Cowboys and Redskins to lose cap space? (2 Viewers)

[matttyl]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

 

[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.

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.

There has to be more to it than that for it to be worth it to the players though.If there is no punishment, the players make $46m more over 2010 through 2012 than if the Skins and Cowboys had done as the other clubs did. With the punishment... the players make the same $46m more. The only difference in the punishment is which clubs can use that money to make their team better. So there is no gain for the players in the punishment itself.So something else had to sweeten the pot. I think it's what Grove was saying. The salary cap was expected to be less than $120m because benefits from last year cost a lot more... so this year's cap was going to be reduced by the amount of that overrun. Since the amount announced remained the same, someone else is paying for that. Probably the NFL agreed to foot that bill in exchange for the players not making a collusion/anti-trust stink.Again, just speculation at this point.

 

[matttyl]

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.

Doesn't matter if they were told or weren't. Collusion IS the agreement, no matter who agrees and who was part of the process. The "agreement" itself as you call it was against the law, if that's the argument you want to take.

 

[Bankerguy]

The ONLY contract that we frontloaded in 2010 was Miles Austin's, and his contract still complied with the 50% down rule (his 2010 "cap" number was $17,078,000, and his 2011 cap number was $8,540,000). A few other cap numbers were barely higher in 2010 than in 2011.

Meanwhile, several other teams frontloaded contracts and will not be penalized at all.

The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure. The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011. Apparently, it was perfectly OK for them to dump money into the uncapped year.

 

[Snotbubbles]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

 

[matttyl]

If there is no punishment, the players make $46m more over 2010 through 2012 than if the Skins and Cowboys had done as the other clubs did. With the punishment... the players make the same $46m more. The only difference in the punishment is which clubs can use that money to make their team better. So there is no gain for the players in the punishment itself.

This is a bit of a stretch, but the $46M given to the 28 teams (the players) is ALL given in 2012. The $46M taken away from the Cowboys and Redskins is spread, or at least can be, over 2012 and 2013. So if both the Redskins and Cowboys both choose to take 100% of the hit in 2013, then that's no longer a 2012 "wash" as you're describing, it's a $46M gain in 2012 for the players.Then the Skins and Boys can both take their hits in 2013 when I believe there is no salary floor and the cap is suppose to go up quite a bit, so depending on what other teams do the Cowboys can still be one of the biggest 2013 spenders even with the hit.

 

[netnalp]

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.

Doesn't matter if they were told or weren't. Collusion IS the agreement, no matter who agrees and who was part of the process. The "agreement" itself as you call it was against the law, if that's the argument you want to take.

It can't be collusion if Snyder and Jones agreed to it. Collusion is the intent of one or more groups to defraud another group or groups. When all 32 teams are involved and agree, then there hasn't been a team that wasn't included, that is being taken advantage of.The Cowboys and Redskins were underhanded when they broke the terms that they agreed to. So they are being fairly punished.

 

[matttyl]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".

 

[matttyl]

It can't be collusion if Snyder and Jones agreed to it. Collusion is the intent of one or more groups to defraud another group or groups. When all 32 teams are involved and agree, then there hasn't been a team that wasn't included, that is being taken advantage of.

The Cowboys and Redskins were underhanded when they broke the terms that they agreed to. So they are being fairly punished.

They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law.

 

[netnalp]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".

No law forbids the agreeing to spend less.

 

[netnalp]

It can't be collusion if Snyder and Jones agreed to it. Collusion is the intent of one or more groups to defraud another group or groups. When all 32 teams are involved and agree, then there hasn't been a team that wasn't included, that is being taken advantage of.

The Cowboys and Redskins were underhanded when they broke the terms that they agreed to. So they are being fairly punished.

They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law.

What law? show it.By your thinking the NFL and NCAA had no right to refuse entry to Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams.

 

[Snotbubbles]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".

What did they comply to?What prices did they set?What is forbidden by law?Do you even know what went on here?

 

[fatness]

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

edit to add linkThe restructured contracts were approved by the NFL.

If the NFL wants to get together with the NFLPA later and say "we'll lower the salary cap this year unless you support us on this" to keep the NFLPA from suing them, fine and dandy. Now the NFLPA won't sue them, and the cap is raised a tad.

But the NFL previously approved those restructured contracts that they're now penalizing the Cowboys and Redskins for.

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

 

[GroveDiesel]

For those of you that can't seem to grasp this, the collusion is amongst the owners against the players in enforcing a pseudo salary cap when it was an uncapped year.

