Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The facts:



What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.

I don't think you understand exactly how the salary cap works, what benefit there is to be gained from shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year, and what the league warned the teams not to do.

[SBXVII]

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

The players aren't going to cry collusion. The owners would unleash hell on the players. As much as these two organizations are on opposite sides, they are also partners. There just really aren't that many benefits in the long run from the perspective of the NFLPA to try the NFL for collusion.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.

are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinster

are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.

The concepts are different because they could have paid a player as much as they wanted in a one-year deal in the uncapped year. There was no restriction on how much they could spend in the uncapped year.

There was a restriction on how cheaply they could get players in future years by overspending in an uncapped year.

[diehardskin2982]

Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.

Dumb and Dumber 'There's a Chance' - YouTube

[SBXVII]

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.

They "dumped" $21m of Haynesworth signing bonus and $15m of Hall roster bonus into 2010 instead of spreading them over the life of the contract.

[SBXVII]

If I remember correctly many here were lauding the fact that when the uncapped year came about the Skins should be able to cut/fire Haynesworth and any other big contracts and pay them off and be done with the player and his contract so as not to have to worry about them in the future. We still have Hall on the books and Haynesworth would still be there but he "purchased" his contract back.

[SBXVII]

As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk

Included in Daniel Kaplan’s item on the salary cap totals from Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal was an intriguing assertion from Texans owner Bob McNair.

As to the widely-reported notion that the 2012 salary cap was bumped to $120.6 million per team in exchange for the NFLPA’s agreement to permit a total of $46 million to be stripped from the Cowboys and Redskins in 2012 and 2013 cap space, McNair contends there was no “quid pro quo.” Instead, McNair claims that the union was guaranteed to receive $142.4 million per team in salary and benefits, and that the union adjusted 2012 benefits in order to nudge the per-team spending limit to $120.6 million.

If that’s true, then why did the NFLPA agree to the cap penalties? If the union got nothing in return for agreeing to permit $46 million to be taken from teams that tend to spend all of it and redistributed to teams that may not even spend all the space space they already have for 2012, then why did the union agree to it?

Surely, the union got something. Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return.

The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk



The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.

Of course the union got something - DeMaurice Smith got to keep his job. The league twisted the NFLPA's arm and used up goodwill they should be putting to better future use than punishing their own teams.

[SBXVII]

I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.

Here’s the latest. As we already know, the agreement regarding the imposition of the penalties was struck between the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and the NFLPA, making it a revision of the CBA without a vote of the league’s owners or union leadership. That deal happened even though Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was and still is a member of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee.

It’s one thing for the so-called CEC to use its delegation of authority to work out side agreements with the union. It’s quite another for the CEC to do so without knowledge of one of the men who has secured membership on the CEC.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.

Agree this was ludicrous.