Redskins lose $36 million in cap space

[McLovin]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7677375/sources-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-lose-millions-cap-space

That stings...

[CrimsonTribe]

Well that's bull.

[OrioleMagic]

Damn! $18M per year. That sucks.

[Coker]

So owners complained and thought that it was unfair?

What a crock.

[Sports Guy]

That really sucks bad. How much does this effect them going after Grubbs and VJack?

[CrimsonTribe]

That really sucks bad. How much does this effect them going after Grubbs and VJack?

We reportedly had $31 million going into this offseason. I guess it depends on how they want to split this penalty up between 2012 and 2013.

[Coker]

That really sucks bad. How much does this effect them going after Grubbs and VJack?

It really depends...they just cut around $4M in cap space by releasing Sellers and Atogwe. There have been rumblings that they were looking to trade Hall, which would have cleared up around $6.4M.

But, it really comes down to how they decide to split the $36M up. The cap is supposed to increase big time next year, so maybe they only take a $10M or so cut this year. Also, it could just lead to the 'Skins backloading contracts and then working the cap. Something they've always done.

[mweb]

Wow, this is awful and doesn't really seem right. During the uncapped year teams were reported to be able to do just what the Skins and Cowboys did and now they're being screwed over for it?

[mweb]

We reportedly had $31 million going into this offseason. I guess it depends on how they want to split this penalty up between 2012 and 2013.

I think it was more like 41M.

[square634]

It seems odd to me that only the Redskins and Cowboys did this. It seems like every team should have done the same thing, unless there was some sort of "gentlemen's agreement", but still I don't get what they did wrong here. Maybe Miller could explain it better.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Wow, what a bunch of BS.

[Can_of_corn]

It seems odd to me that only the Redskins and Cowboys did this. It seems like every team should have done the same thing, unless there was some sort of "gentlemen's agreement", but still I don't get what they did wrong here. Maybe Miller could explain it better.


What they did wrong was use their superior revenue flow to help their teams.

[Miller192]

It seems odd to me that only the Redskins and Cowboys did this. It seems like every team should have done the same thing, unless there was some sort of "gentlemen's agreement", but still I don't get what they did wrong here. Maybe Miller could explain it better.

What the Redskins did was to essentially wipe out the accounting of certian contracts going forward. From a pure cap standpoint, the Redskins avoided the cost of the contract.

Teams were told that they were not going to be allowed to do this and some teams choose to do it anyway.

I don't think the league should've given cap space to other teams. The leveled the playing field enough by taking the space away.

[square634]

What the Redskins did was to essentially wipe out the accounting of certian contracts going forward. From a pure cap standpoint, the Redskins avoided the cost of the contract.

Teams were told that they were not going to be allowed to do this and some teams choose to do it anyway.

I don't think the league should've given cap space to other teams. The leveled the playing field enough by taking the space away.

Oh OK, the part I missed was where the NFL told teams they were not allowed to do that during the uncapped year.

[mweb]

Doesn't the league have to approve contracts?

[CrimsonTribe]

Q: How did they get caught?

A: The complaints against the Cowboys and the Redskins for engaging in perfectly legal behavior that violated no actual rules but only the collusive backroom dictates being issued by the league came not from the league office but from the other 30 teams, who were doing what they were told while the Cowboys and the Redskins were not. The other teams demanded action, since they were the good soldiers, and so the league decided it needed to take some.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/36904/qa-on-the-cowboys-redskins-cap-mess

So basically, the Redskins and Cowboys didn't break any actual rules and are being punished after the fact by the collusion of the other 30 teams. 2 legit 2 quit.

[mweb]

My favorite team in two sports have now been screwed over by their respective league over a 4 month time frame. :angryfire: :cussing:

[square634]

What the Redskins did was to essentially wipe out the accounting of certian contracts going forward. From a pure cap standpoint, the Redskins avoided the cost of the contract.

Teams were told that they were not going to be allowed to do this and some teams choose to do it anyway.

I don't think the league should've given cap space to other teams. The leveled the playing field enough by taking the space away.

It sounds like they gave cap space to other teams so that there was no net loss to the cap, thus evening amount the total revenue available to players.

[allstar1579]

Would have been nice if they would have made this move BEFORE they dealt away every pick for the next 2 years so they would have known that they couldnt buy help as well. That's pretty messed up business to say two teams only get x amount of cap space but the rest of the league gets y.

[mweb]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-to-lose-36-million-in-cap-space-over-two-years/2012/03/12/gIQABbe27R_blog.html?wprss=rss_football-insider


Officials of the league and the NFL Players Association agreed to the reduction in the salary cap for the two teams in deliberations over the past week, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

The union agreed to the resolution reluctantly, the person said. Union officials believe that neither team did anything wrong or attempted to circumvent the salary cap. But the union acquiesced to the decision because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not.

The league believes that the Redskins and Cowboys structured contracts to pay large amounts of money to players during the 2010 season, when there was no salary cap, a provision of the previous collective bargaining agreement. In that way, the payments would not count against the salary cap in subsequent years.

[EddieMurrayfan]

Would have been nice if they would have made this move BEFORE they dealt away every pick for the next 2 years so they would have known that they couldnt buy help as well. That's pretty messed up business to say two teams only get x amount of cap space but the rest of the league gets y.

It was reported the Skins did the deal with the Rams before this hit so the price for the #2 would not go up more.

Apparently other teams did some of the same cap stuff as the Boys and Skins but no penalties for them.

I wonder if Jerry and Danny Boy will challenge this legally. If they do it could get ugly and some other teams may wish they had left this issue alone.

Jerry and Danny should strip the owners boxes bare in their stadiums and just put some folding chairs in them. Maybe a warm 6 pack of Pabst . . . . . . . . . .

[hoosiers]

When the Skins owner uses his extra cash flow and aggressiveness to improve the team, wake me up.

So, 30 teams accounted for 2010 signing bonuses one way and Dan and Jerry thought a different way was more appropriate.

I am sure Dan Snyder wants the Skins to win as much as I do, but the clearest path to competitiveness - accumulating draft picks - is one he seems to avoid while he sells out these picks and now further hampers the franchise with aggressive accounting. Snyder's impatience and aggressiveness as an owner are absolutely killing this franchise.

[mweb]

When the Skins owner uses his extra cash flow and aggressiveness to improve the team, wake me up.

So, 30 teams accounted for 2010 signing bonuses one way and Dan and Jerry thought a different way was more appropriate.

I am sure Dan Snyder wants the Skins to win as much as I do, but the clearest path to competitiveness - accumulating draft picks - is one he seems to avoid while he sells out these picks and now further hampers the franchise with aggressive accounting. Snyder's impatience and aggressiveness as an owner are absolutely killing this franchise.

It seems like this is more of a BS decision than something to blame Snyder for.

They have also adjusted their draft pick strategy and I don't think it's fair to think of trading up for RGIII in the same light as their past loss of picks.

[backwardsk]

I'll worry about this when I hear that Redskins One is grounded. It's fueled up and ready to fly through the night like Santa Claus.

Snyder's not going to let a little collusion get in his way.

The real problem will be when Goodell decides to reverse the order of the draft so NYG gets Luck and NE gets Griffin.

[Dr. FLK]

This is garbage. The league and NFLPA let the CBA expire...so, there was no cap. The NFL gets mad, so they give verbal warnings about violating the cap that doesn't exist. And, other owners with less money get jealous. This is insane. AND, the league approved all of these signings during the uncapped year.

[allstar1579]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-to-lose-36-million-in-cap-space-over-two-years/2012/03/12/gIQABbe27R_blog.html?wprss=rss_football-insider

There HAS to be something illegal about lowering the salary cap if two individual teams weren't punished. I mean SERIOUSLY NFL? Don't be mad because you weren't smart enough to do it yourself. If you had that big of a problem with it maybe you should have caved and got the deal done sooner. MORONS.

[Riggodrill44]

Oh OK, the part I missed was where the NFL told teams they were not allowed to do that during the uncapped year.
Why should it matter if they were told.NO RULE said they couldn't.

[Miller192]

I'll just say that I agree with the NFL that teams shouldn't be allowed to do what the Redskins and Cowboys did. However, they should've made it much more clear to teams that their cap was going to be recaptured.

Bottom line, it sounds worse than it is. Both teams will be able to work around it over the next two years.

[square634]

Why should it matter if they were told.NO RULE said they couldn't.

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the league executives issued a directive (theoretically) in an attempt to best benefit all 32 teams, gave a warning that teams in violation of this directive would be punished, and then watched two teams do it anyway. In order to have any teeth, the league had to follow through on its threats.

[Icterus galbula]

I don't think the league should've given cap space to other teams. The leveled the playing field enough by taking the space away.

Wouldn't the players union raise a stink if they didn't? It would decrease the total pool of money available for players.

[Miller192]

Wouldn't the players union raise a stink if they didn't? It would decrease the total pool of money available for players.

From a union standpoint, it's much worse take cap space away from two free agency powerhouses than to give the Bengals another 1.6MM in a year where they aren't required to spend more. But I would agine the union is reluctantly on board. They almost have to.

Each team will be under the cap by more than 1.6MM in all likelyhood. It's just not going to get spent.

I would rather see the money get reallocated to past year's cap.

[EddieMurrayfan]

The NFLPA agreed to this.

[mweb]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the league executives issued a directive (theoretically) in an attempt to best benefit all 32 teams, gave a warning that teams in violation of this directive would be punished, and then watched two teams do it anyway. In order to have any teeth, the league had to follow through on its threats.

Ummm, the league approved all of the signings as they were structured.

And I think it's fishy for the league to tell it's owners not to spend more money on its players when the spending is within the rules, which is what apparently happened. The bottom line is there should have been an actual rule in place to stop this, if not, it should have been fair game or not allowed at the time when the league was in the approval stage. The way it is being handled is unacceptable imo.

Oh, and 4 teams did it.

[mweb]

The NFLPA agreed to this.

From the Washington Post.


The union agreed to the resolution reluctantly, the person said. Union officials believe that neither team did anything wrong or attempted to circumvent the salary cap. But the union acquiesced to the decision because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not.

[Moose Milligan]

If the NFL cared so much about this, the should have put it in writing and let it be known that it was a serious offense.

[Miller192]

Ummm, the league approved all of the signings as they were structured.

And I think it's fishy for the league to tell it's owners not to spend more money on its players when the spending is within the rules, which is what apparently happened. The bottom line is there should have been an actual rule in place to stop this, if not, it should have been fair game or not allowed at the time when the league was in the approval stage. The way it is being handled is unacceptable imo.

