Skins and (Cowgirls) To Lose Millions In Cap Space??

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

Report: Redskins will lose millions in cap space

Adam Schefter just tweeted the following:

NFL is taking away millions of dolllar of salary-cap space from Cowboys and Redskins for how they front-loaded deals during uncapped year.

Source (http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/03/report-redskins-will-lose-millions-in-cap-space.html)
:doh:

[justinskins]

That makes me a saaaaad panda.

[Emmanouel8]

That's ridiculous. If they operated in an uncapped year how is it those deals can be retroactively "capped" now? BS.

[cal_junior]

I wonder if that was something the team knew when it made the trade with St. Louis.

And most importantly: How many millions?

[justinskins]

That's ridiculous. If they operated in an uncapped year how is it those deals can be retroactively "capped" now? BS.

Apparently the justification is that the league told teams not to front-load contracts in this way, using the uncapped year as an end-run around the salary cap in future years.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/uncapped-year-could-be-coming-back-to-haunt-some-teams/

[GloryHog]

Hate hearing this. The only good part of it is that the Cowboys don't have millions of cap room to lose. They might wind up having to dump a lot of players.

[akhhorus]

If true, Hall is goner. Like by tomorrow. Same for Atogwe.

[Emmanouel8]

Apparently the justification is that the league told teams not to front-load contracts in this way, using the uncapped year as an end-run around the salary cap in future years.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/uncapped-year-could-be-coming-back-to-haunt-some-teams/

Thats still BS. You can't on one side of your mouth officially say "uncapped," then with the other side say it is unofficially. C'mon this is ridiculous.

[justinskins]

Thats still BS. You can't on one side of your mouth officially say "uncapped," then with the other side say it is unofficially. C'mon this is ridiculous.

I don't think the league ever said "This year is uncapped, do whatever you want." That was the media/public characterization of league rules.

[Keino]

I don't understand this. They didn't violate any rules and took advantage of the uncapped year. What's the problem?

[VegasSkinsFan]

We're going to lose $36M in cap space??

[DaveKShape]

Schefter is reporting we lose $36 million in space (please kill me).

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

https://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter/statuses/179283923803713536


Adam Schefter
‏

Cowboys lose $10 million in cap space, Redskins lose $36 million in space. Can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want. More at ESPN.

[akhhorus]

Bye bye Hall, Moss, Davis, Williams, Doughty, Beck.

[DaveKShape]

Our entire "free agency" plan just got destroyed.

[justinskins]

https://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter/statuses/179283923803713536

Cowboys lose $10 million in cap space, Redskins lose $36 million in space. Can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want. More at ESPN.
That is rough. Shanahan and Allen are idiots.

[CNYSkinFan]

I don't understand this. They didn't violate any rules and took advantage of the uncapped year. What's the problem?
If the league told them not to do it and they did it then well they violated League rules.

Still sounds like bs to me too.

and I wonder if this ties into the trade rumpor we are shopping players for picks

[shally]

Bye bye Hall, Moss, Davis, Williams, Doughty, Beck.

i thought we had the best capologists in the nfl ?? WTF ????!!!!!!!

[CNYSkinFan]

Schefter is reporting we lose $36 million in space (please kill me).
I was waiting for that other shoe......

[DaveKShape]

If this is true, we're totally screwed for the next few years... RG3 or not.

[justinskins]

i thought we had the best capologists in the nfl ?? WTF ????!!!!!!!

Sort of like having the best lawyers. You want the guys who come up with the most creative arguments, who will push at the boundaries of the law for their clients. Unfortunately, when you make the most creative arguments, sometimes you lose.

[akhhorus]

If this is true, we're totally screwed for the next few years... RG3 or not.

Split it up 50/50, get rid of Hall, Moss and Cheech Williams and you're back around 36-40 million in space. I don't think any of those 3 are in Shanny's long term plans anyways.

[redskin_rich]

If this is true, we're totally screwed for the next few years... RG3 or not.
Meh, most of our free agent moves have been far from stellar, as a matter of fact, I would say they have been bad and have hurt us. Now they have to go with the youth movement and be very selective with free agency.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

Split it up 50/50, get rid of Hall, Moss and Cheech Williams and you're back around 36-40 million in space. I don't think any of those 3 are in Shanny's long term plans anyways.
And it can be split anyway they want to though, so it could even be more. But this is an amazingly terrible development..

[akhhorus]

And it can be split anyway they want to though, so it could even be more. But this is an amazingly terrible development..

I'd do it 18 million in 2012/18 in 2013. Cutting/trading Hall recoups a third of that back all by itself.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

I'd do it 18 million in 2012/18 in 2013. Cutting/trading Hall recoups a third of that back all by itself.
That just means we'd need to sign/draft two corners instead of one. We need to look at next year's possible free agents too. Which crop looks better?

[RedskinsDave]

So what did we have, maybe three days of having fun being Redskins fans? Back to normal everyone. Good thing I didn't change my avatar.

[cal_junior]

If we were aware this was coming I'm less enthusiastic about the RGIII trade.

If we weren't aware this was coming I'm curious about the NFL letting such a huge deal go through when it was just three days away from yanking $36 million in cap space from the team that was trading away draft picks.

[akhhorus]

That just means we'd need to sign/draft two corners instead of one. We need to look at next year's possible free agents too. Which crop looks better?

There's plenty of Vet Cbs in this free agent crop who'll be decent starters without Hall's massive contract figure.

[redskin_rich]

This adds to the conspiracy theorists belief that Snyder was behind the mega trade. With no way to excite the fan base in free agency....

[RedskinsDave]

Its $36m over two years though, right?

[cal_junior]

Atogwe has been cut

[akhhorus]

Atogwe has been cut

3.6 million saved.

[justinskins]

If we were aware this was coming I'm less enthusiastic about the RGIII trade.

If we weren't aware this was coming I'm curious about the NFL letting such a huge deal go through when it was just three days away from yanking $36 million in cap space from the team that was trading away draft picks.

That is an interesting question. How good is the league office at keeping these things close to the vest?

[akhhorus]

Its $36m over two years though, right?

They can split it anyway they want over those 2 seasons.

[justinskins]

Its $36m over two years though, right?

That's what Schefter is saying.

[akhhorus]

This adds to the conspiracy theorists belief that Snyder was behind the mega trade. With no way to excite the fan base in free agency....

PFT theorizes that this is why the skins made the deal friday. If the Rams knew that their cap money suddenly dried up, the price would have gone up.

[Dolla Bill]

They can split it anyway they want over those 2 seasons.

Who were the players that we supposedly cheated the league over?

[akhhorus]

Who were the players that we supposedly cheated the league over?

Fat Albert and Hall.

[CNYSkinFan]

Atogwe has been cut
The redskins have an annoying habit of taking wonderful players, and ruining them then getting rid of them for nothing

[CNYSkinFan]

Fat Albert and Hall.
the gifts that keep on giving

[redskin_rich]

Who were the players that we supposedly cheated the league over?

I'm sure Fat Al has the biggest share in the money dump. The gift that keeps on giving.

[RedskinsDave]

Well everyone who thought the RG3 deal was going to suck because the Skins are doomed as a franchise got half of it right.

[silverspring]

Could just be a rumour, but if it is true then now we have no draft picks and no cap space. Yeah! Brilliant.

[akhhorus]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179289291640418304

Hearing the way the Redskins restructured Haynesworth and Hall and the way the Cowboys structured Austin, NFL felt abuse too obvious

[Redskin4Life]

What's pissing me off is this happened one day before free agency... And how is this any different than say Peppers contract???

[cal_junior]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179289291640418304

Abuse of what? A rule that didn't exist?

[Redskin4Life]

The players still got paid right? So I'm guessing the NFLPA will be involved on the cowboys/skins side if the appeal?

[Gravy]

I am so happy we signed Fat Albert...what did he do again with all that money the Skins' payed him?

[HAWGZHEAD]

So what did we have, maybe three days of having fun being Redskins fans? Back to normal everyone. Good thing I didn't change my avatar.

lmao

[Redskin4Life]

And why do the other teams in the league get an increase in cap space for the follies of the skins and cowgirls?

[Keino]

If the league told them not to do it and they did it then well they violated League rules.

Still sounds like bs to me too.

and I wonder if this ties into the trade rumpor we are shopping players for picks

I don't see how the league can say "Don't pay your players more than they would get if you backloaded their contracts". If Jerry Jones wants to pay Miles Austin $17 Million in one season, that's his perrogotive. If you actually pay the money it's not dumping salary. Unfrickenbeliveable.

[akhhorus]

I am so happy we signed Fat Albert...what did he do again with all that money the Skins' payed him?

Strippers, champagne, waterskis, buying whole fast food franchises....the rest he just wasted.

[redskin_rich]

The NFL sure loves to kick us in the cajones. Couldn't they just treat our record over that period as punishment served..?

[justinskins]

Abuse of what? A rule that didn't exist?

League told teams not to play games with the uncapped season. We played games. Was there a hard-and-fast rule? Probably not, but it was a standard the league office had discretion to apply pursuant to its mission of maintaining competitive balance.

[akhhorus]

I don't see how the league can say "Don't pay your players more than they would get if you backloaded their contracts". If Jerry Jones wants to pay Miles Austin $17 Million in one season, that's his perrogotive. If you actually pay the money it's not dumping salary. Unfrickenbeliveable.

We need more facts on what the violation was and how it was violated.

[wide_awake]

League told teams not to play games with the uncapped season. We played games. Was there a hard-and-fast rule? Probably not, but it was a standard the league office had discretion to apply pursuant to its mission of maintaining competitive balance.

We do that crap all the time anyway lol

[Gravy]

How screwed are we?

[akhhorus]

How screwed are we?