By limiting their spending in any way, that put a type of cap on which should be a violation of the then existing CBA. By telling teams that they couldn't load up salary in 2010, the NFL essentially reduced the amount teams would then spend in 2010 and into the future. Greg is doing a pretty good job explaining this.

I'm not sure that Greg actually goes far enough though in the numbers he uses. The $46 million really should have just been a starting point. How much money all the other teams might have spent, but didn't because of this agreement, will never be known. Perhaps other teams would have been doing the same thing absent this agreement and we could be talking about $100M or more in money that was lost to the players.

So yeah, there ABSOLUTELY was collusion here. The only reason the NFL is able to punish these teams and enforce their illegal collusion is because the union got itself into a position where they apparently felt forced not to proceed with legal action because of other monetary considerations.

 

[GregR]

Edited: nevermind, Grove said it better next post.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".

No law forbids the agreeing to spend less.

Yeah, it does. The only reason the NFL doesn't get sued out of existence because of the salary cap is because federal law provides an exemption for them as long as they have a deal in place with a players' union. Otherwise they run afoul of anti-trust laws. That agreement they have with the union is the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In the previous CBA, it provided for an uncapped year in the final year of the deal if no new deal was struck before then. If the NFL owners then colluded to keep salaries low by imposing a sort of cap in 2010 when teams should have been allowed to spend as much as they wanted in any manner they wanted, then it broke the CBA with the union and thus ran them afoul of federal anti-trust provisions.

 

[GregR]

For those of you that can't seem to grasp this, the collusion is amongst the owners against the players in enforcing a pseudo salary cap when it was an uncapped year. By limiting their spending in any way, that put a type of cap on which should be a violation of the then existing CBA. By telling teams that they couldn't load up salary in 2010, the NFL essentially reduced the amount teams would then spend in 2010 and into the future. Greg is doing a pretty good job explaining this.I'm not sure that Greg actually goes far enough though in the numbers he uses. The $46 million really should have just been a starting point. How much money all the other teams might have spent, but didn't because of this agreement, will never be known. Perhaps other teams would have been doing the same thing absent this agreement and we could be talking about $100M or more in money that was lost to the players.So yeah, there ABSOLUTELY was collusion here. The only reason the NFL is able to punish these teams and enforce their illegal collusion is because the union got itself into a position where they apparently felt forced not to proceed with legal action because of other monetary considerations.

Good point on the $46m and yes, let's clarify. I'm saying the moving the $46m of cap room from the 2 teams to 28 other teams is a wash for the players. As Grove says, there is still the question of how much more cap room would have been freed had every club acted freely as they wished in the uncapped year. That's basically the amount that we could call the damages the players might be able to recover in court. And why I agreed with Grove there has to be something more that the players get out of it if they are not going to pursue that "damage" amount in court. And the issue with the overcharge in benefits is possibly it.

 

[netnalp]

It can't be collusion if Snyder and Jones agreed to it. Collusion is the intent of one or more groups to defraud another group or groups. When all 32 teams are involved and agree, then there hasn't been a team that wasn't included, that is being taken advantage of.

The Cowboys and Redskins were underhanded when they broke the terms that they agreed to. So they are being fairly punished.

They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law.

What law? show it.

It isn't a law, it's a contract. The owners agreed in the CBA not to collude against the players and keep salaries down in an uncapped year.

I'd think they'd need to agree to limit spending so teams wouldn't spend huge amounts and screw their teams horribly when the cap returned.

 

[krsone21]

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.

Technically 4 teams. Raiders & Saints as well but they were lesser infractions so the didn't lose any Cap money or gain any either when the money was split up between the rest of the teams

 

[GregR]

Here is the section of the 2006-2012 CBA that says clubs can't do what was done. It doesn't matter if they want to limit spending, they agreed to a contract that they would adhere to 2010 being an uncapped year if the opt-out clause was invoked. Which the owners themselves had done.

ARTICLE XXVII ANTI-COLLUSION

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(a) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

(b) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;

© whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

(d) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or

(e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

The owners entered into an implied agreement with the NFL and each other to not write specific terms into player contracts. In this case, terms that would bring future cap charges into the current uncapped year.

 

[menobrown]

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.