Oh, and 4 teams did it.

I do agree that it is being handled wrong but the NFL had to approve these contracts. The NFLPA would've easily won a lawsuit had the NFL disallowed contracts in an uncapped year.

The NFL should've safeguarded against this years ago.

[Floater]

You better Lawyer up a**holes, because we're not coming back for 30%, we're coming back for EVERYTHING. (36 mil)

[CrimsonTribe]

I do agree that it is being handled wrong but the NFL had to approve these contracts. The NFLPA would've easily won a lawsuit had the NFL disallowed contracts in an uncapped year.

The NFL should've safeguarded against this years ago.

The NFL had to approve the contracts because those were the rules in place at the time. The NFL tried to get around the uncapped year by colluding against the players and the Skins and Cowboys didn't go for it. Now they are being penalized two years after the fact.

[hoosiers]

If the NFL cared so much about this, the should have put it in writing and let it be known that it was a serious offense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-to-lose-36-million-in-cap-space-over-two-years/2012/03/12/gIQABbe27R_blog.html

“All the clubs were warned not to do anything to create a competitive advantage when the salary cap came back, and that’s what [the Redskins] did,” said one of the people familiar with the matter. “They were very obvious about it. A lot of people were very angry about it. The ramifications could have been far worse for them. They could have lost draft picks. Some people recommended that to the commissioner.”

According to that person, the Redskins reworked some player contracts to pay them large sums during the uncapped 2010 season and save money against the cap in subsequent years. The person said the Redskins, in large part because of those maneuvers, had a player payroll far in excess of other teams’ payrolls.

Seems like there were fairly stern warnings and that a large, large majority of clubs operated in a manner consistent with warnings/expectations.

This whole thing is just aggravating beyond belief. Our owner is flat awful. There is no patience - Snyder operates the franchise with hyper-aggressiveness and hyper-involvement that is counter-productive to the actual team. $18M is more than two all-star players annually.

[Coker]

This is the official statement of Redskins general manager Bruce Allen on recent media reports of an adjusted salary cap for the 2012 season:

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.

[square634]

The NFL had to approve the contracts because those were the rules in place at the time. The NFL tried to get around the uncapped year by colluding against the players and the Skins and Cowboys didn't go for it. Now they are being penalized two years after the fact.

Yeah, I guess I can see this point. On the other hand, it sounds like the Redskins and Cowboys didn't pay any extra actual money to players two years ago. They were cooking the books so to speak to have more cap room in future years. I guess the end result is the same (the owners didn't want teams spending more money on players), but it was more of colluding about future spending (which was to be determined by collective bargaining) rather than current spending.

I don't think I'm articulating my thoughts very well. I'm not sure whether the cap hits were the right thing to do, and it certainly does sound like collusion in some form. And yet, I wish the NFL would have punished the Bears for mucking up the Ravens' draft last year, even if they didn't "break any written rules".

[square634]

This is the official statement of Redskins general manager Bruce Allen on recent media reports of an adjusted salary cap for the 2012 season:

So... the NFL has told them about the sanctions over the phone, the written documentation is in the mail, and the Redskins are planning to fight the verdict like hell?

[backwardsk]

This is the official statement of Redskins general manager Bruce Allen on recent media reports of an adjusted salary cap for the 2012 season:


Bruce is the man.

Jerry issued a similar statement. Either they are lying, or something's really fishy if they haven't been contacted officially.

[CrimsonTribe]

The biggest load of bull in all this is the argument that the contracts “were structured in a manner designed to secure an unfair competitive advantage” when the salary cap returned. It's not an unfair competitive advantage if every team had the opportunity to do this. Sorry that they chose not to because they would rather collude to keep salaries down in spite of the provisions of the CBA.

[mweb]

Yeah, I guess I can see this point. On the other hand, it sounds like the Redskins and Cowboys didn't pay any extra actual money to players two years. They were cooking the books so to speak to have more cap room in future years. I guess the end result is the same (the owners didn't want teams spending more money on players), but it was more of colluding about future spending (which was to be determined by collective bargaining) rather than current spending.

I don't think I'm articulating my thoughts very well. I'm not sure whether the cap hits were the right thing to do, and it certainly does sound like collusion in some form. And yet, I wish the NFL would have punished the Bears for mucking up the Ravens' draft last year, even if they didn't "break any written rules".

I don't think that's the case. From what I understand, they restructured Albert and Hall's contracts to have their cap number become much higher in the uncapped year than in future years. I'm not sure how you do that without actually paying them. And the players union thinks there was no wrong doing here, which I doubt would be the case if they didn't actually pay the players any money while getting their cap numbers reduced for future years.

[allstar1579]

So... the NFL has told them about the sanctions over the phone, the written documentation is in the mail, and the Redskins are planning to fight the verdict like hell?

Hate to say it, but if DAL and WAS work together, collusion is a SERIOUS issue in labor law, and this whole thing could get REAL ugly. It's seldom that there is any proof for collusion, but this blatant disregard by the other owners might be enough to get too of the more vocal and feisty owners in the league geared up. Snyder has sued for less...

[ccbird]

There is a reason why only 4 teams proceeded to do this in the uncapped year and only two are being penalized. Legally, if Snyder and Jones really wanted to go down that road and fight this hard they probably have a case but it's probably best just to tuck your tail and deal with the consequences of disobeying an order by the league, even if it was an unwritten one.

[square634]

I don't think that's the case. From what I understand, they restructured Albert and Hall's contracts to have their cap number become much higher in the uncapped year than in future years. I'm not sure how you do that without actually paying them. And the players union thinks there was no wrong doing here, which I doubt would be the case if they didn't actually pay the players any money while getting their cap numbers reduced for future years.

Sorry I missed a word in that sentence and worded it poorly. What I meant is, I'm sure they paid them, but I doubt they paid them any extra money. For example, rather than having, say $6 million owed per year on a 3-year deal, they could restructure it into an accelerated $17 million roster bonus paid immediately (charged on the uncapped year), with a minimum salary the next two years. It would be a win-win for the player and team -- for the player because they get their money guaranteed now, for the team because it is an uncapped year. Granted, I am not a capologist, so what I am saying could be totally undoable and bogus.

[mweb]

Sorry I missed a word in that sentence and worded it poorly. What I meant is, I'm sure they paid them, but I doubt they paid them any extra money. For example, rather than having, say $6 million owed per year on a 3-year deal, they could restructure it into an accelerated $17 million roster bonus paid immediately (charged on the uncapped year), with a minimum salary the next two years. It would be a win-win for the player and team -- for the player because they get their money guaranteed now, for the team because it is an uncapped year. Granted, I am not a capologist, so what I am saying could be totally undoable and bogus.

Yeah, so they weren't breaking any real rule, the league approved the restructuring, the players got money sooner (maybe more of it in the case of being cut like Albert?), and every other team could have done the same thing.

[mweb]

There is a reason why only 4 teams proceeded to do this in the uncapped year and only two are being penalized. Legally, if Snyder and Jones really wanted to go down that road and fight this hard they probably have a case but it's probably best just to tuck your tail and deal with the consequences of disobeying an order by the league, even if it was an unwritten one.

Yeah, to save money and because they were in collusion.

[hoosiers]

Yeah, to save money and because they were in collusion.

Or maybe those 28 other teams chose to follow guidance and not create an unfair advantage in future years as expressly warned.

I usually have a lot of patience with owners, but Dan Snyder has completely ruined the Redskins.

He has fired good football coaches who have started from scratch at other organizations and built more successful, long term durable situations.
He has hired absolute GMs (Cerrato - twice) and coaches (Zorn, Spurrier) well above their deserved pay-grade in the NFL.
He has created an aptmosphere of compete-now impatience that has the Skins with among the fewest top draft picks in his tenure in the league.
And now he has run amok of guidelines/warnings from the NFL/commissioner's office for signings for an uncapped year - a guideline followed by 90% of the other franchise and when not heeded has drawn the ire of the league's competitive council that will now lower the Skins cap by $36M over two years.

Great job, Dan Snyder. The same mistakes over and over again. That makes one an idiot.

[mweb]

Or maybe those 28 other teams chose to follow guidance and not create an unfair advantage in future years as expressly warned.

I usually have a lot of patience with owners, but Dan Snyder has completely ruined the Redskins.

He has fired good football coaches who have started from scratch at other organizations and built more successful, long term durable situations.
He has hired absolute GMs (Cerrato - twice) and coaches (Zorn, Spurrier) well above their deserved pay-grade in the NFL.
He has created an aptmosphere of compete-now impatience that has the Skins with among the fewest top draft picks in his tenure in the league.
And now he has run amok of guidelines/warnings from the NFL/commissioner's office for signings for an uncapped year - a guideline followed by 90% of the other franchise and when not heeded has drawn the ire of the league's competitive council that will now lower the Skins cap by $36M over two years.

Great job, Dan Snyder. The same mistakes over and over again. That makes one an idiot.

Follow guidance that was not part of any rules and basically amounts to collusion. He is an awful owner, but I couldn't disagree with your stance on this issue anymore.

[Dr. FLK]

Or maybe those 28 other teams chose to follow guidance and not create an unfair advantage in future years as expressly warned.

I usually have a lot of patience with owners, but Dan Snyder has completely ruined the Redskins.

He has fired good football coaches who have started from scratch at other organizations and built more successful, long term durable situations.
He has hired absolute GMs (Cerrato - twice) and coaches (Zorn, Spurrier) well above their deserved pay-grade in the NFL.
He has created an aptmosphere of compete-now impatience that has the Skins with among the fewest top draft picks in his tenure in the league.
And now he has run amok of guidelines/warnings from the NFL/commissioner's office for signings for an uncapped year - a guideline followed by 90% of the other franchise and when not heeded has drawn the ire of the league's competitive council that will now lower the Skins cap by $36M over two years.

Great job, Dan Snyder. The same mistakes over and over again. That makes one an idiot.

You're making am awful lot of arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

[backwardsk]

Are we going to get upset with Angelos when he doesn't offer more than $20mm/per year for Votto when Selig asks the owners to keep the prices for FA down after Pujols and Fielder? Are we going to be mad because we fail to sign a draft pick because we won't go over the encouraged slot amount?

[Floater]

This is going to be a battle. The NFL just f***ed with the wrong two teams. Bruce Allen is a boss with that statement.

[McNulty]

The Skins will get this cap money back right after the Ravens get the Bears 4th round pick.

