Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

IIRC, I was the first in this thread to note that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to modify the salary cap. That's something he doesn't have the authority to do "in his sole discretion."

No argument that it's a procedural mess.

However, he does have the authority to remove draft picks "in his sole discretion." Had he done that, this would probably be over by now. I doubt Snyder and Jones are going to take this to court.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

If the Commissioner took away draft picks, as he has the authority to do, the NFLPA wouldn't be involved at all, there would be no arbitration, everything would be neat and tidy, and the Skins wouldn't be getting RG3.

Everything got messy because the Commissioner, apparently pushed by multiple owners, wanted to impose a different, lighter, and possibly fairer penalty on the Skins.

They had to get the NFLPA involved because he wanted to touch salary cap space.

I guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Personally I didn't expect to get RG3. I had figured we were out of the running because he would not be there at #6. So using that money on FA's and a 2nd round QB is what I suspected anyway. My first round pick was going to be a WR. But we picked those up in FA.

But no matter what I still have issues with the fact the league approved these deals when they could have said no back in 2010. I have issues with what on the surface looks like a conflict of interest with Mara heading up the whole CAPGATE issue. I don't care that there were 24+ other votes. He's in our division, he got 1.6 mill out of the deal, he hindered our FA ability by 18 mill, and he gained an advantage through all that by keeping our two teams from picking up better talent.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

No the more correct analogy would be the cop telling you not to speed, you speed, he stops you and simply gives you a warning and lets you go, then 2 yrs later decides file paper work to bring you to court to punish you for speeding.

The league as you say had rules. Two teams failed to abide by those rules. The league approved the contracts. Then 2 yrs later wants to punish them. Ludicrous.

Agree it sucks, but either way you're still screwed if the cop is also the judge.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.

Actually, I feel like both of your analogies miss the point. It's a lot more like this:
Cops tell you not to speed. Then, the state lifts the law against speeding. Cop says, "That law's coming back so you be careful." You speed like a mad man during the time that there is no law. The state reinstates the law. Cop tries to arrest you for speeding while there was no law.

Unfortunately, that's not really how rules or laws work. There is no way that there is a justification for the punishment being levied against the Skins in this case. There's no way a team should be punished for breaking an imaginary rule.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Agree it sucks, but either way you're still screwed if the cop is also the judge.

Yeah, that's the biggest problem, IMO

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

IIRC, I was the first in this thread to note that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to modify the salary cap. That's something he doesn't have the authority to do "in his sole discretion."

No argument that it's a procedural mess.

However, he does have the authority to remove draft picks "in his sole discretion." Had he done that, this would probably be over by now. I doubt Snyder and Jones are going to take this to court.

Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

[SBXVII]

I like this write up:

Redskins right, NFL wrong in salary-cap dispute | WSLS 10

It made sense. A season with no salary cap should equal an opportunity to ease or erase the impact of some high-dollar deals.

A team that failed to do something similar might be guilty of financial mismanagement

The league says the Redskins and Cowboys gained an unfair competitive advantage in future seasons by taking advantage of a loophole in a non-salary cap season.

Yet each move the Redskins made was approved by the NFL, with the caveat that some of these financial maneuvers were things the Redskins really should not do.

Hey, either give the team permission and live with the consequences or deny the team permission and force it to live with the consequences.

But don't give permission, then come back two years later, rescind the approval and issue punishment.

What the Redskins and Cowboys did might not sit well with their NFL colleagues, but what Washington and Dallas did made sense.

That's probably what has everyone confused

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Actually, I feel like both of your analogies miss the point. It's a lot more like this:
Cops tell you not to speed. Then, the state lifts the law against speeding. Cop says, "That law's coming back so you be careful." You speed like a mad man during the time that there is no law. The state reinstates the law. Cop tries to arrest you for speeding while there was no law.

Unfortunately, that's not really how rules or laws work. There is no way that there is a justification for the punishment being levied against the Skins in this case. There's no way a team should be punished for breaking an imaginary rule.

In this case, the cop is saying, "I have the authority to arrest you for reckless driving, but I'm just going to give you the lesser punishment for speeding even if the speeding laws were under review at the time."

That said, there's probably no point in pursuing this analogy further. It's getting pretty farfetched.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

Woow. time out. you pointed out that there were rules from the 2006 CBA that were still in place regarding the CAP and how teams could spend. Either there was a CAP or there was not. I guess what I'm getting at is the same rules that apply for how much teams can over spend apply to how much teams can underspend.

which is it. was there a rule or were there no rules? Cause this is the big arguement that there was no rules because the CBA expired and there was no CAP. and if this is correct then the Skins and Boys did nothing wrong and should not be punished. No matter how much the other 30 teams don't like it.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

Why do I suggest it? because the two teams pretty mush support the lower half of the league. Maybe the other 30 owners would like to have the $$$ dropping and the CAP lowered, and for once not get the $$$ they used to and maybe turn out to be one of the teams doing the supporting for the next several yrs. Have a big % of their income taken away to support teams below them.

Maybe if the fan base refused to buy tickets (which won't happen) would force DS to lower prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs if fans are not buying food. Basically its all about what the market will pay. I'm confused with Tampa though being at the bottom of the league but if the fan base plays it like Carolina or Jacksonville maybe in the long run some other piss poor team will be in the position to support the Skins and see if they like it. The DS can complain about their competative edge and take away their money.