What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Cowboys and Redskins to lose cap space? (1 Viewer)

GroveDiesel

Footballguy
I just saw this tweeted by Adam Schefter. No more information from him on this and didn't see it elsewhere. I have no idea why they would be getting punished, how much they'll get docked, or anything else. Weird. Cowboys are already in cap trouble though right? And the Skins will really need that money if they really do want Vincent Jackson so much (and if they want to add other guys in the future without so many draft picks.

@AdamSchefter: NFL is taking away millions of dolllar of salary-cap space from Cowboys and Redskins for how they front-loaded deals during uncapped year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@AdamSchefter 12:13pm via UberSocial for BlackBerryCowboys lose $10 million in cap space, Redskins lose $36 million in space. Can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want. More at ESPN.
Ouch....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@AdamSchefter

All that money goes to 28 other teams -- $1.6 million each -- except for Saints and Raiders, who don't get any but don't lose any.

Christmas has come early this year!

 
Looks like the numbers got posted in the Redskins and Cowboys threads. $10M for the Skins and $36M for the Cowboys. They can spread it anyway they want over the next 2 years.

That will certainly hurt the Skins some since they just will be forced to acquire through FA since they just traded away so many picks.

And I believe the Cowboys are already tight the cap. They could be really screwed. Not sure how they'll do it.

I'm still not sure why they'd be getting punished for this. Really strange.

 
Per Rotoworld:

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports the NFL is taking away millions in salary-cap space from the Cowboys and Redskins for illegal front-loading of deals during the 2010 uncapped year.

The Cowboys will lose $10 million compared to the Redskins' whopping $36 million hit. Dallas was reportedly $4.7 million under the $120.6 million cap while Washington was in better shape at $31.3 million under. The franchises have the option of splitting the damage over 2012 and 2013, but it's still going to have a deleterious effect on the Cowboys' speculated interest in major free agents such as LG Carl Nicks, DE/OLB Mario Williams, and CB Cortland Finnegan and the Redskins' pursuit of Vincent Jackson.

 
Looks like the numbers got posted in the Redskins and Cowboys threads. $10M for the Skins and $36M for the Cowboys. They can spread it anyway they want over the next 2 years. That will certainly hurt the Skins some since they just will be forced to acquire through FA since they just traded away so many picks. And I believe the Cowboys are already tight the cap. They could be really screwed. Not sure how they'll do it.I'm still not sure why they'd be getting punished for this. Really strange.
Due to illegal front loading of contracts in the uncapped year of 2010. And I believe you may have posted that backwards. I think it is cowboys $10M, Skins $36M.There go all those defensive FAs for dallas and No VJAX for you Washington!. Just have to settle throwing it to hankerson and Moss and davis.
 
Here's PFT's article on it before Schefter broke the details:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/uncapped-year-could-be-coming-back-to-haunt-some-teams/

Uncapped year could be coming back to haunt some teamsPosted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2012, 2:18 PM EDTThe CBA that expired one year today removed the salary cap for the final year, as an incentive to get a new deal in place with more than a year left on the old one. Once the owners fully appreciated the ramifications of the uncapped year (i.e., no salary floor and two extra years to unrestricted free agency), the league had no qualms about proceeding.But while most teams opted not to break the bank in a season without a banker, the NFL instructed teams not to use the uncapped years as a way to dump money in order to ensure that cap numbers in years with a salary cap would be lower.And there’s currently a rumor making the rounds that multiple teams will be smacked for doing just that: using 2010 as a cap dump aimed at either keeping the numbers manageable in 2009 and previously, or in 2011 and subsequently.It widely was believed in 2010 that the Cowboys and Redskins had worked the system to take full advantage of the absence of a cap. Dallas, for example, gave receiver Miles Austin a base salary of $17 million in 2010.Though not as troubling as the Saints’ bounty program, we’re hearing that punishment of some sort could be coming for the teams deemed to have disregarded the directive.UPDATE 3:12 p.m. ET: It’s not just a rumor. Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the league will remove “millions” in salary-cap space from the Cowboys and Redskins for their uncapped-year deals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I got those numbers reversed. That is going to Kill the Skins I would think. That trade isn't looking nearly as good now with their salary limitations.