[Can_of_corn]

It is a shame the NFLPA has no backbone. This is clearly a case where the 'Skins and the 'Boys were following the letter of the law and not participating in collusion against the players.

[NewMarketSean]

This is BS.

I hope both teams fight this and win. The NFL is getting out of hand. They need their "you know what's" knocked in the dirt.

[Dr. FLK]

This is BS.

I hope both teams fight this and win. The NFL is getting out of hand. They need their "you know what's" knocked in the dirt.

Roger Godell is out of control.

[CrimsonTribe]

Great take on Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5892791/in-the-name-of-competitive-balance-the-nfl-plays-the-bully-and-the-tyrant). Also see the accompanying graphic that shows just how many other teams took similar action. How in the world were the Chiefs and Bears not punished, but the Saints and Raiders were?

[Can_of_corn]

Great take on Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5892791/in-the-name-of-competitive-balance-the-nfl-plays-the-bully-and-the-tyrant). Also see the accompanying graphic that shows just how many other teams took similar action. How in the world were the Chiefs and Bears not punished, but the Saints and Raiders were?


It is a backroom deal, there doesn't have to be an excess of logic to it.

[CrimsonTribe]

It is a backroom deal, there doesn't have to be an excess of logic to it.

There has to be some though.

[Can_of_corn]

There has to be some though.

I am sure there is, in amongst the various relationships of the ownership groups.

[EddieMurrayfan]

It is a shame the NFLPA has no backbone. This is clearly a case where the 'Skins and the 'Boys were following the letter of the law and not participating in collusion against the players.

Apparently DeMaurice Smith is up for re-election soon and if he had fought this for the Boys and Skins and kept the cap from going up for the rest of the teams more players overall get hurt financially.

Gotta love the politics even in football.

[allstar1579]

Roger Godell is out of control.

I don't know that this was coming from him. The impression I've gotten is that it came from the other owners.

[CrimsonTribe]

Now they are making us take at least half in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-must-absorb-at-least-half-of-nfl-mandated-salary-cap-cut-this-year/2012/03/13/gIQAFc8d9R_blog.html?wprss=rss_football-insider

[Can_of_corn]

It is kinda funny how they are making up rules as they go along.

Would be a lot funnier if it was happening to a team other then the Skins tho.

[hoosiers]

Guidelines and warnings are not collusion - which is where I strongly disagree with the Deadspin article.

There was a clear message to the teams that even with the uncapped year:
- a cap would be back in the new agreement
- deals signed in 2010 would impact the cap in the future years
- teams were not to structure deals to load costs into the uncapped year

It seems relatively simple. Maybe a lot of teams signed some deals in the grey area we see today. Clearly, the Skins pushed the envelope well past the grey areas of spend in an uncapped year and are being held accountable.

I do have a problem with the timing of the announcement and the size of the penalty.

Maybe we can go back to Cleveland and see if they will meet the price we paid for the RGIII pick and load up on young talent for the next two years.

[Can_of_corn]

Guidelines and warnings are not collusion - which is where I strongly disagree with the Deadspin article.

There was a clear message to the teams that even with the uncapped year:
- a cap would be back in the new agreement
- deals signed in 2010 would impact the cap in the future years
- teams were not to structure deals to load costs into the uncapped year

It seems relatively simple. Maybe a lot of teams signed some deals in the grey area we see today. Clearly, the Skins pushed the envelope well past the grey areas of spend in an uncapped year and are being held accountable.

I do have a problem with the timing of the announcement and the size of the penalty.

Maybe we can go back to Cleveland and see if they will meet the price we paid for the RGIII pick and load up on young talent for the next two years.

There was no agreement between owners and the players union to cap spending.

The owners decided to keep spending at cap levels.

That is collusion.

Just because there was an agreed upon cap the season prior and the season after does not excuse it.

[flashjordnk]

There was no agreement between owners and the players union to cap spending.

The owners decided to keep spending at cap levels.

That is collusion.

Just because there was an agreed upon cap the season prior and the season after does not excuse it.

I mean it might not be "collusion" in the rawest form of the verb. But it's pretty busted that a governing body, can enforce a punishment over a rule that was never written, but the league continued to warn teams not to violate. From a general principle, this is like parents telling an 18 year old not to get a tattoo and then preventing them from voting in the next election. I could see the league granting every other team in the league an aggregated bump from what the Skins gave up. That'd be like those same parents cutting off the funds to the child that got the tattoo, but not legally disallowing them to do anything they have the right to.

What really irks me about this is that it's all in the name of the "greater good of competitive balance". Just like the NFL pretends to care about concussions. Unless it's an offensive player lowering their head, in which case, they don't. It's like, play by our rules, or we're going to severely punish you because we're insanely popular and can do whatever we want.

[JDubs]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the league executives issued a directive (theoretically) in an attempt to best benefit all 32 teams, gave a warning that teams in violation of this directive would be punished, and then watched two teams do it anyway. In order to have any teeth, the league had to follow through on its threats.

Also known as collusion.

[nadecir]

There was no agreement between owners and the players union to cap spending.

The owners decided to keep spending at cap levels.

That is collusion.

Just because there was an agreed upon cap the season prior and the season after does not excuse it.What the NFL did not want is this: for teams to frontload contracts in the uncapped years to make to make a teams' cap number look really low in subsequent years. This would had made future salary caps almost meaningless after the uncapped year of 2011.

For the extreme case, a team could have done this. For every player a team wanted to keep after 2011, a team could have paid them all their future salaries in 2011, and just paid them the league minimum in 2012 and beyond. This would have made salary caps almost meaningless in future years. Imagine a team will the cash to afford to pay a team payroll of say $300 million in 2011, the uncapped year, and then benefiting by having just around $40 million dollar cap number in 2012, and the next few years. This team could afford to buy up as many free agents as it wanted in 2012 and 2013.

A team could spend what it wanted to in 2011, but they couldn't front load those contracts abnormally so most of its salary was paid in 2011. The Redskins and the Cowboys, along with the Raiders and Saints to a smaller degree, got caught front loading too many contracts in 2011. They weren't penalized for spending too much in 2011, but were penalized for front loading contracts abnormally, so that their salary caps would be artificially low in 2012 and beyond.

That's why the Redskins and Cowboys received their cap penalties for the next two years.

[Can_of_corn]

All of which does not refute the fact that the Redskins and Cowboys are being penalized for not colluding with the other owners to keep salary costs down.

[CrimsonTribe]

What the NFL did not want is this: for teams to frontload contracts in the uncapped years to make to make a teams' cap number look really low in subsequent years. This would had made future salary caps almost meaningless after the uncapped year of 2011.

For the extreme case, a team could have done this. For every player a team wanted to keep after 2011, a team could have paid them all their future salaries in 2011, and just paid them the league minimum in 2012 and beyond. This would have made salary caps almost meaningless in future years. Imagine a team will the cash to afford to pay a team payroll of say $300 million in 2011, the uncapped year, and then benefiting by having just around $40 million dollar cap number in 2012, and the next few years. This team could afford to buy up as many free agents as it wanted in 2012 and 2013.

A team could spend what it wanted to in 2011, but they couldn't front load those contracts abnormally so most of its salary was paid in 2011. The Redskins and the Cowboys, along with the Raiders and Saints to a smaller degree, got caught front loading too many contracts in 2011. They weren't penalized for spending too much in 2011, but were penalized for front loading contracts abnormally, so that their salary caps would be artificially low in 2012 and beyond.

That's why the Redskins and Cowboys received their cap penalties for the next two years.

Why they received the penalty is not the issue. It's whether the NFL actually had the power to penalize the teams in question for actions that didn't break any actual rules.

Also, the uncapped year was 2010, not 2011. That makes this penalty two years after the fact.

[Dr. FLK]

What the NFL did not want is this: for teams to frontload contracts in the uncapped years to make to make a teams' cap number look really low in subsequent years. This would had made future salary caps almost meaningless after the uncapped year of 2011

Then they should have worked harder to either (a) avoid an uncapped year or (b) have rules in place to keep this from happening in the event of an uncapped year.

[hoosiers]

There was no agreement between owners and the players union to cap spending.

The owners decided to keep spending at cap levels.

That is collusion.

Just because there was an agreed upon cap the season prior and the season after does not excuse it.

The owners did not "decide to keep spending at cap levels". There was no collusion.

There were guidelines and warnings that teams could not structure contracts in 2010 to take advantage of the uncapped year to create a future competitive advantage.

That's what the Skins did - far more so than any other team - and that's clearly part of the reason why a few days ago we were entering 2012 with so much cap space.

[backwardsk]

Has anyone answered the question as to why these contracts were approved in 2010?

[Dr. FLK]

Has anyone answered the question as to why these contracts were approved in 2010?

Because they weren't in violation of any rules. But, power-hungry Roger got mad after the fact, other owners got mad that they couldn't/didn't take advantage of the same thing, and then this happened.

[Can_of_corn]

Has anyone answered the question as to why these contracts were approved in 2010?

Would have hurt leverage with the Union if they had been refused.

[Can_of_corn]

The owners did not "decide to keep spending at cap levels". There was no collusion.

There were guidelines and warnings that teams could not structure contracts in 2010 to take advantage of the uncapped year to create a future competitive advantage.

That's what the Skins did - far more so than any other team - and that's clearly part of the reason why a few days ago we were entering 2012 with so much cap space.

If you do not believe that the owners were attempting to keep a de facto cap in place then we are so far apart on this issue that further discussion will be meaningless.

[CrimsonTribe]

Here's how I see this:

As I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, the owners voted in 2008 to end the then-current CBA in 2011. That meant that 2010 became the last year of that CBA and became uncapped. This opt-out and subsequent uncapped year was obviously part of the bargain that the owners and players entered into as part of that CBA and the uncapped year was obviously to benefit the players if the owners opted out. One of the benefits of an uncapped year is that salaries could be dumped there to free up more salary cap space in the future. However, the owners tried to undermine this benefit to the players by mandating that teams should not abnormally dump salaries in 2010 under the guise of "competitive balance." This mandate was meant to directly thwart the deal they previously made with the players that would have given them a fully uncapped year. If the owners had been able to negotiate a "no abnormal dumping of contracts" rule into that CBA with the players, then they would have, but they did not or could not. Therefore, the owners concocted this end-around, which is in direct contravention of their agreement with the players, and limits a very substantial benefit that the players would have otherwise received.

