Redskins, Cowboys File Arbitration Suit (update page 16, post 237.)

[Red Bear]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Or 28 teams felt like being cheap and expected the remaining teams to be cheap as well. If someone "warned" you not to do something that you had a right to do, would you comply? I wouldn't. The CBA contained an intricate set of rules, carefully negotiated by the teams and the players. Those rules allowed what we did. The other teams didn't like it - so what? They don't get to wave their magic wand and change the rules. If they didn't like, they shouldn't have set up the uncapped final league year.

excellent point. i would like to add to this by saying. 1. The league approved our contracts. 2. The league admitted we broke no rules. 3. The other teams that wanted us punished are also the same teams that approved the rules that we followed, and could have done the same things as us and some did but didnt get unfairly punished for it.

Originally Posted by flave1969

I looked into this when this first argument was raised and it simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If you look into it the only team that has some validity in this argument is Baltimore, but they were in dire straits anyway with their cap whether they signed Haloti Ngata or not. They had to release a bunch of players just to sign all their tenders and rookies in 2010. In fact they called it Black Friday it was so desperate.

The other teams had and still have the Cap Room to sign the players mentioned in this argument. For instance Cincinnatti who were cited by Albert Breer, were upset at the loss of Jonathan Joseph to the Texans, yet they had 38 million dollars in cap room at the time. They could easily have handed out the contract the Texans did to Joseph. The reason they didn't is because they are cheap.

Miami having tendered Paul Solaili and had to pay him the extra money still had over 10 million in cap room after. Furthermore Miami seemed more than willing to part with $20million plus a year when they were courting Peyton Manning. If they were able to afford that please show me how they can plead they were materially affected by Fat Albert's contract.

There is a reason why the 120% rule for Franchise players is in existence and that is to encourage teams to sew up a long term deal with players. San Diego could easily have signed V-Jax to a deal but they wanted him on the cheap for as long as possible. We are talking a difference of $1.8 million dollars a year here. Sooner of later they were going to have to pay Jackson the going rate.

What this boils down to is the teams in question simply didn't want to spend the money. Their rosters have not been dramatically affected and any team with good cap management can sign players if they really want too.

Originally Posted by flave1969

I may be wrong but has it been established what the Skins did was illegal? As far as I can tell the NFL has punished the Skins/Boys on competitive balance grounds which leads me to your point above.

From a competitive balance point of view what the Bears did is exactly the same. They simply could not have worked that contract the same way under the CBA, past or present. They are currently benefitting from that contract in terms of Cap Hit, and if they ever decide to cut him they are on the hook for next to nothing as his Signing Bonus was only $6.5 million making him much easier to get rid off. How is this not a competitive advantage?

two very excellent posts as well

[Red Bear]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Because that was signed in the uncapped year and they didn't move anything around. Thats how the contract was designed. It was completely legal. Lots of teams did that, and lots of teams wrote into 2010 big base salaries years in advance expecting an uncapped year. That was legal also.

In every single year, the team is on the hook for the base salary(which is what the bonus money became) against the cap. And if the skins had made it into signing/roster bonus money in the uncapped year(which would mean it would have counted against the cap eventually), it would have been legal also.

From my understanding Haynesworth $21 million was an option bonus in the original contract signed before the uncapped year. So what exactly are you saying the Redskins did that other teams didnt do? Because we are not the only ones to place large amounts of money in the uncapped year.

I dont think Peppers contract being signed in the uncapped year has squat to do with it. At that point everyone knew the year was gonna be uncapped, the bears surely took advantage of it. at the time of the Haynesworth signing teams could only speculate that it might be uncapped...

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

They were specifically warned not to do it.

So what? A cop can warn me not to vote this fall, that doesn't mean I can't do it and be in full compliance with the law. It doesn't matter what they were told. It matters what the CBA says. That is the sole authority here. Moreover, Goodell has specifically said no rules were broken and that this is a competitive balance issue.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

that already existed in the future.

This phrase is completely counter-intuitive. If it's the future, it cannot exist in the present. At the time the deals were made the team had no way of knowing for certain whether there would be a cap moving forward.....you cannot circumvent that which is not in-place.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You can stop right there. The rest of the teams gave out massive contracts during the uncapped year. The skins and Boys weren't shelling out more money to their players and the league isn't trying to punish them for some "we have to lower salaries secretly" conspiracy.

So I guess the other teams were just concerned about the integrity of the cap system? Please. Obviously, teams were motivated by saving money - if not in 2010, then in 2011 and beyond. Why else oppose what we did? The teams wanted us (1) to spread 2010 payments into future years, lowering the amount spent in those years and (2) to keep franchise tag salaries lower in future years.

