Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[firstdown]

I say we tell the NFL to kiss our ass and just ignore the penalty. What could they do?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I say we tell the NFL to kiss our ass and just ignore the penalty. What could they do?

Well a lot. Our only options are

a) eat it
b) argue and convince the owners to relent
c) sue

A is most likely to end up happening. B is probably what they're trying but almost assuredly won't work. C is the nuclear option that might work but has a ton of downside

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well a lot. Our only options are

a) eat it
b) argue and convince the owners to relent
c) sue

A is most likely to end up happening. B is probably what they're trying but almost assuredly won't work. C is the nuclear option that might work but has a ton of downside

Yep.

Option C bites the hand that feeds and thus is almost unthinkable, as just as it might be.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I say we tell the NFL to kiss our ass and just ignore the penalty. What could they do?

I'm guessing they could keep us from signing anybody, drafted or FA.

We need the FO's approval (and player's union approval?) to sign contracts. I don't think any player's going to sign with us on otherwise uncertain terms. And risk their own status in the organization when they could sign safe deals with other teams.

[T.O.Killa]

I still don't the title of this thread. It should be more like a discussion on the cap penalty. Anyway, when I look at the cap numbers I don't see it hurting us like the experts say. It seems to me, that if there is a guy we want, we just use the subsequent years to charge the signing bonus. I think we have plenty of room to maneuver. We can save 8 Million cutting Hall, 4 Million cutting Moss, 4 million Cutting Wilson, 1 million cutting Jammal brown, and there are others that could be cut. There are a few that could be restructured. Like Trent Williams. Say we want a guy that will cost 10 million a year for five years, the way I understand it, we could give him a nine million dollars roster bonus and charge it to the next four years. Making him count ford 12.2 million the next four years. It seems to me that we have a fairly cheap roster now, and can afford to make the next year a little heavy. Especially, since the cap number should begin to skyrocket in the next two years. I would like to here if I am correct from some of our cap guru's.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

I still don't the title of this thread. It should be more like a discussion on the cap penalty. Anyway, when I look at the cap numbers I don't see it hurting us like the experts say. It seems to me, that if there is a guy we want, we just use the subsequent years to charge the signing bonus. I think we have plenty of room to maneuver. We can save 8 Million cutting Hall, 4 Million cutting Moss, 4 million Cutting Wilson, 1 million cutting Jammal brown, and there are others that could be cut. There are a few that could be restructured. Like Trent Williams. Say we want a guy that will cost 10 million a year for five years, the way I understand it, we could give him a nine million dollars roster bonus and charge it to the next four years. Making him count ford 12.2 million the next four years. It seems to me that we have a fairly cheap roster now, and can afford to make the next year a little heavy. Especially, since the cap number should begin to skyrocket in the next two years. I would like to here if I am correct from some of our cap guru's.

It hurts us, in the sense that we can't go splurge in FA and get unlimited players that way, but as you showed, there are definitely ways to manage the cap wisely. As long as we don't push a lot into future years, then we still ought to be able to sign a couple of solid FA's + keep the guys we want. Without know how, I would imagine (or hope) BA is looking at the numbers along this line: 9mill this year (again keep in mind had we "played by the rules" we would have had some cap impact from Haynesworth so this should just be looked at like dead cap in my mind), and 4.5mill "dead cap/penalty" for the next two years. We might not get every player, but as long as the NFL/NFLPA don't pull anymore last minute hijinx then I expect MS/BA will be more than able to put a comprehensive approach to the draft/FA period of the off-season.

Firstdown, the league sets the cap, and will not let us go over it. Therefore if we ignored the penalty, the league would not approve any new contracts, and if we were over the calculated cap, then they would impose a cash fine against the team every day it is over. I am pretty sure Dan Snyder is not going to pay a daily fine in lieu of restructuring a few contracts and managing the cap appropriately.

[SBXVII]

The NFLPA is Appealing Doty's ruling. From the article... don't expect a different answer cause apparently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is Union friendly and they figure the court will rule for the NFL and not change the penalties.

NFLPA appeals Judge Doty ruling on collusion claim | ProFootballTalk

[Gmanc711]

I still don't see how its legal that we lost the cap space, and how people are ruling against us.... but whatever.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I still don't see how its legal that we lost the cap space, and how people are ruling against us.... but whatever.

Totally agree with you.

Rules were in place
Rules expired
Two teams took advantage of what all the teams could have done
New rules agreed to and signed
Addendum to the rules agreed to and signed
Punishment/Fines handed out

Crazy. Usually in most cases when a contract expires then there is nothing to hold anyone accountable to in that expired contract. How are you going to make an Addendum, make it retroactive, then punish two teams for violating something that was not in place at the time of said violation?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Totally agree with you.

Rules were in place
Rules expired
Two teams took advantage of what all the teams could have done
New rules agreed to and signed
Addendum to the rules agreed to and signed
Punishment/Fines handed out

Crazy. Usually in most cases when a contract expires then there is nothing to hold anyone accountable to in that expired contract. How are you going to make an Addendum, make it retroactive, then punish two teams for violating something that was not in place at the time of said violation?

The thing is, all 32 teams were told NOT to use the uncapped year to dump bad contracts and were warned (in writing) that there would be penalties for teams that did. 28 teams followed that direction and 4 teams were penalized for not colluding. The skins and cowboys did this to an extreme degree, so they were penalized most.

