Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GroveDiesel

Cowboys and Redskins to lose cap space?

681 posts in this topic

The Bucs, Chiefs and Jags hoarded cash and salary space that they would have been required to spend in a capped/floored year, and that money was available for future spending once the salary cap returned.

The Bucs, a team that's usually one of the most frugal in the league, signed a ton of free agents this season. According to the PFT rankings they got the #3, #11, and #40 free agents. That sound like the Bucs franchise you know? If you look closely you'll also see the Jags and Chiefs doing OK in free agency. The Skins would have loved to get Eric Winston or Carl Nicks, but they were hamstrung not only by the ridiculous salary cap limit placed on them but also on the fact that the Chiefs and Bucs were in a position to outbid them after hoarding cash and space.

I'm very certain this isn't correct.

There was no method available I've heard of that would allow a team to carry over unused cap room from 2010 to 2011. So there is no way a team who underspent in 2010 would get a higher cap to work with in 2011 than other teams.

The old Likely To Be Earned incentive loophole wouldn't work as there was no end-of-season reckoning that would refund cap space, since there wasn't a cap. The new CBA rule of just letting teams carry over cap room couldn't be used until the end of 2011.

The money being available is absolutely correct. When you don't spend a dollar, you have an extra dollar you can spend later if you choose. It really is as simple as that. Kinda hard to argue. If there had been a floor they would have had to spend more money, thus making it more difficult to effectively tank in advance of a drafting/spending spree in later years.

As far as cap space being available, I suppose that the team could have satisfied the cap floor in all of those years with one year deals. But if they reached the floor by signing deals with cap implications over multiple seasons, that obviously would limit their flexibility once the cap returned.

Ah, you're talking about actual dollars, not cap dollars.

I agree that actual dollars plays a role. I don't agree that you necessarily "have an extra dollar you can spend later if you choose". Lots of teams, including the Cowboys and Redskins, have lots of dollars every year that they would choose to spend, but can't in a normal year because there is a salary cap.

That fact actually is important in this situation. It is one of two explanations why some owners might see what the Skins/Boys did in 2010 as affecting competitive balance while teams who spent low wasn't. Anyone can choose to spend low in a season without a floor. But only a rich team may be able to afford to spend the rich amounts of actual dollars in a single year that are necessary to circumvent future salary cap charges by dumping them into 2010.

The second explanation being that a team who spent low is improving the bargaining power of all owners in the CBA negotiation (the reason for the collusion), while a team overspending is hurting them.

And just to reclarify, I'm pointing out something said that isn't factually correct, not arguing a side. I don't think there is a good guy in any of this. It's like watching thieves get punished for stealing from other thieves. There isn't any real justice unless those stolen from get justice, and that won't happen since the players signed away their right to legal recourse for the collusion.

I understand. I would, however, point out that the distinction you draw in the "first explanation" between resources available to teams at either end of the spectrum is a basic principle that everyone knows would come into play in an uncapped and unfloored year, something which was agreed to in advance in the previous CBA. If we legitimatize over-spending but not under-spending, it's not an uncapped year. If the owners were OK with creating that competitive imbalance then, that should be the end of the analysis.

My own clarification- what Snyder and Jones did wasn't heroic or something. If they had spoken out at the time of the obviously collusive "verbal warning," that would have been impressive. What their fellow owners were doing was the epitome of sleazy business practices, and they had no right to expect their peers to protect them from that, but Snyder and Jones were silent. Which is perfectly fine in my book since it wasn't legitimate, but it also isn't worthy of praise or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bucs, Chiefs and Jags hoarded cash and salary space that they would have been required to spend in a capped/floored year, and that money was available for future spending once the salary cap returned.

The Bucs, a team that's usually one of the most frugal in the league, signed a ton of free agents this season. According to the PFT rankings they got the #3, #11, and #40 free agents. That sound like the Bucs franchise you know? If you look closely you'll also see the Jags and Chiefs doing OK in free agency. The Skins would have loved to get Eric Winston or Carl Nicks, but they were hamstrung not only by the ridiculous salary cap limit placed on them but also on the fact that the Chiefs and Bucs were in a position to outbid them after hoarding cash and space.

I'm very certain this isn't correct.

There was no method available I've heard of that would allow a team to carry over unused cap room from 2010 to 2011. So there is no way a team who underspent in 2010 would get a higher cap to work with in 2011 than other teams.

