PDA

View Full Version : Cowboys&Redskins=DUMB


Pages : [1] 2

Giantsfan1080
03-12-2012, 02:04 PM
From Adam Schefter Twitter:

NFL is taking away millions of dolllar of salary-cap space from Cowboys and Redskins for how they front-loaded deals during uncapped year.

I wonder how much.

killxswitch
03-12-2012, 02:07 PM
It's nice when egomaniacs are forcefully reminded that the rules still apply to them too.

vidae
03-12-2012, 02:08 PM
No one calls Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones names! No one!

BeerBaron
03-12-2012, 02:10 PM
At least I provided some insight in the thread I started for it. Hmph.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/uncapped-year-could-be-coming-back-to-haunt-some-teams/

Quick summary for those who will say tldnr:

When the CBA was expiring, 2010 was a year without a salary cap. The NFL instructed teams not to use that year to do as a way to dump money in order to ensure that cap numbers in years with a salary cap would be lower.

Several teams, including the Cowboys and Redskins, are accused of doing this and may face penalties from the league office because of it.

For example, in that uncapped year, gave Miles Austin no signing bonus but a base salary of $17 million. All of that money came off the books that year and when the salary cap returned, his base salary dropped to $1.15 million.

Not expected to be as bad as the bounties, but it could bite the teams in the ass.

Giantsfan1080
03-12-2012, 02:10 PM
Yea but my headline is a lot better!!!

descendency
03-12-2012, 02:10 PM
Why?

I have to say that this kind of penalty reeks of collusion. If there was no cap, then there should be no penalty for spending that kind of money in the uncapped year. If there was an under the table agreement on what to spend (or not spend), then that's collusion.

The NFLPA is probably going to be furious.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:12 PM
HypOHRuVi8E

BeerBaron
03-12-2012, 02:12 PM
Yea but my title is a lot better!!!

Your title is uninformative and will only spark harsh, homeristic reactions from Cowboys and Redskins fans against a Giants fan.

Why?

I have to say that this kind of penalty reeks of collusion. If there was no cap, then there should be no penalty for spending that kind of money in the uncapped year. If there was an under the table agreement on what to spend (or not spend), then that's collusion.

The NFLPA is probably going to be furious.

They have all the power of a flea. They came away from that farce of a lockout with few victories and the NFL is as strong as ever.

WCH
03-12-2012, 02:14 PM
Uh oh...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111080709.html

The Packers saving grace could be that front-loaded contracts are TTs MO.

vidae
03-12-2012, 02:14 PM
Per Adam Schefter, Cowboys lose $10m, Redskins lose $36m in cap space. They can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want.

I lold

BeerBaron
03-12-2012, 02:15 PM
Uh oh...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111080709.html

The Packers saving grace could be that front-loaded contracts are TTs MO.

This part:

it is believed there is no signing bonus and that the $6 million was simply added onto his new, inflated base salary for the rest of 2010.

Is exactly why these teams are going to be in trouble. 2010 was the year with no cap btw.

WCH
03-12-2012, 02:16 PM
Why?

I have to say that this kind of penalty reeks of collusion. If there was no cap, then there should be no penalty for spending that kind of money in the uncapped year. If there was an under the table agreement on what to spend (or not spend), then that's collusion.

The NFLPA is probably going to be furious.

I agree that this sounds a lot like collusion. I'm guessing their legal team has spent a chunk of the past year figuring out a way to make this fly, though.

killxswitch
03-12-2012, 02:18 PM
$10M for the Cowboys across 2 years is not the end of the world. $36M for the Skins, right when they're getting RG3 and wanting to build up, yeah. That sucks. Good job morons.

brat316
03-12-2012, 02:18 PM
Uh oh...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111080709.html

The Packers saving grace could be that front-loaded contracts are TTs MO.

i wanna see them get hit so we can see what type of thread Jmike makes. WE'll just have to wait :waiting:

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:18 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3939011

During the first 13 months of the contract, Haynesworth will earn approximately $32 million.

Theres where the Redskins are losing most of their money.
There goes VJax. for them

There goes Nicks for Cowboys.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:21 PM
Per Adam Schefter, Cowboys lose $10m, Redskins lose $36m in cap space. They can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want.

I lold
Split over 2 years? mmk. For the Cowboys that's not a big deal afterall.

Teams like the Chiefs consistently stay that much under that cap or more every year, if you think about it that way. lol

brat316
03-12-2012, 02:22 PM
losing 36 million or 18 this year, 18 next year. Wouldn't that put them over the cap?

Also :lol: I wonder if they regret now sending 3 first round picks for number 2. Plan probably was to sign FAs, but now that seems outrageous.

wait nvm. Next year they get a super jump in the cap, so they can do like 10 million this year and like 26 next year.

vidae
03-12-2012, 02:22 PM
We don't overpay for players either though!

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:23 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3939011

During the first 13 months of the contract, Haynesworth will earn approximately $32 million.

Theres where the Redskins are losing most of their money.
There goes VJax. for them

There goes Nicks for Cowboys.
We don't want Nicks as much as Mario and Carr. We'll still be able to afford them, so don't get your hopes up too much.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:24 PM
We don't overpay for players either though!
Who on the Cowboys is overpaid?

vidae
03-12-2012, 02:24 PM
I have no idea. I was just joshin ya. Please stay away from Carr though.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:26 PM
We don't want Nicks as much as Mario and Carr. We'll still be able to afford them, so don't get your hopes up too much.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/142354065.html

According to this, they only had 4.6 mil available.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-12-2012, 02:27 PM
I love it! Good job Jerry and Synderbrenner! Was this Bruce Allen or Vin Cerrato era?

Jughead10
03-12-2012, 02:27 PM
"All that money goes to 28 other teams -- $1.6 million each -- except for Saints and Raiders, who don't get any but don't lose any."

Haha. We could really use that 1.6 million. Thanks Jerry and Dan.

Sloopy
03-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Who on the Cowboys is overpaid?

No one this year... they all made their money when there wasn't a cap :P

brat316
03-12-2012, 02:29 PM
what the hell? Packers need to get hit.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Wonder why Raiders and Saints dont get any?

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:30 PM
I have no idea. I was just joshin ya. Please stay away from Carr though.
Some might say Alan Ball was overpaid because he didn't deserve to be in the NFL, but there was your chance to blast me. lol.

Nah, we got some guys who get paid... Spears and Scandrick were bad to me, though some might defend those.

We NEEEED Carr.

Jvig43
03-12-2012, 02:32 PM
Per Adam Schefter, Cowboys lose $10m, Redskins lose $36m in cap space. They can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want.

I lold

Oh. My. God.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:32 PM
Apparently per ESPN it was the other owners who decided to act on it:

"According to sources, the Cowboys and Redskins took immediate cap hits during the 2010 season that normally would have been spread out over the length of the contracts, giving them an advantage that other NFL owners found unfair."

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Apparently per ESPN it was the other owners who decided to act on it:

"According to sources, the Cowboys and Redskins took immediate cap hits during the 2010 season that normally would have been spread out over the length of the contracts, giving them an advantage that other NFL owners found unfair."
If it was against the rules, then the NFL should've acted upon it to prevent it from happening in the first place.

This after the fact stuff is wack.

WCH
03-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Apparently per ESPN it was the other owners who decided to act on it:

"According to sources, the Cowboys and Redskins took immediate cap hits during the 2010 season that normally would have been spread out over the length of the contracts, giving them an advantage that other NFL owners found unfair."

So, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder aren't well-liked by their fellow owners?

Trogdor
03-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Keep in mind these contracts passed through the league office on the way to being approved. If they were in violation of league rules they would of been rejected at that time.

Seems like a really easy case to take to an arbitrator.

killxswitch
03-12-2012, 02:39 PM
Keep in mind these contracts passed through the league office on the way to being approved. If they were in violation of league rules they would of been rejected at that time.

Seems like a really easy case to take to an arbitrator.

But who is the arbitrator? If it's Goodell, then... case closed!

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:39 PM
So, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder aren't well-liked by their fellow owners?

Except by Tom Benson and Al Davis' body.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Was this because of Fat Albert and D hall? Is that the year or period where they paid these guys?

killxswitch
03-12-2012, 02:42 PM
Was this because of Fat Albert and D hall? Is that the year or period where they paid these guys?

Haynesworth, yes. Not sure about Hall.

DiG
03-12-2012, 02:43 PM
Skins will still have 30m in cap space even after paying "penalties". Im sure the Skins and Cowboys will push as much as they can and will fight this. Seems ridiculous that they can penalize a team two years after the fact for something that they allowed to happen in the first place.

Splat
03-12-2012, 02:45 PM
Teams like the Chiefs consistently stay that much under that cap or more every year, if you think about it that way. lol

Hell the Chiefs would love this to happen to them. Then they would have an excuse of why they do nothing in FA.

brat316
03-12-2012, 02:45 PM
Was this because of Fat Albert and D hall? Is that the year or period where they paid these guys?

Yep. Instead of signing bonus they get them straight cash.

An unrestricted free agent in the 2009 offseason, Haynesworth signed a seven-year, $100 million contract with the Washington Redskins on the first day of free agency, February 27, 2009.[21] The deal was expected to pay Haynesworth $32 million in the first 13 months

Razor
03-12-2012, 02:47 PM
I love this! $36 mil. from the Skins and $10 mil. from the Cowboys. This is great..

NY+Giants=NYG
03-12-2012, 02:47 PM
And didn't Miles Austin have a base salary of something insane like 17 million? LOL. So Fat Albert does nothing but create drama and because of that now it hurts them!

WCH
03-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Skins will still have 30m in cap space even after paying "penalties". Im sure the Skins and Cowboys will push as much as they can and will fight this. Seems ridiculous that they can penalize a team two years after the fact for something that they allowed to happen in the first place.

If they had blocked it then, the NFLPA would have had a field day. This apparently unwritten rule sounds awfully close to an antitrust violation.

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 02:51 PM
bad commissioner.

Scotty D
03-12-2012, 02:52 PM
I would be pissed if I were the Cowboys or Skins. Sounds like BS.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 02:53 PM
What is this madness??? The NCAA????

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 02:54 PM
I would be pissed if I were the Cowboys or Skins. Sounds like BS.
I am really pissed. This hurts us bad.

brat316
03-12-2012, 02:56 PM
bad owners.

I corrected it for you.


Shouldn't hurt to bad, you have 30 million to spend, hit with 36 that can be split this year and next year, anyway. Don't forget next year the cap takes a super jump.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 02:59 PM
Anyone actually know why the Raiders and Saints don't get 1.6?

Could this be our penalization for Bounties?!?!?!?! :D :D :D :D :D :D

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 03:01 PM
I corrected it for you.


Shouldn't hurt to bad, you have 30 million to spend, hit with 36 that can be split this year and next year, anyway. Don't forget next year the cap takes a super jump.
why? was it an uncapped year or not? it can't be kind of an uncapped year. shocker jones and snyder are the ones hit. seems biased to me and unfair.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-12-2012, 03:01 PM
I am really pissed. This hurts us bad.

Blame Jones and Synder. It sounds like all the owners were aware of the rules and told not to violate them.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 03:02 PM
why? was it an uncapped year or not? it can't be kind of an uncapped year. shocker jones and snyder are the ones hit. seems biased to me and unfair.

What other team blantantly did the same thing these two teams did?

brat316
03-12-2012, 03:04 PM
why? was it an uncapped year or not? it can't be kind of an uncapped year. shocker jones and snyder are the ones hit. seems biased to me and unfair.

Saints and Raiders were hit also, but not as bad. apparently only to the tune of 1.6 million.

It was uncapped and everyone was warned not to load contracts on that year or there would be repercussions.