It sucks, and its not "right" but it is what it is. If there's any consolation, its the fact that the skins would be carrng more than 18MM in dead cap in 2012 and 2013 seasons if they hadnt broken the rule. Ultimately, the penalties suck, but we're better off than we would have been if there had been a salary cap.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The thing is, all 32 teams were told NOT to use the uncapped year to dump bad contracts and were warned (in writing) that there would be penalties for teams that did. 28 teams followed that direction and 4 teams were penalized for not colluding. The skins and cowboys did this to an extreme degree, so they were penalized most.

It sucks, and its not "right" but it is what it is. If there's any consolation, its the fact that the skins would be carrng more than 18MM in dead cap in 2012 and 2013 seasons if they hadnt broken the rule. Ultimately, the penalties suck, but we're better off than we would have been if there had been a salary cap.

That is not how I recall it. Obviously these unwritten rules for the uncapped year were verbal because they were illegal, so they were not written anywhere. Which why this punishment should never been enforced. So it is tough to confirm the truth of what the rules were.
But I recall the warning being.....in the uncapped year teams could not go crazy exceeding the prior years cap limit to acquire new players through free agency. I remember a ton of talk about the concern of some wealthy teams (Cowboys & Redskins) might take advantage of the situation to stock their roster with talented free agents. Not once did I ever hear anything about not being allowed to restructuring contracts to accelerate dead money or to free up future years cap money which is what the Redskins did. . I think that is where the I have a major problem with this whole thing. Uncapped means Uncapped.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The thing is, all 32 teams were told NOT to use the uncapped year to dump bad contracts and were warned (in writing) that there would be penalties for teams that did. 28 teams followed that direction and 4 teams were penalized for not colluding. The skins and cowboys did this to an extreme degree, so they were penalized most.

It sucks, and its not "right" but it is what it is. If there's any consolation, its the fact that the skins would be carrng more than 18MM in dead cap in 2012 and 2013 seasons if they hadnt broken the rule. Ultimately, the penalties suck, but we're better off than we would have been if there had been a salary cap.

Um, I understand why we got punished. I still don't think its fair or right which is what I mean when I say I don't get it.

Here's the bigger issue I have yet again: the memo from head quarters was technically illegal. Sending the memo was head quarters requesting all 32 teams to violate an agreement that neither side would collude. 2 teams chose not to violate an agreement the NFL and NFLPA. Because those two teams chose not to play ball head quarters decided a punishment should be given. But to punish would be giving the NFLPA all the proof they needed of collusion by the owners to keep costs down. So the NFL makes an addendum to the rule, they have the NFLPA sign it or lose out on $$$(which is black mail by the way), and then they punished the two teams yet again violating their own rules that it should have been brought before the league of owners prior for a vote on if they should punish...majority rule. After the punishment was doled out they then held their owners meeting and presented that they would spread the wealth around if the other teams voted for the punishment, essentially making the vote issue some what moot.

And the reason they keep losing the battle? Because supposedly it does not matter in the court of law that your being "black mailed" into agreeing to something, nor does it matter that head quarters broke the law first with the memo to collude because the NFLPA supposedly gave up their rights to complain. Personally I think the courts should look at the issue like an accident... the first illegal act is the responsible party. And in this case that would be when the NFL sent out the memo or verbally informed the owners not to spend or cut expenses. The key here is there were no rules. The rules expired. I understand there was a verbal contract but the NFLPA was not apart of that decision and would not have agreed to the owner not spending or cutting expenses.

To me this is nondifferent then your employee embezzling from your company and the only way to prove it is to sign an agreement that you won't procecute. So you sign it because that IS your proof that a crime was committed and the courts keep looking at you and saying sorry you signed your rights away so you have no standing.

Its BS.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I still don't see how its legal that we lost the cap space, and how people are ruling against us.... but whatever.

Basically, all 32 owners give some power to the league "for the greater good", and if the executive body decrees something everyone has to deal with it. For the Skins to get the "proper" decision they would have to go to court against 30 other owners, and have the judge find them guilty of collusion. In a vacuum, maybe you do that, but in reality, that would be like giving the NFLPA a blank check in the next round of CBA talks, and no owner is going to risk the golden goose, especially not for a 1 year(at this point) cap hit of 18million dollars.

When you think in pure percentages, would you risk your multi billion dollar enterprise for about a relatively easily mitigated/accepted penalty of about 10% of your cap space.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Basically, all 32 owners give some power to the league "for the greater good", and if the executive body decrees something everyone has to deal with it. For the Skins to get the "proper" decision they would have to go to court against 30 other owners, and have the judge find them guilty of collusion. In a vacuum, maybe you do that, but in reality, that would be like giving the NFLPA a blank check in the next round of CBA talks, and no owner is going to risk the golden goose, especially not for a 1 year(at this point) cap hit of 18million dollars.

When you think in pure percentages, would you risk your multi billion dollar enterprise for about a relatively easily mitigated/accepted penalty of about 10% of your cap space.

Didn't the league risk it in the first place, by penalizing us. Snyder isn't gonna do anything, they know he won't go nuclear.

[NC_Skins]

Are we still talking about this? The cap money is good as gone. It's not coming back. Not now, not later, but never. It would take Danny and Jerry killing their cash cow (we call it the NFL) in order to get any sort of justice out of this. The bottom line is, Danny and Jerry (or any other owner) care more about making money, than they do about principles or winning.