The old Likely To Be Earned incentive loophole wouldn't work as there was no end-of-season reckoning that would refund cap space, since there wasn't a cap. The new CBA rule of just letting teams carry over cap room couldn't be used until the end of 2011.

The money being available is absolutely correct. When you don't spend a dollar, you have an extra dollar you can spend later if you choose. It really is as simple as that. Kinda hard to argue. If there had been a floor they would have had to spend more money, thus making it more difficult to effectively tank in advance of a drafting/spending spree in later years.

As far as cap space being available, I suppose that the team could have satisfied the cap floor in all of those years with one year deals. But if they reached the floor by signing deals with cap implications over multiple seasons, that obviously would limit their flexibility once the cap returned.

Ah, you're talking about actual dollars, not cap dollars.

I agree that actual dollars plays a role. I don't agree that you necessarily "have an extra dollar you can spend later if you choose". Lots of teams, including the Cowboys and Redskins, have lots of dollars every year that they would choose to spend, but can't in a normal year because there is a salary cap.

That fact actually is important in this situation. It is one of two explanations why some owners might see what the Skins/Boys did in 2010 as affecting competitive balance while teams who spent low wasn't. Anyone can choose to spend low in a season without a floor. But only a rich team may be able to afford to spend the rich amounts of actual dollars in a single year that are necessary to circumvent future salary cap charges by dumping them into 2010.

The second explanation being that a team who spent low is improving the bargaining power of all owners in the CBA negotiation (the reason for the collusion), while a team overspending is hurting them.

And just to reclarify, I'm pointing out something said that isn't factually correct, not arguing a side. I don't think there is a good guy in any of this. It's like watching thieves get punished for stealing from other thieves. There isn't any real justice unless those stolen from get justice, and that won't happen since the players signed away their right to legal recourse for the collusion.

I understand. I would, however, point out that the distinction you draw in the "first explanation" between resources available to teams at either end of the spectrum is a basic principle that everyone knows would come into play in an uncapped and unfloored year, something which was agreed to in advance in the previous CBA. If we legitimatize over-spending but not under-spending, it's not an uncapped year. If the owners were OK with creating that competitive imbalance then, that should be the end of the analysis.

My own clarification- what Snyder and Jones did wasn't heroic or something. If they had spoken out at the time of the obviously collusive "verbal warning," that would have been impressive. What their fellow owners were doing was the epitome of sleazy business practices, and they had no right to expect their peers to protect them from that, but Snyder and Jones were silent. Which is perfectly fine in my book since it wasn't legitimate, but it also isn't worthy of praise or something.

I agree, I'm not giving either team credit for doing anything noble. If anything I think they probably said to themselves, "if they are going to collude then we can really break the bank this year and they will be powerless to do anything about it as that would be admitting the collusion".

And I also agree given the rules in place, I don't see this being something that the league should try to punish. There is the aspect the league apparently warned repeatedly, so those teams knew ahead of time what they were doing was viewed as wrong by the league. But I'm not sure there is legal backing for a punishment, let alone is it actual justice.

If I were the league I'd have just let it go and learned from it that Jerry and Danny can't be trusted to do things like act in the interest of all owners, etc. Course I also wouldn't have urged collusion in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bolded below is the first I've seen anyone mention that it's possible that the union now has an opening to refile collusion charges. If that happens, will it have any effect on the new CBA?

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4691175/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

If this is true, maybe we are seeing the start of the "nuclear" option PFT talked about earlier. I am sure they were talking about something bigger, but it looks like the grievance may have opened up a big can of worms for the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bolded below is the first I've seen anyone mention that it's possible that the union now has an opening to refile collusion charges. If that happens, will it have any effect on the new CBA?

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4691175/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I think Graziano might be right that the NFLPA could get more info if the Skins/Boys punishment went to trial. But I don't trust his insinuation that the players have any legal recourse left if they do get that information.

I'm not saying there might not be a way... I'm saying before I believe there is a way, I would want to hear an explanation from a lawyer (Florio, Andrew Brandt, etc) on exactly how that would work given the players having already waived their right to sue or file a grievance over any collusion prior to 2011.

Barring that, I think the way this is most likely to bite the league is putting up the player's backs in 10 years when it's time to negotiate another CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well.

I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well.

I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court.

I read somewhere that the general thinking is that the Skins/Boys will primarily contest this from a procedural standpoint (i.e. the NFL approved the contracts, there was no formal vote on the salary cap changes, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalties are that the uncapped years' activities circumvented future years' salary caps.