Were we in some sense "circumventing" the cap in 2011 and 2012? Of course. The question is whether it was impermissible circumvention. The old (and new) CBA explicitly excludes conduct permitted by the rules from its circumvention provision. ("However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.") What we did was specifically contemplated and allowed by the old CBA. When the old CBA was negotiated, the NFLPA and the league worked out a deal in which the league would be punished for failing to agree to a new CBA by an uncapped year. That deal specifically included giving teams the right to front-load salaries, effectively shifting cap space from future years into an uncapped final league year.

The other teams just didn't like this deal and tried to squirm out of it. They didn't like it because the more teams did what we did, the more cash would be spent on players in 2011 and beyond. What I wrote about them being cheap was correct. But whether you call it collusion or conspiracy or whatever is irrelevant: the point is that what we did was allowed.

They were specifically warned not to do it.

Once again, why should this matter? The league has no right under either the new CBA or the old CBA to suspend the rules by verbal warnings to teams. If the IRS called you up and said, "You owe $80,000 in federal income tax this year," would you just up and pay $80,000? No. You'd hire a competent attorney to advise you, and then you'd pay what you owe under the law because they have no right to demand anything more. Which is exactly what we did here.

*EDIT*

Originally Posted by Keino

So what? A cop can warn me not to vote this fall, that doesn't mean I can't do it and be in full compliance with the law. It doesn't matter what they were told. It matters what the CBA says. That is the sole authority here. Moreover, Goodell has specifically said no rules were broken and that this is a competitive balance issue.

Yes, excellent.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Red Bear

From my understanding Haynesworth $21 million was an option bonus in the original contract signed before the uncapped year. So what exactly are you saying the Redskins did that other teams didnt do? Because we are not the only ones to place large amounts of money in the uncapped year.

The Texans moved a 10 million dollar option bonus in Schaub's contract, the difference being that they made it into signing bonus(or a roster one). But it was legal because the Texans didn't circumvent the cap at all. They had to pay the pro-rated amount against the cap.

Originally Posted by Red Bear

I dont think Peppers contract being signed in the uncapped year has squat to do with it. At that point everyone knew the year was gonna be uncapped, the bears surely took advantage of it. at the time of the Haynesworth signing teams could only speculate that it might be uncapped...

I've explained the difference and I'm not repeating myself.

Originally Posted by Keino

So what? A cop can warn me not to vote this fall, that doesn't mean I can't do it and be in full compliance with the law. It doesn't matter what they were told. It matters what the CBA says. That is the sole authority here. Moreover, Goodell has specifically said no rules were broken and that this is a competitive balance issue.

Another bad example. If the IRS said that you are technically allowed deduction X, but if the rules are changed in Y way you can be penalized for taking deduction X(and this isn't a hypothetical, I believe that this happened in the early 90s with certain tax shelters), you're SOL if they change the rules.

Originally Posted by Keino

This phrase is completely counter-intuitive. If it's the future, it cannot exist in the present. At the time the deals were made the team had no way of knowing for certain whether there would be a cap moving forward.....you cannot circumvent that which is not in-place.

And if there's wasn't a cap, it wouldn't have caused a sanction. JJ Halsell, the skins' former cap guru, wrote this in March 2010:

As I’ve previously written, given the uncertainty of what 2011 holds, clubs who take advantage of the uncapped year by incurring high team salaries in 2010 run the risk of possibly being penalized in 2011 as part of a new salary cap and CBA. Clearly, this is a risk the Redskins are willing to take -- or perhaps they know something the rest of us don’t.

If he knew that this was on the table then, the skins knew that this was on the table potentially. If the skins were gambling that the cap would be gone forever, they crapped out.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

So I guess the other teams were just concerned about the integrity of the cap system? Please. Obviously, teams were motivated by saving money - if not in 2010, then in 2011 and beyond. Why else oppose what we did? The teams wanted us (1) to spread 2010 payments into future years, lowering the amount spent in those years and (2) to keep franchise tag salaries lower in future years.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. The haynesworth/hall bonus monies, if spread out, would have meant an additional 6 million total(roughly) cap room lost a year for the skins. Thats not enough for the rest of the league to give a crap about as you posit. If the rest of the league was riled up over teams driving up salaries in the uncapped year, there's plenty of other teams that would have drawn their ire for handing out stupid contracts that year(the biggest target probably should have been the Bengals for giving Antonio Bryant 28 million to never play a game for them).

