Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

Why send the contracts to the league for approval at all? If they are not going to look at them then there is no need to send them. But they do look at them, they do get to decide if the contracts are ok or not. The league had no problem with the contracts or they would have denied them. What... is the league all of a sudden ... oh we made a mistake and because we can't do our jobs.... we are going to make you pay for it.

[skinsguy]

"The question was, 'Did any teams gain a competitive advantage?'" Goodell said. "And that was the focus that we and the NFLPA had in reaching our agreement -- making sure that no team had a long-term competitive advantage."

No date set for cap penalty hearings - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

Well let's see, the Redskins were 6-10 in 2010, and 5-11 in 2011. I don't see competitive advantage. And I'll take a page out of Roger Goodell's book, what is long-term competitive advantage?

[GoSkins!]

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.

I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...

1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.

2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.

I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...

1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.

2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.

1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).

2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

The argument seems to be that they are not punishing the Skins and Cowboys for spending in an uncapped year - they are punishing them for structuring contracts so that future cap hits were shifted into 2010. The Haynesworth contract restructuring included a $21m signing bonus, and the cap hit would normally be spread evenly across 2010, 2011, and 2012.

However, they included a provision that Haynesworth could void the contract after 2010 by paying back something like $24m. Because this was entirely under player control, the entire $21m cap hit comes in 2010.

They weren't paying Haynesworth any more money in 2010 than they would if the void clause were omitted, just shifting the entire cap hit into 2010. The other owners are saying this is unfair.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for rules that don't exist or not is another issue.

Also how bright it is for members of an exclusive club to anger 29 other members of the exclusive club when the rules of the club say you can do just about anything with 24 votes is another subject for discussion.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

This part I agree with. The league should have said, OK you can do this contract, but the salary cap hit is going to happen as though the void clause didn't exist. Would have been a reasonable approach to this situation - Haynesworth's $21m would have been split 7m in 2010 and 14m in 2011.

Hall had a $15m roster bonus in 2010. Treat that like a signing bonus, and it counts $3m in each year 2010-2014.

Add them together and you get:
- the hit in 2012 is 20m ($14m Haynesworth '11 + $3m Hall '11 & '12)
- the hit for Hall's contract is an additional $3m in 2013 and 2014

Go to the teams and say, accept this, or I'll take away draft picks because I can. That would have been the way to handle it.

Instead they snuck around, made the two owners squeal, have put their dirty collusive laundry out in the public view, have pissed off the NFLPA, have given the NFLPA evidence of collusion, and have given the NFLPA a higher salary cap.