:lmao: "Officer, why are you giving me a ticket? What did I do wrong?""You did nothing wrong at this time. But it'll be wrong in the future."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well.

I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court.

Some extra detail on what was done to keep cap from shrinking here, as well as implications on future cap levels: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=637811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalties are that the uncapped years' activities circumvented future years' salary caps.

:lmao: "Officer, why are you giving me a ticket? What did I do wrong?""You did nothing wrong at this time. But it'll be wrong in the future."Pretty horrible analogy. Someone speeding on Monday has no effect on the speed limit on Tuesday. Moving around cap money in 2011 certainly influences the cap in 2012 and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well.

I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court.

Some extra detail on what was done to keep cap from shrinking here, as well as implications on future cap levels: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=637811That is a good read. It answers the question on where the extra cap dollars came from. It does not answer the question of how the cap penalties for the Redskins and Cowboys got tied into increase the 2012 salary cap. It provides no benefit to the union, so the only answer I can think of is the NFL, mainly Goodell and Mara, but maybe others, were searching for a way to get the cap penalties implemented and this was the way to do it.

It also looks like the players may have gotten a bad deal of the new CBA. And the manipulation of the salary cap helps hide what a bad deal they got. All this, to help DeMaurice Smith keep his job, for now. I suspect it is a temporary reprieve, but he gets a boatload more in salary if he can hang onto his job an extra year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty horrible analogy. Someone speeding on Monday has no effect on the speed limit on Tuesday. Moving around cap money in 2011 certainly influences the cap in 2012 and beyond.

So did moving around cap money in previous years. So does moving around cap money this year. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt has a review of the current situation. One thing he mentioned that I didn't quite get, and he didn't go into details, was this:

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?
First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap.

We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake.

One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?
Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well.

I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court.

Some extra detail on what was done to keep cap from shrinking here, as well as implications on future cap levels: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=637811That is a good read. It answers the question on where the extra cap dollars came from. It does not answer the question of how the cap penalties for the Redskins and Cowboys got tied into increase the 2012 salary cap. It provides no benefit to the union, so the only answer I can think of is the NFL, mainly Goodell and Mara, but maybe others, were searching for a way to get the cap penalties implemented and this was the way to do it.

It also looks like the players may have gotten a bad deal of the new CBA. And the manipulation of the salary cap helps hide what a bad deal they got. All this, to help DeMaurice Smith keep his job, for now. I suspect it is a temporary reprieve, but he gets a boatload more in salary if he can hang onto his job an extra year or two.

I want to see more on why the 2014 and 2015 caps are expected to be flat before calling it a bad deal. The 2011 cap was going to drop because the players wanted more benefits, and got what they wanted. They just don't like the impact it had their remaining slice for salaries.

I do think the owners had a real crap deal last time and this one is more fair. But it might have swung a little too far back towards the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty horrible analogy. Someone speeding on Monday has no effect on the speed limit on Tuesday. Moving around cap money in 2011 certainly influences the cap in 2012 and beyond.

So did moving around cap money in previous years. So does moving around cap money this year. So what?In previous years, there was a penalty applied in those years by way of lessened cap space. This year, there is a penalty applied in the current year by way of lessened cap space. In 2010, with no cap, there could be no penalty for moving money into that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now McNair says that the NFLPA didn't receive anything for signing off on these cap penalties, which makes no sense whatsoever. If this is actually true, which I cannot fathom (D. Smith can't be this inept, can he?) could congress get involved and blow up the new CBA?http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/

McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penaltiesPosted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2012, 7:48 PM EDTm Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal was an intriguing assertion from Texans owner Bob McNair.As to the widely-reported notion that the 2012 salary cap was bumped to $120.6 million per team in exchange for the NFLPA’s agreement to permit a total of $46 million to be stripped from the Cowboys and Redskins in 2012 and 2013 cap space, McNair contends there was no “quid pro quo.”  Instead, McNair claims that the union was guaranteed to receive $142.4 million per team in salary and benefits, and that the union adjusted 2012 benefits in order to nudge the per-team spending limit to $120.6 million.If that’s true, then why did the NFLPA agree to the cap penalties?  If the union got nothing in return for agreeing to permit $46 million to be taken from teams that tend to spend all of it and redistributed to teams that may not even spend all the space space they already have for 2012, then why did the union agree to it?Surely, the union got something.  Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

I suspect if they did that, it would look even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

They can't, without being in trouble.edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

