Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.

Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.

As explained earlier in the thread:

1. Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
2. Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
3. Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
4. The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
5. The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
6. The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
7. The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.

The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.

As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.

The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As explained earlier in the thread:

1. Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
2. Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
3. Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
4. The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
5. The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
6. The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
7. The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.

The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.

As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.

The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.

I'll read the rest later as I gotta get going from work but your just looking at your #1 and #2.... the punishement is not collusion. The agreement the 30 owners had to keep costs down with out the NFLPA's approval is collusion. The issue is the NFLPA didn't have definite proof that the owners were colluding which is why when the new CBA was signed there was an agreement between both sides that the NFLPA gave up their right to file a law suit. The meeting the Exec Committee and the NFLPA had was to remind them of the agreement and to blackmail them into agreeing or the CAP would be lowered for their players for each team.

The punishement is proof their was an agreement between the owners to keep the costs down against the uncapped year. which there should not have been an agreement because thats colluding unless the players agreed to it.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As explained earlier in the thread:

1. Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
2. Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
3. Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
4. The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
5. The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
6. The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
7. The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.

So, why didn't the league veto the contracts? I have always been under the impression that the league looks at all contracts to make sure they fall within the guidelines of the CBA. If the contracts both teams signed didn't fall into the guidelines as they are trying to say why didn't they veto, not approve, make both teams restructure them again, whatever? Why wait for 2 yrs then decide to punish?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.

Or, if the Commissioner has broad powers to discipline teams for vague reasons, you warn people in advance that:

• An Uncapped year means you can spend as much as you want
• An Uncapped year does not mean you can "hit delete" on bad contracts by shifting all the future salary cap hit into the uncapped year
• We have written provisions into the CBA towards this effect
• It's impractical to try to think of every possible case in advance, but be advised I will view attempts to circumvent this as adversely affecting competitive balance
• I will discipline teams accordingly if necessary

In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Or, if the Commissioner has broad powers to discipline teams for vague reasons, you warn people in advance that:

• An Uncapped year means you can spend as much as you want
• An Uncapped year does not mean you can "hit delete" on bad contracts by shifting all the future salary cap hit into the uncapped year
• We have written provisions into the CBA towards this effect
• It's impractical to try to think of every possible case in advance, but be advised I will view attempts to circumvent this as adversely affecting competitive balance
• I will discipline teams accordingly if necessary

In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.

Personally I kinda got the impression that the league warned about a specific issue. The Redskins and Cowboys chose to do what they did and reworked contracts because it was not what the warning was referencing. After the fact Goodell decides to take it to the Exec Committee to see if something should and could be done about what the two teams did.

It was my understanding the whole arguement the two teams have is that what they did was not warned against doing. However after the fact Goodell wants to some how twist the warning to fit what the two teams did do. This is why I think we will win along with the fact the league did not have issue's with the contracts when they had the opportunity to. Had the league done what ever they do.... deny, veto, decline, whatever and sent the contracts back to the two teams and told them "per our agreement you can't do this" there would be no need for punishment. Instead they let the contracts happen, then get tied all up in the new CBA talks, and what ... 2 yrs later decide ... oh we don't like what you did here so ... we want to punish you. Thats wrong. Why the delay? They were not in constant talks with the NFLPA. The owners held meetings outside the CBA meetings. They could at any time have decided on a punishment.

I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

.
I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.

I think the league had to wait for any punishment to make sure that it didn't come back and bite them. Had the league not approved the re-structured contracts when they happened, it could have given the Players ammunition on their suit against the league.