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

[ConnSKINS26]

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.

Huh? Seems like plenty of non-Skins/Cowboys fans are calling it BS.

 

[fatness]

Dan Snyder sued the Washington City Paper for talking mean about him. Rodger better get himself a good lawyer.

Suing the NFL after drafting Griffin would instantly make Snyder a DC hero instead of the goat he's been for years. I would not be surprised if he did it. BTW, since the bomb dropped the Redskins have cut Mike Sellers and O J Atogwe.

 

[dgreen]

Dan Snyder sued the Washington City Paper for talking mean about him. Rodger better get himself a good lawyer.

Suing the NFL after drafting Griffin would instantly make Snyder a DC hero instead of the goat he's been for years. I would not be surprised if he did it.

Yeah, they can build a classic "Us against the world" mentality this year. OK, so it's an "Us and Dallas against the world mentality". I really don't want to be on Dallas' side in this war.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wow, seems like a whole bunch of other stuff going on behind the scenes. If the NFLPA agreed to it, then there's no question the Cowboys and Redskins are screwed.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

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.

Could be, but it changes in 13 as 12 is the last year in which there is no cap floor.

 

[matttyl]

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.

So it all comes down to effectively capping an uncapped year, on paper, and if the other 30 owners agreed to them (aka COLLUSION)? That's what you're saying?

 

[JaxBill]

Dan Snyder sued the Washington City Paper for talking mean about him. Rodger better get himself a good lawyer.

Suing the NFL after drafting Griffin would instantly make Snyder a DC hero instead of the goat he's been for years. I would not be surprised if he did it. BTW, since the bomb dropped the Redskins have cut Mike Sellers and O J Atogwe.

Hours after the NFL took $36 million in salary cap space away from the Redskins, the team announced a couple of moves that will add up to getting one-eighth of that space back.Safety Oshiomogho Atogwe and fullback Mike Sellers have both been released. Atogwe was due a base salary of $3.4 million this season while Sellers was due $1.05 million.Atogwe was a good player for six years in St. Louis but didn’t quite fit in the Redskins’ defense in his first season in Washington, in 2011. He opened the season as a starter but became a backup late in the year.The 36-year-old Sellers has spent 11 seasons with the Redskins in two different stints, in addition to having spent time with the Browns and with the Canadian Football League. This move could signal the end of his career.

 

[flapgreen]

Wow! The Redskins can't do ANYTHING right.

 

[cstu]

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.

Then don't let the collective bargaining agreement expire!

 

[fatness]

Wow, seems like a whole bunch of other stuff going on behind the scenes. If the NFLPA agreed to it, then there's no question the Cowboys and Redskins are screwed.

I think the NFLPA would have had to agree with it. The uncapped year was covered by the previous CBA, wasn't it?

 

[Dexter Manley]

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.

So essentially the other 30 cheap ### owners cried and whined about things being unfair when anyone of them could of done the same thing. I can not believe they are going to let this fly, especially since countless teams spent well under the salary floor of what they normally would of in a capped year. Those teams (i.e. Tampa Bay, etc.) got the advantage of making a bunch more $$$$ in 2010 than they would in a normal season.What a crock of ####.Of course the nfl isn't calling them "violations" as that would be blatant collusion.

 

[flapgreen]

 

[matttyl]

Of course the nfl isn't calling them "violations" as that would be blatant collusion.

EXACTLY! So if they aren't "violations", what are they?

 

[dgreen]

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.

So essentially the other 30 cheap ### owners cried and whined about things being unfair when anyone of them could of done the same thing. I can not believe they are going to let this fly, especially since countless teams spent well under the salary floor of what they normally would of in a capped year. Those teams (i.e. Tampa Bay, etc.) got the advantage of making a bunch more $$$$ in 2010 than they would in a normal season.What a crock of ####.Of course the nfl isn't calling them "violations" as that would be blatant collusion.

These aren't violations either. They are...um...uh...well, I'm not sure what it is.

 

[RUSF18]

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.