Obviously some teams did not go completely along with this, most notably the Cowboys and the Redskins. They took advantage of the uncapped year to free up future salaries. They only got a competitive advantage to the extent that the other teams did not take advantage of the then-current CBA. All of the teams could have done this, but most followed the mandate in order to keep more cap room from opening up in the future. Again, this deprived the players of a benefit that they had negotiated in the then-current CBA. It is very telling that the owners could not get any retroactive penalties into the new CBA and had to wait two years to impose these penalties at a time when the union was weak. Even waiting that long, it still reeks of collusion.

[hoosiers]

If you do not believe that the owners were attempting to keep a de facto cap in place then we are so far apart on this issue that further discussion will be meaningless.

I do not believe there was a secret hard cap. I do not believe there was an acceptable range for spending to drift into.

Just a guideline not to go far past the prior cap or the projected 2011 cap. The Skins apparently blasted past that guideline.

Anyway, not sure a cap is important here. The general concept was to not structure 2010 contacts to create future advantage.

[OrioleMagic]

John Clayton wrote in an article on ESPN that he still sees the Redskins leading the way in Free Agency. He said Snyder, et. al. will find a way to do it.

[square634]

Here's how I see this:

As I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, the owners voted in 2008 to end the then-current CBA in 2011. That meant that 2010 became the last year of that CBA and became uncapped. This opt-out and subsequent uncapped year was obviously part of the bargain that the owners and players entered into as part of that CBA and the uncapped year was obviously to benefit the players if the owners opted out. One of the benefits of an uncapped year is that salaries could be dumped there to free up more salary cap space in the future. However, the owners tried to undermine this benefit to the players by mandating that teams should not abnormally dump salaries in 2010 under the guise of "competitive balance." This mandate was meant to directly thwart the deal they previously made with the players that would have given them a fully uncapped year. If the owners had been able to negotiate a "no abnormal dumping of contracts" rule into that CBA with the players, then they would have, but they did not or could not. Therefore, the owners concocted this end-around, which is in direct contravention of their agreement with the players, and limits a very substantial benefit that the players would have otherwise received.

Obviously some teams did not go completely along with this, most notably the Cowboys and the Redskins. They took advantage of the uncapped year to free up future salaries. They only got a competitive advantage to the extent that the other teams did not take advantage of the then-current CBA. All of the teams could have done this, but most followed the mandate in order to keep more cap room from opening up in the future. Again, this deprived the players of a benefit that they had negotiated in the then-current CBA. It is very telling that the owners could not get any retroactive penalties into the new CBA and had to wait two years to impose these penalties at a time when the union was weak. Even waiting that long, it still reeks of collusion.

This does make sense. It does appear to have been collusion.

[OrioleMagic]

Didn't someone say this appears to be double jeopardy? The Skins and Cowboys lose $36 and $10 million respectively and 26 or 28 other teams get $1.6 million more in cap space. I don't understand that. Why wouldn't they just give the rest of the teams an increase in cap space to even it up?

[CrimsonTribe]

Didn't someone say this appears to be double jeopardy? The Skins and Cowboys lose $36 and $10 million respectively and 26 or 28 other teams get $1.6 million more in cap space. I don't understand that. Why wouldn't they just give the rest of the teams an increase in cap space to even it up?

They don't want to give the players more money. More cap space = more money to the players. That's the whole point of the mandate during 2010.

[hoosiers]

Here's how I see this:

As I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, the owners voted in 2008 to end the then-current CBA in 2011. That meant that 2010 became the last year of that CBA and became uncapped. This opt-out and subsequent uncapped year was obviously part of the bargain that the owners and players entered into as part of that CBA and the uncapped year was obviously to benefit the players if the owners opted out. One of the benefits of an uncapped year is that salaries could be dumped there to free up more salary cap space in the future. However, the owners tried to undermine this benefit to the players by mandating that teams should not abnormally dump salaries in 2010 under the guise of "competitive balance." This mandate was meant to directly thwart the deal they previously made with the players that would have given them a fully uncapped year. If the owners had been able to negotiate a "no abnormal dumping of contracts" rule into that CBA with the players, then they would have, but they did not or could not. Therefore, the owners concocted this end-around, which is in direct contravention of their agreement with the players, and limits a very substantial benefit that the players would have otherwise received.

Obviously some teams did not go completely along with this, most notably the Cowboys and the Redskins. They took advantage of the uncapped year to free up future salaries. They only got a competitive advantage to the extent that the other teams did not take advantage of the then-current CBA. All of the teams could have done this, but most followed the mandate in order to keep more cap room from opening up in the future. Again, this deprived the players of a benefit that they had negotiated in the then-current CBA. It is very telling that the owners could not get any retroactive penalties into the new CBA and had to wait two years to impose these penalties at a time when the union was weak. Even waiting that long, it still reeks of collusion.

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

[Miller192]

What the NFL did not want is this: for teams to frontload contracts in the uncapped years to make to make a teams' cap number look really low in subsequent years. This would had made future salary caps almost meaningless after the uncapped year of 2011.

For the extreme case, a team could have done this. For every player a team wanted to keep after 2011, a team could have paid them all their future salaries in 2011, and just paid them the league minimum in 2012 and beyond. This would have made salary caps almost meaningless in future years. Imagine a team will the cash to afford to pay a team payroll of say $300 million in 2011, the uncapped year, and then benefiting by having just around $40 million dollar cap number in 2012, and the next few years. This team could afford to buy up as many free agents as it wanted in 2012 and 2013.

A team could spend what it wanted to in 2011, but they couldn't front load those contracts abnormally so most of its salary was paid in 2011. The Redskins and the Cowboys, along with the Raiders and Saints to a smaller degree, got caught front loading too many contracts in 2011. They weren't penalized for spending too much in 2011, but were penalized for front loading contracts abnormally, so that their salary caps would be artificially low in 2012 and beyond.

That's why the Redskins and Cowboys received their cap penalties for the next two years.

Your scenario wouldn't have been possible for a number of reasons. One, teams have to spend 89% of the cap in cash going forward after next season. Secondly, cap carry over ends after next season.

It would've given the Redskins and Cowboys a slight advantage for one and a half years tops. The owners should just give Snyder and Jones the middle finger and then move on.

[nadecir]

Your scenario wouldn't have been possible for a number of reasons. One, teams have to spend 89% of the cap in cash going forward after next season. Secondly, cap carry over ends after next season.

It would've given the Redskins and Cowboys a slight advantage for one and a half years tops. The owners should just give Snyder and Jones the middle finger and then move on.You can get to 89% of the cap very easily by signing expensive free agents, or by renegotiating existing contracts to move the cap hit up. Players have no problems getting their money earlier rather than later.

Cap carry over really has nothing to do with my scenario. You overspend by paying players artificially high salaries in the uncapped year, and pay them less in subsequent capped years. This yields team cap flexibility in subsequent years, which all teams consider a good thing. This is true whether the teams carry the unused cap over or not.

[Miller192]

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

I'm not sure how you are creating cap space with your examples.

Going forward, there's nothing to stop the Redskins from doing exactly what they did last year. Only now, they can't carry over cap space that the NFL already built into the new CBA. They still can create a large amount of cap space one year by taking the hit a previous year.

[OrioleMagic]

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

Seems to me, the collusion is when the owners agree NOT to allow this to happen.

[OrioleMagic]

They don't want to give the players more money. More cap space = more money to the players. That's the whole point of the mandate during 2010.

I see that. But why dock the bad teams AND give the space to the good teams? Why not one or the other?

[Miller192]

You can get to 89% of the cap very easily by signing expensive free agents, or by renegotiating existing contracts to move the cap hit up. Players have no problems getting their money earlier rather than later.

Cap carry over really has nothing to do with my scenario. You overspend by paying players artificially high salaries in the uncapped year, and pay them less in subsequent capped years. This yields team cap flexibility in subsequent years, which all teams consider a good thing. This is true whether the teams carry the unused cap over or not.

You said a team could spend 40MM going forward and I responded to that by saying that's it's not going to possible because 89% of the team's spending has to be in cash. You can't "move a cap hit up" to get to 89% of the cap. It has to be in cash, dead money doesn't count.

Not carrying over excess cap is going to be a detriment to a lot of teams who want to take a large cap hit.

[CrimsonTribe]

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

Think about it this way:

1. The CBA, by its terms, allowed teams to take large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary. Hence uncapped.

2. By the terms of the CBA, any team could have taken large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary.

3. If all of the teams took large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary, this would shift a ton of revenue to the players in the form of past or future salaries. This is a huge benefit for the players and something they bargained for.

4. Since any team could have taken large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary, there is no unfair competitive advantage created in the absence of a league mandate.

5. Despite the lack of an unfair competitive advantage, the league mandates that teams should not take large cap hits in 2010 because it would create an unfair competitive advantage. Essentially, the league manufactures the unfair competitive advantage with the mandate.

6. The real reason for the mandate was to prevent large cap hits in 2010, which would shift large amounts of past and future revenue to players in the form of past or future salaries.

7. But the players bargained for the uncapped year in 2010, which would have allowed large cap hits in order to free up past and future salaries and thus shift large amounts of past and future revenues to them.

8. Therefore, the league owners colluded to keep revenue from shifting from the players in the form of past and future salaries by concocting this "unfair competitive advantage" and the mandate not to use the uncapped year to the fullest.

9. The Cowboys and Redskins ignore this trumped up bull, use the uncapped year to free up future salaries and are penalized two years later for not breaking any actual rules.

[CrimsonTribe]

I see that. But why dock the bad teams AND give the space to the good teams? Why not one or the other?

To get the players to agree by keeping the same amount of overall cap space.

[nadecir]

You said a team could spend 40MM going forward and I responded to that by saying that's it's not going to possible because 89% of the team's spending has to be in cash. You can't "move a cap hit up" to get to 89% of the cap. It has to be in cash, dead money doesn't count.

Not carrying over excess cap is going to be a detriment to a lot of teams who want to take a large cap hit.I meant to imply that a team could go into an offseason with a low cap number for the next year, and then find good, beneficial ways to increase the team payroll and cap during the offseason. I never meant to imply that a competitive team would want to lower its cash outlay; just to give it flexibility to sign free agents or front load existing contracts. Front-loading contracts is not smart from a financial perspective, but it was done to take advantage of the uncapped year to lower cap numbers in subsequent years.

