Cowboys and Redskins losing cap space

[Ring 6]

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.

That isn't collusion.
The league wanted to penalize those teams, but since such a move was not accounted for in the CBA, they went to the union and negotiated a settlement.
Why is that wrong?
In the end the players were not hurt because the cap room taken from 2 teams was distributed out to the other 30.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

All 6 times the league told them that they were admitting to illegal collusion. The Cowboys and Redskins did nothing wrong, and the union was stupid to allow this settlement to happen. Now, the next time there's a CBA negotiation, the league will have a stronger hammer in enforcing collusion, because teams will remember that the NFLPA sold out its members for a few bucks the last time they colluded.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Cowboys and Redskins losing capspace

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.

Maybe I'm not clear on your point, but there was no CBA in place, so wouldn't it be impossible to find the rule in your research?
If the league put a rule in place for the owners in the absence of a CBA why wouldn't they be able to penalize teams for breaking it?
As far as the contracts being approved by the league, I do not believe approving a contract requires calculating the teams cap space. If it did though, there was no cap to compare it to. I don't think the league bears the responsiblity for making sure a team didn't violate a rule because it approved an individual contract. But I don't think we really know what aspects the league approves in each contract.

 

[TyronePoole]

That isn't collusion.
The league wanted to penalize those teams, but since such a move was not accounted for in the CBA, they went to the union and negotiated a settlement.
Why is that wrong?
In the end the players were not hurt because the cap room taken from 2 teams was distributed out to the other 30.

they were basically saying to the redskins and cowboys "collude with us now because we're pretty sure we can force them to go along with it later" so it was collusion since ay the time they did it no agreement had been negotiated with the NFLPA.

Where I slightly disagree with others is the idea that it was wrong for the league to ask them to do that. If the concessions they had to give up to get the NFLPA to drop it were lesser than the headaches they would have gotten down the road from letting every them all run wild then it was probably the right call.

I do think the redskins and Cowboys have an interesting case though that they're being punished for refusing to go along with something that was illegal.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Here's the relevant section of the CBA:

"No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows: . . . .
(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract."

That said, I can't believe there wasn't a mechanism in the CBA that basically said "Expenditures in an uncapped year will be made with the understanding that they may result in charges or credits against future salary caps."

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Cowboys and Redskins losing capspace

Maybe I'm not clear on your point, but there was no CBA in place, so wouldn't it be impossible to find the rule in your research?

The CBA was in place in 2010; the NFL would have locked the players out if it weren't.

 

[TyronePoole]

well this is going to get interesting:

GENERAL MANAGER BRUCE ALLEN REGARDING MEDIA REPORTS OF SALARY CAP ADJUSTMENTS: “The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency the the draft and the coming football season.”

Cowboys spokesman Rich Dalrymple issued a statement late Monday afternoon:

"The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year," said Dalrymple. "We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged."

From dallascowboys.com

 

[ctpatsfan77]

BTW—according to PFT, the salary cap is $120.6M because of the extra boost.

Apparently, without it, the cap would be even lower.

 

[PatsSox363804]

well this is going to get interesting:

They're absolutely right. They did nothing wrong.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Cowboys and Redskins losing capspace

Maybe I'm not clear on your point, but there was no CBA in place, so wouldn't it be impossible to find the rule in your research?
If the league put a rule in place for the owners in the absence of a CBA why wouldn't they be able to penalize teams for breaking it?
As far as the contracts being approved by the league, I do not believe approving a contract requires calculating the teams cap space. If it did though, there was no cap to compare it to. I don't think the league bears the responsiblity for making sure a team didn't violate a rule because it approved an individual contract. But I don't think we really know what aspects the league approves in each contract.

The CBA was still in effect, with separate salary cap rules that were triggered by the opt-out. There were still rules in place regarding player contracts, cap rules in subsequent years, and free agency in 2010 in the event of an opt-out. If the Redskins and Cowboys didn't violate any of those specific rules, then on what basis are they being punished? If the league was serious and reasonable at this, IMO, then they should have simply not approved the contract restructures in the first place. Problem solved.

The point that you seem to be making--and I could be wrong--is that, since there was no CBA saying that the owners couldn't collude, that means that they could. If that's what you're saying, then that's pretty far off-base. Luckily for the league, the NFLPA doesn't seem interested in/able to pursue this, but I could still see the affected teams making a rightfully big deal out of it.