Not that much. Cutting Hall, Sellers and Atogwe saves nearly 11 million right by themselves. If they go after a big name WR, Moss is gone(and his 11 million over 2012-13). Gaffney can be dumped to saved 2.6 million. Davis and Williams might be gone also(16-17 million in savings).

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7677375/sources-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-lose-millions-cap-space


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.

[Keino]

League told teams not to play games with the uncapped season. We played games. Was there a hard-and-fast rule? Probably not, but it was a standard the league office had discretion to apply pursuant to its mission of maintaining competitive balance.

The league doesn't get to tell teams how to manage their personnel and salaries. The league sets up rules and the teams operate under those rules. If there wasn't a hard and fast rule, then there should not be any penalties for the behavior. In the end, the players got money they would not have otherwise received. What's the problem?

[RedskinsDave]

Not that much. Cutting Hall, Sellers and Atogwe saves nearly 11 million right by themselves. If they go after a big name WR, Moss is gone(and his 11 million over 2012-13). Gaffney can be dumped to saved 2.6 million. Davis and Williams might be gone also(16-17 million in savings).

We can cut everyone but we have to replace them.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Yet another example of Snyder taking a once proud franchise and making a laughing stock of it.

[justinskins]

The league doesn't get to tell teams how to manage their personnel and salaries. The league sets up rules and the teams operate under those rules. If there wasn't a hard and fast rule, then there should not be any penalties for the behavior. In the end, the players got money they would not have otherwise received. What's the problem?

What can I say. Apparently the league gets to do just that.

[guess88]

Are the rules to this in hard writing? The timing and everything sounds like such a huge scam. 36 mill has huge implications.

[akhhorus]

We can cut everyone but we have to replace them.

Yes, but I don't think that those are deep cuts. Hall and Atogwe probably weren't in the plans. Cheech Williams can be replaced by Willie Smith and maybe a FA signing(Tony Collins). If they sign Manningham, Garcon or Vjax, Moss and Gaffney are superfluous. If they deal Fred Davis, Cooley replaces him.

[hockeygoalie29]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179289291640418304 (https://twitter.com/#%21/adbrandt/status/179289291640418304)
Hearing the way the Redskins restructured Haynesworth and Hall and the way the Cowboys structured Austin, NFL felt abuse too obvious

If the league felt the abuse was too obvious, then why did they approve the damn contract in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to reject the contract and say "sorry, this violates x, y, and z"?

[Dolla Bill]

I wonder if Snyder can get Al Davis' attorneys retained because I think there will be some huge implications here if there isn't a written in stone rule both teams broke.

[nicefellow31]

If the league felt the abuse was too obvious, then why did they approve the damn contract in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to reject the contract and say "sorry, this violates x, y, and z"?

Exactly. They approve the contract, then punish later?

[cal_junior]

League told teams not to play games with the uncapped season. We played games. Was there a hard-and-fast rule? Probably not, but it was a standard the league office had discretion to apply pursuant to its mission of maintaining competitive balance.

I guess. I guess I feel like if a year is uncapped, it should actually be uncapped.

[firehawk157]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7677375/sources-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-lose-millions-cap-space

I'm curious what the NFLPA thinks about this. To me, this is a huge violation of the terms of the former CBA which punished the NFL opting out with an uncapped year as part of a legal document. Unless there's some wierd language that nobody caught in the new CBA that puts a retroactive punishment on violating a hypothetical cap, I don't see how the NFL can legally do this.

[cal_junior]

If the league felt the abuse was too obvious, then why did they approve the damn contract in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to reject the contract and say "sorry, this violates x, y, and z"?

Stop making so much sense.

[justinskins]

I guess. I guess I feel like if a year is uncapped, it should actually be uncapped.

You are justified in being grouchy. It also sounds like the league took this action in part because a lot of the other owners complained.

[hockeygoalie29]

The league doesn't get to tell teams how to manage their personnel and salaries. The league sets up rules and the teams operate under those rules. If there wasn't a hard and fast rule, then there should not be any penalties for the behavior. In the end, the players got money they would not have otherwise received. What's the problem?

Precisely, if it was legal according to the CBA then the league has no grounds to punish it. This is treading very close to an anti-trust violation if not blatantly over the line.

[justinskins]

Precisely, if it was legal according to the CBA then the league has no grounds to punish it. This is treading very close to an anti-trust violation if not blatantly over the line.

An anti-trust violation? Really? I think that would be a pretty hard sell.

[akhhorus]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8278b475/article/nfl-takes-millions-in-cap-space-away-from-cowboys-skins

Teams were warned not to spend into the uncapped year as a way of circumventing the salary cap in the future.

[silverspring]

Wow I am shocked we already released Sellers and Atogwe

These guys cap hits aren't that big, why would we release them so early?

Farewell to sellers, he had a couple bad moments, but was a long time contributor. He was a redskin for 11 years total. Gonna miss you!

[RedskinsDave]

If the league felt the abuse was too obvious, then why did they approve the damn contract in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to reject the contract and say "sorry, this violates x, y, and z"?

That makes sense.

[Keino]

What can I say. Apparently the league gets to do just that.

I can't see Snyder and Jones sitting still and taking this. I see some litigation in the league's future. The league year was uncapped. Smart teams took advantage of that by paying a lot of money they were due to pay in later years in 2010. Now the teams that weren't forward thinking in this manner are crying foul....and worse, the league is listening?

[RedskinsDave]

All hail Chairman Goodell!! Do not question his authority!!

[Emmanouel8]

the gifts that keep on giving

My thoughts exactly. We can start rehashing those threads anytime now since we are screwed. This is a complete crock of $%*. Seriously it is. It was an UNCAPPED year!!!! These crybaby small market teams can shove it up their %^*@, suck it up or move to LA.

[cal_junior]

According to Freeman, the NFL warned both teams multiple times about front-loading deals.

That money will be spread around to 28 other teams in the NFL, with each team receiving an additional $1.6 million in cap space. The Saints and the Raiders, according to Schefter, do not receive any cap relief, but will not be docked any cap space.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/17751262/report-nfl-takes-cap-space-from-cowboys-redskins-for-front-loading-deals

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

https://twitter.com/#!/espn_nfceast

ESPN Blogs NFC East ‏ @espn_nfceast

Seems as though the NFL told teams, "Yeah, year is uncapped, but you still need to watch spending." I don't see how that's legal.

[skinfanjon]

This is some straight up BS.

[akhhorus]

If all teams were warned, someone in the skins' FO needs to be fired.

[firehawk157]

I can't see Snyder and Jones sitting still and taking this. I see some litigation in the league's future. The league year was uncapped. Smart teams took advantage of that by paying a lot of money they were due to pay in later years in 2010. Now the teams that weren't forward thinking in this manner are crying foul....and worse, the league is listening?

On another forum, I heard that the Bears loaded $20M in salary onto Julius Peppers contract in 2010 yet no punishment for them?

[justinskins]

I can't see Snyder and Jones sitting still and taking this. I see some litigation in the league's future. The league year was uncapped. Smart teams took advantage of that by paying a lot of money they were due to pay in later years in 2010. Now the teams that weren't forward thinking in this manner are crying foul....and worse, the league is listening?

It is interesting to think about what claims and theories the Redskins and Cowboys would raise in litigation. My intuition is that league rules give the commissioner enough discretion to do this, but who knows. There must be some limits on the league office's discretion to alter salary cap numbers.

[RedskinsDave]

If all teams were warned, someone in the skins' FO needs to be fired.

Warned?! How about "doing that isn't legal"? They saw the contracts and this is a new pile of ish in order to push up the cap this year. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Skins7ny]

I wonder if that was something the team knew when it made the trade with St. Louis.

And most importantly: How many millions?
I think that would have made them less likely to make the RGIII trade, not more likely. Draft picks are cheap labor from 2nd round onward. Of course, getting RGIII at #2 under the new rules gives us a reasonable cap figure for what should be the most expensive position on the roster, assuming he pans out.
Thats still BS. You can't on one side of your mouth officially say "uncapped," then with the other side say it is unofficially. C'mon this is ridiculous.
I agree 100%. Either the season is capped or it is uncapped. The CBA governs that, and the NFL cannot make up its own rules about how an uncapped year can ne administered. This was part of the collective bargaining process between Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw, and I would definitely expect the Union to challenge the league's action penalizing the Skins and the Cowboys. This is indeed BS-either the year was capped or it wasn't. Unless the new CBA speaks to this issue retroactively, which I doubt, we are getting jobbed here. Problem is, I doubt we have standing to challenge the league ruling on this matter-it is likely that only the Players' Union has standing to challenge it, because I believe that league rulings as to teams are not challengeable by the teams. The Union, however, can.

I hope D. Smith is a Redskins fan. Failing that, a Cowboys fan.
If this is true, we're totally screwed for the next few years... RG3 or not.
Not necessariy. It just means we will not be able to go shopping at Tiffany's like we usually do. As I and others have noted before, shopping at Tifanny's has never worked out for us. I think if this happens, we will have to choose between signing Vincent Jackson at $12M or more per year or signing a bunch of other guys. We probably cannot sign Jackson and still sign the other guys we have targeted.
Split it up 50/50, get rid of Hall, Moss and Cheech Williams and you're back around 36-40 million in space. I don't think any of those 3 are in Shanny's long term plans anyways.
We are not going to cut Cheech. We will trade him at $0.50 on the dollar before we trade him. We take the same cap hit either way. But we are going to get at least something for him if we don't keep him around.
Meh, most of our free agent moves have been far from stellar, as a matter of fact, I would say they have been bad and have hurt us. Now they have to go with the youth movement and be very selective with free agency.
+1. The silver lining here is that if this is true, it may save us somewhat from our selves. It will force us to let some of our younger players develop instead of taking playing time away from them in favor of some guy who just got paid.
Atogwe has been cut
Who is going to play FS? Dejon Gomes? I understand why they cut Atogwe, but now we need two safeties. There are lots of good free safeties available in free agency. Very few good safeties in the draft, and the good prospects will probably be gone by round 3; also we need to use our round 3 and 4 picks on offense to help RGIII.
I am so happy we signed Fat Albert...what did he do again with all that money the Skins' payed him?
He is using it to pay off judgments from women he has sexually harassed and motorists he has maimed. And the rest he is spending $1 at a time.