They can't, without being in trouble.edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings?I have no idea. I'm just hoping that Stephen Burbank, the guy who is the arbitrator for this case, isn't an Eagles or Giants fan. Also, it would be nice if they actually set a date for when this hearing is going to be held. The sooner the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just assume for a quick sec that the penalties are reversed by the arbitration process, the Redskins and Cowboys have already been screwed over this free agency period.....would they then get the lost cap space back next year?! I mean, what good is it to get the cap space back this year when all the great/good free agents have already been signed elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just assume for a quick sec that the penalties are reversed by the arbitration process, the Redskins and Cowboys have already been screwed over this free agency period.....would they then get the lost cap space back next year?! I mean, what good is it to get the cap space back this year when all the great/good free agents have already been signed elsewhere?

And thus we see the real brilliance of the imposed penalty. Even if over-turned, it has a significant impact. Even if overturned, it will still have a deterrence effect on team behavior in the future. "You better stay in line with our gentlemen's agreements, or you shall be screwed. One way or another..."Still can't believe this won't get settled out of arbitration somehow, under a cloak of privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just assume for a quick sec that the penalties are reversed by the arbitration process, the Redskins and Cowboys have already been screwed over this free agency period.....would they then get the lost cap space back next year?! I mean, what good is it to get the cap space back this year when all the great/good free agents have already been signed elsewhere?

Ideally, the Skins and Cowboys would get the penalties overturned AND receive compensation (i.e. draft picks and/or additional cap space in the future) since they've already suffered irreparable harm from these "penalties." My understanding, however, is that the arbitrator can only overturn or uphold the penalty - he doesn't have the authority to award additional compensation to the aggrieved parties.The Skins right now are sitting with 7.6MM in cap space, while the Cowboys are at 2.1MM, according to the last numbers I've seen. I believe the Skins pushed back half of the penalty, 18MM, to next year, with the other 18MM being taken off of this year's cap. So if the Skins and Cowboys win arbitration and have the penalties nullified, I assume the Skins would gain an additional 18MM this year and 18MM next season. (I'm guessing the Cowboys did the same thing and pushed back half of their penalty to next year, but since I don't know for sure I'll let someone else comment on their situation.)The timing of this arbitration hearing and ruling is going to be critical. I'm guessing most, if not all, of the 7.6MM they have in cap space right now is going to be used to sign their draft picks and rookie FA's. Hopefully, this all gets resolved by the end of May, so the Skins can go after the FA's who are cut at the beginning of June. They can also sign a guy like Fred Davis to a long term deal pushing some of that $$$ to this year. And if they have extra cap space that they don't have any use for they can always restructure contracts to take a bigger cap hit in 2012 I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just assume for a quick sec that the penalties are reversed by the arbitration process, the Redskins and Cowboys have already been screwed over this free agency period.....would they then get the lost cap space back next year?! I mean, what good is it to get the cap space back this year when all the great/good free agents have already been signed elsewhere?

Any team can now carry over unused cap space from one year to the next. So whether it's refunded to this year's cap or next year's cap, it would hang around on their cap until they chose to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

They can't, without being in trouble.

edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings?

I have no idea. I'm just hoping that Stephen Burbank, the guy who is the arbitrator for this case, isn't an Eagles or Giants fan.

Also, it would be nice if they actually set a date for when this hearing is going to be held. The sooner the better.

http://pwblogger.com/articles/15993/news

One of Burbank’s first cases was the 2004 Terrell Owens situation that ultimately led to Owens—who was actually traded by the 49ers to Baltimore—becoming an Eagle. Burbank never had to render a decision because the two sides reached a settlement on the eve of Burbank’s ruling.

“It’s great they settled,” Burbank remembers a friend telling him. “If I would’ve decided in favor of free agency, some people would’ve thought I did so because I’m in Philadelphia. If I decided against free agency, I wouldn’t be able to live in Philadelphia.”

A Westchester County, N.Y., native who’s been at Penn since 1975, Burbank says he had his decision prepared, but he’s never revealed his opinion to anyone—not even his wife.

The Harvard-trained lawyer doesn’t even particularly like football.

“Having somebody who’s not a passionate fan probably helps,” Burbank says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can also sign a guy like Fred Davis to a long term deal pushing some of that $$$ to this year. And if they have extra cap space that they don't have any use for they can always restructure contracts to take a bigger cap hit in 2012 I would think.