Seems like 32 people that mattered took a vote and majority won. It seemed unfair to the ones who followed said warning.

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 03:08 PM
Saints and Raiders were hit also, but not as bad. apparently only to the tune of 1.6 million.

It was uncapped and everyone was warned not to load contracts on that year or there would be repercussions.

Seems like 32 people that mattered took a vote and majority won. It seemed unfair to the ones who followed said warning.
I get what you're saying it just seems like bad business. if the year was uncapped it was uncapped other owners teams with less money to pay cash bonuses kind of just seem bitter because they weren't able to do what they did. if these were the rules I think they should be able to appeal

Scotty D
03-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Shouldn't the NFL have voided the contracts when they were signed? I mean don't you have to get contracts approved by the league office?

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 03:17 PM
Blame Jones and Synder. It sounds like all the owners were aware of the rules and told not to violate them.
A rule that is only a word of mouth rule is not a rule. If it was a rule, then the league shouldn't have allowed them to do it in the first place.

This is sooo NCAA.

PackerLegend
03-12-2012, 03:19 PM
what the hell? Packers need to get hit.

For what... Tramon Williams? There was no wrong doing.

vidae
03-12-2012, 03:20 PM
A rule that is only a word of mouth rule is not a rule. If it was a rule, then the league shouldn't have allowed them to do it in the first place.

This is sooo NCAA.

They were cautioned about doing it six times. Six. If someone tells you not to do something once, and then tells you not to do something again, and then tells you FOUR MORE TIMES, and you STILL DO IT.. well, I don't know what to tell you.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 03:22 PM
They were cautioned about doing it six times. Six. If someone tells you not to do something once, and then tells you not to do something again, and then tells you FOUR MORE TIMES, and you STILL DO IT.. well, I don't know what to tell you.
Who told them?

21ST
03-12-2012, 03:23 PM
This really doesn't hurt either team at all......

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 03:24 PM
people have to look at the legalities/technicalites. a contract was signed and after the fact because some owners didnt like the fact that the uncapped year could allow teams like the skins and cowboys to do this made them upset. so the league says hey were warning you dont do this even though we have no right to tell you not to because there is nothing written in the contract that says we can. now they penalize them 24 hours before the FA market opens, freaking ridiculous....this is really bad business on the NFL imo and the boys and skins should appeal.

asdf1223
03-12-2012, 03:27 PM
PFT says they were warned six times about it so if they still went on with it they were just dumb. The hilarious footnote is that the Raiders didn't get the 1.6 million in cap space the other teams are getting because of Jamarcus Russell contract dumping. The gift that keeps on giving.

21ST
03-12-2012, 03:29 PM
That warning stuff is ********. That's not even legal

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 03:31 PM
That warning stuff is ********. That's not even legal
that's my main problem also the timing. how can u wait until this long to decide this? team are just now learning what their cap number is..... are you kidding me?

Razor
03-12-2012, 03:32 PM
why? was it an uncapped year or not? it can't be kind of an uncapped year. shocker jones and snyder are the ones hit. seems biased to me and unfair.

Teams were told before the uncapped year that excessive (read idiotic) spending would not go unpunished. Your team went out and did it anyways and now you complain about being punished for something your owner was explicitly told not to do?! Go cry me a ******* river why don't you? This is an awesome punishment, I love it.

Jughead10
03-12-2012, 03:33 PM
that's my main problem also the timing. how can u wait until this long to decide this? team are just now learning what their cap number is..... are you kidding me?

They could have learned about this a while ago. Did it say anywhere that the teams were blindsided by it? It might just be getting to the media for the first time.

DiG
03-12-2012, 03:42 PM
"The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure.

The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011.

The Saints also gave J. Evans upfront and loaded guaranteed money around 12 to 15 million. But guess what his base salary was last year - 3 million. The same as this year, even though he has the highest contract in the league for an offensive guard."

not my info directly but interesting tidbits from Skins message board.

zachsaints52
03-12-2012, 03:43 PM
Well thats why the Saints didnt get it. And no wonder restructuring Evans was only 2 mil this year.

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 03:44 PM
I can't wait till the Skins sign Mike Wallace and the Cowboys sign Mario Williams.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-12-2012, 03:45 PM
Good for them if they do. It's not like those power moves will put them over the top.

PoopSandwich
03-12-2012, 03:47 PM
Can the Redskins back out of their trade with the Rams? I doubt they would I'm just hopeful being a Browns fan.

703SKINS202
03-12-2012, 03:49 PM
Can the Redskins back out of their trade with the Rams? I doubt they would I'm just hopeful being a Browns fan.
it will be interesting to find out if the Skins knew this was coming prior to the trade or if they just found out like all of us. I doubt it changes their plans to get Griffin either way.

DiG
03-12-2012, 03:49 PM
Can the Redskins back out of their trade with the Rams? I doubt they would I'm just hopeful being a Browns fan.

Don't understand why they would. He's cheaper financially at #2 then going after Flynn or Manning in FA.

Per Rich Campbell ‏ @Rich_Campbell
Also, the agreement between the union and the NFL occurred Saturday, which, of course, was after the #Redskins-Rams trade

Trogdor
03-12-2012, 03:50 PM
"The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure.

The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011.

The Saints also gave J. Evans upfront and loaded guaranteed money around 12 to 15 million. But guess what his base salary was last year - 3 million. The same as this year, even though he has the highest contract in the league for an offensive guard."

not my info directly but interesting tidbits from Skins message board.

Exactly why this could be the most short-lived punishment if either team takes it to the arbitrator. The league decided the Packers MASSIVE cap move was okay even though it was more than the front-loaded Miles Austin contract.

Jughead10
03-12-2012, 03:50 PM
Don't understand why they would. He's cheaper financially at #2 then going after Flynn or Manning in FA.

But they might no be able to fill all their other whole via free agency. Which I assume they were going to do because of losing all those picks.

PoopSandwich
03-12-2012, 03:51 PM
Don't understand why they would. He's cheaper financially at #2 then going after Flynn or Manning in FA.

Per Rich Campbell ‏ @Rich_Campbell
Also, the agreement between the union and the NFL occurred Saturday, which, of course, was after the #Redskins-Rams trade

They would because I want RG3.

DiG
03-12-2012, 03:51 PM
But they might no be able to fill all their other whole via free agency. Which I assume they were going to do because of losing all those picks.

They still have 6 picks in this draft and will still have more cap space than most of the league even IF they have to split the fine 50/50 over the next two years.

Vaylor
03-12-2012, 03:57 PM
Can the Redskins back out of their trade with the Rams? I doubt they would I'm just hopeful being a Browns fan.

Yes they could.

CDCB14
03-12-2012, 03:58 PM
I don't know if it has been posted, but the Redskins are losing 36 million compared to the Cowboys 10. Also, Jerry Jones said they knew this was coming and have planned accordingly.

Trogdor
03-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Chicago avoided this? LMFAO.

The Bears didnt appear to listen either but are not being penalized.

Julius Pepper’s cap hits by year:

2010: 34.9; 2011: 13.8; 2012: 11.3; 2013: 15.3; 2014: 16.3; 2015: 18.8

D-Unit
03-12-2012, 04:05 PM
Did the punishment fit the crime or is it just a slap on the wrist making the cap adjustments worth it?

asdf1223
03-12-2012, 04:09 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/
This report is from nearly 2 years ago. All teams dumped salaries during the uncapped year. But the Redskins and Cowboys were nearly 50 million over the presumed cap number. Thats why the league was so harsh on them.

PackerLegend
03-12-2012, 06:04 PM
I think its more that they just went so far over what would have been a cap. Loading contracts in certain years is nothing new. Teams will still do it now depending on their cap situation. The Redskins and Cowboys were at 170 mil.. the cap this year is 120. So 50 million over that year basically. They wouldn't have been able to do contracts like that if there would have been a cap. All other teams were at like 130 million so even if they loaded contracts they likely could have made it under a cap if there would have been one.

Vaylor
03-12-2012, 06:06 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nflpa-agreed-to-cowboysredskins-salary-cap-sanctions/

Ohh so the NFL and NFLPA knew about this long in advance and just now were able to come to an agreement. That is why the salary cap # took so long to be disclosed.

descendency
03-12-2012, 06:17 PM
They have all the power of a flea. They came away from that farce of a lockout with few victories and the NFL is as strong as ever.

I would disagree with you about the CBA situation, but then I see this on PFT:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nflpa-agreed-to-cowboysredskins-salary-cap-sanctions/

LMAO.

LonghornsLegend
03-12-2012, 07:17 PM
Only way I will feel better is if we cut Terrance Newman. Like yesterday. I think we can still manage to make a serious offer to Carr but that'll be about it.

Brent
03-12-2012, 07:27 PM
Only way I will feel better is if we cut Terrance Newman. Like yesterday. I think we can still manage to make a serious offer to Carr but that'll be about it.
How has that not happened yet? He was terrible last year.

BeerBaron
03-12-2012, 07:37 PM
How has that not happened yet? He was terrible last year.

The fact that Alan Ball was not only on the roster, but getting legitimate playing time should show you just how low of standards the Cowboys have for their DBs.

Trogdor
03-12-2012, 07:57 PM
T-New saves more money by being released later. 'Boys can make a ton of moves and get cap space and they knew this was coming.

In short:

Cut T-New: 4mil for now or 6 mil for later

Restructure Dez (done), Ware, Scandrick, and Free: 13 mil in savings

Cut Coleman: 1.9mil

Cut Buehler....Buehler...Buehler...:1.26 mil

That's not including any number of moves they could make. That's an easy 21+mil along with the rumored ~4mil they had. With the massive inflation of TV revenue the cap number is going to soar next year.

tl;dr: The Cowboys were ready for this and are still in position to spend a great deal this offseason even with a ton of dead money. Next season when the cap will skyrocket and all dead money will be off the books the penalty can apply in full with little hassle.

Steady Lurkin
03-12-2012, 08:01 PM
edit: wrong thread

Steady Lurkin
03-12-2012, 08:01 PM
The fact that Alan Ball was not only on the roster, but getting legitimate playing time should show you just how low of standards the Cowboys have for their DBs.

Didn't they give Newman MORE money after losing out on Aso or something?

LonghornsLegend
03-12-2012, 09:33 PM
The fact that Alan Ball was not only on the roster, but getting legitimate playing time should show you just how low of standards the Cowboys have for their DBs.

Ahh yes, good ol trustworthy Alan Ball. Then to compound matters we went out and signed Frank Walker, the Ravens version of Alan Ball. Lollzz. We have two DB's on the roster, Scandrick and Jenkins. That's how bad our DB's are right now. Neither of those guys are #1 CB's, or can stay healthy.


I can't lie it was pretty amusing trotting out Alan Ball in Nickle and Dime formations, I'd look at my girlfriend and go "hey there go's Alan Ball #20, watch whoever he covers they will throw it to". Simple stuff. Yet we thought it was smart to put him out there for years even though he has no clue wtf is going on as soon as the QB releases the ball.




How has that not happened yet? He was terrible last year.

He's been terrible long before last year, but this past season was just sad. He still has some good instincts and can make plays on the ball in the air but his long speed is completely gone, completely. Astounding how a guy like Darrell Green can still run a 4.3 or whatever going into his 40's but a track guy like Newman can be so slow now. There is no reason he should be a starting CB anymore but he will somewhere based off of reputation.

FUNBUNCHER
03-12-2012, 09:45 PM
All the legal arguments are on the SKins and Cowboys' side.

The league approved the Dallas/Washington contracts during the uncapped year, so how can those contracts retroactively be in violation of a rule that didn't exist?(uncapped year).

This was an attempt by the owners IMO to circumvent the poison pill of an uncapped season if a new CBA wasn't signed in time, by colluding that all 32 teams agree to act as if there WAS a CBA, just to screw the NFLPA.

