Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[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

Hopefully, my last entry on this, because until it's ruled on we just keep banging heads.

The fact that the 2006 CBA had several clauses defining illegal actions that were agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA may or may not prove it was a shared concern. BUT what it DOES prove is that our actions met the letter of the law as it was written in 2006. To extrapolate out and say that somehow the CBA as written proves a spirit or intent on the NFLPA's part is ludicrous. We did not use a heretofore unused scheme. Option bonuses and voidable options were expressly allowed in the salary cap era, and NOT expressly disallowed in the uncapped year.

IF the NFLPA agreed on the principle, then in the 2006 CBA, or at some later date prior to the beginning of the uncapped league year, the NFL should have gotten an amendment to the CBA stating that the uncapped year should not be used to play tricks with the salary cap going forward. BUT, the NFLPA's express position was that if the salary cap died, it was not coming back. And if it hadn't come back, which was a valid possibility at the time the contracts in question were written, then there would have been no issue as to the salary cap techniques used.

Bottomline, there is no elastic clause in the 2006 CBA that says " and other salary cap manipulations that a team may use". It clearly defines which were illegal, and any other techniques used before, and again after the uncapped year, should be presumed legal and valid, and not subject to league sanction.

Awaiting Mara's[hoophead] response

I agree with what you wrote above. What the Skins did was not expressly disallowed by the CBA. I get what the Skins did and why.

I think the punishment is harsh and the process was ridiculous. The best way to handle it would have been for the Commissioner to pick up the phone and say, "Danny, you're trying to do something here we agreed we wouldn't do. I'm not going to disapprove it, but it's going to make other owners angry. If they push back enough, I may eventually have to take action, and you may not like it. Do you want to re-do this?"

Dropping it two years later, with a punitive amount, on the brink of free agency sucks.

The only points I'd add are:

1) Agreeing to not do this was not collusion

2) The NFLPA did not have a problem with agreeing to limit how much salary cap hit could be shifted into an uncapped year

3) Given the structure of the NFL and the powers given to the Commissioner, the Skins were playing with fire if they intentionally and obviously went against this apparent agreement between owners

I went into this thinking the Skins had a great case, the Commissioner and Mara had screwed up, and we were going to get something back. After reading the NFL Bylaws, the 2006 and 2010 CBAs, and seeing the owners 29-2-1 vote, I think our best case is that they agree to reduce the penalty to make this go away quietly.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[Jayroc24]

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