 

[Ring 6]

I will be the first to admit its really sketchy to speculate on this topic because we do not have details. However a quick bit of research leads me to believe the issue is different than what is being discussed.
It appears that Austin signed a contract in 2010, and then later in 2010 was given an extension with a guaranteed payment of 18mill paid as a guaranteed salary in 2010 rather than what it really was, a signing bonus.
I don't think it is any means of collusion, but rather use of the lack of a 2010 cap to call have what was really a signing bonus all count in the uncapped year, when by all salary cap calculations, if there were a cap it would not have been feasible.
Not quite sure how the Haynesworth 21,000,000 payment applies, but it appears they turned future money into 2010 salary. Same with Hall.

This kind of explains it
A NFL Washington Redskins blog with news, analysis, rumors, scores in honor of The Hogs -- Redskins Hog Heaven blog

The Redskins pulled payment owed to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall into ahead to 2010 as base salary. The no cap year let the Redskins escape the cap penalty that would otherwise have occurred. The value of the 2010 salaries was $36 million, the very amount of the league's assessment.

It would seem that there really wasn't a collusion going on but 4 teams that took future salary cap hit and converted them to 2010 salary in order to bury it in the capless year.
In other words, they took future salary, paid it in advance and didn't amortize it.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Cowboys and Redskins losing capspace

There were still rules in place regarding player contracts, cap rules in subsequent years, and free agency in 2010 in the event of an opt-out. If the Redskins and Cowboys didn't violate any of those specific rules, then on what basis are they being punished? If the league was serious and reasonable at this, IMO, then they should have simply not approved the contract restructures in the first place. Problem solved.

The point that you seem to be making--and I could be wrong--is that, since there was no CBA saying that the owners couldn't collude, that means that they could. if that's what you're saying, then that's pretty far off-base. Luckily for the league, the NFLPA doesn't seem interested in/able to pursue this, but I could still see the affected teams making a rightfully big deal out of it.

Actually see my last post, the lack of CBA appears to be irrelevant.
But there is not here that is a collision issue that I see.
The league told the teams that if they make moves that are designed to circumvent the cap that was in place, and will be in place, if in fact there is one, then the money pushed into 2010 will be charged to future caps.

In these cases it appears there were players under contract and they took FUTURE income, paid it as salary, which would have been unattainable under a cap, and structured it to hit 2010, rather than amortize over the length of that contract.
There was nothing in this that affect player movement, free agency or even the players involved, but simply an accounting gimmick to circumvent the cap calculations.

 

[BradyFTW!]

well this is going to get interesting:

Somewhere along the line, it's looking like someone dropped the ball. There are three possible outcomes here, that I can see:

1) The league follows through with the punishment, in which case the Cowboys and Redskins--only the two most valuable franchises in the NFL--go on the warpath.

2) The league realizes that it's setting itself up for an ugly battle and declines to follow through, in which case you have to wonder how the hell it got to the point of Schefter breaking the news without someone realizing how ridiculous the whole premise was.

3) This whole thing continues to hang over the Cowboys and Redskins heads going into free agency, at which point... what, exactly? If the Redskins go and get Finnegan and Vincent Jackson, and then the penalty comes down, are the contracts voided? The domino effect potential here is pretty ridiculous: one way or another, this has to be resolved today.

 

[TyronePoole]

^ Andy, the alleged collusion here would be on the part of the 28 other teams and owners mandating that there in essence was some kind of cap/rule by telling teams not to do what the washington and dallas did

no one is alleging collusion on the part of dallas or washington (unless I'm misinterpreting your post)

 

[Ring 6]

They're absolutely right. They did nothing wrong.

I'm just learning the facts, but it appears they did,
They took future pay, and paid it in 2010, as a payment that would only hit the 2010 cap.
The correct way to do that would be to pay a bonus that is amortized over the life of the contract.
An example would be:

Brady's hypothetical contract salaries:
2010 7 mill
2011 10mill
2012 13 mill

New restructure
2010 28 mill
2011 1 mill
2012 1 mill

Intead of 7,10,13 cap hits it is 28,1,1
Clearly that could only be done in an uncapped year, and was a blatant attempt to bury future cap hits into the uncapped year.

I dont see how this is collusive, or how the players are harmed by this.

Does anyone have other facts that conflict with this?

