Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The problem with this is that Goodell and/or the Management Council Executive Committee overstepped their authority by modifying the salary cap as a penalty, but the owners as a group have more authority. Goodell can fine up to $500k, suspend individuals or take draft picks. The MCEC reports to Goodell and has the authority to negotiate with the NFLPA on behalf of the NFL.

The Executive Committee however - made up of ownership reps of all 30 teams - can impose whatever penalties they want as long as 24 votes support it. The Commissioner reports to the Executive Committee. Since the two teams were asked to leave the room, I'm guessing the meeting yesterday wasn't an actual Exec Committee meeting, just a show of hands - but it doesn't bode well. Basically, there's nothing to be discussed in arbitration if the Exec Committee imposes penalties.

Plus, if the two teams involved fight it, Goodell does have the authority to take away draft picks - his nuclear option is no RG3.

Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the 'Skins actively restructuring existing contracts to move the cap hit forward into 2010. I suppose, in the other owners' minds that's worse than just signing new contracts and taking a big hit in 2010.

The Haynesworth contract was specifically redone to move later cap hits into 2010. Creative accounting designed specifically to free up future cap space.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for trying to free up future cap space under a cap that may or may not exist in the future is another question, but the 'Skins were trying to shift future cap hit into the uncapped year.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the 'Skins actively restructuring existing contracts to move the cap hit forward into 2010. I suppose, in the other owners' minds that's worse than just signing new contracts and taking a big hit in 2010.

The Haynesworth contract was specifically redone to move later cap hits into 2010. Creative accounting designed specifically to free up future cap space.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for trying to free up future cap space under a cap that may or may not exist in the future is another question, but the 'Skins were trying to shift future cap hit into the uncapped year.

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Keep up with the conversation bro. We've been over this whole "Pepper's contract" thing a billion times. The numbers reported were incorrect.

I'm like Sandtrap though. I don't care how many time HoopheadVII sells it and I know he's right, but what the league did was just wrong. Yes I'm blinded by B&G but still they had 7 months to do something and they waited until 2 hrs prior to FA? They claim they made it clear teams would get punished. Well they probably did but did they explain what the punishment was going to be?

Besides I'm guessing DS and JJ sat their thinking (not together of course) what will they do? they either deny the deals and get themselves into trouble or approve the deals and were golden. The deals got approved. Which is my issue. The league could have said no these contracts won't work per our agreement.

but as Hoop has said they couldn't because then it would have been clear they were breaking the law in collusion. To me everything else is superfluous, they made an illegal agreement that at the time had it been known they would have gotten into trouble. The Redskins and Cowboys chose not to break the law. You either reward that or you punish that but I'm telling you by punishing the Redskins and Cowboys their presenting an image that its ok to cheat (the players) and steal (from the players) and break the law (collusion) and if anyone (owners, players) does not want to go along with the program they will punish them (players-lowered CAP) (Redskins/Cowboys-CAP space).

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

So the Redskins moved the Haynesworth monies into 2010. How is that any different than what the Bears did by front-loading the cap hit on Julius Peppers when they signed him in the uncapped year?

Peppers got 20 Million in his first season (uncapped year) but in 2012 he only gets 9 million (capped year).

Peppers contract with Chicago is 40 mill guaranteed. Of which half of that guaranteed was somehow spent during the uncapped year. His total contract worth is 83.5 mill. And by having 25% of that number in the uncapped year, that too did not raise some eyebrows?

How is that any different then what Washington did with Haynesworth?

As best I can tell, 6.5 of that 20 in year 1 is signing bonus - which is spread over the life of the contract.

Salary + other non-signing bonuses in year 1 is 13.5, and 11.4 in year 2. Drop is less than 30%, so it's ok.

Spotrac seems to have it wrong - they entered 20m in two different places in year 1, and he didn't get 40.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.

Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.

1) Any owner has a similar conflict of interest.

2) If 29 of 30 owners support it, it wouldn't have made a difference who it was.

3) I'm guessing it went something like this:
- Multiple owners complain to the Commissioner
- Commissioner decides on punishment - take away cap space
- Taking away cap space affects the CBA, better talk with NFLPA first
- Commissioner gives it to MCEC because they are responsible for negotiating with NFLPA

MCEC (Mara's committee) doesn't have authority to discipline teams. Mara's involved because he's the League's main contact with the NFLPA.

[NC_Skins]

Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?

Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins







Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.

I found the actual response from Goodell below.

Originally Posted by The Rog's response to the 'uncapped year' question

Whoa brah! Party foul. Party FOUL. You're killing my buzz brah. GTFO. Next question.