Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[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.