Isn't that very thing that got these teams into trouble in the first place?! Wouldn't it be great if they were to sign Davis lets say to a deal with $15M cap hit in year one and then $2M per year thereafter (just spitballing numbers, but you get the idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can also sign a guy like Fred Davis to a long term deal pushing some of that $$$ to this year. And if they have extra cap space that they don't have any use for they can always restructure contracts to take a bigger cap hit in 2012 I would think.

Isn't that very thing that got these teams into trouble in the first place?! Wouldn't it be great if they were to sign Davis lets say to a deal with $15M cap hit in year one and then $2M per year thereafter (just spitballing numbers, but you get the idea).umm...no :confused:

nobody on either side is saying you can't use your cap space this year to front-load a contract. That's never been an issue. It's about whether or not you could do that in an uncapped season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can also sign a guy like Fred Davis to a long term deal pushing some of that $$$ to this year. And if they have extra cap space that they don't have any use for they can always restructure contracts to take a bigger cap hit in 2012 I would think.

Isn't that very thing that got these teams into trouble in the first place?! Wouldn't it be great if they were to sign Davis lets say to a deal with $15M cap hit in year one and then $2M per year thereafter (just spitballing numbers, but you get the idea).
umm...no :confused:

nobody on either side is saying you can't use your cap space this year to front-load a contract. That's never been an issue. It's about whether or not you could do that in an uncapped season.

Again, if that was the issue, why not penalize Green Bay or Chicago who did that very thing in an UNCAPPED season. The penalties imposed, as far as I understand were for setting up contracts in a way in which circumvents future cap hits, which front-loaded contracts are all about. I'm just saying it would be ironic if the Redskins or Cowboys do that very same thing again if/when they are awarded this cap space back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation is getting worse and worse. I really wish the NFL would simply come out in plain english and explain the situation, the penalties and how they were calculated, and why/what/how they were even punishable offenses in the first place.

They can't, without being in trouble.

edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings?

I have no idea. I'm just hoping that Stephen Burbank, the guy who is the arbitrator for this case, isn't an Eagles or Giants fan.

Also, it would be nice if they actually set a date for when this hearing is going to be held. The sooner the better.

http://pwblogger.com/articles/15993/news

One of Burbank’s first cases was the 2004 Terrell Owens situation that ultimately led to Owens—who was actually traded by the 49ers to Baltimore—becoming an Eagle. Burbank never had to render a decision because the two sides reached a settlement on the eve of Burbank’s ruling.

“It’s great they settled,” Burbank remembers a friend telling him. “If I would’ve decided in favor of free agency, some people would’ve thought I did so because I’m in Philadelphia. If I decided against free agency, I wouldn’t be able to live in Philadelphia.”

A Westchester County, N.Y., native who’s been at Penn since 1975, Burbank says he had his decision prepared, but he’s never revealed his opinion to anyone—not even his wife.

The Harvard-trained lawyer doesn’t even particularly like football.

“Having somebody who’s not a passionate fan probably helps,” Burbank says.

This is good to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of you have asked in recent days for an update on the status of the grievance filed by the Redskins and Cowboys after the removal of $46 million in total cap space from the two teams by the NFL. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, a hearing will be held in May. The grievance will be handled by Special Master Stephen Burbank, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per PFT, first hearing is scheduled for tomorrow:

Cowboys-Redskins hearing tomorrowPosted by Mike Florio on May 9, 2012, 3:29 PM EDT It was reported last month that a hearing will be held on May 10 in the case of the $46 million in cap space stripped from the Redskins and Cowboys for taking the term “uncapped year” too literally in 2010. Since tomorrow is May 10, it’s worth reminding everyone that the hearing is coming. Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports that the hearing will proceed without witnesses or evidence, focusing instead on jurisdictional issues, such as whether the Cowboys and Redskins have any rights at all, given that the NFLPA agreed to the removal of the cap space. It seems, then, that the hearing will focus on the motion to dismiss that the NFL filed in response to the grievance, which contends that the NFLPA’s agreement to the cap penalties prevents the teams from attacking it. As a result, it undoubtedly means that a second hearing will be held if/when Special Master Stephen Burbank allows the grievance to proceed. Which means that this issue won’t be resolved any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger and his public defender seemed to know more then the people here. I know, I know...it's odd isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger and his public defender seemed to know what more then the people here. I know, I know...it's odd isnt it?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What was done was completely absurd and unfair. Any sane, rational person knows that. Here is a good read for those that just don't get it. Are there any thoughtful articles by members of the media defending this nonsense? I haven't seen one. And like I posted before, there's tons of criticism in the media. It's as one-sided a sports "debate" as you'll ever find.