Jerruh is no punk. And Danny Boy thinks he's Tony Stark.

There could be an injunction filed to prevent the start of the new league year and FA, and if this case goes to court Goodell is going DOWN.

You can't break rules before the rule is written. No CBA. An uncapped year. Therefore the NFL can't tell you how to structure contracts or whether or not to dump salaries.

THat Chicago and GB did the exact same thing tells me the NFL would get raped if this case is litigated before a judge and jury.

Watch, if the start of the new league year isn't suspended until this is resolved, I expect this case to go to court with the eventual outcome being a victory for Dallas and Washington.

Compensation will be draft picks.

Caddy
03-12-2012, 09:49 PM
All the legal arguments are on the SKins and Cowboys' side.

The league approved the Dallas/Washington contracts during the uncapped year, so how can those contracts retroactively be in violation of a rule that didn't exist?(uncapped year).

This was an attempt by the owners IMO to circumvent the poison pill of an uncapped season if a new CBA wasn't signed in time, by colluding that all 32 teams agree to act as if there WAS a CBA, just to screw the NFLPA.

Jerruh is no punk. And Danny Boy thinks he's Tony Stark.

There could be an injunction filed to prevent the start of the new league year and FA, and if this case goes to court Goodell is going DOWN.

You can't break rules before the rule is written. No CBA. An uncapped year. Therefore the NFL can't tell you how to structure contracts or whether or not to dump salaries.

THat Chicago and GB did the exact same thing tells me the NFL would get raped if this case is litigated before a judge and jury.

Watch, if the start of the new league year isn't suspended until this is resolved, I expect this case to go to court with the eventual outcome being a victory for Dallas and Washington.

Compensation will be draft picks.

Are you basing this on extensive legal knowledge?

BeerBaron
03-12-2012, 09:50 PM
I bet you think the Saints should go to court too, yes?

Haha...ahhhhhhh, homers.

descendency
03-12-2012, 10:01 PM
And Danny Boy thinks he's Tony Stark.

He's more like the guy that knows Tony Stark's biography by heart.

FUNBUNCHER
03-12-2012, 10:02 PM
Are you basing this on extensive legal knowledge?

I'm basically regurgitating arguments made on my home board about this cluster **** from Goodell and the league owners.

Someone is going to be eating sh!t when this whole situation is resolved, just don't be so sure it's going to be the Skins/Dallas.

The league has NO legal standing in this case at all.
That's why the NFLPA put an uncapped year in the old CBA if a new deal wasn't signed in time.

This is going to get UGLY.:waiting:


http://members.shaw.ca/david.p.z.888/star_wars/pics/sith.jpg
AKA Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Roger Goodell has unleashed the Dark Side of the force.:freakout:

Steady Lurkin
03-12-2012, 10:26 PM
Honestly, I think it's a bunch of horseshit that the league is trying to pull this off after the fact.

killxswitch
03-12-2012, 10:33 PM
If the league approved the contracts then I don't understand how they have a leg to stand on.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-12-2012, 10:48 PM
If the league approved the contracts then I don't understand how they have a leg to stand on.



The league would have far more legal resources than any individual owner. The league is set up as a partnership and the owners have agreed that the Commissioner has certain rights to dole out fines, etc. It is a majority rules environment and i don't think it is really subject to the legal system. This is not 32 separate corporations dealing with each other and able to sue each other based on all things being written in stone. If the other owners are behind the Commissioner on this, these two owners are hooped.

descendency
03-12-2012, 11:00 PM
This is not 32 separate corporations dealing with each other and able to sue each other based on all things being written in stone.

Except they are. That's how they avoid anti-trust litigation.

falloutboy14
03-12-2012, 11:49 PM
I thought the CBA prevented the anti-trust litigation. That brought on the Brady et al. suit last year.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2012, 06:11 AM
The league would have far more legal resources than any individual owner. The league is set up as a partnership and the owners have agreed that the Commissioner has certain rights to dole out fines, etc. It is a majority rules environment and i don't think it is really subject to the legal system. This is not 32 separate corporations dealing with each other and able to sue each other based on all things being written in stone. If the other owners are behind the Commissioner on this, these two owners are hooped.

I think Dan Snyder can cobble together a crew of mercenary attorneys on par with anything the NFL Commissioner's office can put together.

The legal argument on the owner's side simply isn't sound. If the SKins/Cowboys etc. were in violation of league rules by front loading contracts in an uncapped year, but 'rule' the league office SHOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED those deals in 2010.

THe NFL can't have it both ways, I don't care how much authority they're granted by the other 30 measly owners.

If I own a store and sell you an item that's listed as 'not for sale', I can't report you to authorities two years later as having stolen that item from me.

I don't know about Jerruh, but Snyder has a planetary sized ego and a minor temper problem.( I miss the days when he would cuss out Norv Turner in the locker room after losing to Dallas.)

The Commissioner works for ALL the owners, just not the ones who whine the loudest because they hate to spend money.

I imagine this is what the next Owner's meeting will look like between Danny Boy(Joe Pesci) and Roger Goodell(Ray Liotta).


InJTWXgmgtw

bigbluedefense
03-13-2012, 07:08 AM
While I'm personally enjoying this, this punishment is a ton of bull.

The Cowboys and Redskins did not break any rules. They broke an illegal "handshake" agreement amongst the owners during the lockout to collude.

There is no grounds for this punishment, and I'm surprised the Cowboys and Redskins aren't fighting it through an arbitrator.

Goodell is out of control. He needs to go.

Trogdor
03-13-2012, 08:15 AM
While I'm personally enjoying this, this punishment is a ton of bull.

The Cowboys and Redskins did not break any rules. They broke an illegal "handshake" agreement amongst the owners during the lockout to collude.

There is no grounds for this punishment, and I'm surprised the Cowboys and Redskins aren't fighting it through an arbitrator.

Goodell is out of control. He needs to go.

Well defiant statements from both teams along with a COMPLETE gag put on the entire NFL front office and affiliated network makes me think this may already be in court or at least in front of an arbitrator. Why else would the FO refuse to comment and NFLN give it zero play?

Lombardi mentioned the cap space issue and the rest of the crew looked at him like he had a 3rd eye.

TheFinisher
03-13-2012, 08:36 AM
Dallas and Washington were not the only teams that were dumping huge salaries into the 2010 uncapped year, so I don't understand why they were the only ones hit with the penalty. Check the spoiler, here are 9 examples of other teams dumping money:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/Untitled1-1.jpg

Peppers had a 35M cap hit in 2010 but that's not taking advantage of the system? :njx:

BeerBaron
03-13-2012, 08:44 AM
Apparently, according to the NFL, it is not.

I still find the fan reaction hilarious. The NFL found that what your team did was wrong, and they are now paying the price. I love it.

It's like the Saints fans who were all like "but everyone does it!" Ha, apparently not. That excuse won't hold up in a real court of law...ever...and it won't here.

"But I have other examples!!" Apparently not. Your teams got in trouble and no others did. There was apparently a difference in the eyes of the league.

And I love it.

Trogdor
03-13-2012, 08:53 AM
Apparently, according to the NFL, it is not.

I still find the fan reaction hilarious. The NFL found that what your team did was wrong, and they are now paying the price. I love it.

It's like the Saints fans who were all like "but everyone does it!" Ha, apparently not. That excuse won't hold up in a real court of law...ever...and it won't here.

"But I have other examples!!" Apparently not. Your teams got in trouble and no others did. There was apparently a difference in the eyes of the league.

And I love it.

Correction. 28 NFL owners threw a hissy fit and penalized 4 owners for not abiding by an illegal handshake agreement.

Most be fun being so smug when presented with the same amount of information as everyone else.

TheFinisher
03-13-2012, 08:55 AM
Apparently, according to the NFL, it is not.

I still find the fan reaction hilarious. The NFL found that what your team did was wrong, and they are now paying the price. I love it.

It's like the Saints fans who were all like "but everyone does it!" Ha, apparently not. That excuse won't hold up in a real court of law...ever...and it won't here.

"But I have other examples!!" Apparently not. Your teams got in trouble and no others did. There was apparently a difference in the eyes of the league.

And I love it.

Well if the NFL didn't like what the Cowboys and Redskins were doing with their contracts then why the hell did Goodell's office approve the moves prior to the 2010 season? It makes no sense. You can't turn around 2 years later and say "I know we approved of these contracts back then but looking back now we really don't like how it's played out, so you're going to have to pay a penalty". That's ridiculous, you can't make up new rules after the fact.

Uncapped means uncapped, the NFL would never win this case in a court of law. All they have to stand on is a backdoor handshake agreement.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-13-2012, 09:08 AM
They had to approve the contract at the time or else the NFLPA would have been all over them. And keep it mind this was a sensitive time as the new CBA was in forefront. So the owners agreed to do certain things and if some disobeyed they would get penalized. And the 2 (or 4) owners were. Given that neither of the 2 teams is declaring war on this issue it seems clear they know they nothing to stand on. We can conjecture all day long but as long as neither team puts up a fight on this we KNOW they have no legal leg to stand on.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2012, 09:35 AM
They had to approve the contract at the time or else the NFLPA would have been all over them. And keep it mind this was a sensitive time as the new CBA was in forefront. So the owners agreed to do certain things and if some disobeyed they would get penalized. And the 2 (or 4) owners were. Given that neither of the 2 teams is declaring war on this issue it seems clear they know they nothing to stand on. We can conjecture all day long but as long as neither team puts up a fight on this we KNOW they have no legal leg to stand on.

Stay tuned.

The Skins and Cowboys were only informed yesterday. This has yet to play out to its conclusion.
BTW the NFL Commissioner did not have to approve contracts he knew would be in violation of a future CBA.

You can't have fuzzy bylaws and expect all members to comply.

There's no way the NFL has a stronger case in court than Dallas/Washington. What makes it even trickier is why were some contract dumps and teams singled out, and others not?? It not only looks arbitrary, it has the appearance of direct bias.

Good luck arguing that in court.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-13-2012, 09:42 AM
Stay tuned.

The Skins and Cowboys were only informed yesterday. This has yet to play out to its conclusion.
BTW the NFL Commissioner did not have to approve contracts he knew would be in violation of a future CBA.

You can't have fuzzy bylaws and expect all members to comply.

There's no way the NFL has a stronger case in court than Dallas/Washington. What makes it even trickier is why were some contract dumps and teams singled out, and others not?? It not only looks arbitrary, it has the appearance of direct bias.

Good luck arguing that in court.

Again though, the NFL is a corporation that has 32 FRANCHISES. Much like a fast food chain a franchise owner can be kicked out, etc based on whatever agreement is in place. We don't know what the agreement is between the league and the franchise owners. What we do know is the league gives enormous powers to the league office. Take spygate, the Pats lost draft picks but never sued. I think historically, Al Davis may have been the only owner to actually sue the league? If the agreement between them says the league can do these types of things as long as the majority of owners concur then these 2 teams are hooped.

Trogdor
03-13-2012, 09:49 AM
Again though, the NFL is a corporation that has 32 FRANCHISES. Much like a fast food chain a franchise owner can be kicked out, etc based on whatever agreement is in place. We don't know what the agreement is between the league and the franchise owners. What we do know is the league gives enormous powers to the league office. Take spygate, the Pats lost draft picks but never sued. I think historically, Al Davis may have been the only owner to actually sue the league? If the agreement between them says the league can do these types of things as long as the majority of owners concur then these 2 teams are hooped.

