Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.

First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.

I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

I am glad we agree that the Skins did nothing wrong by the letter of the CBA.

Everything else I understand what your views and points are.

Personally, I hope the arbitrator rules in the Skins/Cowboys favor, or at least scares the NFL enough that they reduce the sanctions, even if that means leaving this year's in place and writing off next year's.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinster

The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.

I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams.

Basically the reason for the timing was to get the new CBA signed, the NFLPA's law suit dropped, and for the dust to settle before the punishment.

I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams.

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.

A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

One could say the same thing in regards to the warning....

The "PUNISHMENT" gives credence to the fact that there was some agreement between the owners to not "over spend". By the way the warning was in regards to teams over spending it was not specific to what the Skins did which was rework contracts pushing Bonus money into one uncapped year.

You and the league can argue there was a warning all you want but the warning was not specific to what the Skins did and they thought they found a loophole. Because the other owners complained Goodell and the Exec Committee had to look into it and decide if the two teams (Skins and Boys) got an unfair advantage out of it. The key though is ....

There was no CAP

There was nothing in writing saying they could do what they did

The warning was not specific... Goodell can't think of everything and every loophole that might come up and in this situation they didn't think of this situation but are trying to pull into and under their ..."warning" that was issued.

However I'll do you one better.... No I don't know what exactly the specific warning was no different then you don't know what exactly the spicific warning was. You can go off what Goodell says he told the league but even he's been vague about the specific wording of his warning because I think he knows it was not exactly what the Skins and Boys did.

But that is for the Arbitrator to decide.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

"Wrong" is also a vague term, and IMO the redskins did nothing "wrong." Just "scummy." . The commish doesn't have the power to punish them, as I pointed out in my last post. The Redskins did pull a douchebag move in doing what they did, but any move made in the nfl cannot be punnished if it is brought to the attention of the nfl, and approved by the nfl. Period.