[firehawk157]

If all teams were warned, someone in the skins' FO needs to be fired.

If the teams were warned to not spend money, absent an official statement, then that hardly constitutes a league infraction. It would be like a ref punishing a player for a hard hit (but not technically illegal) because he warned the two teams at the beginning of the game to "keep it clean".

[GloryHog]

This is a revolting turn of events, but the NFL is essentially a democracy and if a majority of the owners decide to screw Snyder and Jones for circumventing the intent of the salary cap I don't see what can stop them.

What I don't understand though is how the players association would be OK with this. It's going to cause a lot of players to lose there jobs and removes a lot of money from the pool available to sign new free agent contracts.

[Santheb]

This is ridiculous. The league is lookin real shady on this one. Dan and Jerry need to hire the Ghost of Johnnie Cochran or something. Chewbacca defense it up.

"it does not make sense!"

[akhhorus]

Warned?! How about "doing that isn't legal"? They saw the contracts and this is a new pile of ish in order to push up the cap this year. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Lets see what the "warning" was. If they were specifically told XYZ about playing games with bonus money, the skins/boys have to take their punishment. If they were vaguely warned, they should take it to arbitration.

[hockeygoalie29]

An anti-truststruct violation? Really? I think that would be a pretty hard sell.

How is that a hard sell? The league cannot act as a single entity and dictate how contracts are written outside of what is negotiated in the CBA. Each franchise is an independent business and, as such, is free to negotiate contracts as it sees fit provided they abide by the rules set forth in the CBA.

By punishing the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints, and Raiders for the way the teams structured their contracts the league is clearly overstepping its bounds.

[akhhorus]

This is a revolting turn of events, but the NFL is essentially a democracy and if a majority of the owners decide to screw Snyder and Jones for circumventing the intent of the salary cap I don't see what can stop them.

What I don't understand though is how the players association would be OK with this. It's going to cause a lot of players to lose there jobs and removes a lot of money from the pool available to sign new free agent contracts.

Nope. That money goes to the other teams' cap(split 28 ways, the Saints/Raiders don't see any of it).

[redskin_rich]

This is a revolting turn of events, but the NFL is essentially a democracy and if a majority of the owners decide to screw Snyder and Jones for circumventing the intent of the salary cap I don't see what can stop them.

What I don't understand though is how the players association would be OK with this. It's going to cause a lot of players to lose there jobs and removes a lot of money from the pool available to sign new free agent contracts.

No, the money we are docked is getting distrubuted amongst the other teams caps.


EDIT- I'm not fast enough, starting to sound like an echo in here, lol.

[cal_junior]

From a NFP article in Sept. 2010 that praised the Skins and Cowboys cap management with Haynesworth, Hall and Austin:

The two perennial NFL Cap spendthrifts – the Redskins and Cowboys -- are being – gasp – fiscally prudent in this uncapped year. They are structuring their biggest contracts in a way that indicates that whenever a new collective bargaining agreement does get negotiated, the NFL will continue in a capped system that rewards sound and prudent Cap management.

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.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Friday-new-and-note-4038.html

[akhhorus]

If i can find a link for this, I'll post it, but: apparently most teams did something like this during the uncapped year(to much lesser degrees). Only the Boys did it over 17 million, the Skins played around with 40+ million. I'm still confirming all this.

[DGreen]

On another forum, I heard that the Bears loaded $20M in salary onto Julius Peppers contract in 2010 yet no punishment for them?

Here's a link: http://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/8/1363230/julius-peppers-bears-contract-details-20-million

Doesn't make sense that they weren't punished as well.

[Keino]

It is interesting to think about what claims and theories the Redskins and Cowboys would raise in litigation. My intuition is that league rules give the commissioner enough discretion to do this, but who knows. There must be some limits on the league office's discretion to alter salary cap numbers.

I think both teams can make a very strong argument that the league's opportunity to review the deals in question came and passed when they were submitted, and I could see pursing injuctive relief until the question as to whether or not the league has the authority it is asserting with this ruling, absent an agreed upon rule duly voted on and passed by the NFL governing committee (Which typically requires a majority vote of owners), to levy these penalties.

[hockeygoalie29]

Lets see what the "warning" was. If they were specifically told XYZ about playing games with bonus money, the skins/boys have to take their punishment. If they were vaguely warned, they should take it to arbitration.

But what authority does the league office have to regulate playing games with bonus money? As far as I know, they don't have any.

[akhhorus]

Here's a link: http://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/8/1363230/julius-peppers-bears-contract-details-20-million

Doesn't make sense that they weren't punished as well.

The difference appears to be that they signed him in 2010. The skins/boys moved money around from 2011/12 to avoid those charges in the future.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

just have to throw a few more guys into free agency that were'nt in the long time plans any how! i hope that clown hall is the 1st one cut,and i hope we are able to resign fletcher,if not he'll be a ram.

[akhhorus]

But what authority does the league office have to regulate playing games with bonus money? As far as I know, they don't have any.

Anything involving the cap, they have the authority. They set the cap, they set the rules for cap charges, etc etc.

[justinskins]

How is that a hard sell? The league cannot act as a single entity and dictate how contracts are written outside of what is negotiated in the CBA. Each franchise is an independent business and, as such, is free to negotiate contracts as it sees fit provided they abide by the rules set forth in the CBA.

By punishing the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints, and Raiders for the way the teams structured their contracts the league is clearly overstepping its bounds.

Honestly, I don't know what the league can and can't do. Such an analysis would require carefully parsing the CBA and the league's governing by-laws. However, I'd be surprised if there isn't considerable discretion in the league office to do almost anything.

The purpose of antitrust laws is to block anticompetitive behavior. The league can (quite legitimately) argue that it is advancing competition by punishing teams who gained an unjustified advantage over other teams by playing games with the uncapped year, contrary to the league's warnings.

Problem is, I doubt we have standing to challenge the league ruling on this matter-it is likely that only the Players' Union has standing to challenge it, because I believe that league rulings as to teams are not challengeable by the teams. The Union, however, can.

I hope D. Smith is a Redskins fan. Failing that, a Cowboys fan.

Since the cap space is being redistributed to other teams, the players are arguably not being harmed by this. They don't have much of an incentive to litigate, and it's not clear what they would get if they did.

[GloryHog]

Nope. That money goes to the other teams' cap(split 28 ways, the Saints/Raiders don't see any of it).

I just saw that. So that's the payoff to the union to keep them quiet. This is sounding more and more like the U.S. political system. LOL

[silverspring]

I don't get how it can be reallocated to other teams, isn't that a double penalty? We not only lose space but other teams are given a bonus. That seems unfair.

[justinskins]

I think both teams can make a very strong argument that the league's opportunity to review the deals in question came and passed when they were submitted, and I could see pursing injuctive relief until the question as to whether or not the league has the authority it is asserting with this ruling, absent an agreed upon rule duly voted on and passed by the NFL governing committee (Which typically requires a majority vote of owners), to levy these penalties.

I don't think a preliminary injunction is very likely here. First, a party must show a likelihood of success on the merits to get one. As I posted above, I'm guessing league by-laws give considerable discretion to the commissioner in most matters. The Redskins and Cowboys would need a hell of a case going in, and I doubt they have one. Second, I don't think a federal judge will want to step into a squabble between league owners. The league exists precisely to address such concerns.

*EDIT* Also, I would not be surprised if league contracts require some kind of binding arbitration designed to keep these cases out of federal court.

[firehawk157]

Anything involving the cap, they have the authority. They set the cap, they set the rules for cap charges, etc etc.

It seems the NFL is redistributing the cap as well to other teams. This may technically not violate the CBA regardless of whether there is language giving the league the ability to do this.

I strongly suspect the CBA only stipulates what the league has to spend on players salaries and not how much each team gets on the cap. So the NFL could technically give each team a separate cap number as long as it all equals up to 48.5%.

[Emmanouel8]

This is very simple IMO. It was an U-N-C-A-P-P-E-D year. The league can send whatever pseudo-memos they'd like but in the end the Redskins did nothing wrong and should not absorb any cap hit as a result. If I worked for the FO I'd have told them to stick it 2 years ago and I'd tell them to stick it right now. If I were Snyder I'd pull that infamous Lav Coles plasma TV for Goodell.

[guess88]

Apparently the NFL is a socialist society

[hockeygoalie29]

Anything involving the cap, they have the authority. They set the cap, they set the rules for cap charges, etc etc.

Isn't the cap dictated by a formula specified in the CBA? I'd think that imposing rules on spending outside of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement would be a pretty cut and dry anti-trust case. Of course, the league can attempt to impose these rules all they like if nobody challenges them. But if the NFLPA or any of the 4 teams being punished sue the league they'd have a very good case.

Now I'm now hearing that the NFLPA signed off on this to allow a bump in the cap for most teams this year. So it comes down to if any of the teams involved wish to challenge it.

[GloryHog]

I don't get how it can be reallocated to other teams, isn't that a double penalty? We not only lose space but other teams are given a bonus. That seems unfair.

We haven't agreed on much the last few days, but on this we do. LOL

[akhhorus]

It seems the NFL is redistributing the cap as well to other teams. This may technically not violate the CBA regardless of whether there is language giving the league the ability to do this.

I strongly suspect the CBA only stipulates what the league has to spend on players salaries and not how much each team gets on the cap. So the NFL could technically give each team a separate cap number as long as it all equals up to 48.5%.

Thats been posted I believe. I don't know why this matters.