The Cowboys a little better off, but being so closet the cap could be tough still.

I still don't understand why it was illegal to frontload contracts in the uncapped year. I never heard one word about that before.

 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.

 
So much for the Redskins building through free agency. Griffin is going to be stuck in a mess for quite some time. Now maybe the Colts really do have a quicker route back to being competitive.

 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.
 
"Hey guys, there is no cap this year but we are prohibiting teams from going over the cap"

How is that not collusion?

 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
Yeah, I have no idea how they possibly had the right to tell teams that and then enforce it now. It essentially capped an uncapped year. I would think the NFLPA could sue over this, although the league took away some of their incentive to do so by increasing all the other teams' cap sizes.
 
Yeah, I got those numbers reversed. That is going to Kill the Skins I would think. That trade isn't looking nearly as good now with their salary limitations.

The Cowboys a little better off, but being so closet the cap could be tough still.

I still don't understand why it was illegal to frontload contracts in the uncapped year. I never heard one word about that before.
No kidding. Can't really add all those FA weapons now. I believe it is because doing so has ramifications on future caps and also could be a way to circumvent the cap when it was restored. For example, Let's say the Giants redid every player's contract and esentially paid them all their contracts in up front money in 2010 and then spread out the rest of their contracts at league minimum amounts. They could enjoy 3-4 years of having like $75M in cap space because they essentially bought all the contracts in the year when there was no limit.

 
I'm not sure I completely understand what's going on here. There was no cap. By definition how can any team get in trouble for manipulating that situation? It's not as though teams don't routinely manipulate the cap each year, when it has been in place.

 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.
I'm not questioning that it was told to the teams. I'm saying that I never heard it - whether it was just me missing it, or because the public at large wasn't told - and without that bit of knowledge, it seemed odd to me that most teams were not doing what the Skins and Cowboys did.
 
I'm not sure I completely understand what's going on here. There was no cap. By definition how can any team get in trouble for manipulating that situation? It's not as though teams don't routinely manipulate the cap each year, when it has been in place.
it is confusingif you were gonna guess which 2 owners ignored warnings, though, you'd guess these two
 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.
I'm not questioning that it was told to the teams. I'm saying that I never heard it - whether it was just me missing it, or because the public at large wasn't told - and without that bit of knowledge, it seemed odd to me that most teams were not doing what the Skins and Cowboys did.
It was not my intention to :pokey: you, it was that nearly every team played to the uncapped unspoken rules except for these two franchises.

 
This is what happens when David Stern and Roger Goodell trade jobs for a day. In other news, dunking and tattoos have been outlawed in the NBA.

 
Does this "1.6M to 28 other teams" mean that's added to cap space? or somehow is otherwise compensated?
Pretty sure they are talking about cap space.The CBA has guarantees for the players about cap room, so if they take it away from two teams it makes sense they need to add it back in elsewhere to not be in violation of those.
 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.
I'm not questioning that it was told to the teams. I'm saying that I never heard it - whether it was just me missing it, or because the public at large wasn't told - and without that bit of knowledge, it seemed odd to me that most teams were not doing what the Skins and Cowboys did.
It was not my intention to :pokey: you, it was that nearly every team played to the uncapped unspoken rules except for these two franchises.
No problem. :thumbup:
 
The way it's explained is that the Raiders and Saints were both also guilt of front loading, but to a lesser degree. Really what is the criteria that defines "lesser degree"? The penalties are confusing. Are they even executable?

Also was wondering if Washington knew this was coming down when they made the big trade for RG3?

 
This seems even more brutal coming down the day before free agency. No time for those teams to appeal or for the NFLPA to sure the NFL.

