Cowboys and Redskins losing cap space

[patfanken]

That's too bad about the NFLPA stuff, because it was a slam dunk win for the union.

I don't think so. There was 120.6 million in the players pool before the decision to punish the Skins and Cowboys, and there is STILL 120.6 million in the pool after. What's the harm to the union and players?

this is exactly like spygate. The Pats were party to a memo baring filming signals on the field. They were warned and still persisted, and the league acted. I have never had a problem with that part. What I did have a problem with was the severity of the punishment, but most of all the secrecy and lack of information from the league, which lead to an incredible number of false rumors, none of which were answered, and many still persist....which bugs me no end.

I have no sympathy for these guys. They all knew going in how the uncapped year was supposed to work. These 4 teams decided to take an "unfair advantage" on the rest of their partners. They were warned...on multiple occasions and the league took action. My only complaint is that draft picks weren't involved and the media hasn't labelled them "cheaters"

The more I write the more pissed I'm becoming. Think about it. This isn't the Cowboys first go around with this kind of cheating. They were caught and punished with fines and the loss of draft picks back in the 90's, when the Cowboys, Denver, and 49ers all CHEATED (to a far greater degree than the Pats) by adding and keeping talent on their teams during their superbowl runs???????

So this is a SECOND time being caught for the Cowboys. Shouldn't there be a BIGGER punishment, when you prove to be a serial offender. I'm tired of defending my team for doing nothing that every other team was doing, when TRUE cheaters. Teams that created an real unfair advantage get to slide like nothing happened.

I still am pissed at Mark Schlereth for leading the self righteous charge against the Pats when BOTH the rings he got in Denver are FAR more tarnished than the Pats rings.

There I said, and I should feel better....but I don't

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think so. There was 120.6 million in the players pool before the decision to punish the Skins and Cowboys, and there is STILL 120.6 million in the pool after. What's the harm to the union and players?...

You're kidding, right?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Per PFT they were told 6 times not to do this, and they did. Screw em, they were told and thought they could get away with it, but now they gotta pay the piper.

"Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries."

Doesn't matter how many times that they were told. They either violated a specific rule that was in place at the time, or they didn't. No matter how many times the league felt like threatening them, if they didn't break an established rule then the punishment is crap.

 

[BradyFTW!]

OTOH, look at it this way:

If most teams abide by the idea that this is not a "get out of jail free" card, but *some* teams decide it is, then parity is threatened.

In any case, if I understand the sanction section correctly, it is well within Goodell's rights to do this, but ONLY, according to the NFL by-laws, if the Executive Committee agrees.

That sounds more like an argument against arbitrary, executive-level flexing of muscle than anything. If Goodell, drunk with power, starts declaring random stuff that isn't even against the agreed-upon rules illegal, then he's the problem, not the Redskins or Cowboys.

Remember, the CBA is the entire reason why the antitrust exemption exists. If Goodell thinks that he can rewrite it on a whim without systematic participation from players or ownership, then he's walking a very thin, very dangerous line.

 

[Deus Irae]

The NFL’s decision to remove salary cap space now from teams that dumped salary into the uncapped year of 2010 technically constitutes a violation of the labor deal with the players, because the CBA allowed teams to spend at will in the uncapped year, subject to specifically negotiated limits (e.g., six years to unrestricted free agency, the “Final Eight Plan”).

So, why did the players go for it?

So why did the union agree? The sources explain that the NFL offered to help pump up the 2012 team-by-team salary cap in exchange for the union’s agreement to remove cap money from the Cowboys and Redskins.

NFLPA agreed to Cowboys/Redskins salary cap sanctions | ProFootballTalk

In other words, collusion is giving the post hoc "ok" in exchange for a few million dollars more on the salary cap, per team, in 2012.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So, why did the players go for it?



NFLPA agreed to Cowboys/Redskins salary cap sanctions | ProFootballTalk

In other words, collusion is giving the post hoc "ok" in exchange for a few million dollars more on the salary cap, per team, in 2012.

In other other words, the league basically bribed the NFLPA to not fight them on enforcing a punishment that, according to the CBA, they're not allowed to levy in the first place.

Sounds like they have the NFLPA in lockstep, but I still don't see the Redskins and Cowboys taking this lying down. The Redskins, in particular, should raise holy hell over this. If the punishment goes through, that team is absolutely toast. I don't care how good Griffin is, no cap space and no draft picks is a recipe for a pretty terrible team.

 

[TyronePoole]

well 28 other teams chose to not to gain the advantage of front loading contracts despite what they were told apparently 6 times

edit - on second thought I'm torn though, the NFL didn't have the right to reject contracts at that point and would have rightfully been sued and lost, meaning the "rule" was meaningless, so basically this amounts to some kind of ex post facto penalty

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That sounds more like an argument against arbitrary, executive-level flexing of muscle than anything. If Goodell, drunk with power, starts declaring random stuff that isn't even against the agreed-upon rules illegal, then he's the problem, not the Redskins or Cowboys.