Isn't the cap dictated by a formula specified in the CBA? I'd think that imposing rules on spending outside of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement would be a pretty cut and dry anti-trust case. Of course, the league can attempt to impose these rules all they like if nobody challenges them. But if the NFLPA or any of the 4 teams being punished sue the league they'd have a very good case.

Now I'm now hearing that the NFLPA signed off on this to allow a bump in the cap for most teams this year. So it comes down to if any of the teams involved wish to challenge it.

Good luck with that, thats all I'll say. I suspect the skins/boys agreed to these sanctions to avoid something worse.

[cal_junior]

The Cowboys, who always pay big signing bonuses, paid Miles Austin a $17M salary in 2010, thus not prorated. Owners were furious.

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179301476164841472

[firehawk157]

just have to throw a few more guys into free agency that were'nt in the long time plans any how! i hope that clown hall is the 1st one cut,and i hope we are able to resign fletcher,if not he'll be a ram.

I think we'll have to do it smart and not resign Fletcher. We just can't afford it. Sellers and Atogwe were cut.

[silverspring]

We haven't agreed on much the last few days, but on this we do. LOL

Cheers!

I understand the reason, in that they don't want to punish the players. But, if they are counting those moves based on having a CBA when there wasn't one, then they should count the money we spent in the uncapped year. This is a double standard.

[Keino]

Anything involving the cap, they have the authority. They set the cap, they set the rules for cap charges, etc etc.

Yea, but they don't get to issue vague "Don't front-load contract" memos and then approve front loaded contracts and then penalize teams for legally (meaning in accordance with league rules) front loading contracts. Or maybe they do, but it sure doesn't feel right.....

[RedskinsDave]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179301476164841472 (https://twitter.com/#%21/adbrandt/status/179301476164841472)

Proof this is the cheapskate owners going after the two big spenders. Its a shame the commissioners office cares more about the tight wads than the guys who actually make everyone else rich.

[akhhorus]

Yea, but they don't get to issue vague "Don't front-load contract" memos and then approve front loaded contracts and then penalize teams for legally (meaning in accordance with league rules) front loading contracts. Or maybe they do, but it sure doesn't feel right.....

Like I said: lets see what the league told teams. If it was vague, the skins should fight it. If not, they need to take their lumps on this.

[Emmanouel8]

So when can we expect the post-screw job mocks?

[akhhorus]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/179285147672260608

Redskins loaded $21M of Cap on Haynesworth and $15M on D Hall in uncapped 2010. Were able to push "File Delete" on problems...or not.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt

Andrew Brandt ‏

The "Uncapped League Year" article in previous CBA makes no mention of any warning to teams. Sense that push for this came from teams.

[Skins7ny]

If the league felt the abuse was too obvious, then why did they approve the damn contract in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to reject the contract and say "sorry, this violates x, y, and z"?
+1+1+1. There is a reason contracts get reviewed by the league. If a contract submitted for approval violated league policy, the league had a duty to disapprove the contract. This is ridiculous.
I wonder if Snyder can get Al Davis' attorneys retained because I think there will be some huge implications here if there isn't a written in stone rule both teams broke.
Maybe he and Jerry can go halfsies.
If Jerry and Dan appear together in the same courtroom, it will create a huge Vortex of Sucktiude that could swallow the entire judicial system.
I can't see Snyder and Jones sitting still and taking this. I see some litigation in the league's future. The league year was uncapped. Smart teams took advantage of that by paying a lot of money they were due to pay in later years in 2010. Now the teams that weren't forward thinking in this manner are crying foul....and worse, the league is listening?
I can't either. They are definitely going to raise hell about this with Goodell. But Goodell just signed an extension and probably has 28 owners' approval on this, so Jones and Snyder cannot touch him. They also may not be all that well-liked by their fellow owners, although that is just speculation (an educated guess?) on my part.
This does seem like sour grapes by the teams that were not smart enough (or were too cheap) to fold a lot of their contracts into the uncapped year. I thought it was a brilliant move on Allehan's part, and there is no reason it should be punished now, after so much time has passed.

Lets see what the "warning" was. If they were specifically told XYZ about playing games with bonus money, the skins/boys have to take their punishment. If they were vaguely warned, they should take it to arbitration. I don't think arbitration is an option for the team. I believe it only applied to disputes b/w the union and league under the CBA. Even if it is subject to arbitration, the arbitrator will probably be Goodell himself.

just have to throw a few more guys into free agency that were'nt in the long time plans any how! i hope that clown hall is the 1st one cut,and i hope we are able to resign fletcher,if not he'll be a ram.
This may be why we have not re-signed Fletcher. If so, that suggests that we knew this was coming.

I just saw that. So that's the payoff to the union to keep them quiet. This is sounding more and more like the U.S. political system. LOL
Increasing the cap of 28 other teams doesn't necessarily help the union/players all that much, unless they also increased the salary floor (the minimum teams are obligated to spend under the salary cap rules). For example, the Bengals are already $40M under the cap. There is no way Mike Brown is spending all that money this off-season. An extra $1.5M in space is also just going to go to waste, and the players won't see any of it. Meanwhile, the players we and the Cows cut will not likely make back the money they lost by getting cut. I think the Players' Union will challenge this, just to maintain their position in the CBA. Most unions don't give up on issues that hurt their membership unless they have collectively bargained on that issue, adn therefore received something in exchange for giving up on the issue. They are going to want to maintain this if for no other reason than precedent. Of course, all bets are off if the Union already agreed to this as part of setting the 2012 cap figure, as has been suggested. If that is true, we are screwed on this issue.

[Keino]

This is the forced Wilbur Marshall trade all over again....Hey, give the NY Giants an additional home game while they are at it.

[justinskins]

Cheers!

I understand the reason, in that they don't want to punish the players. But, if they are counting those moves based on having a CBA when there wasn't one, then they should count the money we spent in the uncapped year. This is a double standard.

There is a double standard. There is a different legal relationship between the league and the players on the one hand, and the league and the teams on the other. The NFL has a CBA with the players, one made in the shadow of federal labor laws, and it violates that agreement at its own peril. On the other hand, the teams have voluntarily formed the NFL and ceded a lot of their authority to the league. The league has a lot more discretion as to how it treats teams as opposed to how it treats players.

[redskin_rich]

Proof this is the cheapskate owners going after the two big spenders. Its a shame the commissioners office cares more about the tight wads than the guys who actually make everyone else rich.

Isn't it about time for the league to give another Championship to Pittsburgh? :D

[Emmanouel8]

Proof this is the cheapskate owners going after the two big spenders. Its a shame the commissioners office cares more about the tight wads than the guys who actually make everyone else rich.

If anything this further illustrates money can't buy championships, so I don't understand the "competitive" basis for this screw job.

Move your franchise to LA!

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Apparently all teams were warned multiple times:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/

If this is true then Danny needs to take his lumps. Better yet, sell the team to a respectable owner.

[justinskins]

Increasing the cap of 28 other teams doesn't necessarily help the union/players all that much, unless they also increased the salary floor (the minimum teams are obligated to spend under the salary cap rules). For example, the Bengals are already $40M under the cap. There is no way Mike Brown is spending all that money this off-season. An extra $1.5M in space is also just going to go to waste, and the players won't see any of it. Meanwhile, the players we and the Cows cut will not likely make back the money they lost by getting cut. I think the Players' Union will challenge this, just to maintain their position in the CBA. Most unions don't give up on issues that hurt their membership unless they have collectively bargained on that issue, adn therefore received something in exchange for giving up on the issue. They are going to want to maintain this if for no other reason than precedent. Of course, all bets are off if the Union already agreed to this as part of setting the 2012 cap figure, as has been suggested. If that is true, we are screwed on this issue.

Skins7ny, your heart is in the right place, but ultimately this is a squabble among the ownership. I don't think the NFLPA has much interest in doing anything except sitting back and laughing.

[akhhorus]

Apparently all teams were warned multiple times:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/

If this is true then Danny needs to take his lumps. Better yet, sell the team to a respectable owner.

If this is true, this isn't a screw job. The skins f*cked up. End of story(if true).

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

If this is true, this isn't a screw job. The skins f*cked up. End of story(if true).

Yep. I am just mortified at this. I have never been more embarrassed to be a Skins fan.

[HAWGZHEAD]

From what I am seeing all warnings were verbal? Nothing on paper? Is this right?

[akhhorus]

Yep. I am just mortified at this. I have never been more embarrased to be a Skins fan.

Meh. Cut Hall, Atogwe and deal Chong Davis and this won't change much of the plans imo.

[firehawk157]

Yep. I am just mortified at this. I have never been more embarrased to be a Skins fan.

Hardly a good reason to be embarrassed as a fan. The swinging gate play was MUCH worse.

[Emmanouel8]

Apparently all teams were warned multiple times:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/

If this is true then Danny needs to take his lumps. Better yet, sell the team to a respectable owner.

WARNING #6

Dear NFL Owner,

In this uncapped year we ask that you spend in a "capped" manner. If you spend we will approve only to turn around and blindside you at a later date.

Signed Scrooge Mcduck

[HAWGZHEAD]

The NFLPA will not appeal this I am seeing on twitter now

RT @Rich_Campbell The NFLPA won't appeal #Redskins cap penalty b/c it's part of a union agreement with the NFL, a league source says.

[hockeygoalie29]

If all teams were warned, someone in the skins' FO needs to be fired.

Can we fire Vinny twice?

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Meh. Cut Hall, Atogwe and deal Chong Davis and this won't change much of the plans imo.

It's not the players or FA that I'm PO'ed about. This makes the Skins more of a laughing stock - Al Davis bad.

[redskin_rich]

Hardly a good reason to be embarrassed as a fan. The swinging gate play was MUCH worse.

That is so funny... I could just cry.