Careful with that argument. The league avoids anti-trust litigation because it doesn't go what is implied here. The league had an illegal (i.e. violated anti-trust law) handshake agreement that teams would not overspend despite no cap being in place. The NFLPA allowed the penalties to happen (and hereby waive the right to take the NFL to court for more anti-trust violations) in exchange for a better offer on the salary cap. The initial offers was ~113 million and the end result was 120 million without additional NFLPA concessions. Add in the penalty money was spread throughout the entire league and it allows Gene to take a raw deal for the players but come out in prime position to get re-elected.

CDCB14
03-13-2012, 09:53 AM
Apparently, according to the NFL, it is not.

I still find the fan reaction hilarious. The NFL found that what your team did was wrong, and they are now paying the price. I love it.

It's like the Saints fans who were all like "but everyone does it!" Ha, apparently not. That excuse won't hold up in a real court of law...ever...and it won't here.

"But I have other examples!!" Apparently not. Your teams got in trouble and no others did. There was apparently a difference in the eyes of the league.

And I love it.

Not really. Dude, all contracts need to be approved through the league office. It was a BS ruling. What did they do? Break a promise? They did nothing contractually wrong.

It doesn't really hurt the Cowboys anyway, but it's a garbage ruling nonetheless. I bet you they fight it and it gets reduced anyway. Not to mention the cap is going to skyrocket next year so it isn't that big of a deal because they can push most to next year.

BBD is a giants fan and one of the most respected posters on this site and even he said it's wrong. It's not homer fans complaining, it's true that this ruling was wrong.

IT WAS AN UNCAPPED YEAR. The NFL is joke now.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-13-2012, 10:00 AM
Careful with that argument. The league avoids anti-trust litigation because it doesn't go what is implied here. The league had an illegal (i.e. violated anti-trust law) handshake agreement that teams would not overspend despite no cap being in place. The NFLPA allowed the penalties to happen (and hereby waive the right to take the NFL to court for more anti-trust violations) in exchange for a better offer on the salary cap. The initial offers was ~113 million and the end result was 120 million without additional NFLPA concessions. Add in the penalty money was spread throughout the entire league and it allows Gene to take a raw deal for the players but come out in prime position to get re-elected.


I would guess that there are many handshake deals the owners make that are not written or on public record. This is an exclusive club full of egomaniacs. If you want to be a part of the club you have to play by the rules, written or unwritten. I would be surprised if Jones and Synder took this to court, they may appeal internally but going outside the club and essentially suing the other owners could have all kinds of consequences. If Jones wants another Super Bowl for example, he has to sing from the same songbook. If the league and the NFLPA is on side with this judgement, I would again guess it would not be in these 2 teams best interests to poke a stick at it.

brat316
03-13-2012, 10:04 AM
unwritten rule, and its not an NFL thing, more so its their fellow peers(owners) voting to apply the rule.

As for the contract getting approved by the league office, they approve all contracts as long as there is no funny business in them. They don't reject contracts when teams go over the cap do they? That's not their job to tell them hey we are rejecting the contract since you are over the cap. So stop using the league office approved it.

The contracts were fine, its the amount they spent that has got the other owners panties in a bunch. If all the teams spent 170-200 million, everyone would have tons of cap space right now, and FA would have been even more dull today. But only 4 teams did it, and 2 going overboard, which has now given them a competitive advantage, mo $$, mo problems.

killxswitch
03-13-2012, 10:40 AM
How did the Bears not get into huge trouble when they paid Peppers $34 million in 2010? Or the Texans with Schaub?

brat316
03-13-2012, 10:45 AM
How did the Bears not get into huge trouble when they paid Peppers $34 million in 2010? Or the Texans with Schaub?

most teams went over the cap, but not like 50 million over.

TheFinisher
03-13-2012, 11:10 AM
The Management Council Executive Committee is responsible for the decision to hand out these penalties. The chairman of that committee... the Giants John Mara.

Conflict of Interest much?

brat316
03-13-2012, 11:11 AM
The Management Council Executive Committee is responsible for the decision to hand out these penalties. The chairman of that committee... the Giants John Mara.

Conflict of Interest much?

haha, cause they are in the same division.

Well that can be said about almost anything. Like the when Polian was on the competition commette and Ty Law was harrasing Harrison.


See Goodell is not responsible for the punishment for once.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2012, 11:16 AM
most teams went over the cap, but not like 50 million over.

First it's a 'handshake agreement' that was broken, now you're arbitrarily deciding who broke the non-rule 'more'.:facepalm:
A rule is a rule, is it not?? There can't be a subjective interpretation to what degree an unwritten rule is violated.

EIther they're all guilty, or none of them are.
You can't make up the rules for an uncapped year TWO YEARS after the fact.

The Skins spent $36 mil on two contracts in 2010 over the cap. The Bears spent nearly that amount on ONE player.

No, this is going to court.

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 11:16 AM
The Management Council Executive Committee is responsible for the decision to hand out these penalties. The chairman of that committee... the Giants John Mara.

Conflict of Interest much?

Haha. The Mara's have never liked Jerry or Dan. They butted heads with John and his father over splitting the TV money equally, and this is really in a way just an extension of that. John Mara and his family will always make decisions and vote thinking of the league first and Jerry/Snyder don't. I'm really not surprised we are at the head of the group that was pushing for punishment.

Giantsfan1080
03-13-2012, 11:16 AM
Mara is one of the most trustworthy men in the NFL and was one of the men soley responsible for ending the lockout so get out of here with that nonsense.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-13-2012, 11:24 AM
No, this is going to court.

Perhaps only if you intend to take them there.

DiG
03-13-2012, 11:30 AM
LL ‏ @LL56_HTTR Close
@ZsSkins as far as I know skins are going forward as planned and will deal with the nfl.

Jsteelz ‏ @Jsteelzextreme Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@LL56_HTTR @ZsSkins Just got off phone, told the same. Said Skins are moving as planned, this is crazy !!

Steady Lurkin
03-13-2012, 11:41 AM
Good for the Redskins, because this is honestly horse ****.

killxswitch
03-13-2012, 11:43 AM
LL ‏ @LL56_HTTR Close
@ZsSkins as far as I know skins are going forward as planned and will deal with the nfl.

Jsteelz ‏ @Jsteelzextreme Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@LL56_HTTR @ZsSkins Just got off phone, told the same. Said Skins are moving as planned, this is crazy !!

Does "as planned" mean they are going to ignore the cap penalty?

Steady Lurkin
03-13-2012, 11:43 AM
Does "as planned" mean they are going to ignore the cap penalty?

I think so.

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 11:44 AM
Does "as planned" mean they are going to ignore the cap penalty?

Could just be a "defiant PR" move. They could easily say they are going to ignore the penalty and still not really approach the cap number with the penalty enforced.

DiG
03-13-2012, 11:50 AM
skins message board is blowing up with multiple insider sources saying the skins plan to approach free agency ignoring the pentalty. well see.

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 11:52 AM
Could just be a "defiant PR" move. They could easily say they are going to ignore the penalty and still not really approach the cap number with the penalty enforced.

Actually forget that. I thought they had a ton more room. Only 16.7 million this morning not including the penalty.

DiG
03-13-2012, 11:53 AM
Actually forget that. I thought they had a ton more room. Only 16.7 million this morning not including the penalty.

your sources are way off. not including the penalty they are around 35.

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 11:54 AM
your sources are way off. not including the penalty they are around 35.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/03/13/salary-cap-numbers-for-all-32-nfl-teams/

WCH
03-13-2012, 11:54 AM
If they do fight it (or ignore it), I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL just quietly drops the issue. I mean, they aren't going to come out and get into a public dispute over the fact that they were colluding to not significantly exceed the "salary cap" during a year without a salary cap.

Steady Lurkin
03-13-2012, 11:54 AM
skins message board is blowing up with multiple insider sources saying the skins plan to approach free agency ignoring the pentalty. well see.

Unless the NFL plans on pursuing teams that didn't spend up to the cap floor as well, the Redskins should proceed as planned.

DiG
03-13-2012, 11:54 AM
http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/03/13/salary-cap-numbers-for-all-32-nfl-teams/

JLC...haha like I said...

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 11:58 AM
Unless the NFL plans on pursuing teams that didn't spend up to the cap floor as well, the Redskins should proceed as planned.

Was there a cap floor back then? I know one kicks in following this upcoming season.

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 12:00 PM
JLC...haha like I said...

Maybe that includes the penalty and he just messed up the note. Because that would make sense then.

FUNBUNCHER
03-13-2012, 12:01 PM
Was there a cap floor back then? I know one kicks in following this upcoming season.

Since the Commissioner's office is making up sh!t as they go, I choose to believe there WAS a salary cap ceiling AND floor in 2010, you know, during an uncapped year.:banana: :njx:

Jughead10
03-13-2012, 12:02 PM
Since the Commissioner's office is making up sh!t as they go, I choose to believe there WAS a salary cap ceiling AND floor in 2010, you know, during an uncapped year.:banana: :njx:

He means before that year. 2009 and before.

WCH
03-13-2012, 12:06 PM
Yes, there was a salary floor of $107.7 Million in 2009.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-03-15-team-expenditures_N.htm

descendency
03-13-2012, 12:11 PM
There is no grounds for this punishment, and I'm surprised the Cowboys and Redskins aren't fighting it through an arbitrator.

They know they may win in the short run but in the long run the league would be harmed, because the league's defense would basically be admitting to collusion.

yodabear
03-13-2012, 12:26 PM
Man I am loving this.....

WCH
03-13-2012, 12:35 PM
This is a very interesting story to me, because I remember wondering why Green Bay wasn't taking advantage of the uncapped year by signing more key players to front-loaded contract extensions.

Now I know.

Orakpowned
03-13-2012, 12:37 PM
Seeing that there was no rule broken, this is nonsense.

Get ready for court, boys!

bucfan12
03-13-2012, 12:45 PM
Seeing that there was no rule broken, this is nonsense.

Get ready for court, boys!

Heavily frontloading contracts during an uncapped year so when the cap does come in to place, you're scott free, is pretty much against the rules. Them and other teams knew there was going to be a cap in place after 2010, so they didn't go hay-wire in spending.

DiG
03-13-2012, 12:48 PM
ESPN 980 just said the Skins were planning to report 17m in cap space plus the 13.6 carryover giving them approximately 30.6m in space.

bucfan12
03-13-2012, 12:49 PM
I always questioned the fact that every year, the Redskins are always a player in FA iwth cap space, and never are cap=strapped.

DiG
03-13-2012, 12:50 PM
I always questioned the fact that every year, the Redskins are always a player in FA iwth cap space, and never are cap=strapped.
You are a bucs fan you should know Bruce Allen was only hired to manage the cap that Vinny C screwed up.

Jvig43
03-13-2012, 12:56 PM
Heavily frontloading contracts during an uncapped year so when the cap does come in to place, you're scott free, is pretty much against the rules. Them and other teams knew there was going to be a cap in place after 2010, so they didn't go hay-wire in spending.

There is no pretty much. It either is or it isn't against the rules. Pollian was on espn saying that the league warned them not to do it, but it was never a rule so why would they take the warning seriously?

Steady Lurkin
03-13-2012, 12:58 PM
You are a bucs fan you should know Bruce Allen was only hired to manage the cap that Vinny C screwed up.

Make no mistake, parts of the 2006 CBA were agreed upon to unfuck the cap situation the Redskins created for themselves.

bucfan12
03-13-2012, 01:05 PM
There is no pretty much. It either is or it isn't against the rules. Pollian was on espn saying that the league warned them not to do it, but it was never a rule so why would they take the warning seriously?

The way the leauge is, if they warn you not to do something, expect punishment if you do. Basically cheating against the cap was a bad move.

critesy
03-13-2012, 02:13 PM
“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 draft and the coming football season.”.

what bruce allen said yesterday

http://districtsportspage.com/washington-redskins-gm-bruce-allen-fires-back-at-nfl-in-light-of-cap-docking/5981

CDCB14
03-13-2012, 02:15 PM
I think the Cowboys and Redskins will get off if they choose to fight it. This is the definition of collusion. You are not allowed to do this. It is illegal in the United States. It was an uncapped year, period.

