Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This is where your wrong. There was no negotiation with the NFLPA about keeping costs down. Heres how I know.... the NFLPA suspected the owners were colluding. The didn't have the proof but they knew the owners had agreed to something. Had the league denied the contracts the Redskins and Cowboys made the NFLPA would have had their proof of collusion and the most likely there would have been no football because we would still be waiting for both sides to be heard in court. The NFLPA would have filed in court that the league was colluding.

The league knew this. DS and JJ banked on this so their deals could get approved. The league was FORCED to approve the deals so they wouldn't get into trouble for colluding.

Then two years later the Exec Committee decides it wants to punish the two teams for not going along with the program. But they still can't issue a punishment with out showing they colluded. So they call in the NFLPA and say hey we want to punish these two teams. If you don't go along with the program then we will just lower the CAP 3-7 mill for each team. Which means you guys will lose millions across the board, $96 mill at the least and $224 mill at the most. If you go along with the program the league will keep the $$ amount where it is at now. The NFLPA could care less if 30 owners want to punish 2 to the sum of $46 mill, it's a lot less then what they would have been losing.

You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.

Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.

Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.

Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.

Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.

Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.

I believe you're missing the point.

Keeping people from paying as much as they want for players in an uncapped year = illegal collusion.

Keeping people from shifting too much salary cap hit into an uncapped year <> illegal collusion.

The 2006 CBA had several clauses agreed between the League and the NFLPA to prevent the latter. It's clear they agreed on the principle.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I believe you're missing the point.

Keeping people from paying as much as they want for players in an uncapped year = illegal collusion.

Keeping people from shifting too much salary cap hit into an uncapped year <> illegal collusion.

The 2006 CBA had several clauses agreed between the League and the NFLPA to prevent the latter. It's clear they agreed on the principle.

Hopefully, my last entry on this, because until it's ruled on we just keep banging heads.

The fact that the 2006 CBA had several clauses defining illegal actions that were agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA may or may not prove it was a shared concern. BUT what it DOES prove is that our actions met the letter of the law as it was written in 2006. To extrapolate out and say that somehow the CBA as written proves a spirit or intent on the NFLPA's part is ludicrous. We did not use a heretofore unused scheme. Option bonuses and voidable options were expressly allowed in the salary cap era, and NOT expressly disallowed in the uncapped year.

IF the NFLPA agreed on the principle, then in the 2006 CBA, or at some later date prior to the beginning of the uncapped league year, the NFL should have gotten an amendment to the CBA stating that the uncapped year should not be used to play tricks with the salary cap going forward. BUT, the NFLPA's express position was that if the salary cap died, it was not coming back. And if it hadn't come back, which was a valid possibility at the time the contracts in question were written, then there would have been no issue as to the salary cap techniques used.

Bottomline, there is no elastic clause in the 2006 CBA that says " and other salary cap manipulations that a team may use". It clearly defines which were illegal, and any other techniques used before, and again after the uncapped year, should be presumed legal and valid, and not subject to league sanction.

Awaiting Mara's[hoophead] response

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Hopefully, my last entry on this, because until it's ruled on we just keep banging heads.

The fact that the 2006 CBA had several clauses defining illegal actions that were agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA may or may not prove it was a shared concern. BUT what it DOES prove is that our actions met the letter of the law as it was written in 2006. To extrapolate out and say that somehow the CBA as written proves a spirit or intent on the NFLPA's part is ludicrous. We did not use a heretofore unused scheme. Option bonuses and voidable options were expressly allowed in the salary cap era, and NOT expressly disallowed in the uncapped year.

IF the NFLPA agreed on the principle, then in the 2006 CBA, or at some later date prior to the beginning of the uncapped league year, the NFL should have gotten an amendment to the CBA stating that the uncapped year should not be used to play tricks with the salary cap going forward. BUT, the NFLPA's express position was that if the salary cap died, it was not coming back. And if it hadn't come back, which was a valid possibility at the time the contracts in question were written, then there would have been no issue as to the salary cap techniques used.

Bottomline, there is no elastic clause in the 2006 CBA that says " and other salary cap manipulations that a team may use". It clearly defines which were illegal, and any other techniques used before, and again after the uncapped year, should be presumed legal and valid, and not subject to league sanction.

Awaiting Mara's[hoophead] response

I agree with what you wrote above. What the Skins did was not expressly disallowed by the CBA. I get what the Skins did and why.

