Cowboys&Redskins=DUMB

[tmljeh19]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

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]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

But how do you go 50 million over?

Bad contracts.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by tmljeh19

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]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

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]

Originally Posted by I_C_DeadPeople

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]

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/2011/9/5/2...fresher-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...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]

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]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

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]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...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.

[tmljeh19]

Mara successfully kneecapped two division rivals. In the end it didn't stop us from getting who we want or getting RG3 so nice try.

[FUNBUNCHER]

When did the NFL owners become the Cosa Nostra??
Goodell and Mara are straight up GANGSTA.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

First it's a 'handshake agreement' that was broken, now you're arbitrarily deciding who broke the non-rule 'more'.
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.

I believe you were wrong.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Originally Posted by I_C_DeadPeople

I believe you were wrong.

Don't gloat. It makes you look petty.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Don't gloat. It makes you look petty.

Not gloating, just stating a fact. You and a few others were pounding the table about the two teams taking the league to court. When in fact you just did not realize how the league itself has the power, not any individual team. Remember that the league can kick out teams, owners, etc so it can certainly manage a few cap slaps. You may think the league is being heavy handed in this case but the strength of the league is conformity amongst the owners. If you want to be in the circle of 32 you have to conform.

[FUNBUNCHER]

This was all entirely orchestrated by the Maras as a form of 'pay back' against division rivals he felt were gaining an unfair competitive advantage during the uncapped year.
This isn't an issue about what's best for the league or the rule of the CBA bylaws.

These violations were identified in hindsight, not when they actually occurred. If they had been red-flagged in the beginning, before these new contracts were approved by the league(!!), all of this could have been avoided.

It sucks when any organization gives itself the authority to make up the rules as they go along.

[FUNBUNCHER]

NFLPA files collusion charges against the NFL
https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/...st-NFL-Owners/

The complaint cites John Mara, owner of the New York Giants, who also serves as the Chair of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee, as publicly confirming that the NFL directed teams to restrict players’ salaries during the uncapped year. When asked about imposed penalties for the Redskins and Cowboys, he replied: “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole … full well knowing there would be consequences.”

[DiG]

hahaha in your face mara

[bigbluedefense]

The NFLPA can't do anything. They gave up their right to sue when they signed the CBA.

The NFL isn't stupid. They wouldn't do this knowing that this was a possibility.

[Giantsfan1080]

The whole NFL is built upon collusion anyway. They are exempt from anti-trust laws and the salary cap and draft itself could be considered collusion. Also, the NFL didn't say to pay these guys less it was just a matter of accouting for bookeeping purposes. No case at all here.

[21ST]

I just don't understand how Mora thought he was gonna get away with this bs

[bigbluedefense]

I hope everyone realizes that this wasn't just Mara. All the other owners, and the league all decided to do this.

Mara is just the face of it bc he's the Giants owner and he represents the rest of ownership, and this directly impacts his division.

[Damix]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I hope everyone realizes that this wasn't just Mara. All the other owners, and the league all decided to do this.

Mara is just the face of it bc he's the Giants owner and he represents the rest of ownership, and this directly impacts his division.

Nope, too easy for other fan's to point fingers.

[21ST]

So the NFL is saying there was no secret agreement but Mara is on record saying there was. Smh crooked ******

[Giantsfan1080]

The Redskins fans here are coming off like scorn lovers.

[bigbluedefense]

It's the offseason. Redskins fans always get cute when their team made some moves in the offseason.

Then the season starts.