This issue isn't over. It should be revoked.

killxswitch
03-13-2012, 02:15 PM
This **** is getting more and more real by the minute.

CDCB14
03-13-2012, 02:16 PM
This **** is getting more and more real by the minute.

What do you mean?

killxswitch
03-13-2012, 02:35 PM
What do you mean?

Did you read Bruce Allen's statement? They're giving the league two middle fingers and spending their money how they want.

CDCB14
03-13-2012, 02:39 PM
Did you read Bruce Allen's statement? They're giving the league two middle fingers and spending their money how they want.

They should, what the league did was collusion and illegal in the United States. The Cowboys are operating business as usual as well.

WCH
03-14-2012, 07:32 AM
Florio used to practice Labor Law. I'd really like to see him post an in-depth analysis of this. The fact that he hasn't leads me to think that NBC told him to shut up (although, he did state that this is collusion).

Also, we've known that the NFL owners do things like this all the time. The thing that blows my mind is that they're now being ballsy enough to openly acknowledging collusion, and to seemingly openly punish teams for not engaging in collusion. That's the kind of thing that could catch the attention of a Senator or Representative who's looking for a high-profile issue to address.

Caddy
03-14-2012, 08:08 AM
Did you read Bruce Allen's statement? They're giving the league two middle fingers and spending their money how they want.

LOL Bruce Allen. He isn't great at evaluating talent, but the guy knows his way around salaries/contracts.

DiG
03-14-2012, 08:32 AM
LOL Bruce Allen. He isn't great at evaluating talent, but the guy knows his way around salaries/contracts.

Agree with you there. The rumor is that somehow he has Garcon, Morgan, and Carriker only affecting 4.2m against the cap in 2012 combined.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-14-2012, 08:34 AM
That's the kind of thing that could catch the attention of a Senator or Representative who's looking for a high-profile issue to address.

Aren't they still too busy trying to make Clements admit he stuck steroids in his ass? Not to venture too far off topic but the damn country is in shambles so why should the legal system or any elected official actually care about this internal issue amongst wealthy people. The NFL is fine with it and the NLFPA is fine with it. Therefore it is fine. Who gives a s**t about collusion when we are talking about splitting up the riches of some $20 Billion, it's not like this is a few fruit producers colluding to keep immigrant wages below the state minimum.

WCH
03-14-2012, 08:40 AM
Aren't they still too busy trying to make Clements admit he stuck steroids in his ass? Not to venture too far off topic but the damn country is in shambles so why should the legal system or any elected official actually care about this internal issue amongst wealthy people. The NFL is fine with it and the NLFPA is fine with it. Therefore it is fine. Who gives a s**t about collusion when we are talking about splitting up the riches of some $20 Billion, it's not like this is a few fruit producers colluding to keep immigrant wages below the state minimum.

I don't want to take this thread off-topic either, but I agree with you. It always seems silly when Congressmen decided to spend their time investigating professional sports. Like they don't have better things to worry about?

Nevertheless, they do it. It's probably because they get more media time than they would if they investigated Goldman Sachs or something along those lines...

Jvig43
03-14-2012, 08:42 AM
The way the leauge is, if they warn you not to do something, expect punishment if you do. Basically cheating against the cap was a bad move.

There was no cheating against the cap in an uncapped year, I don't care who warned them. If they do take this to court this is going to be an easy win for the skins and cowboys.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-14-2012, 09:20 AM
There was no cheating against the cap in an uncapped year, I don't care who warned them. If they do take this to court this is going to be an easy win for the skins and cowboys.

No, it won't be an easy 'win' because the way the league is set up the teams allow the commissioner (league office) discretion (and a lot of it) on fines, loss of draft picks, etc. There is nothing to 'win' here, it is not about rules or no rules, it is about the league office having been granted the authority to make these decisions. If the 2 teams want to dispute this they would have to petition the other owners or appeal to the league office itself. Owners have been fined before, teams have lost draft picks before yet no previous legal action? Ask yourself why that is. I would say it is because the league office has been given the authority to do these things with the full approval, majority approval of the owners. And when the bounty penalties are assessed there also will be no legal action.

TimmG6376
03-14-2012, 09:40 AM
No, it won't be an easy 'win' because the way the league is set up the teams allow the commissioner (league office) discretion (and a lot of it) on fines, loss of draft picks, etc. There is nothing to 'win' here, it is not about rules or no rules, it is about the league office having been granted the authority to make these decisions. If the 2 teams want to dispute this they would have to petition the other owners or appeal to the league office itself. Owners have been fined before, teams have lost draft picks before yet no previous legal action? Ask yourself why that is. I would say it is because the league office has been given the authority to do these things with the full approval, majority approval of the owners. And when the bounty penalties are assessed there also will be no legal action.

In those cases you reference there were rules or codes of conduct violated. As much as I would love to see Snyder and Jones get it stuck to them, I have to agree that it is illegal to penalize them for violating a salary cap that didn't exist. A secret handshake deal among owners to stay under a salary cap not established by a CBA could be considered collusion.

FloridaSkinzFan
03-14-2012, 09:45 AM
I love how the Bears gave Julius Peppers like $20 million front loaded in the uncapped year. Just saying...

Redskins and Cowboys should and will use their original available cap space and if it goes to court I know Dan snyder and Jerry Jones can afford a pretty nice legal team to go against the NFL's.

Ness
03-14-2012, 09:45 AM
http://www10.pic-upload.de/14.03.12/rkix1q7qodsp.gif

FUNBUNCHER
03-14-2012, 02:02 PM
http://www10.pic-upload.de/14.03.12/rkix1q7qodsp.gif

Hey everybody, LOOK AT ME!!

I'm witty.:wave:

I_C_DeadPeople
03-14-2012, 02:19 PM
In those cases you reference there were rules or codes of conduct violated. As much as I would love to see Snyder and Jones get it stuck to them, I have to agree that it is illegal to penalize them for violating a salary cap that didn't exist. A secret handshake deal among owners to stay under a salary cap not established by a CBA could be considered collusion.

I am in complete agreement that they did collude, and the owners agreed to do it and after the fact the NFLPA agreed to it. Which is why it will go nowhere. Taking this to court will kill the golden goose, or at least reveal it.

WCH
03-14-2012, 02:34 PM
I am in complete agreement that they did collude, and the owners agreed to do it and after the fact the NFLPA agreed to it. Which is why it will go nowhere. Taking this to court will kill the golden goose, or at least reveal it.

That's why I think that the NFL would back down if Dallas and Washington just acted like it never happened. If the NFL hasn't given them written notice that they're being punished, this might even be more of a "suggestion" from the NFL.

D-Unit
03-14-2012, 02:39 PM
The Cowboys are just fine. We signed Kyle Orton and Mackenzy Bernadeau. So EAT THAT NFL!

jsagan77
03-14-2012, 10:22 PM
There is no pretty much. It either is or it isn't against the rules. Pollian was on espn saying that the league warned them not to do it, but it was never a rule so why would they take the warning seriously?

Agreed.

+rep...

Rosebud
03-14-2012, 10:26 PM
"All that money goes to 28 other teams -- $1.6 million each -- except for Saints and Raiders, who don't get any but don't lose any."

Haha. We could really use that 1.6 million. Thanks Jerry and Dan.

Million by million the giants creep into range of being able to sign Eric Winston...

Crazy_Chris
03-17-2012, 12:01 PM
A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the Redskins and Cowboys could be going “nuclear” with the NFL as soon as Monday.

More specifically, the two teams are contemplating suing anyone and everyone connected to the sudden removal of $46 million in total cap space over the next two years, based on the contention that their treatment of the term “uncapped year” too literally somehow created a competitive disadvantage. Even though no rules or policies were violated.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/redskins-cowboys-could-go-nuclear-over-cap-mess/

WCH
03-17-2012, 01:01 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/redskins-cowboys-could-go-nuclear-over-cap-mess/

Well, anybody who didn't see this coming is simply an idiot...

dan77733
03-17-2012, 01:12 PM
Jones and Snyder should team up. LOL.

Joking aside, if I was either of them, I would be pissed since neither team did anything wrong. How can you get disiplined for violating the salary cap rules when there's no salary cap? And quite honestly, the NFL's excuse is pathetic because if what the Cowboys and Redskins did creates an unfair competitive balance, couldnt the same be said for teams like the Bengals, Chiefs, etc. who have millions in cap room but never spend any of it? That screws up that competitive balance because those teams arent even trying to be competitive.

Cant wait to next off-season when every team will be required to reach the spending minimum.

MetSox17
03-17-2012, 01:41 PM
I like how the NFLPA just bent over and let the Cowboys and Redskins get ****** by the league.

cmarq83
03-17-2012, 02:06 PM
I honestly have no problem with what happened to the Cowboys and Redskins. The problem isn't that they spent a lot in the uncapped year specifically, it's that they positioned themselves for more future cap flexibility by paying out huge bonuses in one year than doing it in traditional pro-rated methods with progressive salaries. While the rest of the league showed solidarity and discretion in the uncapped year those 2 (predictably) behaved like complete jackasses.

If the labor union doesn't have a problem with the penalties, then I'm not really sure what leverage the Cowboys or the Redskins have to fight this. It's well within the NFL's right to penalize teams and players for conduct detrimental to the league. I have no idea what the legality of the whole ordeal is, but I like the penalties. Hell, hopefully the NFL can deduct the legal expenses of a lawsuit against these team's caps too :)

MetSox17
03-17-2012, 03:13 PM
What's horseshit is the league taking these penalties under the scope of maintaining competitive balance and integrity in the league. In other words, because they ******* want to. The NFLPA accepted the penalties because they were blackmailed. If they didn't, the whole league would lose salary cap space, which would mean less money for the players. In order for them to save face (and all the while being strong armed), they gave the okay to the fines.

CDCB14
03-17-2012, 03:31 PM
I honestly have no problem with what happened to the Cowboys and Redskins. The problem isn't that they spent a lot in the uncapped year specifically, it's that they positioned themselves for more future cap flexibility by paying out huge bonuses in one year than doing it in traditional pro-rated methods with progressive salaries. While the rest of the league showed solidarity and discretion in the uncapped year those 2 (predictably) behaved like complete jackasses.

If the labor union doesn't have a problem with the penalties, then I'm not really sure what leverage the Cowboys or the Redskins have to fight this. It's well within the NFL's right to penalize teams and players for conduct detrimental to the league. I have no idea what the legality of the whole ordeal is, but I like the penalties. Hell, hopefully the NFL can deduct the legal expenses of a lawsuit against these team's caps too :)

Are you borderline ********?

The bottom line is what the NFL did is illegal in the United States. It's called collusion. It was an uncapped year, period. Who cares if the owners had a hand shake agreement? Every contract needs to be approved by the league office and they approved what the Cowboys and Redskins did at the time.

It really doesn't matter, because both teams did what they wanted in free agency so I guess that was a smack in the face to the league and the rest of the teams anyway, but it was still a garbage decision.

I know the Cowboys aren't fighting it and they had a brilliant free agency regardless, and the cap is skyrocketing next year so I guess Jerry Jones just doesn't give a ****.

cmarq83
03-17-2012, 04:05 PM
Are you borderline ********?

The bottom line is what the NFL did is illegal in the United States. It's called collusion. It was an uncapped year, period. Who cares if the owners had a hand shake agreement? Every contract needs to be approved by the league office and they approved what the Cowboys and Redskins did at the time.

It really doesn't matter, because both teams did what they wanted in free agency so I guess that was a smack in the face to the league and the rest of the teams anyway, but it was still a garbage decision.