\When this story broke a few hours ago I was listening to sports radio in Dallas and they indicated they were told the Cowboys and Skins violated the "spirit" of the agreement. Anytime you hear the word "spirit" getting tossed around it means there is nothing written and here is were I get confused.Most, if not all, teams hire a salary cap expert. A primary function of this job for many of these people is to work within the rules to find loopholes which makes this whole "spirit" of the agreement thing so confusing to me. Since the advent of the salary cap teams have been finding ways to bastardize the agreement which is what led us to large signing bonuses.I mean think about this in the sense of general day to day life or business. You are presented a set of rules, you find a way to gain benefit by working around the rule but without ever actually breaking a rule and than get punished like you broke a rule.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I have no vested interest in this, but it sounds like BS based on the details revealed so far.

 

[matttyl]

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?

Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the wordirect quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.

Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".

No law forbids the agreeing to spend less.

Is this a joke?! Yes there is, it's called "wage fixing", and if you don't think it exists why don't you ask the Houston based offshore drilling companies that paid $75M in damages for doing it.

 

[matttyl]

It can't be collusion if Snyder and Jones agreed to it. Collusion is the intent of one or more groups to defraud another group or groups. When all 32 teams are involved and agree, then there hasn't been a team that wasn't included, that is being taken advantage of.

The Cowboys and Redskins were underhanded when they broke the terms that they agreed to. So they are being fairly punished.

They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law.

What law? show it.By your thinking the NFL and NCAA had no right to refuse entry to Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams.

The law is wage fixing, look it up. And yes, they had no legal right to refuse them.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Excellent!

That's 1.6 million more for the Steelers to handle a front loaded Wallace RFA offering with.

 

[The Comedian]

1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.

 

[matttyl]

1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.

I can link you as a source when you said "The NFL said don't do X" a few posts back.When they said "don't do X", they are setting salaries - aka wage fixing. In so doing quite obviously "limited open competition", again, the NFL said don't do X according to you. Also in so doing they obtained an objective (wage fixing, saving $) which is in fact forbidden by law.Again, from the (limited) information we have right now, this is very cut and dry. The NFL had some "secret handshake" to enforce a pseudo salary cap that didn't exist. 30/28 teams agreed (colluded) to comply.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.

I can link you as a source when you said "The NFL said don't do X" a few posts back.When they said "don't do X", they are setting salaries - aka wage fixing. In so doing quite obviously "limited open competition", again, the NFL said don't do X according to you. Also in so doing they obtained an objective (wage fixing, saving $) which is in fact forbidden by law.Again, from the (limited) information we have right now, this is very cut and dry. The NFL had some "secret handshake" to enforce a pseudo salary cap that didn't exist. 30/28 teams agreed (colluded) to comply.

They didnt wage fix. The Redskins and Cowboys paid those people via an open cap. Allowed.But they did say that the OPEN season would have an impact on the season covered by the CBA. Which it has. Also allowed.And their salary cap is a LEGAL wage fix, and it is now being implemented in THIS year.

 

[The Comedian]

1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.

I can link you as a source when you said "The NFL said don't do X" a few posts back.When they said "don't do X", they are setting salaries - aka wage fixing. In so doing quite obviously "limited open competition", again, the NFL said don't do X according to you. Also in so doing they obtained an objective (wage fixing, saving $) which is in fact forbidden by law.Again, from the (limited) information we have right now, this is very cut and dry. The NFL had some "secret handshake" to enforce a pseudo salary cap that didn't exist. 30/28 teams agreed (colluded) to comply.

You really are not making any sense.The NFL, apparently, told owners to not use the capless 2010 as a dumping ground for bad contracts. That in itself is not "wage fixing." It's also not a secret handshake as it seems like it was pretty much out in the open - only the two most fiscally reckless owners chose to ignore it.The NFL did not create a "psuedo salary cap." I have no idea where you're getting this from. Dallas and Washington are not being punished for spending over a fake salary cap - I think you need to read about what is actually going on here.

 

[matttyl]

They didnt wage fix. The Redskins and Cowboys paid those people via an open cap. Allowed.But they did say that the OPEN season would have an impact on the season covered by the CBA. Which it has. Also allowed.And their salary cap is a LEGAL wage fix, and it is now being implemented in THIS year.

I'm not saying the Skins or Cowboys wage fixed, what I'm saying is that everyone else did. Quote from Washington Times - "According to the source, owners were displeased by how the Redskins and Dallas Cowboys restructured contracts to dump salary into the uncapped 2010 season."Meaning, they didn't comply with our "agreement" to fix wages, so we're going to punish them.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Here is the section of the 2006-2012 CBA that says clubs can't do what was done. It doesn't matter if they want to limit spending, they agreed to a contract that they would adhere to 2010 being an uncapped year if the opt-out clause was invoked. Which the owners themselves had done.