But there's a huge difference between what is fair and right and what is redressable through the NFL's grievance process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger and his public defender seemed to know what more then the people here. I know, I know...it's odd isnt it?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What was done was completely absurd and unfair. Any sane, rational person knows that. Here is a good read for those that just don't get it. Are there any thoughtful articles by members of the media defending this nonsense? I haven't seen one. And like I posted before, there's tons of criticism in the media. It's as one-sided a sports "debate" as you'll ever find.

But there's a huge difference between what is fair and right and what is redressable through the NFL's grievance process.

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger and his public defender seemed to know what more then the people here. I know, I know...it's odd isnt it?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What was done was completely absurd and unfair. Any sane, rational person knows that. Here is a good read for those that just don't get it. Are there any thoughtful articles by members of the media defending this nonsense? I haven't seen one. And like I posted before, there's tons of criticism in the media. It's as one-sided a sports "debate" as you'll ever find.

But there's a huge difference between what is fair and right and what is redressable through the NFL's grievance process.

Life isn't fair. Get over it.Your beloved Eagles SB trophy case is living proof of that advice isn't it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger and his public defender seemed to know what more then the people here. I know, I know...it's odd isnt it?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What was done was completely absurd and unfair. Any sane, rational person knows that. Here is a good read for those that just don't get it. Are there any thoughtful articles by members of the media defending this nonsense? I haven't seen one. And like I posted before, there's tons of criticism in the media. It's as one-sided a sports "debate" as you'll ever find.

But there's a huge difference between what is fair and right and what is redressable through the NFL's grievance process.

Life isn't fair. Get over it.Insightful post. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lesson here is Goodell is no idiot. He knows what he is doing and doesn't do things on a whim. Jonathon Vilma should take note of that.

A lot of folks in here were 100$ sure this would never stand. The skins and cowboys would go to court and sue the league and win.

The league ain't run by a bunch of clowns, you may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean your side is going to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lesson here is Goodell is no idiot. He knows what he is doing and doesn't do things on a whim. Jonathon Vilma should take note of that.

A lot of folks in here were 100$ sure this would never stand. The skins and cowboys would go to court and sue the league and win.

The league ain't run by a bunch of clowns, you may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean your side is going to win.

The bigger lesson is that people here aren't the lawyers, scouts, accountants etc that they think they are.

Everyone wants to be right and as you said, you may disagree but just try to grasp the fact that Goodell and his lawyers know more then you. A LOT more then you, when it comes to running a league and picking their battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that's been decided so far is that the two teams can't challenge the ruling under the CBA.

It's possible that they can still sue, but that might open up Pandora's box for everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lesson here is Goodell is no idiot. He knows what he is doing and doesn't do things on a whim. Jonathon Vilma should take note of that.

A lot of folks in here were 100$ sure this would never stand. The skins and cowboys would go to court and sue the league and win.

The league ain't run by a bunch of clowns, you may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean your side is going to win.

The bigger lesson is that people here aren't the lawyers, scouts, accountants etc that they think they are.

Everyone wants to be right and as you said, you may disagree but just try to grasp the fact that Goodell and his lawyers know more then you. A LOT more then you, when it comes to running a league and picking their battles.

Did anyone predict that the Cowboys and Redskins would succeed in arbitration? I know I didn't.

What most posters here and every national media analyst I've seen had said before, and continue to say now, is that this is fundamentally unfair and is an obvious case of collusion. Winning a ruling in arbitration that is bound by the terms of the CBA doesn't change the fact that this behavior by the league, both the wink-and-a-nod cap during the "uncapped year" and the penalty for not abiding by that non-agreement, is complete :bs: We don't have any real explanation from the league as to why the Redskins and Cowboys were penalized but others weren't- see the Peppers deal with the Bears, or the Bucs coming in way under the floor to save cash and future cap space for a 2012 spending spree. We don't have any explanation of the formula that was used. We don't even have a citation as to what rule was violated that warranted punishment.

The NFLPA is throwing its hat into the ring, so this isn't over for the league. I don't know their chances of success- my guess is they're pretty low since there's no way the league would have done something so obviously collusive without protecting themselves fully in the CBA before dishing out the penalties. But anything that keeps the door open and the issue alive is great. Goodell and the NFL should be getting killed over this, among other things that they're screwing up. Guy is the worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.