Also no time to try to re-do contracts and figure out how much of that hit to take next year and how much to take this year.

My guess is that both teams push a bunch of it to next year, argue against it or even sue, and then are forced to reckon with it next year big time.

 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.

I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.

But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.

Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.
I'm not questioning that it was told to the teams. I'm saying that I never heard it - whether it was just me missing it, or because the public at large wasn't told - and without that bit of knowledge, it seemed odd to me that most teams were not doing what the Skins and Cowboys did.
It was not my intention to :pokey: you, it was that nearly every team played to the uncapped unspoken rules except for these two franchises.
COLLUSION, plain and simple.
 
This seems even more brutal coming down the day before free agency. No time for those teams to appeal or for the NFLPA to sure the NFL.

Also no time to try to re-do contracts and figure out how much of that hit to take next year and how much to take this year.

My guess is that both teams push a bunch of it to next year, argue against it or even sue, and then are forced to reckon with it next year big time.
Dan Snyder sued the Washington City Paper for talking mean about him. Rodger better get himself a good lawyer. :P
 
I'm not sure I completely understand what's going on here. There was no cap. By definition how can any team get in trouble for manipulating that situation? It's not as though teams don't routinely manipulate the cap each year, when it has been in place.
It's because they manipulated the cap in future seasons. The one example I saw was Miles Austin getting 17 Mil in base salary for 2010 as part of his extension, instead of getting it as a signing bonus and spread it out over the length of the contract. 2010 doesn't matter, but the Cowboys 2011 cap would have been a couple Mil tighter if that 17 Mil had been treated as a signing bonus. But I agree, I don't see why they should be penalized for using a loophole.
 
This actually... well, it doesn't explain a lot, but now 2010 makes more sense to me.I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.Though it raises a question where the league had the power to do so. This goes so far deeper into lawyer things than I want to go, but it seems like it could be seen as collusion by the owners if the leagues is telling them to act closer to accordance with a cap, when the CBA doesn't allow one that year.
Yeah, I have no idea how they possibly had the right to tell teams that and then enforce it now. It essentially capped an uncapped year. I would think the NFLPA could sue over this, although the league took away some of their incentive to do so by increasing all the other teams' cap sizes.
This stinks of collusion - basically they are bribing the rest of the league into going along with punishing the Cowboys and Redskins for what they should have been allowed to do in an uncapped year. I don't even want those teams to do well and think this is a BS move.
 
I'm not sure I completely understand what's going on here. There was no cap. By definition how can any team get in trouble for manipulating that situation? It's not as though teams don't routinely manipulate the cap each year, when it has been in place.
It's because they manipulated the cap in future seasons. The one example I saw was Miles Austin getting 17 Mil in base salary for 2010 as part of his extension, instead of getting it as a signing bonus and spread it out over the length of the contract. 2010 doesn't matter, but the Cowboys 2011 cap would have been a couple Mil tighter if that 17 Mil had been treated as a signing bonus. But I agree, I don't see why they should be penalized for using a loophole.
How did they manipulate the cap if it was an uncapped year? They played the game right and now the league wants to show them who's boss.
 
COLLUSION, plain and simple.
Again, I'm fairly certain that all franchises were aware of the uncapped season and any penalties that would come from contract shenanigans.
What you said would further the claim it is collusion, not negate it.If the NFL owners agree in the CBA to have no salary cap in 2010, they can't then get together and conspire to keep salaries down by threatening penalties to teams in future years if they act as if it really is an uncapped year. Which it was.
 
This seems even more brutal coming down the day before free agency. No time for those teams to appeal or for the NFLPA to sure the NFL.

Also no time to try to re-do contracts and figure out how much of that hit to take next year and how much to take this year.

My guess is that both teams push a bunch of it to next year, argue against it or even sue, and then are forced to reckon with it next year big time.
This. A big 'ole middle finger to both franchises on the timing.
 
