Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[skinsguy]

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

I was done about 59 pages ago, lol

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

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.

[imaskin4life]

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

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by imaskin4life

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

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents

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.

[imaskin4life]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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.

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

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by imaskin4life

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

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.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

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?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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?

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

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.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

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.

[skinster]

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?

[VegasSkinsFan]

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.

[SBXVII]

The facts:

The warnings

I remember the NFL Management Council starting to advise clubs as far back as 2007 that, in the event of an uncapped year, they could not press “File Delete” in 2010.

These warnings continued with more urgency in 2009, that it would be “taking unfair advantage” of the uncapped year in gaining a competitive edge by Cap-dumping into a year without a Cap.

Let’s look at the arguments from each side.

Warnings

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that there were no written warnings against what they did.
◦The NFL will argue that there were repeated and strident verbal warnings as far back as three years prior to the uncapped year.
Approvals

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the front loaded negotiations and Cap restructures were approved by the NFL -- as all contracts must be -- which represented a tacit approval of their structure.
◦The NFL will argue that it is irrelevant that the contracts were approved. There was no Salary Cap and thus no Salary Cap rules to manage.
Competitive edge

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the league should look into teams like the Buccaneers and Chiefs, teams that underspent in 2010, and their competitive edge gained by under spending.
◦The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.

What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.