Remember, the CBA is the entire reason why the antitrust exemption exists. If Goodell thinks that he can rewrite it on a whim without systematic participation from players or ownership, then he's walking a very thin, very dangerous line.

This wasn't Goodell's call. This was the Management Council's call. Ownership in general was apparently still fuming that 4 teams chose to ignore directives agreed to as a group heading into the uncapped year. Robert is a member, as is Mara who became the committee chairman this year. Jones is a member, as are owners Spanos, Brown, Rooney, Bowlen, Hunt, Richardson. They are the ones responsible for negotiating CBA's, approving contracts, interpreting rules related to the cap, setting the cap, etc. Jonathan said the Patriots were treating the uncapped year as if it were a capped one because they believed there would be consequences for teams who didn't. He was right.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Again, one key point: the Commissioner could not do this on his own; it's not a penalty he's allowed to assess by fiat. 3/4 of owners had to agree to do this.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In other other words, the league basically bribed the NFLPA to not fight them on enforcing a punishment that, according to the CBA, they're not allowed to levy in the first place.

Sounds like they have the NFLPA in lockstep, but I still don't see the Redskins and Cowboys taking this lying down. The Redskins, in particular, should raise holy hell over this. If the punishment goes through, that team is absolutely toast. I don't care how good Griffin is, no cap space and no draft picks is a recipe for a pretty terrible team.

They will have cap space. Just not as much as they anticipated. They can spread the deduction over two seasons. They probably weren't planning to spend all of it this season unless they were reverting to their pre Shannahan idiotic form.

 

[ausbacker]

This wasn't Goodell's call. This was the Management Council's call. Ownership in general was apparently still fuming that 4 teams chose to ignore directives agreed to as a group heading into the uncapped year. Robert is a member, as is Mara who became the committee chairman this year. Jones is a member, as are owners Spanos, Brown, Rooney, Bowlen, Hunt, Richardson. They are the ones responsible for negotiating CBA's, approving contracts, interpreting rules related to the cap, setting the cap, etc. Jonathan said the Patriots were treating the uncapped year as if it were a capped one because they believed there would be consequences for teams who didn't. He was right.

Hang on hang on hang on. Jonathan Kraft was right about something? Who would have thought huh.

 

[TyronePoole]

Hang on hang on hang on. Jonathan Kraft was right about something? Who would have thought huh.

Jonathan was aware that they were colluding, lets give him a pat on the back

 

[Sciz]

Jonathan is good for a tidbit here and there. For example, he's the reason we know that this will be the third offseason in a row where Asante Samuel is on the trade block.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Jonathan was aware that they were colluding, lets give him a pat on the back

Collusion would be the owners agreeing not to sign any players to big money deals. These teams were free to. Other teams did, only they did it the right way. They were just told (and I remember hearing this repeatedly) not to try and dump money into the uncapped year because there would be a penalty. Then when it happened they did. There was nothing wrong with Haynesworth's deal, either. Had they prorated his option bonus as teams always do. The Skins opted not to, absorbing the entire $20M in the uncapped year. The other owners probably decided to wait on the penalty until the dust had settled on a contentious CBA where there was some sensitivity about lower caps and flat caps and percentage shifts, until a time when the fruit of their actions was about to benefit the 4 teams in what the other 28 believe is creating a competitive imbalance. The union would have been pissed if Washington cut Haynesworth because they couldn't justify eating that $20M long term. But he got his $$$ and the penalty is being redistributed to 28 other franchises so they don't really have a problem with that in a season with a third of their members scheduled for FA.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk


Ouch...at the Skins and Cowboys salaries.

 

[TyronePoole]

Collusion would be the owners agreeing not to sign any players to big money deals. These teams were free to. Other teams did, only they did it the right way. They were just told (and I remember hearing this repeatedly) not to try and dump money into the uncapped year because there would be a penalty. Then when it happened they did. There was nothing wrong with Haynesworth's deal, either. Had they prorated his option bonus as teams always do. The Skins opted not to, absorbing the entire $20M in the uncapped year. The other owners probably decided to wait on the penalty until the dust had settled on a contentious CBA where there was some sensitivity about lower caps and flat caps and percentage shifts, until a time when the fruit of their actions was about to benefit the 4 teams in what the other 28 believe is creating a competitive imbalance. The union would have been pissed if Washington cut Haynesworth because they couldn't justify eating that $20M long term. But he got his $$$ and the penalty is being redistributed to 28 other franchises so they don't really have a problem with that in a season with a third of their members scheduled for FA.

the NFL decided to go ahead with an uncapped year because they opted out of the CBA. Having an effective salary cap anyway as an agreement is collusion, that's why the NFLPA had to agree to drop any suit against them and why they had to spread all the money around in order to punish them

 

[BradyFTW!]