[firehawk157]

Meh. Cut Hall, Atogwe and deal Chong Davis and this won't change much of the plans imo.

Do you know how much cutting Atogwe and Sellers saved? How much would cutting Hall save? Trading Davis might net a 2nd (plus the $6M in cap relief), so that might be a good idea regardless of our cap number. I'd trade Davis and use that 2nd overall on an OT.

Honestly, no need to gut the team (good excuse to rid ourselves of dead weight). Even if we take the entire amount on this cap, we still have ~10M left (not including Sellers or Atogwe). $30M if we distribute it evenly. A good capologist could easily fit a marquee signing or two and a bunch of second tier guys under that much cap.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

That is so funny... I could just cry.

Gotta admit, I LOLed.

[Emmanouel8]

The NFLPA will not appeal this I am seeing on twitter now

Of course not, they were pre-wired like the 30 other teams. Basically we're screwed and appeals will be fruitless because there's no support in the backdrop. They let 2 other teams "off the hook" just so they could make this happen.

This is a small market team coup.

[justinskins]

You know, this may end up being a good thing long-term if it forces the team to cut our deadwood and replace them with quality FAs and draft picks.

Probably won't help us much this season, though.

[RedskinsDave]

You know, this may end up being a good thing long-term if it forces the team to cut our deadwood and replace them with quality FAs and draft picks.

Probably won't help us much this season, though.

Which also makes signing guys harder. Knowing the team will suck again means we have to overpay.

[akhhorus]

Do you know how much cutting Atogwe and Sellers saved?

4.5-4.6ish million.

How much would cutting Hall save?

Over 6. Probably thanks to illegally moving some bonus money around lol

Trading Davis might net a 2nd (plus the $6M in cap relief), so that might be a good idea regardless of our cap number. I'd trade Davis and use that 2nd overall on an OT.

Agreed.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

You know, this may end up being a good thing long-term if it forces the team to cut our deadwood and replace them with quality FAs and draft picks.

Probably won't help us much this season, though.

Seeing DHall gone wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO.

[Lavar703]

It's not the players or FA that I'm PO'ed about. This makes the Skins more of a laughing stock - Al Davis bad.

The Packers also violated this supposed rule and will face zero punishment.

[justinskins]

Which also makes signing guys harder. Knowing the team will suck again means we have to overpay.

Yeah. This definitely sucks, just trying to see a silver lining.

[akhhorus]

The Packers also violated this supposed rule and will face zero punishment.

How much did they move is the question.

[redskin_rich]

The Rams just got more value from those picks we gave them...

*staring at gun in drawer*

[firehawk157]

That is so funny... I could just cry.

That's just my first file in the "Redskins embarrasing moments rolodex". There's Gus Frerotte's attempt to headbutt the wall, our $100M player using the field as a bed during a play, staking our rep on Grossman and Beck, Haynesworth failing a conditioning test, Zorn's slip and slide, hip-hip-hooray, Gibbs calling two timeouts to extra-ice the kicker, Carlos Rogers just needing a pair of glasses to become a pro-bowl player, being the first team the Lions beat in ~20 games...

Really, this is the second tier of embarrasment which is populated by Shanahan saying we have a playoff offense, Laron Landry talking trash to Desean Jackson and getting burnt on the first play... You know what? I'm going to stop, this is depressing.

[Lavar703]

How much did they move is the question.

That shouldn't matter, they violated the same rule and should be punished as such.

[firehawk157]

The Rams just got more value from those picks we gave them...

*staring at gun in drawer*

Don't read my last post then...

[justinskins]

If I owned the Redskins, I would read my staff the riot act after this. As in, "From now on you'll either be perfect or you'll be gone." But I'm guessing it will be the same old sloppy BS.

[Skins7ny]

This is the forced Wilbur Marshall trade all over again....Hey, give the NY Giants an additional home game while they are at it.

That would be so blatantly unfair, the league would never even try to do that. :rolleyes:

[firehawk157]

How much did they move is the question.

The Packers 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.

[Lavar703]

The Packers 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.

Thanks Firehawk

[akhhorus]

The Packers 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.

If thats true, the Pack should be sanctioned as well. And I'd like to see how this compared to what the skins/boys did. Sounds like the skins/boys did it in the beginning of the season to absorb as much cap charges as possible.

That shouldn't matter, they violated the same rule and should be punished as such.

Well, no. The Boys and Skins were penalized for egregiously violating the rule. Every team did this in 2010, but the skins/boys were sanctioned because of how they screwed around.

[Moe]

You know, this may end up being a good thing long-term if it forces the team to cut our deadwood and replace them with quality FAs and draft picks.

Probably won't help us much this season, though.

This is kinda my take, cut some bloat get on your staff to find some young cheaper players and move on.

[Lavar703]

If thats true, the Pack should be sanctioned as well. And I'd like to see how this compared to what the skins/boys did. Sounds like the skins/boys did it in the beginning of the season to absorb as much cap charges as possible.



Well, no. The Boys and Skins were penalized for egregiously violating the rule. Every team did this in 2010, but the skins/boys were sanctioned because of how they screwed around.

The Bears apparently violated it as well with there monster contract for Julius Peppers. There was no written rule about this, the league simply warned against doing it.

[redskin_rich]

It shouldn't but sharing this punishment with the Cowpies somehow makes it feel dirtier.

[firehawk157]

Sorry, just found out there was an error with Tramon Williams' contract and that's not true. The other contracts are true though.

[akhhorus]

The Bears apparently violated it as well with there monster contract for Julius Peppers. There was no written rule about this, the league simply warned against doing it.

No, they did something different. They signed Peppers in 2010 and gave him a massive base salary or bonus for that year to avoid cap penalties. Thats different then what the skins/boys did.

Sorry, just found out there was an error with Tramon Williams' contract and that's not true. The other contracts are true though.

Okay, then thats why the Pack weren't sanctioned. They only did a few million.

[JasonCampbell]

So how much of a leg up on the competition (monetarily) did the Redskins get by doing this?

[Skins7ny]

Skins7ny, your heart is in the right place, but ultimately this is a squabble among the ownership. I don't think the NFLPA has much interest in doing anything except sitting back and laughing.
Apparently, you are correct. The league and the players union got together and screwed us and (to a much lesser extent) Jerry. I hope Snyder takes D. Smith's seats away from him. This is ridiculous. I don't like getting screwed, but I am not as upset as some about the losing the cap space. Instead of having $40M under the cap to start with, we will start with $22M, and today's cuts will bring us more space. That is still a ton of cap room to be active in free agency. And like I have said before (a million and one times, I know), I don't think going hog wild in free agency is a successful formula for building our roster. That remains true, despite the loss of draft picks in the RGIII trade.

We better hit on those pick, though.
Apparently all teams were warned multiple times:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/

If this is true then Danny needs to take his lumps. Better yet, sell the team to a respectable owner.
The problem is, Danny thinks he is a respectable owner. He has an inordinate amount of respect for himself, which is part of the problem.

[akhhorus]

So how much of a leg up on the competition (monetarily) did the Redskins get by doing this?

36 million.

[firehawk157]

36 million.

Luckily they didn't count the purge we did either...

[GloryHog]

I have a feeling that a lot more teams would have been dinged if punishment were administered evenly. The League had to turn a blind eye and forgive less egregious behavior in order to get the support of enough owners to make this happen. My bet is Meara and Rooney were big players in brokering the deal.

[flave1969]

I almost think they should tell the Rams you know what you have your couple of Million, we will take our chances and take back our picks.

Damn them all to helllll ( in my best Charlton Heston voice)

[silverspring]

One decision this probably affects, is they are going to have a hard time rationalizing upgrading our backup qb now. Rex will most likely be a redskin for a while. Maybe a henne or something like that, but no way orton is coming here to be a backup on a budget .

[redskin_rich]

This could have been worse by a lot. Think if they decided to dock some picks, therefore disallowing and canceling our trade.

[DaveKShape]

One decision this probably affects, is they are going to have a hard time rationalizing upgrading our backup qb now. Rex will most likely be a redskin for a while. Maybe a henne or something like that, but no way orton is coming here to be a backup on a budget .

Rex isn't under contract. John Beck is. This situation might be his saving grace (aside from the Angel Moroni, that is).

[Lavar703]

I almost think they should tell the Rams you know what you have your couple of Million, we will take our chances and take back our picks.

Damn them all to helllll ( in my best Charlton Heston voice)

And be stuck with Grossman, I'll pass...

[oldskinfan]

:devil2:

F the league. This is petty sh*t from the smaller owners whining like b*tches to Goodell.

If this was really about *fairness* how about giving a team the right to "wash out" one contract every 5 years that is crippling (like Fat Albert's) when a player simply takes money and doesn't do sh*t for it.

:devil2:

[JasonCampbell]

36 million.

So it is more evening things out as opposed to a penalty? Interesting.

[cal_junior]

I can see why the rest of the owners are so upset. The Skins and Cowboys have been pretty dominant since 2010.

[justinskins]

I can see why the rest of the owners are so upset. The Skins and Cowboys have been pretty dominant since 2010.

The issue isn't their play in 2010 or 2011, it's that they freed up cap space for several seasons in a way other teams thought was illegitimate.

[firehawk157]

:devil2:

F the league. This is petty sh*t from the smaller owners whining like b*tches to Goodell.

If this was really about *fairness* how about giving a team the right to "wash out" one contract every 5 years that is crippling (like Fat Albert's) when a player simply takes money and doesn't do sh*t for it.

:devil2:

That's actually about accurate. I think this is actually about small market owners being tired of being outbid by Jones and Snyder and threw a hissy about it. Goodell threw up his hands and just said, "fine, I'll penalize them and redistribute it to the cap of every other team" and verily, it was so.

[firehawk157]

So it is more evening things out as opposed to a penalty? Interesting.