Yeah it seems like there is some mixing up here between real dollars and cap dollars. 2010 was an uncapped year meaning the teams could spend what they wanted. But what these teams seemed to do was manipulate current contracts to move the cap hit to 2010 primarily. The real dollars paid to the players over time didn't change at all. Could be wrong of course, just my read on it. Obviously it's early, I suggest everyone calm down a bit before grabbing your pitchfork.

 

[rizzler]

It's s*it like this that makes the NFL such a vile league.

This reaks of complete disregard for both these organizations and their financial/personnel futures

Hate both these teams with a passion, but this is beyond disgusting.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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

Because they've got the money to do it.There was no actual rule against it, as I understand it. They just got a vague warning, with no specifics or details. But now 30 owners have decided to collude and punish them for violation of a non-rule. I'd be surprised if Snyder and Jones don't sue the NFL over this.

 

[GregR]

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.

Let's say for easy to follow illustrative purposes that the cap is constant at $100m each year. Let's say I'm going to give Austin a 3 year, $30m contract. A $21 signing bonus and then $3m salaries each year.If I structure it as stated, then Austin has cap hits of $10m in 2010-2012. I could spend $300m over those three years and would have $90m to spend on the rest of my roster each year.Now make 2010 uncapped. I change the signing bonus into 2010 salary. Austin's cap hits now become $24m in 2010, and his $3m salary in each of 2011 and 2012. If I spend the same $90m on the rest of my 2010 roster, I have now spent $114m in 2010. I now have $97m in cap room in both 2011 and 2012.So Austin made the exact same $30m. The rest of the Cowboys made the exact same $90m in 2010. But doing the contract this way gave me $7m extra cap room to use in both 2011 and 2012. Assuming I spend that cap room, that's $14m extra money the players make.So if the NFL restricted teams from doing what the Cowboys and Skins did, the effect was keeping down salaries. Money that teams pushed to hit the cap in 2010 would have opened up new cap room, allowing that amount to be paid "again" to someone else.

 

[Dexter Manley]

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

Because they've got the money to do it.There was no actual rule against it, as I understand it. They just got a vague warning, with no specifics or details. But now 30 owners have decided to collude and punish them for violation of a non-rule. I'd be surprised if Snyder and Jones don't sue the NFL over this.

They better sue the league. Any lawyers here have any idea how that would likely go down?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Wasnt Shanny taxed with Denver too for similar offenses?

 

[Dexter Manley]

Also, this seals my opinion on D. Smith. The guy is in way over his head. WTF is he thinking signing off on this? He's going to cost his players millions in salaries this season, as all of these teams that get this extra cap space aren't going to use it, while Dallas and Washington almost assuredly would of. What an idiot.

 

[Deamon]

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

Because they've got the money to do it.There was no actual rule against it, as I understand it. They just got a vague warning, with no specifics or details. But now 30 owners have decided to collude and punish them for violation of a non-rule. I'd be surprised if Snyder and Jones don't sue the NFL over this.

They better sue the league. Any lawyers here have any idea how that would likely go down?

I doubt there are lawyers in here who are familiar with every single aspect, clause in the CBA, and are aware of all possible talks, warnings (whether verbal or on paper), and any other factors that come into play. As fans, even the many good knowledgable ones in here, I'm sure we only know less then half of the details in this. I'm assuming Goodell will have a statement coming out soon.

 

[GregR]

Wasnt Shanny taxed with Denver too for similar offenses?

They lost a draft pick because they deferred payments, with interest, and had agreements with a player or players not to waive them before specific dates. Which violated the cap.

 

[Dexter Manley]

After thinking about this some more, the Redskins and Cowboys are essentially being punished because they chose not to collude with the other 30 teams (or 28 if we exclude the Raiders and Saints). Outrageous.

And why aren't the Raiders getting extra cap space? Because they cut Jamarcus Russell, who was a colossal bust? That doesn't make any sense either.

 

[gump]

Albert Haynesworth strikes again.