I know the Cowboys aren't fighting it and they had a brilliant free agency regardless, and the cap is skyrocketing next year so I guess Jerry Jones just doesn't give a ****.

Typical Anti-Trust laws in the United States do not apply to the NFL because the league has an Anti-Trust exemption. If that wasn't the case then the entire entity that is the NFL is in violation of United States Anti-Trust Laws. It has this exemption through a complex agreement with the teams and with labor. The labor side has passed off on the penalties, and the Cowboys and Redskins aren't stupid enough to openly challenge the Anti-Trust exemption through the Judicial system.

In the NFL the league itself has almost absolute power to enforce penalties against any team as it deems fit. It was the right decision to make because everything that the Cowboys and Redskins did was done to circumvent the salary cap. You may disagree with the NFL's decision to apply penalties after the fact, and that it was technically a justified move at the time, but it's evident that the league made it evidently clear probably through a league memo to not load up bonuses for long term contracts in the uncapped year. It was plainly obvious to everyone involved that the cap was coming back, and these teams did their best to circumvent future caps.

Really neither of these teams have much leverage here to do anything and are pretty much going to have to just bite the bullet on this one.

BandwagonPunditry
03-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Typical Anti-Trust laws in the United States do not apply to the NFL because the league has an Anti-Trust exemption. If that wasn't the case then the entire entity that is the NFL is in violation of United States Anti-Trust Laws. It has this exemption through a complex agreement with the teams and with labor. The labor side has passed off on the penalties, and the Cowboys and Redskins aren't stupid enough to openly challenge the Anti-Trust exemption through the Judicial system.


Yup. The NFL is a de facto cartel that by necessity operates any number of anticompetitive practices - practices that both the Redskins and the Cowboys are involved in. Suing for collusion would be silly.

FUNBUNCHER
03-17-2012, 10:09 PM
You really think the SKins or Cowboys would have a problem with Congress removing the NFL's antitrust exemption status???

This is the gamble by the owners; that Dallas and Washington need the NFL more than they need them.

Even without the antitrust exemption, these two franchises would financially be the NY Yankees of the NFL in terms of profitability, they and a handful of of other teams.

I don't think the NFL wants to see this case resolved in federal court if only because the outcome could be far worse than the SKins overspending a non-existent salary cap.

Snyder sued some old lady over season tickets, the NFL owners are just a bunch of old white men to Danny Boy who are trying to steal his lunch money.

That's the reason the NFLPA put the uncapped season in as a penalty in the old CBA if a new contract wasn't ratified before a hard deadline.

tmljeh19
03-18-2012, 08:22 PM
There is no pretty much. It either is or it isn't against the rules. Pollian was on espn saying that the league warned them not to do it, but it was never a rule so why would they take the warning seriously?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/redskins-cowboys-could-go-nuclear-over-cap-mess/

I honestly have no problem with what happened to the Cowboys and Redskins. The problem isn't that they spent a lot in the uncapped year specifically, it's that they positioned themselves for more future cap flexibility by paying out huge bonuses in one year than doing it in traditional pro-rated methods with progressive salaries. While the rest of the league showed solidarity and discretion in the uncapped year those 2 (predictably) behaved like complete jackasses.

If the labor union doesn't have a problem with the penalties, then I'm not really sure what leverage the Cowboys or the Redskins have to fight this. It's well within the NFL's right to penalize teams and players for conduct detrimental to the league. I have no idea what the legality of the whole ordeal is, but I like the penalties. Hell, hopefully the NFL can deduct the legal expenses of a lawsuit against these team's caps too :)


So you would feel the same about this if it happened to your team? That's what I thought. The whole "agreement" was illegal. Right there in itself is their leverage. Period! This isnt kindergarten handshake pacts here. They are billion dollar enterprises. And before you start, I would say this is ******** whether it happens to my team or the Eagles and Giants.

tmljeh19
03-18-2012, 08:32 PM
You may disagree with the NFL's decision to apply penalties after the fact, and that it was technically a justified move at the time, but it's evident that the league made it evidently clear probably through a league memo to not load up bonuses for long term contracts in the uncapped year. It was plainly obvious to everyone involved that the cap was coming back, and these teams did their best to circumvent future caps.

So Washington and Dallas are wrong for cutting bad contracts but Chicago and Green bay, for example, aren't for handing huge bonuses to players to lower their contract for future cap relief? It's ******** no matter how much you try to justify or sugarcoat it. You can't draw a line and punish some and not all of the teams who tried to benefit themselves in an uncapped year.

WCH
03-18-2012, 08:42 PM
You really think the SKins or Cowboys would have a problem with Congress removing the NFL's antitrust exemption status???


I can't think of two owners that would welcome it more. Jones has even stopped just short of going rogue when he wondered, on record, why you have profitable "small-market" teams like the Chiefs and Packers subsidizing franchises that are too stupid to set up shop in profitable markets.

These guys don't care about the "golden goose." This is a matter of principle to them.

21ST
03-26-2012, 04:35 PM
Well it is officially on. **** Jim mora he is a crook

bigbluedefense
03-26-2012, 04:43 PM
The Cowboys and Redskins are going to lose in a court of law.

Why?

Bc they may have a lot of money but guess what? When you combine the rest of league's money, they have more.

And they can buy off more politicians. I'm sure Mara, Kraft and the rest of the gang are just as connected as Snyder and Jones.

Should they lose? No. They are right and the league is wrong. But the league is going to win this battle bc they're the bullies on the block.

jsagan77
03-27-2012, 01:13 PM
The Cowboys and Redskins are going to lose in a court of law.

Why?

Bc they may have a lot of money but guess what? When you combine the rest of league's money, they have more.

And they can buy off more politicians. I'm sure Mara, Kraft and the rest of the gang are just as connected as Snyder and Jones.

Should they lose? No. They are right and the league is wrong. But the league is going to win this battle bc they're the bullies on the block.


The Simple facts are that neither of these teams did anything wrong, were unfairly punished and in the skins case ruined their chance at Peyton Manning, Nicks, and Vjax. The league levied these penalties just to screw them over during Free Agency(wierdly enough the best FA ever). Not only will the Skins and Boys win this, they should also recieve compensation in the way of draft picks considering the league screwed them out of a once in a generation FA period. I think Goodell should be fired for this. Talk about h
Hitlerizing the NFL. Dude is a rogue lunatic that needs to learn that messing with teams ability to sign players that would put them into SB contention is no joke. He basically sabatoged the Skins and now the NFL and Goodell need to pay the Piper.

Giantsfan1080
03-27-2012, 03:18 PM
The NFL owners voted unanimously today to uphold Goodell's ruling. 1 owner abstained.

MetSox17
03-27-2012, 03:20 PM
Of course they did. Who is gonna vote against free money all the while hurting two hated franchises?

This needs an arbitrator.

jsagan77
03-27-2012, 03:52 PM
Of course they did. Who is gonna vote against free money all the while hurting two hated franchises?

This needs an arbitrator.

This is going to a Special Master the law professor at Penn will be the arbitrator according to PFT.

CDCB14
03-27-2012, 03:55 PM
It is probably just going to reach a deal where the penalties get cut in half before the situation gets ugly and drawn out.

The penalties will probably go down to 5 million for the cowboys and around 18-20 for the skins. Just my hand.

D-Unit
03-27-2012, 04:34 PM
Can the league penalize the Cowboys every year? I don't think we've ever had better FA value signings in our entire team history!!!

jsagan77
03-27-2012, 06:58 PM
It is probably just going to reach a deal where the penalties get cut in half before the situation gets ugly and drawn out.

The penalties will probably go down to 5 million for the cowboys and around 18-20 for the skins. Just my hand.


Uhh no. For what? Absolutely no rules were broken. People like you are the reason i hope i never have to go for trial at any point in my life. People that think a punishment should be levied for teams using the rules to their advantage are point blank wrong.

Giantsfan1080
03-27-2012, 08:11 PM
http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2012/03/collusion-is-good-for-the-nfl/

*shrug* i think what the skins, cowboys, and possibly others (the raiders, for instance) did was disgusting, in terms of the sport, and it's hilarious to watch them be so rabidly defended just because it was legal. that said, whatever on the penalties, i don't find them particularly relevant (meaning whether they continue to exist or are thrown out).

in all honesty, both teams might benefit from having to be smarter about the cap, in light of their near complete irrelevance lately (3 playoff wins in 15 years).

Very good point here. It's very possible the league is saving them from themselves in this instance.

jsagan77
03-27-2012, 08:31 PM
http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2012/03/collusion-is-good-for-the-nfl/

*shrug* i think what the skins, cowboys, and possibly others (the raiders, for instance) did was disgusting, in terms of the sport, and it's hilarious to watch them be so rabidly defended just because it was legal. that said, whatever on the penalties, i don't find them particularly relevant (meaning whether they continue to exist or are thrown out).

in all honesty, both teams might benefit from having to be smarter about the cap, in light of their near complete irrelevance lately (3 playoff wins in 15 years).


Oh bull crap. What they did was totally within the rules, you're bias opinion or anyone elses means nothing. The objective facts are they did nothing wrong, end of story. And fwiw The skins are cap guru's. Their lack of winning has been due to a plethora of other things.

D-Unit
03-27-2012, 09:17 PM
I really don't mind the punishment... but it's kind of irritating to see only a select few being punished while others are getting away with it. By not showing consistency it really reflects poorly on the league.

Bert Macklin
03-27-2012, 09:37 PM
I really don't mind the punishment... but it's kind of irritating to see only a select few being punished while others are getting away with it. By not showing consistency it really reflects poorly on the league.

I know right?

“Let’s be clear. We discussed it with the clubs today and I think it is fair to say non-contract bonus payments were happening around the league ... and that’ll discontinue.” per Roger Godell

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 12:14 AM
what bias do YOU think I have? this should be fun.

Some sort of wierd sociological bias where you think there is some moral issue with what these two teams did. It blocks people from looking at a situation objectively and instead uses their own standards for determining if something is wrong or right. That's not the point here. You can have your opinion about it but the facts remain, no rules were broken and thats the point. Morals are not relevant here, the rules were followed and thats the only obligation these teams were mandated to follow--bottom line.

TonyGfortheTD
03-28-2012, 03:35 AM
Oh bull crap. What they did was totally within the rules, you're bias opinion or anyone elses means nothing. The objective facts are they did nothing wrong, end of story. And fwiw The skins are cap guru's. Their lack of winning has been due to a plethora of other things.
Well considering it was made clear, several times, not to do what they did, looks like they did in fact do something wrong.

The rule is stupid, but that doesn't mean breaking it is justified.

It's pretty much been a Cowboys/Redskins tear repository in here, when the fans that have the right to actually complain are the Raiders. I mean, come on...they also got slapped for releasing Jamarcus ******* Russel.

Scotty D
03-28-2012, 03:41 AM
Well considering it was made clear, several times, not to do what they did, looks like they did in fact do something wrong.

The rule is stupid, but that doesn't mean breaking it is justified.

It's pretty much been a Cowboys/Redskins tear repository in here, when the fans that have the right to actually complain are the Raiders. I mean, come on...they also got slapped for releasing Jamarcus ******* Russel.

There was no rule.

TonyGfortheTD
03-28-2012, 03:47 AM
There was no rule.
It was an order from the leader they appointed to govern their league, so it really doesn't matter.

and I'm sure there's a rule somewhere that states all officials should preserve integrity of the league. It seems 29 owners thought there was an integrity issue with what they did.

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 03:47 AM
There was no rule.

DING DING. This is collusion to the infinite degree against the two most profitable teams in the league. This was a rogue commish trying to punish without much legal backing. Its a joke he should be fired for.