I think the punishment is harsh and the process was ridiculous. The best way to handle it would have been for the Commissioner to pick up the phone and say, "Danny, you're trying to do something here we agreed we wouldn't do. I'm not going to disapprove it, but it's going to make other owners angry. If they push back enough, I may eventually have to take action, and you may not like it. Do you want to re-do this?"

Dropping it two years later, with a punitive amount, on the brink of free agency sucks.

The only points I'd add are:

1) Agreeing to not do this was not collusion

2) The NFLPA did not have a problem with agreeing to limit how much salary cap hit could be shifted into an uncapped year

3) Given the structure of the NFL and the powers given to the Commissioner, the Skins were playing with fire if they intentionally and obviously went against this apparent agreement between owners

I went into this thinking the Skins had a great case, the Commissioner and Mara had screwed up, and we were going to get something back. After reading the NFL Bylaws, the 2006 and 2010 CBAs, and seeing the owners 29-2-1 vote, I think our best case is that they agree to reduce the penalty to make this go away quietly.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things

Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.

The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.

The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.

I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.

I have a serious problem with this. When I submit a document, contract or restructuring to a governing body for approval and they accept it and allow the change to take place, they are participating in the process and supposed "illegal" act. What is the point of submitting the agreements to the NFL offices if they approve it and months or years later say it is illegal and worthy of a $46 Million dollar fine?
If I am a member of the NFL governing body approving contracts and renegotiation, is it not my responsibility to inform the teams when they have error-ed in the contract process? Even if an issue is discovered later (months or years later) would it not make sense to inform the team and give them the chance to correct or negotiate a resolution. Not wait until the day before Free Agency starts AND hit the team with a huge fine? With no time to appeal before Free agency starts.
The 'excuse' above that the multi-$Billion dollar NFL being to busy is not acceptable. They don't have enough money to hire a few extra lawyers to deal with all issues in a timely manner?
Does not pass the smell test. Rotten.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I have a serious problem with this. When I submit a document, contract or restructuring to a governing body for approval and they accept it and allow the change to take place, they are participating in the process and supposed "illegal" act. What is the point of submitting the agreements to the NFL offices if they approve it and months or years later say it is illegal and worthy of a $46 Million dollar fine?
If I am a member of the NFL governing body approving contracts and renegotiation, is it not my responsibility to inform the teams when they have error-ed in the contract process? Even if an issue is discovered later (months or years later) would it not make sense to inform the team and give them the chance to correct or negotiate a resolution. Not wait until the day before Free Agency starts AND hit the team with a huge fine? With no time to appeal before Free agency starts.
The 'excuse' above that the multi-$Billion dollar NFL being to busy is not acceptable. They don't have enough money to hire a few extra lawyers to deal with all issues in a timely manner?
Does not pass the smell test. Rotten.

No doubt. The process of this is an absolute mess.

As far as not disapproving within 10 days, I'm guessing the Commissioner read the contracts, saw what they were doing, but wasn't going to take action. Then, he got complaints from a bunch of owners later and had to act. It's not a case of not reading what was in the contracts.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

No doubt. The process of this is an absolute mess.

As far as not disapproving within 10 days, I'm guessing the Commissioner read the contracts, saw what they were doing, but wasn't going to take action. Then, he got complaints from a bunch of owners later and had to act. It's not a case of not reading what was in the contracts.

Ok so lets say right now the league makes a deal with Garcon, what happens? it doesn't get looked at for 2 yrs? Goodell just rubber stamps the contracts cause he assumes they are done correctly? No, you and I both know thats not true. All contracts get sent to the league for review and approval. Probably before both sides sign it because it's legal and binding.

Why have a review process if no one is looking at the contracts? The league had 2 yrs. Don't make it sound like the league was in constant negotiations with the NFLPA and didn't have time to review it or deny it because there were many of times where we heard through media sources both sides were taking a break from the issue's. Neither side would hear from the other for long periods of time. They had plenty of time to say something to both teams, but we all know had they denied or returned the deals to the owners and told them to rework the contracts the NFLPA would have had it's proof the league was already breaking the law and there would have been the legal battle the league was trying to avoid.

In essence they agreed to the contracts by both teams to avoid a legal battle in court over collusion. They get a new CBA signed. They make an offer to the NFLPA that make it hard for them to refuse. Then they punish the two teams 2 hrs prior to FA so the two teams can't file a grievance or get it reversed prior to FA and both team buy up the talent pool.