify with a more careful choice of words - what I meant was: again I don't believe we broke any rules. I don't think we should lose any cap money.


BUT we did to spend more than others in the league (within the rules) to get rid of a bad contract we signed (Haynesworth). We normally would not have been allowed to do this, and this gave us a competitive advantage -- which to my knowledge was completely within the rules.

Just saying, it is odd that others did not restructure their contracts and create tons of cap room.. Although we stayed within the rules, we did do more than most other clubs, and certainly gained an advantage which we did not have before doing so.

I think it's more like this:

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

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

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

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

- League exercises early termination option and 2010 becomes uncapped year

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

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

- Multiple other owners complain to Commissioner

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

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

- Chaos ensues

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

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

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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

You have made some good points regarding this cap mess; however, would you please come to your senses and drop your ridiculous assertions that the other NFL owners might force Dan Snyder out as an owner or take away the draft pick that would enable the Skins to acquire either RGIII or Luck if Snyder doesn't take his medicine like a good boy. The sky is not falling. Neither of those things will ever happen.

I could give you many reasons why those things won't happen but I'll just give you a few.

One: No NFL owner in his right mind would want to set the precedent of voting out another owner because to do so opens the door to his possibly being voted out in the future.

Two: Just because most of the owners are lined up against the Skins and Cowboys on this particular issue doesn't mean that they are all enemies of Dan Snyder and/or Jerry Jones. They both, no doubt, have friends among the other owners.

Three: If the NFL ever contemplated the things you keep bringing up, then they would be in for the legal fight of their lives - and they know it. Any extreme action against Dan Snyder brought on by the cap dispute would necessarily bring Jerry Jones into the fight on Snyder's side because he would perceive that as a threat to himself.

Four: If this cap issue were to escalate into full-scale war, both Snyder and Jones have friends in Congress who they could get involved, if necessary, to give the NFL a huge headache, if not worse.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Dan Snyder's ownership of the Redskins or this year's second overall draft pick is at stake here, so just drop it.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

You have made some good points regarding this cap mess; however, would you please come to your senses and drop your ridiculous assertions that the other NFL owners might force Dan Snyder out as an owner or take away the draft pick that would enable the Skins to acquire either RGIII or Luck if Snyder doesn't take his medicine like a good boy. The sky is not falling. Neither of those things will ever happen.

I could give you many reasons why those things won't happen but I'll just give you a few.

One: No NFL owner in his right mind would want to set the precedent of voting out another owner because to do so opens the door to his possibly being voted out in the future.

Two: Just because most of the owners are lined up against the Skins and Cowboys on this particular issue doesn't mean that they are all enemies of Dan Snyder and/or Jerry Jones. They both, no doubt, have friends among the other owners.

Three: If the NFL ever contemplated the things you keep bringing up, then they would be in for the legal fight of their lives - and they know it. Any extreme action against Dan Snyder brought on by the cap dispute would necessarily bring Jerry Jones into the fight on Snyder's side because he would perceive that as a threat to himself.

Four: If this cap issue were to escalate into full-scale war, both Snyder and Jones have friends in Congress who they could get involved, if necessary, to give the NFL a huge headache, if not worse.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Dan Snyder's ownership of the Redskins or this year's second overall draft pick is at stake here, so just drop it.

The removing Dan Snyder as owner is a joke - I'm stuck hoping for either that or him being forced to sell as part of a divorce settlement a la the Dodgers.

As for the #2 pick, no way they take that. They could take other picks, and the point is that the League has Snyder by the balls in this situation.

And the real point is that the League doesn't live by normal rules. In joining the club, they have granted significant power to a Commissioner and are ultimately subject to a 3/4 majority.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The removing Dan Snyder as owner is a joke - I'm stuck hoping for either that or him being forced to sell as part of a divorce settlement a la the Dodgers.

As for the #2 pick, no way they take that. They could take other picks, and the point is that the League has Snyder by the balls in this situation.

And the real point is that the League doesn't live by normal rules. In joining the club, they have granted significant power to a Commissioner and are ultimately subject to a 3/4 majority.

So you agree,
1) there is no way that Snyder is gone (not really even a funny joke, just a lame old rehash)

2) we aren't losing the #2 pick

So really it's just bickering about the fact that the league has a strong oversight mechanism.

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

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I think it's more like this:

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

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

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

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

- League exercises early termination option and 2010 becomes uncapped year

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

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

- Multiple other owners complain to Commissioner

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

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

- Chaos ensues

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

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

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

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

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

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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

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

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

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

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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

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

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

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

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

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

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

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

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

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

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

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

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

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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

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

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

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

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

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

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

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

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

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