 

[Ring 6]

^ Andy, the alleged collusion here would be on the part of the 28 other teams and owners mandating that there in essence was some kind of cap/rule by telling teams not to do what the washington and dallas did

no one is alleging collusion on the part of dallas or washington (unless I'm misinterpreting your post)

But what collusion is there? No one was saying there was a cap to abide by, but that given there was and expectedly would be a cap, moves designed to falsely throw future money into the uncapped year were not allowed.
The other 28 teams could have spent 200mill on players with no consequence, but if they extended a player for 5 years and 50 mil with a 47 mill first year salary, the contract would be considered inappropriately manuevering vs the FUTURE cap.
This wasn't restrictive in any way to the players that i can see.

 

[TyronePoole]

I'm just learning the facts, but it appears they did,
They took future pay, and paid it in 2010, as a payment that would only hit the 2010 cap.
The correct way to do that would be to pay a bonus that is amortized over the life of the contract.
An example would be:

Brady's hypothetical contract salaries:
2010 7 mill
2011 10mill
2012 13 mill

New restructure
2010 28 mill
2011 1 mill
2012 1 mill

Intead of 7,10,13 cap hits it is 28,1,1
Clearly that could only be done in an uncapped year, and was a blatant attempt to bury future cap hits into the uncapped year.

I dont see how this is collusive, or how the players are harmed by this.

Does anyone have other facts that conflict with this?

I don't really get your point here, the year was uncapped, meaning that according to the rules they could pay their players whatever they wanted to that year whether it was upfront money for longer contracts or not...The league trying to say that they can't front load contracts when there was nothing negotiated in place to establish such a rule was collusion

 

[Ring 6]

I don't really get your point here, the year was uncapped, meaning that according to the rules they could pay their players whatever they wanted to that year whether it was upfront money for longer contracts or not...The league trying to say that they can't front load contracts when there was nothing negotiated in place to establish such a rule was collusion

No, you are missing the point.
The RENEGOTIATED contracts, moving future pay into 2010 salary.
See the example. Its not 2 offers, its taking one contract and moving all of the money into 2010 SALARY.
There is no FA involved, or market issues, it was taking contracts on the books and restructuring them in a way that would never have been done before or after.
Again, it is player X having 3 years left at 10 mill each and cap hits of 10,10,10 and taking that player and renegotiating it to a 2010 SALARY of 28mill and 2011 and 2012 of 1mill a piece, with the only result being to circumvent the future cap by burying money truly designed for the life of the contract to be absorbed in the non-cap year.

There were no Free Agents involved at all.

 

[TyronePoole]

No, you are missing the point.
The RENEGOTIATED contracts, moving future pay into 2010 salary.
See the example. Its not 2 offers, its taking one contract and moving all of the money into 2010 SALARY.
There is no FA involved, or market issues, it was taking contracts on the books and restructuring them in a way that would never have been done before or after.
Again, it is player X having 3 years left at 10 mill each and cap hits of 10,10,10 and taking that player and renegotiating it to a 2010 SALARY of 28mill and 2011 and 2012 of 1mill a piece, with the only result being to circumvent the future cap by burying money truly designed for the life of the contract to be absorbed in the non-cap year.

There were no Free Agents involved at all.

I understand what you are saying, but there was still no rule in place to against this as those rules are still a part of a negotiated cap/one of the things a cap is supposed to prevent.

I agree that they got an advantage from it, but that's the league's fault for allowing an uncapped year to arrive in the first place and 28 other teams are going to have to pay for it imo since the more I think bout this I doubt the NFL will prevail

 

[Ring 6]

I don't really get your point here, the year was uncapped, meaning that according to the rules they could pay their players whatever they wanted to that year whether it was upfront money for longer contracts or not...The league trying to say that they can't front load contracts when there was nothing negotiated in place to establish such a rule was collusion

Let me try to put it another way.
The league said if you have money due in future years and you accelerate it into the 2010 year, if there is a cap in the future it will be adjusted back to the years it was intended for.

Probably not 100% accurate in the terminology, but from what I've read that is the general point.

It had nothing to do with how much the could, would or did spend that year, it had only to do with taking money that would be part of a future cap charge and accelerating it to the uncapped year when cap rules before and after would have it applied to those future years.

Its not a collusion issue, its an accounting issue/
The reason it was necessary was because teams could violate the spirit of the future cap. Cap rules say bonusses get amortized over the life of the contract (in order to allow teams to pay large bonusses) In this case they were using the break in the cap take almost all of the cost of a long term contract and charge it to the year there is no cap, for no reason other than to reduce the cap charges in the years that would have a cap.
There was no mechanism to allow or disallow becuase there was no guarantee of future caps.