Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and.... Hoop, I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.

Thanks for the nice words. Honestly, this whole thing sucks, and I came into this pissing vinegar like you. Unfortunately, the more I read, the more it became obvious that the Commissioner has the power to punish the Skins for doing what they did. Fair or not.

The max punishment that I could see being fair is making Hall's 2010 bonus count $3m per year for 3 years. If they did that, my reaction would be "harsh but fair." $36m is ridiculous.

[skinsguy]

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and.... Hoop, I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.

As for positivity...salary cap be damned, in three days, WE GET RGIII!

I think that's the only reason I can even rationally discuss the salary cap issue.

IN 3 DAYS WE GET RGIII.

[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.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by mooby

damnit hoophead, i'm really trying to like you and what you're contributing to this thread but you're making it impossible with your bubble bursting in regards to this shitty situation.

rgiii countdown: T-3 days!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

rgiii countdown: T-3 days!

That's better .

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Just want to say a quick Thanks to JoeReadskin and Hoophead,they have brought alot more to light in this then I ever imagined was involved.

Glad someone enjoyed it

Since I'm new here, I'm not sure how strong language is appropriate, but I will say that your less-than well thought out arguments previously were what inspired me to read the documents.

And I would also say that I find Mara's behavior and comments in this matter to be less than optimal.

Finally, I would say that if I were the fan of a team blessed by Lady Luck I would spend significantly less time agitating fans of teams with lesser fortune than you seem to.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

The modification I'm talking about is:

"Where 'Salary Cap' previously referred to one number for all Clubs, in 2012 and 2013, it will be $18m less for the Redskins, $5m less for the Cowboys,..."

To make this penalty, the NFLPA and NFLMC would have had to sign a side letter modifying the CBA to include a sentence like that.

One issue that I hope the arbitrator may raise is that the way the whole CBA is written, and the way the Salary Cap is discussed throughout, that change doesn't make sense as written.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

I didn't say it prohibits exactly what the Skins did. It addresses other similar ways of doing what the Skins did.

I said that punishing the Skins otherwise for doing what the Skins did is not evidence of collusion, because the CBA has clauses that try to accomplish the same thing.

[CRedskinsRule]

It will be interesting 1) to see if the arbitrator chooses to hear the case, I wouldn't be shocked for him to say it falls outside his purview, and 2) if he does choose to hear it, how wide the discussion will be. If it will be narrowed simply to procedural issues, or if the Skins/Cowboys are able to get him to open it up to a more thorough investigation.

Of course we may not hear any of it, except the final outcome...

[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 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.

[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?

[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.