 

[GregR]

Here is an Andrew Brandt article written at the time that discussed the Cowboys and Redskins moves, and praised them actually for being prudent. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Friday-new-and-note-4038.htmlHe also gives the details on the Redskins moves.

There is a technical rule of Cap management that if a team inserts a player voidable clause – allowing the player to end his contract early – then a signing bonus following the voidable clause will not prorate through the remainder of the contract. In other words, the Cap charge of the signing bonus will be contained in the year it is earned.Albert Haynesworth – everyone’s favorite punching bag this year -- had a $21 million bonus this year that was restructured in the manner described above to have the entire amount count in 2010 with no accounting in future years. DeAngelo Hall had a $15 million bonus restructured in the same manner. Both players had voidable clauses in their sole control, allowing them to cut short their contracts assuming they repaid their bonuses (which, of course, they would never do as that money has already been spent).Thus, for Cap accounting, both amounts count solely in 2010 and are not prorated if and when the Cap returns in 2011 or beyond. That is $36 million of money hitting 2010, the year without a Cap, and no remaining Cap hits on that money in future years. And, perhaps best of all, the Redskins can now dump Haynesworth without Cap consequence next season, a move I fully expect them to make.

 

[RUSF18]

Someone get Dexter a valium.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Also, this seals my opinion on D. Smith. The guy is in way over his head. WTF is he thinking signing off on this? He's going to cost his players millions in salaries this season, as all of these teams that get this extra cap space aren't going to use it, while Dallas and Washington almost assuredly would of. What an idiot.

I don't see how anyone can say this without knowing what the players got in return. From what I understand, the players were in trouble regarding some benefit payments and other non-salary atuff whose price was increasing much more than predicted. It was possibly causing a bug drop in the cap. Perhaps the NFL picked up a bunch of this in exchange for this agreement and kept the cap fairly neutral.

 

[GregR]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.

PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

 

[GregR]

Also, this seals my opinion on D. Smith. The guy is in way over his head. WTF is he thinking signing off on this? He's going to cost his players millions in salaries this season, as all of these teams that get this extra cap space aren't going to use it, while Dallas and Washington almost assuredly would of. What an idiot.

I don't see how anyone can say this without knowing what the players got in return. From what I understand, the players were in trouble regarding some benefit payments and other non-salary atuff whose price was increasing much more than predicted. It was possibly causing a bug drop in the cap. Perhaps the NFL picked up a bunch of this in exchange for this agreement and kept the cap fairly neutral.

That could make sense. I was thinking the gain just from this issue, about $50m, maybe shouldn't be enough for the players to not press the issue. But if the league also agreed to keeping the cap constant as part of it and eat the cost of those benefits, the gain from that is probably a lot larger. Enough maybe a lawsuit wouldn't be worth the trouble?

 

[netnalp]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.

 

[matttyl]

Here is an Andrew Brandt article written at the time that discussed the Cowboys and Redskins moves, and praised them actually for being prudent. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Friday-new-and-note-4038.html

Here is the final line of that article...Kudos to two teams protecting their Cap future that have not previously operated with such forethought. The uncapped year, of all things, has spurred the Cowboys and Redskins to operate more prudently in their Cap management.So if Andrew Brandt, with his knowledge of all things financial in the NFL thinks these moves were "prudent" and made to "protect their cap future", was totally wrong....then the entire situation is just ####.

 

[dgreen]

Here is an Andrew Brandt article written at the time that discussed the Cowboys and Redskins moves, and praised them actually for being prudent. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Friday-new-and-note-4038.html

Here is the final line of that article...Kudos to two teams protecting their Cap future that have not previously operated with such forethought. The uncapped year, of all things, has spurred the Cowboys and Redskins to operate more prudently in their Cap management.So if Andrew Brandt, with his knowledge of all things financial in the NFL thinks these moves were "prudent" and made to "protect their cap future", was totally wrong....then the entire situation is just ####.

He wasn't in the owner's meetings.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.