ARTICLE XXVII ANTI-COLLUSION

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(a) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

(b) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;

© whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

(d) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or

(e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

The owners entered into an implied agreement with the NFL and each other to not write specific terms into player contracts. In this case, terms that would bring future cap charges into the current uncapped year.

This wasn't good enough to end the discussion?

 

[Sylira21]

I would imagine that every contract that was done in 2010 would now come under scrutiny, as Bankerguy found these examples:

The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure. The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011. Apparently, it was perfectly OK for them to dump money into the uncapped year.

How is it not selective enforcement to not "punish" the Packers for negotiating a contract that gave someone $37 million in base salary for part of the 2010 (uncapped) season? Does that sound like a reasonable and rational number?And as has been pointed out elsewhere, the NFL approved all those contracts that they are now levying penalties against. Are we supposed to believe that the league said at the point where they approved them "All right boys, we'll approve this for now, but you'll pay for it later"? If they did NOT say that, how is this legal, or even fair?

 

[GroveDiesel]

1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)

Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.

I can link you as a source when you said "The NFL said don't do X" a few posts back.When they said "don't do X", they are setting salaries - aka wage fixing. In so doing quite obviously "limited open competition", again, the NFL said don't do X according to you. Also in so doing they obtained an objective (wage fixing, saving $) which is in fact forbidden by law.Again, from the (limited) information we have right now, this is very cut and dry. The NFL had some "secret handshake" to enforce a pseudo salary cap that didn't exist. 30/28 teams agreed (colluded) to comply.

You really are not making any sense.The NFL, apparently, told owners to not use the capless 2010 as a dumping ground for bad contracts. That in itself is not "wage fixing." It's also not a secret handshake as it seems like it was pretty much out in the open - only the two most fiscally reckless owners chose to ignore it.The NFL did not create a "psuedo salary cap." I have no idea where you're getting this from. Dallas and Washington are not being punished for spending over a fake salary cap - I think you need to read about what is actually going on here.

You're really just not getting this. The collusion has nothing to do with owner vs. owner. It's the owners as a group versus the players union. And yeah, by punishing teams for frontloading contracts, they absolutely are saying there were contract and salary cap limitations in 2010 when the CBA explicitly said the year was to be totally uncapped with no limitations on spending.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

Agreeing as a group not to cut players is going to keep spending down?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Excellent!That's 1.6 million more for the Steelers to handle a front loaded Wallace RFA offering with.

Except that all but 4 other teams will have that additional money too of course. So it's kind of just a wash.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

There goes "surrounding RG3 with talent!" LOL Too funny! Love it, love it, love it!

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

Can you unpack your last two posts a bit? You're making points that don't seem to be relevant here at all or are entirely different views than what anyone else I've seen anywhere has advanced. Thanks.

 

[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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

Elaborate how it is pro-competitive for clubs to agree to not use 2010 to deal with cap issues?

 

[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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

I'm talking collusion in a legal sense, as in having to do with $. Of course the teams are allowed to communicate in an effort to set schedules and the like.

 

[E_Smith]

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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

Collusion is by definition anti-competitive, so you are mis-defining the word. In an open market with no CBA salary cap, it is anti-competitive for teams to fix wages at a certain level. We know for a fact that they did fix them because they are now punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not complying with the agreement. you are confusing economic competition with team competition. The agreement was pro-competitive from a team vs. team standpoint (not allowing richer owners to load up in the uncapped year), but it was anti-competitive from a owner vs. players standpoint (the players were entitled to higher salaries in the uncapped year).

 

[matttyl]

In the end it sounds like at least 28 teams are pissed that they weren't smart enough to, well, not break any rules....

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They didnt wage fix. The Redskins and Cowboys paid those people via an open cap. Allowed.But they did say that the OPEN season would have an impact on the season covered by the CBA. Which it has. Also allowed.And their salary cap is a LEGAL wage fix, and it is now being implemented in THIS year.

I'm not saying the Skins or Cowboys wage fixed, what I'm saying is that everyone else did. Quote from Washington Times - "According to the source, owners were displeased by how the Redskins and Dallas Cowboys restructured contracts to dump salary into the uncapped 2010 season."Meaning, they didn't comply with our "agreement" to fix wages, so we're going to punish them.

No, they were allowed to be uncapped in 2010. Already done. But 2012 now reflects off of 2011 and 2010, as they stated ahead of time. Being done.

 

[Touchdown There]

There are two issues:

1: The wage fixing by the NFL owners against the players and;

2: The punishment for 2 teams that did not abide.