One of the reasons the Redskins were below the cap this season is that they were able to offload Albert Haynesworth cap hit in the uncapped season. The Cowboys structured Miles Austin's negotiated contract signed in September 2010 to take advantage also - $17 million salary in uncapped 2010, $685,000 in capped 2011, and $1.15 million in capped 2012. Austin's numbers are base salary numbers, not including his bonus. Dallas used the uncapped 2010 season to take most of the cap hit for Austin's total contract.

[Miller192]

CrimsonTribe is hitting on a lot of great points here.

The spirit of the uncapped year was to encourage both sides to reach agreement to get a new CBA done. An uncapped year potentially hurts the players as no salary floor is maintained while it also allows higher revenue generating teams the ability to spend more on player contracts.

The owners essentially circumvented the agreement while the players bear a greater burden now of two year of essentially no cap growth.

[fansince71]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post?id=36923

Dan Graziano sums it up.

[CrimsonTribe]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post?id=36923

Dan Graziano sums it up.


If what the NFL did in 2010 was secretly tell its teams not to overspend in an uncapped year, then it engaged in an act that's illegal in any other industry. If that’s what happened, it’s collusion, plain and simple. It’s a bunch of businessmen who operate all of the businesses in a given industry getting together to limit the earning potential of the workers in that industry. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of labor law would classify that as collusion.
...
Effectively, the league found a way to excuse itself for engaging in an illegal act and got the players to sign off on it. The only people who are suffering are the teams that decided, two years ago, not to go along with the illegal plan by which the league was ordering its teams to abide. The whole thing reeks of witch-hunt impropriety, from the fact that teams (such as Jacksonville and Tampa Bay) that drastically underspent that season because there was no salary floor aren’t being punished for the impact that had on competitive balance to the troublesome fact that the chairman of the aforementioned NFL Management Council is the owner of the Giants, who play in the same division as the two teams being docked.

Boom, roasted.

[hoosiers]

I just don't connect the dots to the point of collusion.

What irks me is the following:
- the timing stinks - this far into preparation for the 2012 season and taking cap $ off the table right before free agency
- the amount stinks - why so much?

[mweb]

Boom, roasted.

I don't even think you need a basic understanding of labor law to figure out that this was collusion.

[mweb]

I just don't connect the dots to the point of collusion.

What irks me is the following:
- the timing stinks - this far into preparation for the 2012 season and taking cap $ off the table right before free agency
- the amount stinks - why so much?

Your suggestion of the owners deciding upon a acceptable limit of spending during an uncapped year is collusion.

[ccbird]

It will be fun watching Snyder and Jones battle the League if they choose to do so.

[allstar1579]

It will be fun watching Snyder and Jones battle the League if they choose to do so.

I'm thinking if there are 2 owners you want to battle in the NFL, those 2 are at the bottom of the list.

[mweb]

I'm thinking if there are 2 owners you want to battle in the NFL, those 2 are at the bottom of the list.

Meaning from the NFL's perspective?

[hoosiers]

Your suggestion of the owners deciding upon a acceptable limit of spending during an uncapped year is collusion.

Where was this suggested?

[mweb]

Where was this suggested?

Here's your quote (so replace limit with range):


I do not believe there was a secret hard cap. I do not believe there was an acceptable range for spending to drift into.

Just a guideline not to go far past the prior cap or the projected 2011 cap. The Skins apparently blasted past that guideline.

[allstar1579]

Meaning from the NFL's perspective?

Yeah. Both strong, opinionated, and not afraid to air some dirty laundry.

[allstar1579]

Whew....Rogers gets 4 years $31m to stay in SF. Wow.

[mweb]

Yeah. Both strong, opinionated, and not afraid to air some dirty laundry.

OK, yeah, I agree.

[hoosiers]

Here's your quote (so replace limit with range):

I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and conclude I suggested "the owners decided upon an acceptable spend".

I state I do not believe there was a "secret hard cap" quite clearly.

[mweb]

I'm not sure how you read what I wrote and conclude I suggested "the owners decided upon an acceptable spend".

I state I do not believe there was a "secret hard cap" quite clearly.

Yet, you posted that there was a guideline to to not go far beyond the previous cap, which is basically the same as saying there was an acceptable spending level, especially when they were planning on enforcing that guideline, which really makes it more than a guideline.

[hoosiers]

Yet, you posted that there was a guideline to to not go far beyond the previous cap, which is basically the same as saying there was an acceptable spending level, especially when they were planning on enforcing that guideline, which really makes it more than a guideline.

I never posted what you said I did. I never said "basically the same as saying". I leave the discussion when folks start doing this to me.

I like the Garcon signing. Go Skins.

[mweb]

I never posted what you said I did. I never said "basically the same as saying". I leave the discussion when folks start doing this to me.

I like the Garcon signing. Go Skins.

That quote you posted was yours. So yes, you did post that and if you mean something other than "just a guideline not to go far past the prior cap or the projected 2011 cap. The Skins apparently blasted past that guideline" then please explain. That is pretty straightforward. So spare the I'm causing you to leave the discussion by making up things you said nonsense.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Whether it's collusion or not the Skins were told not to do an act and if they did, they would face punishment. They did, and now they are being punished. If Jones and Sndyer want to fight this and file an anti-trust action, they are free to do so, and it will be very interesting/entertaining to follow.

What Stern did to the Lakers is 20 times worse than this but hey, I'm just a bitter Laker fan forced to watch Derek Fisher every night.

[mweb]

Whether it's collusion or not the Skins were told not to do an act and if they did, they would face punishment. They did, and now they are being punished. If Jones and Sndyer want to fight this and file an anti-trust action, they are free to do so, and it will be very interesting/entertaining to follow.

What Stern did to the Lakers is 20 times worse than this but hey, I'm just a bitter Laker fan forced to watch Derek Fisher every night.

I think they're both about as bad as each other and I'm not biased in that regard. What Stern did has/will affected the Lakers more, but I think what the NFL is doing here is at least as screwed up from a process point of view.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I think they're both about as bad as each other and I'm not biased in that regard. What Stern did has/will affected the Lakers more, but I think what the NFL is doing here is at least as screwed up from a process point of view.

The difference, in my opinion, is at least the NFL is following up on something they warned the other teams about. Now, whether that warning was rooted in illegal activity is yet to be seen (I think it was, for what it's worth), but at least there was some sort of precedent set.

What Stern basically did was just cave to some baby owners and pull the rug completely out from under the Lakers. Not only did this seemingly come out of nowhere, but it also forced them to trade Odom (who they could have REALLY used this year) for a draft pick and set up a tenuous situation with Gasol where he isn't sure if he's getting dealt this year or not.

What the NFL is doing is probably bad. What Stern did DEFINITELY stinks. That's the difference IMO.

[mweb]

The difference, in my opinion, is at least the NFL is following up on something they warned the other teams about. Now, whether that warning was rooted in illegal activity is yet to be seen (I think it was, for what it's worth), but at least there was some sort of precedent set.

What Stern basically did was just cave to some baby owners and pull the rug completely out from under the Lakers. Not only did this seemingly come out of nowhere, but it also forced them to trade Odom (who they could have REALLY used this year) for a draft pick and set up a tenuous situation with Gasol where he isn't sure if he's getting dealt this year or not.

What the NFL is doing is probably bad. What Stern did DEFINITELY stinks. That's the difference IMO.

What Stern did, while totally screwed up, was well within the rules, both league and legal ones. What the NFL is doing is pretty clearly collusion imo and I think it violates both league and legal rules due to what has already been posted in this thread. Plus, their punishment is far from consistent as most other teams did what they did as well, just not to the same level.

Bottom line for me is that I can't think of a good argument for the NFL doing this and the warning is not one imo since it's collusion, etc, but at least an argument can be made on behalf of the NBA that they thought they were making the right basketball decision. The bigger problems there were that the NBA owns the Hornets to begin with and they let Demps negotiate with the false premise that he could complete the deal. If the NBA had acted like the involved owner from the beginning and told Demps that they wouldn't be good with that deal, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

[allstar1579]

The difference, in my opinion, is at least the NFL is following up on something they warned the other teams about. Now, whether that warning was rooted in illegal activity is yet to be seen (I think it was, for what it's worth), but at least there was some sort of precedent set.

What Stern basically did was just cave to some baby owners and pull the rug completely out from under the Lakers. Not only did this seemingly come out of nowhere, but it also forced them to trade Odom (who they could have REALLY used this year) for a draft pick and set up a tenuous situation with Gasol where he isn't sure if he's getting dealt this year or not.

What the NFL is doing is probably bad. What Stern did DEFINITELY stinks. That's the difference IMO.

Yeah but the short answer is if there was no written rule in place, they can't just arbitrarily punish a team for doing nothing wrong. The ONLY reason DAL/WAS got punished was because the other owners didn't like what they did and used their leverage of the salary cap number to punish their peers. You can't let that happen as a professional sport.

[CrimsonTribe]

The difference, in my opinion, is at least the NFL is following up on something they warned the other teams about. Now, whether that warning was rooted in illegal activity is yet to be seen (I think it was, for what it's worth), but at least there was some sort of precedent set.

What Stern basically did was just cave to some baby owners and pull the rug completely out from under the Lakers. Not only did this seemingly come out of nowhere, but it also forced them to trade Odom (who they could have REALLY used this year) for a draft pick and set up a tenuous situation with Gasol where he isn't sure if he's getting dealt this year or not.

What the NFL is doing is probably bad. What Stern did DEFINITELY stinks. That's the difference IMO.

The problem is that the NFL warned them that if they followed the rules they would be penalized.

[allstar1579]

The problem is that the NFL warned them that if they followed the rules they would be penalized.

Yeah, you can't punish a team for not following some secret back-door deal. That's basically what happened, there was collusion, WAS/DAL said screw you guys, and now the other owners are trying to get them back for not going with the rest of the owners. Remember NOTHING OFFICIAL has been handed out or dealt with yet, and I think they are going to have a REALLY hard time getting it to stick.

[backwardsk]

Tampa signed vjackson and nicks. They were below the cap floor last season. What was their penalty for that?

[backwardsk]

I hope there is no truth to the rumor that Goodell will suspend Griffin if he wears his superman socks to the draft.

[Miller192]

Tampa signed vjackson and nicks. They were below the cap floor last season. What was their penalty for that?

Exactly. I don't see a difference in creating cap space by not spending or taking a large hit in the uncapped year.

Again, I agree with the general premise of the idea. However, there was nothing in the expiring CBA to prevent a team from taking advantage of the uncapped year. This, despite the fact that there were plenty of regulations on how teams could operate in the final year of the deal. Final 8 plan, additional tags, cap carryover etc.