THAT is collusion. Agreeing as a group to keep spending down in an uncapped year. That's the definition of collusion.

 

[The Comedian]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

 

[matttyl]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.

Which was the legal thing to do. The other 30 teams committed COLLUSION, which I've been saying all along. Your choice of the words "agreed upon by the owners" proves that what it was!The NFL approved the reworked deals of Haynesworth and Hall, but now two years later they can come back with this?!

 

[The Comedian]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.

THAT is collusion. Agreeing as a group to keep spending down in an uncapped year. That's the definition of collusion.

There's absolutely not evidence of a group agreement. The NFL said don't do X, 30 of the 32 owners listened, 2 did not. That's it. This isn't about spending or not spending, it's about using the uncapped year to get out of some horrific contracts to avoid the penalties, which the NFL expressly forbid, apparently.

 

[dgreen]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

 

[matttyl]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Your choice of words "all of the other rules" means that what they were being "told" to do was itself a "rule". The NFL didn't have the authority to enforce that rule (likely why it was apparently never on paper and only verbal), which is why they allowed the Haynesworth and Hall deals to go through.

 

[dgreen]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

So I assume there are meeting minutes with these warnings?

 

[Bankerguy]

I will reserve judgement until I hear a response from the Cowboys. 5 million this year will hurt, but not to the point of hamstringing us.

 

[matttyl]

There's absolutely not evidence of a group agreement. The NFL said don't do X, 30 of the 32 owners listened, 2 did not. That's it. This isn't about spending or not spending, it's about using the uncapped year to get out of some horrific contracts to avoid the penalties, which the NFL expressly forbid, apparently.

Yes it is, you said yourself two posts ago - "30 out of 32 teams obeyed". Sounds like "agreement" to me.

 

[GregR]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

What Darrell said. The talk of collusion is the owners colluding against the players. I think I've got another reason why the players aren't pursuing a suit, but let me think through it a moment to make sure.

 

[matttyl]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

This is what totally gets me as well. Why would the NFLPA agree to penalize the two owners who traditionally spend the most money?!Answer - by bribing them and spreading the "penalty" across 28 other teams. The NFLPA is going to get that money back in one year what the Skins and Boys are "out" over the next two.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think we need a "Is this collusion? 32 team league" thread.

 

[The Comedian]

There's absolutely not evidence of a group agreement. The NFL said don't do X, 30 of the 32 owners listened, 2 did not. That's it. This isn't about spending or not spending, it's about using the uncapped year to get out of some horrific contracts to avoid the penalties, which the NFL expressly forbid, apparently.

Yes it is, you said yourself two posts ago - "30 out of 32 teams obeyed". Sounds like "agreement" to me.

It was an order from the NFL. Pretty sure owners obey them all the time, you know, because they have to. Is it collusion that all the owners agree that 2nd round picks come after 1st round picks?

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

They signed off on this after it happened?

 

[The Comedian]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

What Darrell said. The talk of collusion is the owners colluding against the players.

Oh, sorry, I was going off mattyl who is claiming collusion amongst the owners. As I thought he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[dgreen]

I don't understand the collusion claims at all. The NFL told all the teams not to do something, and 30 out of 32 teams obeyed. That's not collusion anymore than it is when they follow all of the other rules. It'd be a little more wary if it were some other teams, but Jones and Snyder...well...lol.

Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.

They signed off on this after it happened?

It sounds like the NFL and NFLPA came to an agreement on what the punishment would be on Saturday.

 

[netnalp]

Brandt is saying the warnings were verbal, not written.PFT has a source that says teams were warned “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.

Which was the legal thing to do. The other 30 teams committed COLLUSION, which I've been saying all along. Your choice of the words "agreed upon by the owners" proves that what it was!The NFL approved the reworked deals of Haynesworth and Hall, but now two years later they can come back with this?!

You call it collusion. I call it an agreement. Collusion would be if 30 teams met secretly and agreed, not telling Snyder and Jones. That didn't happen. Looks more like 32 teams agreed and 2 teams decided later to break the agreement.