Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinster

The issue here is how vague "conduct detrimental" is. That term can be used to justify quite literally any possible punishment given. I'm pretty sure that the way the arbitrator will see that clause is if a team thinks up a creative way to cheat that has not been specifically mentioned in the rules. For example, lets say the bears/ravens draft trade miscommunication last year was two different teams, and was between two division rivals. And it was proven that the team representing the bears intentionally didn't report the trade to the league to improve the odds that some guy they felt would really help the team representing the ravens didn't get picked by them. That is not covered in the cba, but it is "conduct detrimental" that affects the "competative balance." This is the type of scenario that this term was used for, shady actions that are not covered by the cba. Not actions that are approved by the league as legitimate. I don't think there is any way the arbitrator can rule this in any way but the redskins favor.

I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams.

Basically the reason for the timing was to get the new CBA signed, the NFLPA's law suit dropped, and for the dust to settle before the punishment.

I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think Hoop could have a point in regards to the timing issue but all in all I agree with what your saying. The Skins did nothing wrong. The were given a warning but not in regards to the specific thing the Skins did. The Skins found a loop hole, one in which it would put the league in a bind... either accept the contracts and move on or don't and possibly be have the NFLPA have it's evidence of collusion. The league was forced to approve it. After the new CBA was approved by both parties and fear of a collusion suit having been taken off the shelf did the owners decide to punish both teams.

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I still say the players should have an arguement. The owners in an uncapped year agreed amongst themselves to not spend and to keep the costs down for players salaries with out the NFLPA's approval at the time. That alone equals collusion.

A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

One could say the same thing in regards to the warning....

The "PUNISHMENT" gives credence to the fact that there was some agreement between the owners to not "over spend". By the way the warning was in regards to teams over spending it was not specific to what the Skins did which was rework contracts pushing Bonus money into one uncapped year.

You and the league can argue there was a warning all you want but the warning was not specific to what the Skins did and they thought they found a loophole. Because the other owners complained Goodell and the Exec Committee had to look into it and decide if the two teams (Skins and Boys) got an unfair advantage out of it. The key though is ....

There was no CAP

There was nothing in writing saying they could do what they did

The warning was not specific... Goodell can't think of everything and every loophole that might come up and in this situation they didn't think of this situation but are trying to pull into and under their ..."warning" that was issued.

However I'll do you one better.... No I don't know what exactly the specific warning was no different then you don't know what exactly the spicific warning was. You can go off what Goodell says he told the league but even he's been vague about the specific wording of his warning because I think he knows it was not exactly what the Skins and Boys did.

But that is for the Arbitrator to decide.

[VegasSkinsFan]

Glad the hearing is coming up, but honestly this is just getting started. I believe we won get resolution out I this and will have to decide to either shut up and take the hit or file a lawsuit.

No national writers are even talking about this outside of profootball talk an I think one article by don banks. If we drop a lawsuit and get even a fraction of the pub that the bounty program is getting the nfl may decide to settle quickly rather than have all the dirty laundry aired. I'm hoping we can get closure to this within the next few months. I'm holding out hope for this week, but doubt anything is going to come from it.

[SBXVII]

The facts:

The warnings

I remember the NFL Management Council starting to advise clubs as far back as 2007 that, in the event of an uncapped year, they could not press “File Delete” in 2010.

These warnings continued with more urgency in 2009, that it would be “taking unfair advantage” of the uncapped year in gaining a competitive edge by Cap-dumping into a year without a Cap.

Let’s look at the arguments from each side.

Warnings

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that there were no written warnings against what they did.
◦The NFL will argue that there were repeated and strident verbal warnings as far back as three years prior to the uncapped year.
Approvals

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the front loaded negotiations and Cap restructures were approved by the NFL -- as all contracts must be -- which represented a tacit approval of their structure.
◦The NFL will argue that it is irrelevant that the contracts were approved. There was no Salary Cap and thus no Salary Cap rules to manage.
Competitive edge

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the league should look into teams like the Buccaneers and Chiefs, teams that underspent in 2010, and their competitive edge gained by under spending.
◦The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.

What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.

[SBXVII]

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.

"Wrong" is also a vague term, and IMO the redskins did nothing "wrong." Just "scummy." . The commish doesn't have the power to punish them, as I pointed out in my last post. The Redskins did pull a douchebag move in doing what they did, but any move made in the nfl cannot be punnished if it is brought to the attention of the nfl, and approved by the nfl. Period.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

The players aren't going to cry collusion. The owners would unleash hell on the players. As much as these two organizations are on opposite sides, they are also partners. There just really aren't that many benefits in the long run from the perspective of the NFLPA to try the NFL for collusion.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

One could say the same thing in regards to the warning....

The "PUNISHMENT" gives credence to the fact that there was some agreement between the owners to not "over spend". By the way the warning was in regards to teams over spending it was not specific to what the Skins did which was rework contracts pushing Bonus money into one uncapped year.

You and the league can argue there was a warning all you want but the warning was not specific to what the Skins did and they thought they found a loophole. Because the other owners complained Goodell and the Exec Committee had to look into it and decide if the two teams (Skins and Boys) got an unfair advantage out of it. The key though is ....

There was no CAP

There was nothing in writing saying they could do what they did

The warning was not specific... Goodell can't think of everything and every loophole that might come up and in this situation they didn't think of this situation but are trying to pull into and under their ..."warning" that was issued.

However I'll do you one better.... No I don't know what exactly the specific warning was no different then you don't know what exactly the spicific warning was. You can go off what Goodell says he told the league but even he's been vague about the specific wording of his warning because I think he knows it was not exactly what the Skins and Boys did.

But that is for the Arbitrator to decide.

There is so much wrong in this post.

1) The league has said exactly what they are punishing the Skins for. It is not spending too much in an uncapped year.

2) It is in writing that the Commissioner has the power to punish teams for any conduct he believes is detrimental to the league. It doesn't matter what it is and it doesn't matter if he gave the Skins the courtesy of a warning beforehand or not. The league has made multiple statements saying the Skins were warned multiple times not to do exactly what they did, and 29 other owners apparently agreed with the Commissioner after the fact.

3) The arbitrator doesn't have authority to say whether the league can punish teams. He has the authority to enforce the CBA.

If you don't get these points, or just want to continue to ignore them, just tell me and I'll quit arguing with you. They are all clearly laid out in the league's statements, the NFL Bylaws, and the CBA.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinster

"Wrong" is also a vague term, and IMO the redskins did nothing "wrong." Just "scummy." . The commish doesn't have the power to punish them, as I pointed out in my last post. The Redskins did pull a douchebag move in doing what they did, but any move made in the nfl cannot be punnished if it is brought to the attention of the nfl, and approved by the nfl. Period.

I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The facts:



What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.

I don't think you understand exactly how the salary cap works, what benefit there is to be gained from shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year, and what the league warned the teams not to do.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.

No, I read what you wrote. The clauses that your referring to are extremely vague. They can be used to justify literally anything. No arbitrator on this planet will let the nfl have free reign to do whatever it wants. Vague phrases like that have to be interpreted a little deeper. I'm fairly confident it will be concluded that those clauses can only be applied to actions that have recently been brought to the nfl's attention...not actions that were approved by the nfl 2 years ago.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.

are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.