[Sports Guy]

1/2) On Redskin issue, not defending penalties but clarifying: they did NOT front-load deals in 2010 to take advantage of uncapped year


2/2) They RENEGOTIATED existing deals to dump proration from future years all into the uncapped year. There is a difference

Per Andrew Brandt.

[backwardsk]

Per Andrew Brandt.

...and were approved by the league.

[allstar1579]

Per Andrew Brandt.

Still not illegal, and as above, were approved. This is JUST the other owners trying to lash out at them, and using their leverage to do it.

[CrimsonTribe]

Per Andrew Brandt.

This is a completely arbitrary distinction. Both had the same effect.

[flashjordnk]

This is a completely arbitrary distinction. Both had the same effect.

Agreed. Why would it matter if they were under contract or not before the year started? The idea that teams overloaded the uncapped year in anyone's contract is the issue at hand, no?

[Sports Guy]

I think its bs too.

I don't get how you can justify the penalty if the league approves it and there is no rule.

I don't care if Goodell himself said, don't do this...unless you put it down on paper, it is meaningless...on top of that, to have the same league who is penalizing you, also approve those contracts is a joke.

[Dr. FLK]

Are there any updates on this? Are the Skins and Cowboys fighting this, or have they decided to just accept it?

[backwardsk]

Are there any updates on this? Are the Skins and Cowboys fighting this, or have they decided to just accept it?

Yes. I don't have a link handy, but in the WaPo, Mark Maske wrote that this will likely go to arbitration. I saw the update last night. I don't know the timing of it though.

[allstar1579]

Yes. I don't have a link handy, but in the WaPo, Mark Maske wrote that this will likely go to arbitration. I saw the update last night. I don't know the timing of it though.

Yeah and the Cowboys are in if it's arbitration, if it was a lawsuit they were out.

[Don Quixote]

A little more on the teams' challenging of the penalty, followed by Dan Graziano's views on John Mara's inability to shut his yap, among other things.

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/redskinsjournal/2012/03/25/reports-redskins-cowboys-to-challenge-salary-cap-penalties/

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37421/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking

[CrimsonTribe]

A little more on the teams' challenging of the penalty, followed by Dan Graziano's views on John Mara's inability to shut his yap, among other things.

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/redskinsjournal/2012/03/25/reports-redskins-cowboys-to-challenge-salary-cap-penalties/

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37421/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking


"I thought the penalties imposed were proper," John Mara, the New York Giants' owner and chair of the NFL Management Council, which imposed the penalties said Sunday. "What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they're lucky they didn't lose draft picks."

What salary cap John?

[JDubs]

Keep on talking, John. You're making our arbitration claim that much stronger.

[CrimsonTribe]

It gets even better.


Here’s the latest. As we already know, the agreement regarding the imposition of the penalties was struck between the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and the NFLPA, making it a revision of the CBA without a vote of the league’s owners or union leadership. That deal happened even though Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was and still is a member of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee.

It’s one thing for the so-called CEC to use its delegation of authority to work out side agreements with the union. It’s quite another for the CEC to do so without knowledge of one of the men who has secured membership on the CEC.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/jones-a-member-of-the-cec-didnt-know-about-cap-deal/

[Miller192]

The league is likely to eventually relent on this. But what's the outcome? You could figure out a way to give them their space back (taking it back from the rest of the teams), but the advantage that the cap space had is likely diluted at this point in free agency.

I could see a scenario where the Cowboys and Redskins are awarded comp picks.

[CrimsonTribe]

The league is likely to eventually relent on this. But what's the outcome? You could figure out a way to give them their space back (taking it back from the rest of the teams), but the advantage that the cap space had is likely diluted at this point in free agency.

I could see a scenario where the Cowboys and Redskins are awarded comp picks.

Yeah, that may have been the strategy all along. Make the cap situation this offseason too uncertain for the Skins and Cowboys to fully take advantage and give it back at a less opportune time.

[Dr. FLK]

What salary cap John?

You're missing the part where he accidentally admits to collusion and then uses it to defend his opinion.

[Dr. FLK]

The league is likely to eventually relent on this. But what's the outcome? You could figure out a way to give them their space back (taking it back from the rest of the teams), but the advantage that the cap space had is likely diluted at this point in free agency.

I could see a scenario where the Cowboys and Redskins are awarded comp picks.

So, say the Skins and Cowboys are given back this cap space, but it's too late in FA to use it. They might as well re-work a bunch of deals to count heavy against the cap this year an benefit them in the future, right? It's really the only way that they can use the cap space now.

[mweb]

The league is likely to eventually relent on this. But what's the outcome? You could figure out a way to give them their space back (taking it back from the rest of the teams), but the advantage that the cap space had is likely diluted at this point in free agency.

I could see a scenario where the Cowboys and Redskins are awarded comp picks.

Well there's the extra 18 million for next year.

[CrimsonTribe]

You're missing the part where he accidentally admits to collusion and then uses it to defend his opinion.

Didn't miss it, just went for the easy kill.

[Miller192]

So, say the Skins and Cowboys are given back this cap space, but it's too late in FA to use it. They might as well re-work a bunch of deals to count heavy against the cap this year an benefit them in the future, right? It's really the only way that they can use the cap space now.

In theory, that's one way to do it but probably not beneficial for the Redskins. If you start reworking deals, you're going to end up paying guys earlier on bonus money who you might not keep around past this season. I'm going to go through the Skins cap tonight to get a better handle on what they've got.


Well there's the extra 18 million for next year.

That's the obvious plus but I'll argue that the league is putting the Redskins at a greater disadvantage by doing so. Next year, teams will have to spend 89% of the cap in cash. They are essentially forcing the Redskins to spend more on salary because they adhered to the rules of the uncapped year in the previous CBA. If that was being done to the Bengals, Mike Brown would probably have sued the league already.

This offseason, teams are signing players with the Redskins cap space.

The Redskins and Cowboys should be compensated for this. It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out.

[hoosiers]

I do not think anything is going to be done for the 2011-2 season.

There appear to be more than a few owners who feel the Skins violated the spirit of the uncapped year and the communications NOT to re-write contracts into 2010 for team advantage - despite deals be approved by the league. Further, it is no small thing that the league received (bought) NFLPA sign-off to the punishment by raising the salary cap from $113M to $120M or so. In other words, the NFL agreed to increase cap space by around $200M league-wide for this NFLPA sign-off of $46M in punishments. Further, the timing of the punishments (right before free agency began) makes this even more difficult to undo.

My biggest issue is the amount of the punishment - coming two years after the Skins and Boys actions. If the $36M is derived from the signing bonuses paid to Haynesworth and Hall, then the punishment should have been reduced for the 2010 and 2011 seasons as if a cap existed. In other words, if these were going to be four year deals, then the punishment should be half of the $36M - or $18M. Perhaps the league doubled the $18M back to $36M as a type of punitive penalty.

I think the Skins and Cowboys are going to win some relief from the arbitor, but it will probably cancel the 2012-3 portion of the punishment. Unless the arbitor determines the league was way, way out-of-bounds with the penalty, there is no way I can envision to awarding of draft picks to Wash and Dallas.

[Miller192]

I do not think anything is going to be done for the 2011-2 season.

There appear to be more than a few owners who feel the Skins violated the spirit of the uncapped year and the communications NOT to re-write contracts into 2010 for team advantage - despite deals be approved by the league. Further, it is no small thing that the league received (bought) NFLPA sign-off to the punishment by raising the salary cap from $113M to $120M or so. In other words, the NFL agreed to increase cap space by around $200M league-wide for this NFLPA sign-off of $46M in punishments. Further, the timing of the punishments (right before free agency began) makes this even more difficult to undo.

My biggest issue is the amount of the punishment - coming two years after the Skins and Boys actions. If the $36M is derived from the signing bonuses paid to Haynesworth and Hall, then the punishment should have been reduced for the 2010 and 2011 seasons as if a cap existed. In other words, if these were going to be four year deals, then the punishment should be half of the $36M - or $18M. Perhaps the league doubled the $18M back to $36M as a type of punitive penalty.

I think the Skins and Cowboys are going to win some relief from the arbitor, but it will probably cancel the 2012-3 portion of the punishment. Unless the arbitor determines the league was way, way out-of-bounds with the penalty, there is no way I can envision to awarding of draft picks to Wash and Dallas.

The spirit of an uncapped year is exactly what you are accusing the Redskins of doing. The uncapped year has tremendous advantages and dissadvantages for both sides designed to bring all parties together. Allowing teams to gain a competitive advantage in an uncapped year is meant to be a deterant to existing without a cap in place. Without these deterrants, there is less purpose to get a deal done.

There is no arbitrary raising or lowering of the salary cap. It's a calculated formula based upon previous year's revenues. Because there was no cap, there was essentially more money spent on player contracts that brought the player's share over their percentage in the new CBA.

Using the same logic that caused them to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys; they could've taken the excess cap space that the Buccaneers didn't use to offset what the Cowboys and Skins dumped.

[hoosiers]

The spirit of an uncapped year is exactly what you are accusing the Redskins of doing. The uncapped year has tremendous advantages and dissadvantages for both sides designed to bring all parties together. Allowing teams to gain a competitive advantage in an uncapped year is meant to be a deterant to existing without a cap in place. Without these deterrants, there is less purpose to get a deal done.

There is no arbitrary raising or lowering of the salary cap. It's a calculated formula based upon previous year's revenues. Because there was no cap, there was essentially more money spent on player contracts that brought the player's share over their percentage in the new CBA.

Using the same logic that caused them to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys; they could've taken the excess cap space that the Buccaneers didn't use to offset what the Cowboys and Skins dumped.

Not really sure of the points of the post. I understand the implications of an uncapped year. I also understand teams were warned not to do two things: one - structure new deals so that a substantial portion of the contract fell in the uncapped year - which is exactly what the Cowboys did with Austin; and two - restructure pre-2010 mistake contracts into 2010 to create a future benefit - which is exactly what the Skins did.

So, some/most here feel the Skins did not break any rules, that the contracts were agreed by the league, and should not face any penalty AND, in fact, that if an arbiter were to reverse the league's punishment that the Skins would be due some compensation for the erroneous penalty and the implications it has had on the Skins 2011-1 free agency efforts. I get that.

I believe the arbiter will decide the Skins acted against the spirit of league-wide communications, but that the original punishment is excessive.