Well, not really, it's just they didn't want to open the can of worms of trying to figure out how to apply the "no dumping" rule to every team so they just chose a couple of examples and slapped a huge penalty on them and called it a day.

[GloryHog]

:devil2:

F the league. This is petty sh*t from the smaller owners whining like b*tches to Goodell.

If this was really about *fairness* how about giving a team the right to "wash out" one contract every 5 years that is crippling (like Fat Albert's) when a player simply takes money and doesn't do sh*t for it.

:devil2:

In addition, it wouldn't have been announced the day before free agency starts.

It's been a hell of a long time since this went down and announcing this today tells me the Skins very nearly got away with it. The owners who really wanted this couldn't muster the support if punishment was fairly distributed, so there were last minute deals cut forgiving a lot of sh*t in order to get the votes.

[Santheb]

What was Peppers cap number in 2010?

[Skaggsrules]

Can we get the picks back from Philly for taking advantage of stupidity? I mean, if the league wants to be fair...

[Lavar703]

The Redskins and Cowboys violated no rules:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/54989/qa-on-the-cowboys-redskins-cap-mess

[oldskinfan]

I can see why the rest of the owners are so upset. The Skins and Cowboys have been pretty dominant since 2010.

I get the irony. lol.
On another note, Dan Graziano over at the NFC East ESPN blog chimes in also. Granted, he may be biased for two teams in the conference he covers, but it is a 3rd party view:

"What'd they do wrong? Well, they apparently violated no actual rule but rather a behind-the-scenes guideline designed to keep the uncapped year from truly being uncapped...............This seems a pretty ridiculous thing for the league to do. Either the year is uncapped or it's not. To tell teams, "Yeah, it's uncapped, but don't spend too much this year just because of that, or we'll fine you for it down the road" feels a little bit like collusion to me. But this is the NFL, which does what it wants and makes up the rules as it goes along. The Cowboys and the Redskins....should have known better."


http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/36899/cowboys-redskins-punished-but-why

[Emmanouel8]

Now I'm sure sport center will get in line. They'll have the shots of the greedy owners in their command posture with some numnut in the background making some invalid moral comparison. Then they'll cut to the good ol boys of Green bay and Pittsburgh.

[flave1969]

And be stuck with Grossman, I'll pass...

I love RG3 and am only kidding but really we should take action.

[cal_junior]

The issue isn't their play in 2010 or 2011, it's that they freed up cap space for several seasons in a way other teams thought was illegitimate.

I always forget some folks need a sarcasm emoticon of some kind, lol.

[Emmanouel8]

I get the irony. lol.
On another note, Dan Graziano over at the NFC East ESPN blog chimes in also. Granted, he may be biased for two teams in the conference he covers, but it is a 3rd party view:

"What'd they do wrong? Well, they apparently violated no actual rule but rather a behind-the-scenes guideline designed to keep the uncapped year from truly being uncapped...............This seems a pretty ridiculous thing for the league to do. Either the year is uncapped or it's not. To tell teams, "Yeah, it's uncapped, but don't spend too much this year just because of that, or we'll fine you for it down the road" feels a little bit like collusion to me. But this is the NFL, which does what it wants and makes up the rules as it goes along. The Cowboys and the Redskins....should have known better."


http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/36899/cowboys-redskins-punished-but-why

So it's not just us saying it?!

Only difference is in reality there are more "justinskins" running in league circles than common sense folks not corrupted by their own self interests. This is horse#$% that wouldn't pass in any objective evaluation. You can't overule official rules with "memos" anywhere!

[Skaggsrules]

It's not fair that the Packers have Aaron Rodgers, can the league make the Packers lend him to every team for a game over the next couple of years?

[shally]

i think the proper way to go about this is to leave most of the salary cap space available for this year and then threaten to file suit because they violated NO RULES.. WWADD ?? (what would al davis do ?): he would file the mother of all lawsuits for conspiracy and not following the written rules.

Snyder needs to grow a pair.. if they violated the rules, they should be sanctioned. if they didnt, they should be free to follow their own path


But if they roll over and dont give themselves enough cap space for free agency this year could be very bad

[Lavar703]

It's not fair that the Packers have Aaron Rodgers, can the league make the Packers lend him to every team for a game over the next couple of years?

I'd like to borrow Arian Foster and Calvin Johnson as well, so unfair.

[GloryHog]

So it's not just us saying it?!...This is horse#$% that wouldn't pass in any objective evaluation. You can't overule official rules with "memos" anywhere!

That is quite obvious. This is nothing more than a bunch of other owners saying "maybe it wasn't against the rules, but we told you we didn't like it and now we're going to screw with you because we finally got enough owners to go along and they're nothing you can do about it"

[justinskins]

I always forget some folks need a sarcasm emoticon of some kind, lol.

I understood your use of irony. The other teams believe that we received a continuing competitive advantage. It's not just about 2011, so the fact that we didn't play well last year isn't a decisive fact. The other owners can point to the fact that we had about as much cap space going into free agency as the Chiefs, which doesn't really gel with conventional wisdom about our spending habits. That shows, they would argue, that we gained an unfair advantage for the 2012 season by the way we restructured the contracts in 2010.

In response to Emmanuel08, an "objective evaluation" produces some good arguments on both sides. I think we have a good argument that this penalty is unfair because there was no formal, bright-line rule and the year was supposed to be uncapped. Also, other teams engaged in similar behavior to a lesser extent and are largely going unpunished. However, the other owners also have a good argument that we took advantage of the uncapped year in a way that reduces league competitiveness and undermines the salary cap system. Moreover, we can't make the argument that we did this in a good faith belief that it was within the rules, since we were explicitly warned not to do it.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the league has the ability to do this, and there's probably nothing we can do about it.

[Lavar703]

I understood your use of irony. The other teams believe that we received a continuing competitive advantage. It's not just about 2011, so the fact that we didn't play well last year isn't a decisive fact. The other owners can point to the fact that we had about as much cap space going into free agency as the Chiefs, which doesn't really gel with conventional wisdom about our spending habits. That shows, they would argue, that we gained an unfair advantage for the 2012 season by the way we restructured the contracts in 2010.

In response to Emmanuel08, an "objective evaluation" produces some good arguments on both sides. I think we have a good argument that this penalty is unfair because there was no formal, bright-line rule and the year was supposed to be uncapped. Also, other teams engaged in similar behavior to a lesser extent and are largely going unpunished. However, the other owners also have a good argument that we took advantage of the uncapped year in a way that reduces league competitiveness and undermines the salary cap system. Moreover, we can't make the argument that we did this in a good faith belief that it was within the rules, since we were explicitly warned not to do it.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the league has the ability to do this, and there's probably nothing we can do about it.

Unfair assumes you did something wrong, the Redskins/Cowboys violated no rules.

[cal_junior]

NFL Statement:

"The management CEC determined that the contract practices of a small number of teams created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance....to remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for 2012 and 13 seasons. ..structured in manner that will not affect cap or player spending on league wide basis."

[Skaggsrules]

The NFL opened a can of worms that might come back to haunt them.

[lorimike]

This is totally ridiculous. I am now convinced this league has an agenda against the Redskins.. So am I to understand that we just went from 31 million under the cap to 5 million over ?

[justinskins]

Unfair assumes you did something wrong, the Redskins/Cowboys violated no rules.

It is always possible to do something wrong without violating any rules. Rules are, by their nature, underinclusive.

[Lavar703]

It is always possible to do something wrong without violating any rules. Rules are, by their nature, underinclusive.

Unbelievable...

[Emmanouel8]

In response to Emmanuel08, an "objective evaluation" produces some good arguments on both sides. I think we have a good argument that this penalty is unfair because there was no formal, bright-line rule and the year was supposed to be uncapped. Also, other teams engaged in similar behavior to a lesser extent and are largely going unpunished. However, the other owners also have a good argument that we took advantage of the uncapped year in a way that reduces league competitiveness and undermines the salary cap system. Moreover, we can't make the argument that we did this in a good faith belief that it was within the rules, since we were explicitly warned not to do it.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the league has the ability to do this, and there's probably nothing we can do about it.

I wasn't trying to imply you were being unobjective just that everyone in those circles has the same talking points as you.

I disagree that the other side has any "good" arguments. Change the rule or deal with it.

Goodell is going to drive this league down and not just for this, but a whole line of bad decisions he's stood behind. Horrible commish.

[cal_junior]

The other teams believe that we received a continuing competitive advantage. It's not just about 2011, so the fact that we didn't play well last year isn't a decisive fact. The other owners can point to the fact that we had about as much cap space going into free agency as the Chiefs, which doesn't really gel with conventional wisdom about our spending habits. That shows, they would argue, that we gained an unfair advantage for the 2012 season by the way we restructured the contracts in 2010.

I'm well aware of this. Our record in 2010 and 2011 is not why this happened.

Hence my need for the sarcasm emoticon.

[Emmanouel8]

In response to Emmanuel08, an "objective evaluation" produces some good arguments on both sides. I think we have a good argument that this penalty is unfair because there was no formal, bright-line rule and the year was supposed to be uncapped. Also, other teams engaged in similar behavior to a lesser extent and are largely going unpunished. However, the other owners also have a good argument that we took advantage of the uncapped year in a way that reduces league competitiveness and undermines the salary cap system. Moreover, we can't make the argument that we did this in a good faith belief that it was within the rules, since we were explicitly warned not to do it.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the league has the ability to do this, and there's probably nothing we can do about it.

Further we did not HAVE A SALARY CAP SYSTEM IN PLACE!!!! That's the whole point!

[flave1969]

This is totally ridiculous. I am now convinced this league has an agenda against the Redskins.. So am I to understand that we just went from 31 million under the cap to 5 million over ?

the penalty can be split over two years and in some circles we have as much as 46 million in cap space so the actual penalty will not be known until we decide how to split it.