Giantsfan1080
03-28-2012, 06:52 AM
This is not a legal issue.

Trogdor
03-28-2012, 06:58 AM
Of course it's not a legal issue. It's an issue to be overseen by the arbitrator whose duty is to rule on these cases.

So what happens if the arbitrator decides to punish ALL clubs who made questionable moves (Packers, Bears, +10)? Will all the teams who did load up get saddled with penalties while the teams that don't spend money will get more cap room? :banana:

Has to just be a happy coincidence that Mara is using the "good ol boys" club for a competitive advantage right?

:evil_laugh:

Damix
03-28-2012, 06:59 AM
DING DING. This is collusion to the infinite degree against the two most profitable teams in the league. This was a rogue commish trying to punish without much legal backing. Its a joke he should be fired for.


Can't really say he was rouge when the vote was 29-0 to support him.

Giantsfan1080
03-28-2012, 07:03 AM
If you really think Mara is doing this out of spite because it's the Cowboys and Redskins then you need to beef up on your NFL history. The Mara's could have killed the NFL as we know it today if they had wanted to.

Scotty D
03-28-2012, 07:47 AM
Can't really say he was rouge when the vote was 29-0 to support him.

No owner was going to vote against it.

Trogdor
03-28-2012, 08:45 AM
If you really think Mara is doing this out of spite because it's the Cowboys and Redskins then you need to beef up on your NFL history. The Mara's could have killed the NFL as we know it today if they had wanted to.

I simply asked a question. You felt the need to irreverently defend Mara. Your logic is a tad broken. So because Mara didn't kill off the league (his money making source) he wouldn't seek a competitive advantage? I love the logic.

It is just a funny thought that the man behind the curtain punishes his division rivals and not all questionable moves. Hell since Mara claims it was a competitive advantage and "against the spirit of the cap" how about the teams that massively UNDERSPEND because there was not a floor. I didn't see him pointing a figure at the majority of teams for massively front-loading contracts or spending well below the salary floor which is a competitive advantage.

I understand as a Giant's fan you have to hold Mara's name in the highest.

Giantsfan1080
03-28-2012, 08:52 AM
I simply asked a question. You felt the need to irreverently defend Mara. Your logic is a tad broken. So because Mara didn't kill off the league (his money making source) he wouldn't seek a competitive advantage? I love the logic.

It is just a funny thought that the man behind the curtain punishes his division rivals and not all questionable moves. Hell since Mara claims it was a competitive advantage and "against the spirit of the cap" how about the teams that massively UNDERSPEND because there was not a floor. I didn't see him pointing a figure at the majority of teams for massively front-loading contracts or spending well below the salary floor which is a competitive advantage.

I understand as a Giant's fan you have to hold Mara's name in the highest.

The Mara family could be a lot richer if they didn't split the NY pie into 32 pieces. They had the foresight to see that the NFL would be a stronger league as a whole if everyone had equal footing rather than a group of top teams. That was my point. The history of the family shows what they do is always in the best interest of the NFL and not themselves so to use that as an excuse needs to be defended.

WCH
03-28-2012, 09:53 AM
this is great. what competitive advantage, on the field mind you, is there to paying below the salary floor in an uncapped year? specific examples now.

In theory, legitimately low-budget teams could "cheat the cap" during the uncapped year by spending maybe $20 Million less than they would normally be required to, and that would be $20 Million that they could spend in future years, as a sort of equalizer.

Of course, there may be a perceived "ethical" difference between poor teams acting poor during an uncapped year, and rich teams acting rich during an uncapped year.

further, do you not have any vague understanding of the difference between front loading a contract in a year in which you still have to be under the cap, versus doing it in a year where there is no cap? this really isn't that bloody difficult.

I don't think that front-loading is even the issue, but the extent to which the Cowboys and Redskins did it. The Packers front-load contracts on nearly every deal they negotiate, and they did it with the Tramon Williams deal during the uncapped year. They only spent $135 Million in 2010, though. The Cowboys spent $166 Million, which was $20 Million more than the next highest spender. The Redskins spent $178 Million.

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 12:23 PM
The issue with what you think is right Vs what i think is right is very culturally specific so yes, it doesnt matter what was said, only what was written. You're acting like what you think is right is the 100% only way someone can do something right. The skins and boys and everyone else did THE RIGHT THING based off the guidance they were given. This isnt make up the rules as we go club. This is a muli billiondollar business and what these guys are doing is down right vindictive.

So answer me this. Teams under spent, should they be punished? They hurt competative balance. The Bears frontloaded peppers contract. Isnt that essentially wat the skins are being punished for? Why werent they strung up?


you do realize, of course, that the entire bloody league is guilty of collusion, thus the anti-trust exemption? i'm unsure why so many people are bound and determined to make this a legal issue, when the entire league is basically outside of the legal system as it is. it's like a bunch of 4 year olds crying because they don't understand why someone won't give them a cookie.



and that has what, specifically, to do with damix's post? nothing? cool.



sociological bias? that's hilarious/nonsense. so i have a bias for... doing the right thing? how inconvenient... yes, totally blocked from looking at it objectively, presuming that objectively is solely defined as 'from jsagan's point of view'. clearly the written rules WEREN'T the only obligation teams were supposed to be following, thus the penalties. i have no idea why that's such a difficult concept for you to understand.

but then, it's not possibly because you, as a redskins fan, have any bias towards the skins not being penalized (this is sort of a better definition of bias, since your initial suggestion of a sociological bias is so mind-numbingly idiotic that it's difficult to take seriously).



decides that all of the clubs who made questionable moves....

it's difficult to answer a question you didn't bother asking.

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 12:26 PM
What rules did these teams break by front loading contracts?


so by spending less they got a $20 million credit for the future on the cap? again, no on field competitive advantage was gained. all the team were still bound by the cap coming out. you didn't get a better cap.



i don't think that's terribly relevant. as long as they're all playing by the same rules.



exactly this. front-loading in a capped year is entirely different. massively front-loading in an uncapped year places your team on an uneven playing field coming back into the cap. again, it's a massive (or could be, with a competent front office) competitive advantage.

Trogdor
03-28-2012, 12:35 PM
this is great. what competitive advantage, on the field mind you, is there to paying below the salary floor in an uncapped year? specific examples now.

can't think of any? i'm *shocked*.

further, do you not have any vague understanding of the difference between front loading a contract in a year in which you still have to be under the cap, versus doing it in a year where there is no cap? this really isn't that bloody difficult.

... Sorry you are this dense. I'll spoon feed you now :)

Competitive advantage at being WELL BELOW the salary cap in a given year is that you will have a SIGNIFICANT advantage (in terms of cap space) when the cap is brought back into play. You could also argue that yes by fielding a weaker team by spending less money would create an imbalance in the scheduling of teams. For example playing the Pirates rather than playing the Red Sox.

Simple enough or should I not be *shocked* that you couldn't reason that one out? See I can do it too. :)

I don't think my ability to understand front loading in a capped year vs uncapped year is the problem. I was making the point that at least 10 NFL teams mega-front loaded contracts in an uncapped year. How can I word this any other way to make this any more clear? ... Here's a picture.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1002718/Untitled1-1.jpg

D-Unit
03-28-2012, 01:33 PM
That's a picture worth a thousand words.

brat316
03-28-2012, 01:39 PM
But how do you go 50 million over?

Jughead10
03-28-2012, 01:41 PM
Jackson and Crabtree's contracts should not be part of this. Those were rookie contracts that were signed a full year or two before the uncapped year. Schuab as well, unless there was a restructure there. I'm not sure teams were warned at that point. But the Peppers contract should be looked at. At the very least the Bears should have been lumped in with the Raiders and Saints.

Scotty D
03-28-2012, 01:42 PM
and that has what, specifically, to do with damix's post? nothing? cool.



????? It showed that his post that the vote of 29-0 meant nothing.

brat316
03-28-2012, 01:45 PM
Thats why the Steelers have no room to make moves, because they followed the warnings. Suck it BeerBaron.

eaglesalltheway
03-28-2012, 01:45 PM
Jackson and Crabtree's contracts should not be part of this. Those were rookie contracts that were signed a full year or two before the uncapped year. Schuab as well, unless there was a restructure there. I'm not sure teams were warned at that point. But the Peppers contract should be looked at. At the very least the Bears should have been lumped in with the Raiders and Saints.

There's a few contracts in that pic that were signed before that off-season that are irrelevant.

D-Unit
03-28-2012, 02:05 PM
There's a few contracts in that pic that were signed before that off-season that are irrelevant.
It doesn't matter when they were signed. It matters when the restructuring happened.

eaglesalltheway
03-28-2012, 02:14 PM
It doesn't matter when they were signed. It matters when the restructuring happened.

True. I can't speak for the other teams, but I don't remember the Eagles restructuring Peters' contract in '10. (may just not be remembering it though) But even if they did, there is certainly basis behind his restructure (and some of the others). Most of those players are making roughly the same from '09-'10 (Julius Peppers' contract sticks out a little bit though... lol) and the years after. In those cases, there really isn't anything too outlandish or unjustifiable, like what happened with the 'skins and 'boys.

Jughead10
03-28-2012, 02:23 PM
It doesn't matter when they were signed. It matters when the restructuring happened.

Agreed. But Schaub for instance. His salary was so high because of what looks like a 10 million dollar roster bonus. However if that bonus was put in his contract in 2007, then it is completely irrelevant.

Scotty D
03-28-2012, 02:28 PM
no, it didn't. the owners voted 29-0 against. the reasons are irrelevant. they were near unanimous.



So the reason something happened is irrelevant. :njx:

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 02:29 PM
Actually all unused cap space IS rolled over into the following year.

Damix
03-28-2012, 03:01 PM
So the reason something happened is irrelevant. :njx:

In this context... yes. He made a statement that it was a rogue commisioner. I made the statement that the league voted 29-0 to support the commisioner.

That is not a rogue commisioner, that is a commisioner with full support. Even if the vote passed 15-14, that is not a rouge commisioner.

The only way you get a rogue commisioner is if he did something the entire league didn't support.

I see your reasoning that no one would have voted against Goodell. It doesn't matter why they didn't vote against him, only that they didn't.

brat316
03-28-2012, 03:06 PM
Actually all unused cap space IS rolled over into the following year.

Then the Bengals would have 200 million of cap spaced dollars.

If the cap last year was set at 119, and then you use 110, that remaining 9 doesn't roll over. Fluxing with the contract numbers and cutting guys and the cap rising is what gets you space.


For the next years in the new CBA there is something like that, but its if you don't meet the floor min this year, it will roll over next year so you have to meet the floor as it will be added on. spend 112 of the 115 you have to spend, next year the floor is 116, plus the 3 left over from the year before.

brat316
03-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Agreed. But Schaub for instance. His salary was so high because of what looks like a 10 million dollar roster bonus. However if that bonus was put in his contract in 2007, then it is completely irrelevant.

Lot of the guys have MISC bonuses which is shady, but Schaub might have hit a contract escalator since he posted career highs in 2009.

brat316
03-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Also what site did you get all that info?

WCH
03-28-2012, 06:50 PM
I think that some of you guys are partially misunderstanding what the NFL is saying. Front-loading contracts, even in an uncapped year, isn't what they're taking issue with. The Cowboys and Redskins were punished for spending approximately $21 Million ahd $33 Million more than the third highest-spending team.

Now, I agree that penalizing somebody for violating the "presumed" salary cap by $40 Million dollars during an "uncapped" year is horseshit. One third of the league, by my count, "violated" what would have been the salary cap. When you look at the cap numbers, it also looks like there was an unofficial "salary cap" of $145 Million (which is collusion in any industry other than, for some reason, major league sports). But the fact that the Cowboys and Redskins "violated" that handshake agreement is the primary reason that they're being punished.

