Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[NYCskinfan82]

But wasn't there a CAP floor aswell so why weren't TEAMS penalized for that aswell.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

But wasn't there a CAP floor aswell so why weren't TEAMS penalized for that aswell.

For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.

Show me in the 2006 CBA where it clearly states a team cannot do this during the uncapped year.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Show me in the 2006 CBA where it clearly states a team cannot do this during the uncapped year.

I didn't say that. I said it addresses the issue, and there are clauses that show the NFLPA was ok with restricting how much salary cap hit could be moved into an uncapped year. Here's one example:

Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior
to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding
any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section
7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the
contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player
Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.

The real issue is that the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner broad powers to discipline teams - at his sole discretion - for acts he considers detrimental to the League, and that threaten competitive balance. If he warned them in advance he would consider this a threat to competitive balance, he has the authority to discipline them.

He screwed up the punishment and the process, but I understand where he's coming from.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.

BFD. There was no rule against it.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

For the 87th time, the Skins and Cowboys were not penalized for spending too much. They were penalized for shifting future cap hit into the uncapped year.

Agreed.

My problem with the NFLPA is why do you agree to take away cap space from the two teams that would use that space on players?

And giving the space to teams that are not going to use it on players?

This whole situation is a little ridiculous.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Agreed.

My problem with the NFLPA is why do you agree to take away cap space from the two teams that would use that space on players?

And giving the space to teams that are not going to use it on players?

This whole situation is a little ridiculous.

Well, that was some political maneuvering. The League threatened to reduce the salary cap across all teams.

In the long run, it doesn't matter exactly what the salary cap is. The upcoming cap is calculated based on projected revenues for the upcoming season, and then actual cash payments to players have to be a certain percentage of actual revenues. Changing the projection doesn't change the ultimate amount that goes to the players.

However, the League took this to the NFLPA a couple weeks before the NFLPA Executive Director was up for re-election. He thought he needed the cap (projection) to be above what it was the year before to get re-elected, so he signed off.

Basically, they took advantage of the timing to bribe DeMaurice Smith with his own job.

[SFREDSKIN]

Redskins salary cap challenge raises complicated questions for NFL - The Washington Post