 

[cstu]

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.

It was an uncapped year, meaning the Redskins by rule could have paid players an extra $100M in 2010 and had their salaries in the future be $1. It was collusion because most of the teams secretly decided to institute salary cap without the players' consent.

 

[matttyl]

Grove, Greg, and E_Smith...thank you for elaborating far better than I on this matter. My "fandome" of the Skins is really hampering my ability to fully articulate my thoughts this evening....

 

[cstu]

They didnt wage fix. The Redskins and Cowboys paid those people via an open cap. Allowed.But they did say that the OPEN season would have an impact on the season covered by the CBA. Which it has. Also allowed.And their salary cap is a LEGAL wage fix, and it is now being implemented in THIS year.

I'm not saying the Skins or Cowboys wage fixed, what I'm saying is that everyone else did. Quote from Washington Times - "According to the source, owners were displeased by how the Redskins and Dallas Cowboys restructured contracts to dump salary into the uncapped 2010 season."Meaning, they didn't comply with our "agreement" to fix wages, so we're going to punish them.

No, they were allowed to be uncapped in 2010. Already done. But 2012 now reflects off of 2011 and 2010, as they stated ahead of time. Being done.

How can they force teams to abide by a future CBA that hasn't been signed yet? Face facts - the league conspired to institute a cap when there wasn't one agree upon. No wonder they were so willing to lock the players out.

 

[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.

It was an uncapped year, meaning the Redskins by rule could have paid players an extra $100M in 2010 and had their salaries in the future be $1. It was collusion because most of the teams secretly decided to institute salary cap without the players' consent.

1) I haven't seen any reports of the institution of a "secret salary cap." I would think that most teams knew that there would eventually be a new salary cap and would not want to get their team into a cap mess by pretending that there wouldn't be and spending an extra $100 million. Not to mention owners aren't crazy about spending an extra $100 million anyway since it costs $100 million. Do you have any proof that this was what kept prices in place or that there was actually a secret agreement?2) Irrespective of #1, I don't think this is what the Redskins and Cowboys are being punished for - they're not being punished for over-spending, they're being punished for using the uncapped year to get rid of bad contracts/account for big bonuses, penalty free. This may or may not have been okay, but seems clear the NFL said this kind of behavior would be accounted for once there was a new cap in; whether or not the NFL should have been allowed to say that is potentially an issue, but I don't see how that constitutes "collusion."

 

[cstu]

In the end it sounds like at least 28 teams are pissed that they weren't smart enough to, well, not break any rules....

The other teams conspired to create this secret cap. You think the rest of the league wanted the Redskins to become the Yankees?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.

Elaborate how it is pro-competitive for clubs to agree to not use 2010 to deal with cap issues?

The point of a salary cap (and salary floor) is to provide a level playing field. Taking to its logical extreme, if Dallas and Washington structured contracts to give them salary caps that were 50% higher than everyone else in the league, that wouldn't provide a level playing field.Washington gave Haynesworth a $21M bonus, which is one of the reasons he signed with Washington instead of everyone else. The other teams factor that sort of thing into their salary cap management, and decided that a $21M bonus (combined with his other benefits) was too cost prohibitive. The Redskins were able to cut him -- due to the uncapped year -- and not have his $21M ever count against the cap.

The uncapped year was an unfortunate outcome for the NFL and the NFLPA. It was a one-year problem that everyone recognized was going to be fixed soon. So the NFL decided to not let teams with contracts take advantage of a one-year cap-free system to screw with contracts for the next 10 years. The Cardinals, for example, could have elected to give Larry Fitzgerald a $120M contract over 8 years, with $85M coming in year 1 and $5M coming in years 2 through 7. But then the Cards would have Fitzgerald costing an absurdly low amount every year for the next seven years, in years with a salary cap. That would give ARI an unfair advantage over everyone else.

Of course, the Jets could do the same with Revis. And then the Bucs could have with Freeman. And on and on. But this sort of gaming the system wouldn't be equitable or in the best interest of anyone but the winners of such a game. So the owners and the commissioner decided that no one would dump contracts or restructure contracts in such an anti-competitive way. If the Packers had Rodgers costing them 1% of their salary cap for the next 6 years, that wouldn't be fair. The big money teams/richest owners could afford to do this by paying a ton of money upfront, which is exactly what Jones and Snyder did. But that circumvents the entire idea of having a salary cap if the big money owners get to field better teams because they have more cash.

If you think the salary cap is a good idea because it promotes competition, then this does the same thing in the same way.