[justinskins]

I wasn't trying to imply you were being unobjective just that everyone in those circles has the same talking points as you.

I disagree that the other side has any "good" arguments. Change the rule or deal with it.

Goodell is going to drive this league down and not just for this, but a whole line of bad decisions he's stood behind. Horrible commish.

I agree, Goodell is a power-hungry a-- and this decision does not really endear him to me. The league let the uncapped year happen by failing to renew the CBA; the other teams should let bygones be bygones. There won't be another uncapped year any time soon, so this isn't going to happen again.

Unfortunately, we lost, I don't think this decision will be reversed and it's time to move on.

[akhhorus]

NFL Statement:

Sounds like the skins/boys signed off on the punishments

[justinskins]

Further we did not HAVE A SALARY CAP SYSTEM IN PLACE!!!! That's the whole point!

Right. But their argument is that we effectively moved salaries from 2011 onward into the 2010 season and thereby undermined the integrity of the salary cap in future seasons.

*EDIT* Everyone anticipated that the salary cap would return under a new CBA.

[GloryHog]

i think the proper way to go about this is to leave most of the salary cap space available for this year and then threaten to file suit because they violated NO RULES.. WWADD ?? (what would al davis do ?): he would file the mother of all lawsuits for conspiracy and not following the written rules.

Snyder needs to grow a pair.. if they violated the rules, they should be sanctioned. if they didnt, they should be free to follow their own path


But if they roll over and dont give themselves enough cap space for free agency this year could be very bad

Oh, I think they're some very large balls between those to guys. If they see any chance of prevailing in some type of legal action, I think they would go for it. Neither one of these dudes got where they are because they rolled over when things didn't go their way.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit, if two or three years from now we're all involved in a thread about the upcoming decision of the litigation.

[Emmanouel8]

Right. But their argument is that we effectively moved salaries from 2011 onward into the 2010 season and thereby undermined the integrity of the salary cap in future seasons.

*EDIT* Everyone anticipated that the salary cap would return under a new CBA.

That's the beauty of an uncapped year, it can be exploited. Don't call it uncapped if its not a uncapped. I'm not trying to argue directly at you just the ridiculousness of this whole thing.

[justinskins]

Sounds like the skins/boys signed off on the punishments

The statement refers to an agreement among the "parties to the CBA." I assume this means the NFLPA and the league (either the league office or a sufficiently large majority of the teams). I would hope the Redskins fought this tooth-and-nail.

[akhhorus]

That's the beauty of an uncapped year, it can be exploited. Don't call it uncapped if its not a uncapped. I'm not trying to argue directly at you just the ridiculousness of this whole thing.

You would agree there's a difference between:
"no cap, no rules"
and
"no cap, but you will be sanctioned if you take this opportunity to try and game the system"

[cal_junior]

That's the beauty of an uncapped year, it can be exploited. Don't call it uncapped if its not a uncapped. I'm not trying to argue directly at you just the ridiculousness of this whole thing.

Also it sounds like quite a few teams exploited the non cap season, just to a much lesser degree. Not only are they not punished, they are being given some of our salary cap.

[Emmanouel8]

Oh, I think they're some very large balls between those to guys. If they see any chance of prevailing in some type of legal action, I think they would go for it. Neither one of these dudes got where they are because they rolled over when things didn't go their way.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit, if two or three years from now we're all involved in a thread about the upcoming decision of the litigation.

Yes I would tend to agree but I think if they were going to do anything like that we would've heard about it a long time ago. I think it would be fruitless and not worth their bottomline in the long run. I'd definitely take tabs, but its hard to enact revenge on an entire league.

[akhhorus]

The statement refers to an agreement among the "parties to the CBA." I assume this means the NFLPA and the league (either the league office or a sufficiently large majority of the teams). I would hope the Redskins fought this tooth-and-nail.

Past tense. They won't win a lawsuit over this imo

Also it sounds like quite a few teams exploited the non cap season, just to a much lesser degree. Not only are they not punished, they are being given some of our salary cap.

Its been reported over and over that the only reason for any penalties was the amounts of how much the skins/boys shifted around. And the worst part is that they didn't need to do it. These were option/roster bonuses that they could have avoided by dumping the player before due or totally redone the contracts to alleviate the cap charges.

[justinskins]

That's the beauty of an uncapped year, it can be exploited. Don't call it uncapped if its not a uncapped. I'm not trying to argue directly at you just the ridiculousness of this whole thing.

I am inclined to agree for one reason: In the uncapped year, the free agent market was restricted by the increase length-of-service requirements for free agency. That made it difficult for teams to "stock up" on quality free agents by paying them huge first-year salaries which then dropped off precipitously. In practice, I do not think the Skins gained any huge future advantage from the uncapped season; we dropped dead weight from the past. So I don't think this is really all that fair.

I think the Cowboys may actually have benefited from this more than we did. Some of the players they signed are still around.

[justinskins]

Past tense. They won't win a lawsuit over this imo

Completely agree. Our only hope is if we could somehow convince Goodell to reverse this decision (extremely unlikely).

[lorimike]

The NFL is destroying the Washington DC market. Some of our home games are like away games with so many fans in the seats rooting for the away team. We've been a doormat for two decades. So now we've compromised the " competitive balance " ? Really ? We haven't been competitive for a very long long time. I am about sick of Roger Goodell and his little dictator attitude. Enough already.

[cal_junior]

Its been reported over and over that the only reason for any penalties was the amounts of how much the skins/boys shifted around. And the worst part is that they didn't need to do it. These were option/roster bonuses that they could have avoided by dumping the player before due or totally redone the contracts to alleviate the cap charges.

Oh I know. It just feels like the felony offenders are being given jail time, while the guys who comitted misdemeanors are being awarded a small cash prize.

[justinskins]

Oh I know. It just feels like the felony offenders are being given jail time, while the guys who comitted misdemeanors are being awarded a small cash prize.

Excellent analogy! +1

[akhhorus]

Completely agree. Our only hope is if we could somehow convince Goodell to reverse this decision (extremely unlikely).

They might have a case with a argument along the lines of "But honestly, keeping Haynesworth and Hall for a combined total 180 million in contracts was a competitive disadvantage" lol.

Oh I know. It just feels like the felony offenders are being given jail time, while the guys who comitted misdemeanors are being awarded a small cash prize.

I'd like to see how much everyone shifted like this(I have a feeling that someone will put that list together). If 10 and 36 million were so much more then everyone else, then its more understandable.

[RedskinsDave]

Do not kill people. If you kill one person, you will suffer no consequences. If you kill four, you get the death penalty. Inconsistent? Sure, what are you gonna do about it?

[lorimike]

I am inclined to agree for one reason: In the uncapped year, the free agent market was restricted by the increase length-of-service requirements for free agency. That made it difficult for teams to "stock up" on quality free agents by paying them huge first-year salaries which then dropped off precipitously. In practice, I do not think the Skins gained any huge future advantage from the uncapped season; we dropped dead weight from the past. So I don't think this is really all that fair.

I think the Cowboys may actually have benefited from this more than we did. Some of the players they signed are still around.

The only teams with any advantage in this league are the ones who employ Brady, Manning, Rogers, Rothlesberger etc etc. If I am Dan Snyder I would work very hard to get rid of Roger Goodell.

[justinskins]

They might have a case with a argument along the lines of "But honestly, keeping Haynesworth and Hall for a combined total 180 million in contracts was a competitive disadvantage" lol.
I actually think this is a pretty good argument. Haynesworth wasn't even on the Redskins roster by the time 2011 started. Hall's post-2010 salary amounts are no greater than his ability warrants. Where's the competitive advantage?

[GloryHog]

Yes I would tend to agree but I think if they were going to do anything like that we would've heard about it a long time ago. I think it would be fruitless and not worth their bottomline in the long run. I'd definitely take tabs, but its hard to enact revenge on an entire league.

Heard about what? When? The news of this just broke hours ago.

As Shally mentioned, Al Davis did a pretty good job of it.

I don't pretend to know if the Skins and Cowboys have a legal leg to stand on anywhere. I just feel that if they think they any case, and there isn't some compelling self interest in not litigating, they probably will.

[Emmanouel8]

You would agree there's a difference between:
"no cap, no rules"
and
"no cap, but you will be sanctioned if you take this opportunity to try and game the system"

The second part was not a "rule," it was just a group of owners trying to artificially manipulate a capitalist system in a socialist way. This is their way of "capping" the uncapped year. The "future ramification" talking point is just draw attention away from what it actually is.

25 or so pissed owners who wanted an unoffical cap, about 5 said meh whatever, and 2 owners told completely told them to eff off. The 25 owners got angry not everyone was in line so they made an example of 2 teams.

[akhhorus]

Do not kill people. If you kill one person, you will suffer no consequences. If you kill four, you get the death penalty. Inconsistent? Sure, what are you gonna do about it?

A bank robbery analogy would work better for you.

I actually think this is a pretty good argument. Haynesworth wasn't even on the Redskins roster by the time 2011 started. Hall's post-2010 salary amounts are no greater than his ability warrants. Where's the competitive advantage?

Might be worth a try.


The second part was not a "rule," it was just a group of owners trying to artificially manipulate a capitalist system in a socialist way. This is their way of "capping" the uncapped year. The "future ramification" talking point is just draw attention away from what it actually is.


The NFL hasn't been capitalistic since the start of the cap system. And this isn't socialism(socialism refers to direct control of an economic sector by the government, not rules that have little/nothing to do with profit/ownership).

25 or so pissed owners who wanted an unoffical cap, about 5 said meh whatever, and 2 owners told completely told them to eff off. The 25 owners got angry not everyone was in line so they made an example of 2 teams.

And they can't sell their franchises without league permission. And any number of limitations. This is why they have collective bargaining on both sides, they agree to these rules.