This wasn't Goodell's call. This was the Management Council's call. Ownership in general was apparently still fuming that 4 teams chose to ignore directives agreed to as a group heading into the uncapped year. Robert is a member, as is Mara who became the committee chairman this year. Jones is a member, as are owners Spanos, Brown, Rooney, Bowlen, Hunt, Richardson. They are the ones responsible for negotiating CBA's, approving contracts, interpreting rules related to the cap, setting the cap, etc. Jonathan said the Patriots were treating the uncapped year as if it were a capped one because they believed there would be consequences for teams who didn't. He was right.

Are you aware of an established rule, spelled out in the provisions surrounding the CBA opt-out, that the Redskins actually broke? Because I don't know of one, and I've searched for it. The bottom line is that, whatever the league told the Redskins and Cowboys, it appears that the following two things are true:

1) They did not violate any specific rule
2) The contracts in question were approved by the league

Pretty shaky grounds for a punishment, if you ask me. I don't like the Redskins or Cowboys, but taking away a ton of cap space the day before FA starts because they (legally, using approved contracts) opted not to go along with league collusion during an uncapped year... that's a tough sell.

If there was an established rule that was broken, then fine. The Redskins messed up, and got theirs. But from everything that we're hearing, it sounds like that's not the case. It sounds like a bunch of owners got mad at the two guys who didn't feel like colluding with them, and as a result are nailing them with penalties even though they didn't actually break any rules.

 

[TyronePoole]

Are you aware of an established rule, spelled out in the provisions surrounding the CBA opt-out, that the Redskins actually broke? Because I don't know of one, and I've searched for it. The bottom line is that, whatever the league told the Redskins and Cowboys, it appears that the following two things are true:

1) They did not violate any specific rule
2) The contracts in question were approved by the league

Pretty shaky grounds for a punishment, if you ask me. I don't like the Redskins or Cowboys, but taking away a ton of cap space the day before FA starts because they (legally, using approved contracts) opted not to go along with league collusion during an uncapped year... that's a tough sell.

If there was an established rule that was broken, then fine. The Redskins messed up, and got theirs. But from everything that we're hearing, it sounds like that's not the case. It sounds like a bunch of owners got mad at the two guys who didn't feel like colluding with them, and as a result are nailing them with penalties even though they didn't actually break any rules.

Part of me agrees with this from a contractual perspective, but from an equitable one they have had salary caps every year in the modern era and were negotiating for another one for a reason. The Redskins and Cowboys were essentially doing something that negatively affected the competitive balance of the league, something that other teams, though "colluding" were not doing. And although it definitely was "collusion" it was a) collusion against the NFLPA, not the individual franchises and b) for the betterment of the league as a whole.

They chose not to go along because they happen to be the two wealthiest franchises and thought they could gain an advantage from it. If the Redskins and cowboys thought that a lot of other teams were going to follow them in disregarding the memos/"rules" then they may have pushed harder for a new CBA, but essentially they chose to ride the rest of the league's coattails knwoing that what they did would be untenable if everyone else did it and everyone else was properly vested in seeing a good outcome for the whole.

P.S. As far as I've read of the new CBA there's no rule against the league doling out this kind of remedial "punishment" to them either

 

[Boomer B]

Doesn't matter how many times that they were told. They either violated a specific rule that was in place at the time, or they didn't. No matter how many times the league felt like threatening them, if they didn't break an established rule then the punishment is crap.

Fair enough, I can't argue with you about the legality of this, but when the league tells them 6 times there will be "severe punishment" then they gotta be complete idiots to go ahead and do so. They were playing with fire and at the end of the day the NFL for the most part police's themselves, with Sheriff Goodell laying down the law.

28 teams complied with the league, 2 teams were non-compliant (but not by much) and 2 teams basically said we'll do as we please. The 26 owners who were compliant were probably pissed at Snyder and Jones and told Goodell to put the hammer down. Snyder and Jones must have known the other owners and Goodell wouldn't be happy about it but they rolled the dice and lost.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Are you aware of an established rule, spelled out in the provisions surrounding the CBA opt-out, that the Redskins actually broke? Because I don't know of one, and I've searched for it. The bottom line is that, whatever the league told the Redskins and Cowboys, it appears that the following two things are true:

1) They did not violate any specific rule
2) The contracts in question were approved by the league

Pretty shaky grounds for a punishment, if you ask me. I don't like the Redskins or Cowboys, but taking away a ton of cap space the day before FA starts because they (legally, using approved contracts) opted not to go along with league collusion during an uncapped year... that's a tough sell.

If there was an established rule that was broken, then fine. The Redskins messed up, and got theirs. But from everything that we're hearing, it sounds like that's not the case. It sounds like a bunch of owners got mad at the two guys who didn't feel like colluding with them, and as a result are nailing them with penalties even though they didn't actually break any rules.

Again, there was nothing wrong with the contracts per se. Teams were told to maintain their cap accounting books as if the season was because for accounting purposes because as they were warned if was reinstated it would preclude actions (including previously undertaken) with the intent to circumvent it. Ergo the rule has been made now...