Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

Why do I suggest it? because the two teams pretty mush support the lower half of the league. Maybe the other 30 owners would like to have the $$$ dropping and the CAP lowered, and for once not get the $$$ they used to and maybe turn out to be one of the teams doing the supporting for the next several yrs. Have a big % of their income taken away to support teams below them.

Maybe if the fan base refused to buy tickets (which won't happen) would force DS to lower prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs if fans are not buying food. Basically its all about what the market will pay. I'm confused with Tampa though being at the bottom of the league but if the fan base plays it like Carolina or Jacksonville maybe in the long run some other piss poor team will be in the position to support the Skins and see if they like it. The DS can complain about their competative edge and take away their money.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

OK, so that being said, assuming +/- 5% of bias, wouldn't the arbitrator look at this and be like, "HA! Wow, NFL this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. I rule in favor of the Redskins and Cowboys."? There are SO MANY things in favor of both of those teams when it comes to the details. I HATE the Cowboys. I hate them with every fiber of my soul. But even with my loathing hatred of them, they got dicked over as much as we did.

Someone posted this in this thread already, but the timing, the teams, the amount, EVERYTHING screams of collusion.

In my opinion, this is a simple "can't see the forest for the trees" type of argument that unless Goodell goes all "I-do-what-I-want-bitches", it's an obvious injustice.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk

Maybe. I've seen so many conflicting things on his contract, I'm just not going to bother with it.

There were other contracts structured in a similar fashion, though.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

Woow. time out. you pointed out that there were rules from the 2006 CBA that were still in place regarding the CAP and how teams could spend. Either there was a CAP or there was not. I guess what I'm getting at is the same rules that apply for how much teams can over spend apply to how much teams can underspend.

which is it. was there a rule or were there no rules? Cause this is the big arguement that there was no rules because the CBA expired and there was no CAP. and if this is correct then the Skins and Boys did nothing wrong and should not be punished. No matter how much the other 30 teams don't like it.