Redskins lose $36 million in cap space

[Can_of_corn]

Great take on Deadspin. 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/...otball-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.