Good day for Eagles fans. Looks like VJax should land in Tampa (or Chicago) now, and Wash might not even have enough money left to sign Garcon or Colston. Mario to Dallas also has to be done.

 
If this was such a clear rule, why is the punishment just now being executed and why did Washington and Dallas do what they did in 2010? This isn't making much sense.

 
I couldn't figure out why more teams didn't do exactly what Dallas and Washington got slammed for doing. I mean, it made perfect sense that you could get a competitive advantage by doing so, and I was advocating doing it.But, I never heard that the league told teams not to do it. Now it makes sense why teams didn't.
Same here.
 
Good day for Eagles fans. Looks like VJax should land in Tampa (or Chicago) now, and Wash might not even have enough money left to sign Garcon or Colston. Mario to Dallas also has to be done.
They can defer some of this penalty to 2013 (then again, they might get slapped with another penalty for doing that) and still be active this year. But, I'd suggest they just take as much of the hit as they can this year and be ready to spend next offseason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
COLLUSION, plain and simple.
Again, I'm fairly certain that all franchises were aware of the uncapped season and any penalties that would come from contract shenanigans.
What you said would further the claim it is collusion, not negate it.If the NFL owners agree in the CBA to have no salary cap in 2010, they can't then get together and conspire to keep salaries down by threatening penalties to teams in future years if they act as if it really is an uncapped year. Which it was.
they weren't keeping salaries down. They were keeping "front-loaded" contracts down so as to not skew things in the future.
 
COLLUSION, plain and simple.
Again, I'm fairly certain that all franchises were aware of the uncapped season and any penalties that would come from contract shenanigans.
What you said would further the claim it is collusion, not negate it.If the NFL owners agree in the CBA to have no salary cap in 2010, they can't then get together and conspire to keep salaries down by threatening penalties to teams in future years if they act as if it really is an uncapped year. Which it was.
Exactly. I'm sure the reason the Cowboys and Redskins went ahead and did it is that they didn't think the league had the right to deny them the ability to do it. I hope both teams fight this and win.
 
This is the part I don't get at all.

According to the sources, the deductions are not termed as violations, but are part of a recent agreement the NFL and the Players Association made to raise the salary cap number while preserving benefit increases and the performance pool.
So they did this to make the NFLPA happy? Don't know why the NFLPA would want Snyder and Jones to have less money to use. But now the Bengals and Jags have even more cap space they won't use.
 
During the pre-lockout 2010 season, the collective bargaining agreement expired and the league operated without a salary cap.According to sources, the Cowboys and Redskins took immediate cap hits during the 2010 season that normally would have been spread out over the length of the contracts, giving them an advantage that other NFL owners found unfair.The league took an abnormally long time to release the 2012 cap number, due in part to the fact that the league was trying to decide how to handle the issues, the sources said.According to the sources, the deductions are not termed as violations, but are part of a recent agreement the NFL and the Players Association made to raise the salary cap number while preserving benefit increases and the performance pool.
 
Until we know what was REALLY said, its all speculation. Cowboys and Skins fans will call it BS, others will not. It all comes down to WHAT warnings were given, if they were on paper, if all owners agreed to these warnings, if the punishments were explained, etc. I'm sure those details will be coming out soon from Goodell.

 
During the pre-lockout 2010 season, the collective bargaining agreement expired and the league operated without a salary cap.According to sources, the Cowboys and Redskins took immediate cap hits during the 2010 season that normally would have been spread out over the length of the contracts, giving them an advantage that other NFL owners found unfair.The league took an abnormally long time to release the 2012 cap number, due in part to the fact that the league was trying to decide how to handle the issues, the sources said.According to the sources, the deductions are not termed as violations, but are part of a recent agreement the NFL and the Players Association made to raise the salary cap number while preserving benefit increases and the performance pool.
Just speculating, but if the NFLPA was part of this, maybe they agreed to do this rather than pursue any kind of legal action for collusion?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top