Originally Posted by justinskins

Were we in some sense "circumventing" the cap in 2011 and 2012? Of course. The question is whether it was impermissible circumvention. The old (and new) CBA explicitly exclude conduct permitted by the rules from its circumvention provision. ("However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.") What we did was specifically contemplated and allowed by the old CBA. When the old CBA was negotiated, the NFLPA and the league worked out a deal in which the league would be punished for failing to make a new deal by an uncapped year. That deal specifically included giving teams the right to front-load salaries, effectively shifting cap space from future years into an uncapped final league year.

And teams did that legally.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The other teams just didn't like this deal and tried to squirm out of it. They didn't like it because the more teams did what we did, the more cash would be spent on players in 2011 and beyond. What I wrote about them being cheap was correct. But whether you call it collusion or conspiracy or whatever is irrelevant: the point is that what we did was allowed.

Not according to the league, owners, union and comp committee.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Once again, why should this matter? The league has no right under either the new CBA or the old CBA to suspend the rules by verbal warnings to teams. If the IRS called you up and said, "You owe $80,000 in federal income tax this year," would you just up and pay $80,000? No. You'd hire a competent attorney to advise you, and then you'd pay what you owe under the law because they have no right to demand anything more. Which is exactly what we did here.

If you intentionally shifted assets or income around to avoid taxation in that year, the IRS can make that call and get that check from you. Thats what the skins did here(essentially).

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Another bad example. If the IRS said that you are technically allowed deduction X, but if the rules are changed in Y way you can be penalized for taking deduction X(and this isn't a hypothetical, I believe that this happened in the early 90s with certain tax shelters), you're SOL if they change the rules.

An equally bad example. The IRS rules are in constant evolution. The CBA in question expired and cannot be amended post-expiration. The sole authority for the uncapped year was the expired CBA. Not a memo from the Commish, not a phone call from the exec committee issuing a warning....the CBA. That is the Sole authority here.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And if there's wasn't a cap, it wouldn't have caused a sanction. JJ Halsell, the skins' former cap guru, wrote this in March 2010:


If he knew that this was on the table then, the skins knew that this was on the table potentially. If the skins were gambling that the cap would be gone forever, they crapped out.

Or they could have simply been following the written rules of the league and ignoring any authority which purported to trump the governing document of the league and prepared to go to the mattresses if they were unjustly punished as is the case.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. The haynesworth/hall bonus monies, if spread out, would have meant an additional 6 million total(roughly) cap room lost a year for the skins. Thats not enough for the rest of the league to give a crap about as you posit. If the rest of the league was riled up over teams driving up salaries in the uncapped year, there's plenty of other teams that would have drawn their ire for handing out stupid contracts that year(the biggest target probably should have been the Bengals for giving Antonio Bryant 28 million to never play a game for them).

So why get riled up about it all? The principle of the thing? You're giving the rest of the league way too much credit.

Not according to the league, owners, union and comp committee.

Well, I guess we'll see who's right when Burbank rules.

If you intentionally shifted assets or income around to avoid taxation in that year, the IRS can make that call and get that check from you. Thats what the skins did here(essentially).

Maybe under tax law you can't do that. But under the NFL CBA, it was allowed in an uncapped final league year.

*EDIT* And at any rate, way to dodge the analogy. The point is that the verbal warning is irrelevant and there's no reason you should keep bringing it up.

*EDIT 2 * I'd also point out that there is really only one group that says what we did was wrong: the other owners. The committee that punished us is composed of owners; owners pressured Goodell into taking action; and by all credible accounts, the NFLPA thought we did nothing wrong but caved when the other owners started playing hardball with this year's cap numbers.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

An equally bad example. The IRS rules are in constant evolution. The CBA in question expired and cannot be amended post-expiration. The sole authority for the uncapped year was the expired CBA. Not a memo from the Commish, not a phone call from the exec committee issuing a warning....the CBA. That is the Sole authority here.

And yet, here we are lol.

Originally Posted by Keino

Or they could have simply been following the written rules of the league and ignoring any authority which purported to trump the governing document of the league and prepared to go to the mattresses if they were unjustly punished as is the case.

Then they should have been prepared to be stripped of cap room/draft picks in that scenario.

Originally Posted by justinskins

So why get riled up about it all? The principle of the thing? You're giving the rest of the league way too much credit.

If the skins didn't move 36 million of future cap charges(and did, say, less then 10 million) no one would have cared. Or the skins would have gotten what the Raiders and Saints did(a punishment in name alone).

Originally Posted by Keino

Well, I guess we'll see who's right when Burbank rules.

Maybe under tax law you can't do that. But under the NFL CBA, it was allowed in an uncapped final league year.

