Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[skinsguy]

"The question was, 'Did any teams gain a competitive advantage?'" Goodell said. "And that was the focus that we and the NFLPA had in reaching our agreement -- making sure that no team had a long-term competitive advantage."

No date set for cap penalty hearings - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

Well let's see, the Redskins were 6-10 in 2010, and 5-11 in 2011. I don't see competitive advantage. And I'll take a page out of Roger Goodell's book, what is long-term competitive advantage?

[GoSkins!]

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

The argument seems to be that they are not punishing the Skins and Cowboys for spending in an uncapped year - they are punishing them for structuring contracts so that future cap hits were shifted into 2010. The Haynesworth contract restructuring included a $21m signing bonus, and the cap hit would normally be spread evenly across 2010, 2011, and 2012.

However, they included a provision that Haynesworth could void the contract after 2010 by paying back something like $24m. Because this was entirely under player control, the entire $21m cap hit comes in 2010.

They weren't paying Haynesworth any more money in 2010 than they would if the void clause were omitted, just shifting the entire cap hit into 2010. The other owners are saying this is unfair.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for rules that don't exist or not is another issue.

Also how bright it is for members of an exclusive club to anger 29 other members of the exclusive club when the rules of the club say you can do just about anything with 24 votes is another subject for discussion.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

This part I agree with. The league should have said, OK you can do this contract, but the salary cap hit is going to happen as though the void clause didn't exist. Would have been a reasonable approach to this situation - Haynesworth's $21m would have been split 7m in 2010 and 14m in 2011.

Hall had a $15m roster bonus in 2010. Treat that like a signing bonus, and it counts $3m in each year 2010-2014.

Add them together and you get:
- the hit in 2012 is 20m ($14m Haynesworth '11 + $3m Hall '11 & '12)
- the hit for Hall's contract is an additional $3m in 2013 and 2014

Go to the teams and say, accept this, or I'll take away draft picks because I can. That would have been the way to handle it.

Instead they snuck around, made the two owners squeal, have put their dirty collusive laundry out in the public view, have pissed off the NFLPA, have given the NFLPA evidence of collusion, and have given the NFLPA a higher salary cap.

[FRPLG]

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.
Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, that may be the most relevant part of all. According to the NFL Bylaws, 24 votes pretty much trumps all.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

and that something violates the labor laws. Two teams chose not to break the law and are getting punished for not doing so. Thats the nice pretty message being sent to the little kids.

As long as everyone agrees it's ok to break the law. If someone does not follow the agreement even though its against the law and or does the right thing we will punish him.

Sounds like bullying to me.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and that something violates the labor laws. Two teams chose not to break the law and are getting punished for not doing so. Thats the nice pretty message being sent to the little kids.

As long as everyone agrees it's ok to break the law. If someone does not follow the agreement even though its against the law and or does the right thing we will punish him.

Sounds like bullying to me.

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

As far as I know, the teams are bound by three things:

1.) The CBA
2.) NFL rules
3.) Laws

Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

If true, which bindings did they violate, as they existed at the time of said violation?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

I understand what your saying. I understand your trying to get us all to see how we might lose this battle. Fine. But it doesn't make the whole situation morally correct due to unlawful practices.

I'll play your game. I'm all for the league "punishing" us if they would like. Just like DS and JJ have my vote on taking all this to a labor relations board and pointing out that the other 30 owners colluded. At this point Goodell has pissed me off enough I don't care what he does as long as in the long run they lose the war. which they will. Lets see back in 1990 the Baseball Union won a whopping $280 mill dollar settlement. Imagine what it would be today? Go ahead Goodell keep pushing the issue and DS has my approval to keep pushing ours.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing previous mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

Jacksonville Jaguars $45 million
Kansas City Chiefs $62.995 million
Tampa Bay Buccaneers, $60.496 million.
Cincinnati Bengals $60 million
Denver Broncos $50.735 million
San Francisco 49ers $39.33 million
Atlanta Falcons $30.6 million
New England Patriots $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.