[hockeygoalie29]

I've been digesting this for a few hours and still come to the same two conclusions:


The league had their chance to disallow any of these contracts it took offense to and chose not to. In fact, the league office explicitly approved them. Now, two years later, they want to discredit their own approval. That's just not right. So, why didn't the league reject the contracts? See #2.


This is a clear case of collusion. The league as a whole is attempting to govern what the teams, 32 separate businesses, can and can't do. If reports are correct and these "warnings" the league gave were all verbal, that's a clear indication the league didn't want a paper trail. If, in the months leading up to the lockout, the league office had issued written statements instructing teams NOT to spend large amounts of cash during the uncapped year, it would have been the smoking gun the union was looking for in it's attempt to prove collusion during the anti-trust suit. As would rejecting the contracts outright. Now that they've settled the case, it's time to retroactively enforce policies made on a wink-nod basis.

[GloryHog]

The NFL is destroying the Washington DC market. Some of our home games are like away games with so many fans in the seats rooting for the away team. We've been a doormat for two decades. So now we've compromised the " competitive balance " ? Really ? We haven't been competitive for a very long long time. I am about sick of Roger Goodell and his little dictator attitude. Enough already.

And a lot of other teams apparently like it that way.

[shally]

again, WWADD... you know damn well he would have filed suit as fast as his lawyers could have filed the papers.. would he have won ? dont know, but his success rate was pretty good over all

this is a crock of ****.. either there are rules or there are not.. if we broke the rules, we need to be sanctioned, if we didnt, it should be even considered..

[akhhorus]

The league had their chance to disallow any of these contracts it took offense to and chose not to. In fact, the league office explicitly approved them. Now, two years later, they want to discredit their own approval. That's just not right. So, why didn't the league reject the contracts? See #2.


The teams are all warned that there would be cap penalties down the line if they did this. Multiple times. As for approval, I don't know how much the league actually has to approve in a restructured contract. I can't find any example of where the league "approved" or "disapproved" a restructure.

[Emmanouel8]

The NFL hasn't been capitalistic since the start of the cap system. And this isn't socialism(socialism refers to direct control of an economic sector by the government, not rules that have little/nothing to do with profit/ownership).


By "capitalistic" I meant the uncapped year. I didn't intend to describe anything in a strict "socialist" rather a "socialist way." Group control vs individual control. Regardless its semantics.


And they can't sell their franchises without league permission. And any number of limitations. This is why they have collective bargaining on both sides, they agree to these rules.

I'll concede if you can produce this "rule."

[Keino]

I understood your use of irony. The other teams believe that we received a continuing competitive advantage. It's not just about 2011, so the fact that we didn't play well last year isn't a decisive fact. The other owners can point to the fact that we had about as much cap space going into free agency as the Chiefs, which doesn't really gel with conventional wisdom about our spending habits. That shows, they would argue, that we gained an unfair advantage for the 2012 season by the way we restructured the contracts in 2010.

In response to Emmanuel08, an "objective evaluation" produces some good arguments on both sides. I think we have a good argument that this penalty is unfair because there was no formal, bright-line rule and the year was supposed to be uncapped. Also, other teams engaged in similar behavior to a lesser extent and are largely going unpunished. However, the other owners also have a good argument that we took advantage of the uncapped year in a way that reduces league competitiveness and undermines the salary cap system. Moreover, we can't make the argument that we did this in a good faith belief that it was within the rules, since we were explicitly warned not to do it.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the league has the ability to do this, and there's probably nothing we can do about it.
You cannot undermine a system that does not exist. How can the Redskins have undermined a cap system that was not in-place with no certainty that it would even return since it was a negotiable point with the players union. This is b.s.

[lorimike]

again, WWADD... you know damn well he would have filed suit as fast as his lawyers could have filed the papers.. would he have won ? dont know, but his success rate was pretty good over all

this is a crock of ****.. either there are rules or there are not.. if we broke the rules, we need to be sanctioned, if we didnt, it should be even considered..

The league approved these contracts. The fact that we paid people like Haynesworth so much for so little production put us at competitive disadvantage. We certainly had no advantage whatsoever. I don't think we can litigate because this little fiefdom that is the NFL operates beyond the rules of free market competition.

[RedskinsDave]

I've been digesting this for a few hours and still come to the same two conclusions:

The league had their chance to disallow any of these contracts it took offense to and chose not to. In fact, the league office explicitly approved them. Now, two years later, they want to discredit their own approval. That's just not right. So, why didn't the league reject the contracts? See #2.
This is a clear case of collusion. The league as a whole is attempting to govern what the teams, 32 separate businesses, can and can't do. If reports are correct and these "warnings" the league gave were all verbal, that's a clear indication the league didn't want a paper trail. If, in the months leading up to the lockout, the league office had issued written statements instructing teams NOT to spend large amounts of cash during the uncapped year, it would have been the smoking gun the union was looking for in it's attempt to prove collusion during the anti-trust suit. As would rejecting the contracts outright. Now that they've settled the case, it's time to retroactively enforce policies made on a wink-nod basis.

Well said.

[cal_junior]

The league approved these contracts. The fact that we paid people like Haynesworth so much for so little production put us at competitive disadvantage. We certainly had no advantage whatsoever. I don't think we can litigate because this little fiefdom that is the NFL operates beyond the rules of free market competition.

The competitive advantage came from the fact it was easier to part with Haynesworth (cut him) and recover from our mistake.

[justinskins]

How can the Redskins have undermined a cap system that was not in-place with no certainty that it would even return since it was a negotiable point with the players union. This is b.s.

If there was no certainty the cap would return, why did we use the uncapped season to play games with the cap? Everything we did was done in anticipation of the cap returning.

I think our best argument is to admit that we played games, but that there was no harm to league competitiveness because (1) we did not actually benefit from restructuring these contracts; (2) the situation was unique and unlikely to be repeated, so our behavior does not set a bad precedent for the future.

[Emmanouel8]

Well said.

Agreed. Hits on a lot of valid points. Many people don't realize the significance of the paper trail. Very well said.

Again, if these rules can be produced I will concede that something was violated, otherwise my opinion remains the same.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-to-lose-36-million-in-cap-space-over-two-years/2012/03/12/gIQABbe27R_blog.html#pagebreak

Officials of the league and the NFL Players Association agreed to the reduction in the salary cap for the two teams in deliberations over the past week, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

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.

[Emmanouel8]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-to-lose-36-million-in-cap-space-over-two-years/2012/03/12/gIQABbe27R_blog.html#pagebreak

Just more spin. Hey they didn't do anything wrong we just had to play Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

[OCSKINSFAN]

The arguments that the League's action is improper, unfair, etc., are all well and good (and I agree), but what can be done about it? This appears to be a fait accompli.

[cal_junior]

The arguments that the League's action is improper, unfair, etc., are all well and good (and I agree), but what can be done about it? This appears to be a fait accompli.

Unfortunately I think you're absolutely right. On one side you have 30 owners and the players union. On the other you have the Evil Empire of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. Not much for us to do, unfortunately.

[akhhorus]

By "capitalistic" I meant the uncapped year. I didn't intend to describe anything in a strict "socialist" rather a "socialist way." Group control vs individual control. Regardless its semantics.


There were rules on what contracts could be handed out or not in the uncapped year.


I'll concede if you can produce this "rule."

The NFL has wide authority to penalize teams for attempting to circumventing the cap. Draft picks have been taken away in the past. If the NFL, owners and PA agree that Team X has circumvented the cap, whether or not there's a specific rule in the book for what they did, they can administer sanctions. And teams were warned.

[BigCountry]

A Mara headed the committee that decided this (don't remember its exact title) which isn't surprising. Maybe the Redskins and Cowboys play two road games against the Giants. Maybe Goodell just hands over a chunk of his paycheck to the Mara family.

[lorimike]

The competitive advantage came from the fact it was easier to part with Haynesworth (cut him) and recover from our mistake.,,,,

But we got no advantage whatsoever from Haynesworth. Yes it was easier to dump Fat Albert but then again why have an uncapped year? I love how the NFL makes up the rules as they go along in this instance. This is not a codified rule, therefore the NFL is merely playing a subjective game of favorites.

[Emmanouel8]

Unfortunately I think you're absolutely right. On one side you have 30 owners and the players union. On the other you have the Evil Empire of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. Not much for us to do, unfortunately.

I just don't know how "warnings" were sent, then they can come out and say the teams didn't do anything "wrong," and we end up with $37 million less in cap space.

Unbelievable.

Yes I don't think we're getting out of it, but its therapeutic to vent. I have to get back to some real work i have with a midnight deadline, I wish I saw this thread when I got home tonight. I guess staying up all night venting wouldn't have been that much better.

[akhhorus]

A Mara headed the committee that decided this (don't remember its exact title) which isn't surprising. Maybe the Redskins and Cowboys play two road games against the Giants. Maybe Goodell just hands over a chunk of his paycheck to the Mara family.

I guess the Eagles forced the NFLPA to sign off on this also?

[justinskins]

What most disgusts me is that the league squeezed the union to make this happen. The NFLPA has no reason to stand up for the Redskins, but it recognized that this punishment really wasn't right. It wasn't until the league threatened to play hardball with the league-wide cap level that the NFLPA relented. Really disgusting.

[Skaggsrules]

What about teams that cut players during the uncapped year? Didn't they benefit from dead money relief that year...

Seriously though, where does it end. Can you just whine your way to crippling other teams.

[hail2skins]

The NFL has wide authority to penalize teams for attempting to circumventing the cap. Draft picks have been taken away in the past. If the NFL, owners and PA agree that Team X has circumvented the cap, whether or not there's a specific rule in the book for what they did, they can administer sanctions. And teams were warned.But, there was NO cap in 2010.

[hail2skins]

I read on a tweet that the NFL did put out a statement and when questioned said there would be no more details. This smells rotten.