And yet: here we are. And 28 other teams knew not to do it.

Originally Posted by justinskins

*EDIT* And at any rate, way to dodge the analogy. The point is that the verbal warning is irrelevant and there's no reason you should keep bringing it up.

I'm not dodging the analogy at all. I'm putting it into a better context to this situation. And you can claim its irrelevant all you want, the league et al(and 28 other teams) didn't think it was.

Originally Posted by justinskins

*EDIT 2 * I'd also point out that there is really only one group that says what we did was wrong: the other owners. The committee that punished us is composed of owners; owners pressured Goodell into taking action; and by all credible accounts, the NFLPA thought we did nothing wrong but caved when the other owners started playing hardball with this year's cap numbers.

And the competition committee. This "conspiracy" is so large that it's basically the rest of the league outside of the 4 teams who were sanctioned lol.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If the skins didn't move 36 million of future cap charges(and did, say, less then 10 million) no one would have cared. Or the skins would have gotten what the Raiders and Saints did(a punishment in name alone).

OK, I see the difference. You think the league just cared so much about the integrity of the game. I think the owners were trying to spend less money. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

I'm not dodging the analogy at all. I'm putting it into a better context to this situation. And you can claim its irrelevant all you want, the league et al(and 28 other teams) didn't think it was.

And what do you think? Stop hiding behind the league's authority and answer the question. Why should the warning be relevant to any team's legal rights under the CBA?

And the competition committee. This "conspiracy" is so large that it's basically the rest of the league outside of the 4 teams who were sanctioned lol.

Was the competition committee even involved with this? I thought it was just the Management Council Executive Committee (an owners' committee)?

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If you intentionally shifted assets or income around to avoid taxation in that year, the IRS can make that call and get that check from you. Thats what the skins did here(essentially).

If someone shifted assets to shelter assets in such a way that complied with the written rules of the IRS and then the IRS changed the rule, that change would be effective in subsequent tax years. If a taxpayer then tried to use the same rule the following year, then the IRS could come after them, and even then, there are legitimate methods of abating the penalties, interest and even some of the tax liability. I won't go into those methods, because it would take the conversation way off course, but the IRS doesn't get to just come in and demand without the taxpayer (individual or entity) having rights to dispute such a demand.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

OK, I see the difference. You think the league just cared so much about the integrity of the game. I think the owners were trying to spend less money. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

I guess so, but if the other owners were colluding to keep salaries down, there were other(better) targets among the teams in that season.

Originally Posted by justinskins

And what do you think? Stop hiding behind the league's authority and answer the question. Why should the warning be relevant to any team's legal rights under the CBA?

Haven't I answered that multiple times? The league's warning might have been informal, but it should have been respected.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Was the competition committee even involved with this? I thought it was just the Management Council Executive Committee (an owners' committee)?

The Competition Committee was the body that warned teams about not doing the restructures prior to the uncapped year. They also held up the declaration of the 2012 cap figure until the penalties(and the cap figures) were decided.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And yet, here we are lol.



Then they should have been prepared to be stripped of cap room/draft picks in that scenario.

Two things:

1. Yes here we are. The penalty is being disputed and the teams being unjustly penalized are going to the mattresses.

2. You attributed a statement from Justin to me, but I am going to respond anyway:

28 teams colluded to keep salaries down in anticipation of a protracted labor dispute and they are pissed at 2 owners who refused to play ball.

Look no further than that as to your 28 teams in compliance.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

If someone shifted assets to shelter assets in such a way that complied with the written rules of the IRS and then the IRS changed the rule, that change would be effective in subsequent tax years. If a taxpayer then tried to use the same rule the following year, then the IRS could come after them, and even then, there are legitimate methods of abating the penalties, interest and even some of the tax liability. I won't go into those methods, because it would take the conversation way off course, but the IRS doesn't get to just come in and demand without the taxpayer (individual or entity) having rights to dispute such a demand.

1. Actually the IRS can apply tax changes retroactively. Its rare, but it does happen.
2. the skins/boys have redress to dispute the demands like a tax payer has. The NFL is saying that they lack standing, but the skins/boys still have options.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

28 teams colluded to keep salaries down in anticipation of a protracted labor dispute and they are pissed at 2 owners who refused to play ball.

Look no further than that as to your 28 teams in compliance.

For the 20th time at least: there's nothing in what the skins or boys did which directly effected salaries upwards. Thus, there's no way it was collusion to keep salaries down in penalizing them. And if the league wanted to penalize teams for jumping up salaries in the uncapped year, there's teams who did drive up salaries in 2010 and they weren't targeted.