So pointing out that the Packers "salary dumped" with Pickett, Williams, and Jennings misses the point and weakens the argument (and yes, the Packers totally planned for an took advantage of the uncapped year: that's why "Tightwad" Ted Thompson stayed $10+ Million under the cap for the several prior seasons). Front-loaded contracts and "salary dumping" are a strawman.

Rosebud
03-28-2012, 07:14 PM
Doesn't the league's Anti-trust exemption protect it from anything it does being considered collusion?

WCH
03-28-2012, 07:43 PM
Doesn't the league's Anti-trust exemption protect it from anything it does being considered collusion?

I have no ******* clue, to be honest. If my understanding is correct (and it's probably wrong, because I'm not a lawyer), then the salary cap would typically be an anti-trust violation. Given the exemption, however, the two unions (the NFL and the NFLPA) are allowed to engage in collective bargaining and agree upon a salary cap. Because the salary cap was part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated and agreed upon by the two sides, it's exempt from being counted as collusion. That much is pretty clear to me.

When it comes to a "handshake" salary cap during an uncapped year, I have no idea if that could lead to problems in regards to collusion. I'm assuming the the NFL's lawyers figured this out long before the punishments were handed down. Either way, it would probably take the NFLPA speaking out before a legal case would go anywhere (again, I'm not even close to being a lawyer and this all just a wild ass guess based on knowing how to use google -- ie: I don't know ****).

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 09:07 PM
Then the Bengals would have 200 million of cap spaced dollars.

If the cap last year was set at 119, and then you use 110, that remaining 9 doesn't roll over. Fluxing with the contract numbers and cutting guys and the cap rising is what gets you space.


For the next years in the new CBA there is something like that, but its if you don't meet the floor min this year, it will roll over next year so you have to meet the floor as it will be added on. spend 112 of the 115 you have to spend, next year the floor is 116, plus the 3 left over from the year before.

Yes it does. There is also a cap floor that each team MUST meet. Get your facts straight.

brat316
03-28-2012, 09:10 PM
Yes it does. There is also a cap floor that each team MUST meet. Get your facts straight.

the current floor is super low, and it barley rolls over, the new CBA rules which are going to go in effect next year will be what I think you are talking about.

If I am wrong can you please show me?

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 09:17 PM
no, they tried to competitively unbalance the salary cap structure (on the assumption that it would be back) by front-loading their contracts into a year it didn't matter. whether you think that's totally ok, or you think that deserves some penalty is up for discussion. but that they did it, and that it was anti-competitive is hardly up for debate, no matter what the rules may have said.



no, for the reasons outlined above. those aren't difficult scenarios to understand.


It's absolutely up for debate. How was it anti-competitive? I doubt you can give me one solid reason how.

jsagan77
03-28-2012, 09:43 PM
serious question, but are you blind? it was in the bloody quote and it's all over this page.


I'm on an iphone, please reiterate.

Rosebud
03-28-2012, 09:55 PM
I have no ******* clue, to be honest. If my understanding is correct (and it's probably wrong, because I'm not a lawyer), then the salary cap would typically be an anti-trust violation. Given the exemption, however, the two unions (the NFL and the NFLPA) are allowed to engage in collective bargaining and agree upon a salary cap. Because the salary cap was part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated and agreed upon by the two sides, it's exempt from being counted as collusion. That much is pretty clear to me.

When it comes to a "handshake" salary cap during an uncapped year, I have no idea if that could lead to problems in regards to collusion. I'm assuming the the NFL's lawyers figured this out long before the punishments were handed down. Either way, it would probably take the NFLPA speaking out before a legal case would go anywhere (again, I'm not even close to being a lawyer and this all just a wild ass guess based on knowing how to use google -- ie: I don't know ****).

That to me is the big thing, I don't see how the NFL could let things get this ugly if there's really this much risk on the table. Especially since the NFLPA seems to be with the league on this and if the NFLPA and league agree on this.

FUNBUNCHER
03-28-2012, 09:56 PM
The term 'anti-competitive' is a meaningless platitude used by Goodell and the owners to make up crap as they go along.
It's right up there on the BS scale with Goodell saying the Skins/Cowboys violated the 'spirit of the salary cap'.

Rosebud
03-28-2012, 10:02 PM
The term 'anti-competitive' is a meaningless platitude used by Goodell and the owners to make up crap as they go along.
It's right up there on the BS scale with Goodell saying the Skins/Cowboys violated the 'spirit of the salary cap'.

I disagree. They did violate the "spirit of the salary cap" regardless of if they were warned to or not. Taking advantage of the uncapped season to artificially deflate their cap numbers for future capped seasons is clearly trying to violate the spirit of the salary cap. Kudos to them if they get away with it, but if the league warned them not to and they still did, well then they don't really have much to ***** about when they get punished, kinda like the Saints and their bounties, once the league tells you to cut it out and you don't, I have little sympathy for any punishments handed down.

tmljeh19
03-29-2012, 07:35 AM
I disagree. They did violate the "spirit of the salary cap" regardless of if they were warned to or not. Taking advantage of the uncapped season to artificially deflate their cap numbers for future capped seasons is clearly trying to violate the spirit of the salary cap. Kudos to them if they get away with it, but if the league warned them not to and they still did, well then they don't really have much to ***** about when they get punished, kinda like the Saints and their bounties, once the league tells you to cut it out and you don't, I have little sympathy for any punishments handed down.

That's great if Rog wants to be all "look at me I'm a hardass" and punish teams but if you do it it has to be done to all the teams who did it. How do you draw the line at Washington and Dallas? You can't honestly say that the other teams who gave huge bonus or front loaded contracts that year were doing it for any other reason the the financial benefit of being in an uncapped year. But any idiot can figure out how or where you draw the line. Start with the guy coming up with the punishments does so the two teams in the same division. Nope, nothing to see here. Move along!

TheFinisher
03-29-2012, 07:49 AM
But how do you go 50 million over?

Bad contracts.

Rosebud
03-29-2012, 12:33 PM
That's great if Rog wants to be all "look at me I'm a hardass" and punish teams but if you do it it has to be done to all the teams who did it. How do you draw the line at Washington and Dallas? You can't honestly say that the other teams who gave huge bonus or front loaded contracts that year were doing it for any other reason the the financial benefit of being in an uncapped year. But any idiot can figure out how or where you draw the line. Start with the guy coming up with the punishments does so the two teams in the same division. Nope, nothing to see here. Move along!

They were by far the most egregious offenders and Godell has always been an inconsistent punisher who makes example of the highest profile violators to discourage the lesser violators. If you want to make the case that other teams that restructured contracts with players to take advantag of the uncapped season should also face a penalty I wouldn't disagree, but the Bears are the third worst offenders and they only have the one Julius Peppers contract that he signed as a free agent, which doesn't look as bad as re-structurings.

I_C_DeadPeople
03-29-2012, 01:11 PM
Yes it does. There is also a cap floor that each team MUST meet. Get your facts straight.

For 2011 and 2012 there is NO floor for individual clubs but the league as a whole was committed to spending 99% of the cap.

Unused cap space for 2011 and 2012 can be used in the following year.

Starting in 2013, the cap floor for individual teams is 89% and the league as a whole is committed to spending 95% of the cap.

jsagan77
03-29-2012, 03:44 PM
For 2011 and 2012 there is NO floor for individual clubs but the league as a whole was committed to spending 99% of the cap.

Unused cap space for 2011 and 2012 can be used in the following year.

Starting in 2013, the cap floor for individual teams is 89% and the league as a whole is committed to spending 95% of the cap.


I read the floor started with the instance of the new CBA. When did they determine that it would start in 2013?

jsagan77
03-29-2012, 03:52 PM
Thanks for the correction. It does indeed start in 2013, I thought it started this year. The fact still stands that there is still a mandatory spending limit which means there is also a cap floor and that stands at 99% for this league year (so really there would be no carry over regardless). It then drops to 95% and then 89% where the money not spent can be rolled over. Either way my statement stands as valid so whoever neg repped me for being inaccurate can get bent.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/9/5/2395968/the-nfl-cba-collective-bargaining-agreement-refresher-course

Salary cap and floor (article 12 section 8 & 9): This one in particular causes some confusion as it is split into different periods. For the league years 2011 and 2012, there is a hard salary cap but no per-team salary floor. Instead, league-wide cash spending must be 99% of the total cap. If the NFL falls below that amount, the shortfall will be paid out by September 15 following each season. That is to say, on or before September 15th the players that were on the teams' rosters during that year shall be paid directly according to allocation numbers determined by the NFLPA.

Then, for the periods 2013-2016 and 2017-2020, the league-wide cash spending commitment drops to 95%, but a per-team cash commitment is put into place of 89%. For both these periods, the cash commitment is calculated at the end of each 4-year period, not at the end of each league year. This means that if you're below the 89% cash floor one year, you can spend a little more the next to make up for it. If you still don't make the floor over the entire period, the team pays out its players directly, again through allocation numbers determined by the NFLPA.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/12/new-cba-gives-teams-the-right-to-carry-over-cap-space-automatically/

Under Article 13, Section 6(b)(v) of the CBA, each team may carry over any remaining cap room from one year to the next by submitting written notice, signed by the owner of the team, to the league office no later than 14 days before the start of the next league year. The written notice must indicate the maximum amount of cap room that the team wishes to shift from one cap year to the next.

eaglesalltheway
03-30-2012, 07:13 AM
However what you fail to understand (and why I neg repped you) is right in what you posted there. It is a hard cap. Meaning it doesn't move. This was the case with the last CBA. I know some teams have been able to "roll over", if you will their cap these past two season, but its never anything major, because that amount added during a year is then taken away the next year. (Or in the case of the 'skins and 'boys, two seasons due to their enormous overage).

Owners have submitted these things before, but in most cases, they would and should be denied. This is why the 49ers went to **** in the late 90s. They paid all their main guys and went way over the cap, and were then penalized for it the following years. But you can't just shift around and say, as a team that " Well, I was 20 mil under the cap this year, so now I'll be able to go 19.9 over the cap next year." No. It doesn't work that way. You are wrong.

jsagan77
03-30-2012, 12:56 PM
However what you fail to understand (and why I neg repped you) is right in what you posted there. It is a hard cap. Meaning it doesn't move. This was the case with the last CBA. I know some teams have been able to "roll over", if you will their cap these past two season, but its never anything major, because that amount added during a year is then taken away the next year. (Or in the case of the 'skins and 'boys, two seasons due to their enormous overage).

Owners have submitted these things before, but in most cases, they would and should be denied. This is why the 49ers went to **** in the late 90s. They paid all their main guys and went way over the cap, and were then penalized for it the following years. But you can't just shift around and say, as a team that " Well, I was 20 mil under the cap this year, so now I'll be able to go 19.9 over the cap next year." No. It doesn't work that way. You are wrong.


This is not a hard cap. It does go up every year and will continue to do so. For instance next year the New tv contracts are helping inflate the cap. And you will be able to spend 95% of the cap and roll over the other 5% the following year. Thats whats in the new CBA. Why are you talking about the old one?

Vikings4ever
05-22-2012, 11:19 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82941da5/article/arbitrator-burbank-has-dismissed-redskins-cowboys-cap-claim?module=HP11_headline_stack

Special master Stephen Burbank has granted the NFL's motion to dismiss the grievance filed by the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins regarding the salary cap situation that occurred during the league's uncapped year, league counsel Jeff Pash said in Atlanta on Tuesday.

This means the league’s decision to impose a $36 million salary cap reduction over two years on the Redskins, as well as a $10 million cap reduction over two years for the Cowboys, will be upheld. Those reductions were the result of the way both teams structured player contracts when the NFL was working without a salary cap in 2010.