[mweb]

In theory, that's one way to do it but probably not beneficial for the Redskins. If you start reworking deals, you're going to end up paying guys earlier on bonus money who you might not keep around past this season. I'm going to go through the Skins cap tonight to get a better handle on what they've got.



That's the obvious plus but I'll argue that the league is putting the Redskins at a greater disadvantage by doing so. Next year, teams will have to spend 89% of the cap in cash. They are essentially forcing the Redskins to spend more on salary because they adhered to the rules of the uncapped year in the previous CBA. If that was being done to the Bengals, Mike Brown would probably have sued the league already.

This offseason, teams are signing players with the Redskins cap space.

The Redskins and Cowboys should be compensated for this. It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Well the Skins will have no issue being at 89% of the cap, but I agree that they should be further compensated.

[mweb]

I love that some people's logic basically states that because the Skins didn't adhere to obvious measures of collusion, that they should have been punished.

[allstar1579]

Not really sure of the points of the post. I understand the implications of an uncapped year. I also understand teams were warned not to do two things: one - structure new deals so that a substantial portion of the contract fell in the uncapped year - which is exactly what the Cowboys did with Austin; and two - restructure pre-2010 mistake contracts into 2010 to create a future benefit - which is exactly what the Skins did.

So, some/most here feel the Skins did not break any rules, that the contracts were agreed by the league, and should not face any penalty AND, in fact, that if an arbiter were to reverse the league's punishment that the Skins would be due some compensation for the erroneous penalty and the implications it has had on the Skins 2011-1 free agency efforts. I get that.

I believe the arbiter will decide the Skins acted against the spirit of league-wide communications, but that the original punishment is excessive.

The arbiter CAN'T decide the Skins acted against the "spirit" of a rule that didn't exist. That's why rules are put in writing, if it's not it doesn't exist and you can't violate it. It's about as blatant as can be that there was collusion amongst the owners, and 2 didn't go along with it. You can't punish a team for not going along with collusion, you are just asking to be outed and face MAJOR repercussions.

I agree with Miller, that giving the money back just doesn't fix the problem because the chance to really use it is pretty much gone now, that they will have to find another way to further compensate them and draft picks make perfect sense, the question is, how high of a draft pick do you give for something this serious?

[OrioleMagic]

Redskins and Cowboys with compensatory picks at #33 and #34??? Wow, that would be a Godsend!

[allstar1579]

Redskins and Cowboys with compensatory picks at #33 and #34??? Wow, that would be a Godsend!

Was thinking that, but we got penalized much more than Dallas, I'd like to think we should get even more than that really. I dunno, no real precedent for this kinda thing, but if teams are getting 3, 4 and 5ths for losing players in FA, I'd think we should get much more than that. Maybe a 1st and a 2nd? I dunno.

[hoosiers]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-redskins-utilizing-uncapped-year

This article is pretty telling.


In his infamous $100 million contract of 2009, Haynesworth had a $21-million option bonus. As part of the deal, the Redskins reserved the right to convert that option bonus to a signing bonus, and that’s exactly what they did. But they converted it with a slight twist. Not only did they convert the option bonus to a $21-million signing bonus, but they also added a voidable provision. In the provision, if Haynesworth pays back $26 million of his signing bonuses, then the 2011-2014 contract years void away. From a team salary accounting standpoint -- because the voidable is solely in the player’s control -- the proration of the signing bonus does not go into 2011-2014. That means all of the $21 million signing bonus counts in the uncapped year of 2010. As a result, Haynesworth’s team salary number in 2010 went from $8.8 million to a whopping $25.6 million. His subsequent team salary numbers are $6.4 million, $8.2 million, $10 million, $10.8 million, and $12.8 million, respectively.

I do not really understand the collusion aspect to this if the restructurings did not alter the player's compensation. Hayneworth's restructured contract pays Haynesworth substantially (if not exactly) the same amount, but the conversion of the signing bonus to option bonus with a player voidable provision allows the entire $21M bonus to count in 2010. Hall's restructuring is substantially the same. The Redskins are being penalized for altering future year salary cap bonus pro-ration with the restructurings.

Brilliantly, the author foreshadows the issues today with this conclusion:


As I’ve previously written, given the uncertainty of what 2011 holds, clubs who take advantage of the uncapped year by incurring high team salaries in 2010 run the risk of possibly being penalized in 2011 as part of a new salary cap and CBA. Clearly, this is a risk the Redskins are willing to take -- or perhaps they know something the rest of us don’t.

Now, the author does hint that Allen did something similar in Tampa. And others have posted articles where other teams (Chicago - Peppers) deliberately stashed tens of millions of dollars in 2010. Again, I understand the league's basis for punishing the Skins, it just seems the punishment should be applied evenly to other teams that deliberately stashed cap $ into 2010 and should also account for pro-rating the $36M over 2010 and 2011 to reduce the punishment to be in line with the benefit.

[allstar1579]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-redskins-utilizing-uncapped-year

This article is pretty telling.



I do not really understand the collusion aspect to this if the restructurings did not alter the player's compensation. Hayneworth's restructured contract pays Haynesworth substantially (if not exactly) the same amount, but the conversion of the signing bonus to option bonus with a player voidable provision allows the entire $21M bonus to count in 2010. Hall's restructuring is substantially the same. The Redskins are being penalized for altering future year salary cap bonus pro-ration with the restructurings.

Brilliantly, the author foreshadows the issues today with this conclusion:



Now, the author does hint that Allen did something similar in Tampa. And others have posted articles where other teams (Chicago - Peppers) deliberately stashed tens of millions of dollars in 2010. Again, I understand the league's basis for punishing the Skins, it just seems the punishment should be applied evenly to other teams that deliberately stashed cap $ into 2010 and should also account for pro-rating the $36M over 2010 and 2011 to reduce the punishment to be in line with the benefit.

The collusion is that the owners tried to make an unwritten agreement to not do what the Skins and Cowboys (and I imagine some other teams) did which was dump dead cap space in the uncapped year to free up room later, jettisoning bad contracts. The problem with unwritten agreements is that you can't enforce them because without something in writing it is considered colluding and not a rule. Then they bully the PA into signing off on the deal by threatening to lower the available cap for ALL teams unless they agree to the punishment of these two teams. THEN this idiot Mara basically comes out and admits to all of this.

It's going to be a mess, and I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing some of our resident experts could make a heck of a case out of this.

[Miller192]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-redskins-utilizing-uncapped-year

This article is pretty telling.



I do not really understand the collusion aspect to this if the restructurings did not alter the player's compensation. Hayneworth's restructured contract pays Haynesworth substantially (if not exactly) the same amount, but the conversion of the signing bonus to option bonus with a player voidable provision allows the entire $21M bonus to count in 2010. Hall's restructuring is substantially the same. The Redskins are being penalized for altering future year salary cap bonus pro-ration with the restructurings.

Brilliantly, the author foreshadows the issues today with this conclusion:



Now, the author does hint that Allen did something similar in Tampa. And others have posted articles where other teams (Chicago - Peppers) deliberately stashed tens of millions of dollars in 2010. Again, I understand the league's basis for punishing the Skins, it just seems the punishment should be applied evenly to other teams that deliberately stashed cap $ into 2010 and should also account for pro-rating the $36M over 2010 and 2011 to reduce the punishment to be in line with the benefit.

I don't think you can convince many people that the Redskins structured Haynesworth's contract to take advantage of an uncapped year. The Redskins ultimately paid him 21MM in cash for two seasons. I don't even think the Redskins would've anticipated that happening.

Many bad apples have the same language in their contracts. It gives the team the obvious out should a player start stepping on necks again.

But you're absolutely right that other teams should be punished. To me, this is a driven effort by John Marra to reel in two high spending division rivals.

You've got to look at both sides of the coin with respect to underspending as well. I think it's pretty clear that the NFL signaled to teams to use the uncapped year to their advantage but don't over do it. Particularly how rampant it was.

[hoosiers]

I don't think you can convince many people that the Redskins structured Haynesworth's contract to take advantage of an uncapped year. The Redskins ultimately paid him 21MM in cash for two seasons. I don't even think the Redskins would've anticipated that happening.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/03/01/freeagency/2.html

Not to call out Miller in particular, but the some folks may want to familiarize themselves with the original 2009 contract. And to clarify from the above, Haynesworth was paid nearly $36M in cash for the two seasons.

The deal, as announced, was for $100M over 7 seasons with incentives taking the deal to as much as $115M. The core of the deal was 4 years at $48M with $41M guaranteed (presumably the first three years). Of this amount, $32M was scheduled to be paid in the first 13 or so months- $5M as a signing bonus, $6M as 2009 salary, $21M bonus in April 2010. The remainder was salaries of $3.6M in 2010, $5.4M in 2011 (gets one to the $41M guaranteed) and $7.2M in 2012 plus any incentives for Pro Bowl, staying in shape, etc. In this original contract, the $21M bonus was to be pro-rated over the balance of the contract.

I am not sure how one can look at the contract restructuring in 2010 as anything other than a deliberate attempt to stuff future cap space (from the $21M bonus in the original contract) into 2010.

[Miller192]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/03/01/freeagency/2.html

Not to call out Miller in particular, but the some folks may want to familiarize themselves with the original 2009 contract. And to clarify from the above, Haynesworth was paid nearly $36M in cash for the two seasons.

The deal, as announced, was for $100M over 7 seasons with incentives taking the deal to as much as $115M. The core of the deal was 4 years at $48M with $41M guaranteed (presumably the first three years). Of this amount, $32M was scheduled to be paid in the first 13 or so months- $5M as a signing bonus, $6M as 2009 salary, $21M bonus in April 2010. The remainder was salaries of $3.6M in 2010, $5.4M in 2011 (gets one to the $41M guaranteed) and $7.2M in 2012 plus any incentives for Pro Bowl, staying in shape, etc. In this original contract, the $21M bonus was to be pro-rated over the balance of the contract.

I am not sure how one can look at the contract restructuring in 2010 as anything other than a deliberate attempt to stuff future cap space (from the $21M bonus in the original contract) into 2010.

I'm not speaking to the restructure of the contract but the original player option clause. Clearly, the restructure was to take advantage of the uncapped year.

The Redskins signed him to a player option to protect themselves, not to dump and cut him in 2010.

Thanks for the clarification of the 36MM. I didn't realize it was that much.

[CrimsonTribe]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/03/01/freeagency/2.html

Not to call out Miller in particular, but the some folks may want to familiarize themselves with the original 2009 contract. And to clarify from the above, Haynesworth was paid nearly $36M in cash for the two seasons.

