Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[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

[CRedskinsRule]

I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

Cap Control | National Football Post

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

Cap Control | National Football Post

Yeah I read it ealier but couldn't link it then, then I lost where I had read it.

I guess my major issue is there were other teams that violated the agreement and not punished. Why only two teams? It should not matter if it was $1 over or $36 mill over if they violated the unwritten rule then they should be punished also, and that should include teams that spent below the floor limit as well. Heck the NFLPA should be all over that by itself.
Why just two teams? why not the top 3 teams? or top 4 teams?

Then you have the fact the deals were approved. If there were something wrong with the deals the league should have not approved the deals. Simple. Its not like they were too busy. They found time to approve them. This was a clear cut situation. The two owners DS and JJ found a loophole, knew that if the league did not approve the deals then there would have been proof of collusion, which forced the league to approve the deals to keep the NFLPA from filing a law suit. and at this point the league should just be eating it. Taking their lump and moving on. Instead they wait until after a new CBA is in effect with a do not take us to court agreement with the NFLPA, and 2yrs after the league approved the deals, to pull the NFLPA in and say.... hey remember you said you wouldn't file a law suit? Ok, if you don't go along with this we will lower the CAP... if you go along with the punishment we will keep it the same or slightly more then 2011."

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I didn't see this posted, but this is imo a well balanced piece by Andrew Brandt:

Cap Control | National Football Post

That's by far the most accurate article I've seen written yet on this subject. Thanks for posting.

[Chief X_Phackter]

The new look - temporary right? It isn't good.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

The new look - temporary right? It isn't good.

No, it's permanent.

[T.O.Killa]

Please change back to the other format!

[HoopheadVII]

Now, that said, I went back and thought about the penalty itself and looked at the Haynesworth situation.

The thing we should be jumping up and down about is that the Skins are being punished for a player that wouldn't have been on their books for 2011 if the League had at least given them any idea of the magnitude of what punishment was coming.

For example, if the League had said at the time, "you can have the Haynesworth contract, but the signing bonus will be prorated across the life of the contract as if there were no voidable clause", the Redskins would have traded or cut him before the end of the 2010 League Year. That would have put all of the salary cap hit for Haynesworth's signing bonus into 2010 anyway.

Then, we're left with Hall. Even if you treat his $15m roster bonus in 2010 as a signing bonus, it counts as $3m towards the cap in 2010-2014.

Basically, if the Skins hadn't tried to push the salary cap hit from these two contracts into 2010, the net effect is that the Skins would be carrying an extra $3m in cap hit in 2012, 2013, and 2014. That's it - $3m x 3 years. Not $18m x 2 years.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime - and that's what we should be jumping up and down about.

[Jayroc24]

Has anyone heard any updates on this? Are they still waiting on a hearing date? Kind died off in the news

[Monkeydad]

I have heard nothing since that 29-0 crap vote asking other owners "do you want to keep your extra $1.6 million or not". That was late March.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I have heard nothing since that 29-0 crap vote asking other owners "do you want to keep your extra $1.6 million or not". That was late March.

Me either. Nor have I heard anything from HoopheadVII.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Me either. Nor have I heard anything from HoopheadVII.

Ya know, I just picture John Mara going to a whole bunch of Skins/Cowboys boards and throwing his justification out. LOL

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Ya know, I just picture John Mara going to a whole bunch of Skins/Cowboys boards and throwing his justification out. LOL

LOL! Wouldn't surprise me in the least.