The deal, as announced, was for $100M over 7 seasons with incentives taking the deal to as much as $115M. The core of the deal was 4 years at $48M with $41M guaranteed (presumably the first three years). Of this amount, $32M was scheduled to be paid in the first 13 or so months- $5M as a signing bonus, $6M as 2009 salary, $21M bonus in April 2010. The remainder was salaries of $3.6M in 2010, $5.4M in 2011 (gets one to the $41M guaranteed) and $7.2M in 2012 plus any incentives for Pro Bowl, staying in shape, etc. In this original contract, the $21M bonus was to be pro-rated over the balance of the contract.

I am not sure how one can look at the contract restructuring in 2010 as anything other than a deliberate attempt to stuff future cap space (from the $21M bonus in the original contract) into 2010.

It's obvious that they were deliberately attempting to stuff salary into 2010. That's because 2010 was UNCAPPED. If the Skins stuffed salary into 2010, this would open up future cap space, which equals more salary (revenue) to the players. If every team did this it would shift tons of revenue to the players. The league did not want this so they created a de facto salary cap, which is directly in contravention of the spirit of an uncapped year. This had nothing to do with future competitive balance and everything to do with keeping future revenue from shifting to the players.

[hoosiers]

It's obvious that they were deliberately attempting to stuff salary into 2010. That's because 2010 was UNCAPPED. If the Skins stuffed salary into 2010, this would open up future cap space, which equals more salary (revenue) to the players. If every team did this it would shift tons of revenue to the players. The league did not want this so they created a de facto salary cap, which is directly in contravention of the spirit of an uncapped year. This had nothing to do with future competitive balance and everything to do with keeping future revenue from shifting to the players.

We can go in circles with this. I see no de facto salary cap issues in 2010 (since nothing changed in how Haynesworth was paid in 2010) and I do not see a team stuffing "salary" into 2010 (since we are talking bonus $).

I see a team restructuring contracts to change the accounting for a contractually guaranteed bonus with no real new benefit conveyed to the player - somewhat of a "sham transaction".

I appreciate your points. We'll see what the arbiter decides is the spirit of an uncapped year.

P.S. Another point not mentioned is whether the Skins would have acted differently in 2010 knowing then what they know now. Perhaps Haynesworth made a settlement offer so that he would be released or perhaps the Skins would have accepted a trade offer.

[JDubs]

It's obvious that they were deliberately attempting to stuff salary into 2010. That's because 2010 was UNCAPPED. If the Skins stuffed salary into 2010, this would open up future cap space, which equals more salary (revenue) to the players. If every team did this it would shift tons of revenue to the players. The league did not want this so they created a de facto salary cap, which is directly in contravention of the spirit of an uncapped year. This had nothing to do with future competitive balance and everything to do with keeping future revenue from shifting to the players.

Amen, brother. It's Labor Law 101.

[Miller192]

We can go in circles with this. I see no de facto salary cap issues in 2010 (since nothing changed in how Haynesworth was paid in 2010) and I do not see a team stuffing "salary" into 2010 (since we are talking bonus $).

I see a team restructuring contracts to change the accounting for a contractually guaranteed bonus with no real new benefit conveyed to the player - somewhat of a "sham transaction".

I appreciate your points. We'll see what the arbiter decides is the spirit of an uncapped year.

P.S. Another point not mentioned is whether the Skins would have acted differently in 2010 knowing then what they know now. Perhaps Haynesworth made a settlement offer so that he would be released or perhaps the Skins would have accepted a trade offer.

Players are routinely restructured to create cap space for the team with no real benefit to the player. The Steelers just did it with player approval. Teams are also allowed to do a simple restructure where the player doesn't have to consent to it as long as the monetary value of the contract is unchanged.

Just to note, I don't believe that teams should be allowed to do what the Cowboys and Skins did. However, the NFL should've had the foresight to prevent it as they prevented other advantages of the uncapped year. Without any language in the CBA to prevent it, the owners move forward in an uncapped year at their own risk.

[mweb]

It's obvious that they were deliberately attempting to stuff salary into 2010. That's because 2010 was UNCAPPED. If the Skins stuffed salary into 2010, this would open up future cap space, which equals more salary (revenue) to the players. If every team did this it would shift tons of revenue to the players. The league did not want this so they created a de facto salary cap, which is directly in contravention of the spirit of an uncapped year. This had nothing to do with future competitive balance and everything to do with keeping future revenue from shifting to the players.

Yep. I'm really baffled at why there is a debate about this. It's rather cut and dry and it's clear there was collusion. If you think the league was right to collude, well that's one point, but there shouldn't be a debate if they did or not.

[hoosiers]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html

A pretty good football writer's take on the situation.

[JDubs]

That article didn't mention collusion once, thus missing the point.

[allstar1579]

That article didn't mention collusion once, thus missing the point.

Yeah we aren't going to see articles about collusion because that's a pretty serious offense that you need some kinda hard proof to mention the collusion thing. It's pretty obvious that it happened but it wont be mentioned until someone comes out and says, yes, we as owners decided to do this for this reason...which won't happen.

[Dr. FLK]

Yeah we aren't going to see articles about collusion because that's a pretty serious offense that you need some kinda hard proof to mention the collusion thing. It's pretty obvious that it happened but it wont be mentioned until someone comes out and says, yes, we as owners decided to do this for this reason...which won't happen.

Didn't Mara kind of say that already?

[allstar1579]

Didn't Mara kind of say that already?

Sorta, he stopped JUST short of it, not enough to completely incriminate the owners but enough that people pretty much know.

[JDubs]

Yeah we aren't going to see articles about collusion because that's a pretty serious offense that you need some kinda hard proof to mention the collusion thing. It's pretty obvious that it happened but it wont be mentioned until someone comes out and says, yes, we as owners decided to do this for this reason...which won't happen.

Then the prospect of collision.

[hoosiers]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82867f59/article/dallas-cowboys-washing-redskins-salarycap-hearing-set

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/nfl-seeks-dismissal-of-redskins-and-cowboys-salary-cap-case/2012/04/20/gIQA5CtsVT_blog.html

A couple of interesting articles and the latest bs from the league trying to keep the Skins from having our "day in mediation" if you will.

I think Skins fans deserve a much better explanation for how this went down and how the punishment was determined and the timing of the punishment.

[Don Quixote]

The league and the other owners are full of it. This situation needs to be corrected.

[CrimsonTribe]

Well, we got screwed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/22/cowboys-redskins-lose-their-appeal-on-salary-cap-penalty/

I wouldn't be so pissed if this wasn't so transparent.

[JDubs]

Well, we got screwed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/22/cowboys-redskins-lose-their-appeal-on-salary-cap-penalty/

I wouldn't be so pissed if this wasn't so transparent.

Yep. I hope Goodell doesn't think that there was an appearance of fairness just because there was a "kangaroo court" arbitration hearing. It is obvious to everyone what this was. What a crock...

Screw concussions...Goodell is the biggest threat to the sustained popularity of football. He is jumping the shark.

[Dr. FLK]

The NFLPA (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7963260/nfl-players-association-files-suit-vs-nfl-alleges-collusion-2010)strikes back.

[JDubs]

I'm pretty sure that the NFLPA waived all future claims several times during the CBA negotiations, so, technically, the filing of these collusion claims violates the current CBA. Now, whether a Federal District Court Judge cares about that remains to be seen. I suspect that judge will weigh the public policy of encouraging collective bargaining against the detriment of potential collusion.

The most important thing is that the Redskins did not file these claims, so Goodell can't "Saints" them into oblivion.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm pretty sure that the NFLPA waived all future claims several times during the CBA negotiations, so, technically, the filing of these collusion claims violates the current CBA. Now, whether a Federal District Court Judge cares about that remains to be seen. I suspect that judge will weigh the public policy of encouraging collective bargaining against the detriment of potential collusion.

The most important thing is that the Redskins did not file these claims, so Goodell can't "Saints" them into oblivion.

Goodell can do whatever he wants, haven't you figured that out?

As for the Skins and Cowboys, what happened to you sucks but forgive me for not feeling all that bad for you.

[Dr. FLK]

Goodell can do whatever he wants, haven't you figured that out?

As for the Skins and Cowboys, what happened to you sucks but forgive me for not feeling all that bad for you.

Not sure we expected your pitty. When the commish starts randomly enforcing unwritten rules the way he is now, who knows when your team's turn will come. And we won't feel bad for you when it's the Ravens turn. ;)

[JDubs]

Goodell can do whatever he wants, haven't you figured that out?

As for the Skins and Cowboys, what happened to you sucks but forgive me for not feeling all that bad for you.

Haha...yeah, it is abundantly clear at this point. And I don't hold it against you that you don't feel bad for the punished teams. Neither are without some blame. The outcry (if you want to call it that) is related to the degree and application of the penalty. It's NFL lore now. Time for all parties to move on.

I do hope something comes of the court case (although I don't think anything will), because the collusion of the NFL sets a bad example for labor practices in unionized workplaces. That eclipses anything football related.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Haha...yeah, it is abundantly clear at this point. And I don't hold it against you that you don't feel bad for the punished teams. Neither are without some blame. The outcry (if you want to call it that) is related to the degree and application of the penalty. It's NFL lore now. Time for all parties to move on.

I do hope something comes of the court case (although I don't think anything will), because the collusion of the NFL sets a bad example for labor practices in unionized workplaces. That eclipses anything football related.

Well, my lack of pity isn't because there is some blame towards you guys, the lack of pity is because I'm a Ravens fan. Honestly, if I were a Skins' fan I'd be handling this a lot worse than most of the posters on here are. It's a complete load of crap.

[JDubs]

Well, my lack of pity isn't because there is some blame towards you guys, the lack of pity is because I'm a Ravens fan. Honestly, if I were a Skins' fan I'd be handling this a lot worse than most of the posters on here are. It's a complete load of crap.

We're working our way through the stages of grieving. I'm just skipping to acceptance because the battle appears to be over. :/

[flashjordnk]

I do hope something comes of the court case (although I don't think anything will), because the collusion of the NFL sets a bad example for labor practices in unionized workplaces. That eclipses anything football related.

Well said.

And honestly the only reason the Ravens don't incur more wrath is thanks to James Harrison. I may hate the guy, but he's saved the Ravens from a heck of a lot of grief. Goodell loves his scapegoats and it wouldn't have been hard to make the Ravens the whipping boy if he really wanted to.