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

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Obviously my reference was to total salaries, not those of individual players.

Total salaries are still rising, and still rose in 2010.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Your "conspiracy theory" line of attack is misplaced. "Conspiracy theories" (in the popular sense) are based on crazy, far-fetched, hidden agreements. Here, the teams have openly admitted that they agreed to do something. The question is whether what they agreed to do was unlawful.

There's still zero proof that the owners agreed to reduce salaries. The empirical evidence(team spending in 2010 especially) suggests that there was no agreement. The only thing that there's proof of agreement of is that they agreed that the skins/boys circumvented the cap and should be stripped of cap room because of that. So calling this belief a "conspiracy theory" is far fetched until there's any proof of it.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Total salaries are still rising, and still rose in 2010.

That is irrelevant. The question is whether spending on players would have been higher had other players moved future money into the uncapped year.

There's still zero proof that the owners agreed to reduce salaries. The empirical evidence(team spending in 2010 especially) suggests that there was no agreement.

Spending less money on players was an inevitable product of their agreement.

The only thing that there's proof of agreement of is that they agreed that the skins/boys circumvented the cap and should be stripped of cap room because of that.

Incorrect. They only agreed to punish the Skins and 'Boys this year. In 2010, they agreed to change the rules of the salary cap system.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

That is irrelevant. The question is whether spending on players would have been higher had other players moved future money into the uncapped year.

Lmao..so empirical proof of what really happened is irrelevant to you. Probably because it contradicts what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Spending less money on players was an inevitable product of their agreement.

Except that they didn't: salaries and overall spending went up. Oh wait, that contradicts your conspiracy theory, so its irrelevant, no?

Originally Posted by justinskins

Incorrect. They only agreed to punish the Skins and 'Boys this year. In 2010, they agreed to change the rules of the salary cap system.

Thats not true and you know it. They changed the CBA after the new CBA came into effect and the skins/boys were penalized for circumventing the new CBA in 2011 and 12.

Still waiting for real proof of this conspiracy. I have a feeling that I'm waiting for Godot.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Except that they didn't: salaries and overall spending went up. Oh wait, that contradicts your conspiracy theory, so its irrelevant, no?

The agreement was not to decrease 2010 spending below 2009 levels. It was to keep 2010 (and future) spending below what it would have been absent the agreement. How spending actually varied with time is not relevant; the point is that more money would have been spent had the remaining 30 teams not acted in concert.

Thats not true and you know it.

Yes, it is true. What the Redskins and Cowboys did was legal under the CBA. The league's 2010 "warning" was a new rule, to which the other teams agreed so that they would spend less money. The NFLPA agreed to ratify the punishment after-the-fact because it was strong-armed into doing so.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that the NFL can change the CBA by fiat. That premise is false.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

The agreement was not to decrease 2010 spending below 2009 levels. It was to keep 2010 (and future) spending below what it would have been absent the agreement. How spending actually varied with time is not relevant; the point is that more money would have been spent had the remaining 30 teams not acted in concert.

1. You can't have an agreement based on a hypothetical figure. Even on the face of it, this is silly. So, did they poll the owners and GMs about how much they would spend sans cap rules, then come up with this supposed 120/123 million dollar barrier? And somehow no-one leaked this to the press? Which leads me to...
2. Plenty of teams spent above this mystical barrier. Nothing happened to them.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Yes, it is true. What the Redskins and Cowboys did was legal under the CBA.

And they were warned years in advance that they could be sanctioned if they took advantage of the uncapped year if the cap came back. It did, they have no reason to complain imo.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The league's 2010 "warning" was a new rule, to which the other teams agreed so that they would spend less money. The NFLPA agreed to ratify the punishment after-the-fact because it was strong-armed into doing so.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that the NFL can change the CBA by fiat. That premise is false.

I've never said that, so you're putting words in my mouth again. The NFL and NFLPA agreed on this change to the CBA(they didn't announce it obviously). Nothing was done by "fiat."

[justinskins]

To explain why spending would have been higher, consider the following example:

Player Ed Nigma is scheduled to make $30 million over 2010, 2011, and 2012. The cap hit is divided equally, $10 million per year. The Gotham Rogues decide to take advantage of the uncapped year. The Rogues restructure Nigma's contract such that the 2010 cap number is $20 million, while the 2011 and 2012 cap numbers are both $5 million. Since 2010 is uncapped, the Rogues don't need to decrease their spending on other players in that year. However, since 2011 and 2012 are capped, the team will end up spending the extra $5 million dollars in cap space on other players. Therefore, the Rogues end up spending $10 million more on player salaries as the result of the restructure.

Multiply that by many players and 32 teams, and you can see that it can add up quickly to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional spending.

Moreover, what the Rogues did was completely legal because the CBA explicitly eliminated the restrictions on front-loading salaries in the uncapped league year. The CBA makes no distinction between new contracts and restructured contracts for the purpose of circumvention.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You can't have an agreement based on a hypothetical figure.

The agreement was not tailored to any particular figure; it didn't have to be. It's simple arithmetic (see my immediately preceding post).

I've never said that, so you're putting words in my mouth again. The NFL and NFLPA agreed on this change to the CBA(they didn't announce it obviously). Nothing was done by "fiat."

The NFLPA agreed to the change after (1) the NFL had announced the rule to teams, (2) teams had broken it, and (3) teams had been punished for breaking it. Unless you believe in ex post facto rule-making, I'd call that change by fiat.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

To explain why spending would have been higher, consider the following example:

Player Ed Nigma is scheduled to make $30 million over 2010, 2011, and 2012. The cap hit is divided equally, $10 million per year. The Gotham Rogues decide to take advantage of the uncapped year. The Rogues restructure Nigma's contract such that the 2010 cap number is $20 million, while the 2011 and 2012 cap numbers are both $5 million. Since 2010 is uncapped, the Rogues don't need to decrease their spending on other players in that year. However, since 2011 and 2012 are capped, the team will end up spending the extra $5 million dollars in cap space on other players. Therefore, the Rogues end up spending $10 million more on player salaries as the result of the restructure.

Multiply that by many players and 32 teams, and you can see that it can add up quickly to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional spending.

Moreover, what the Rogues did was completely legal because the CBA explicitly eliminated the restrictions on front-loading salaries in the uncapped league year. The CBA makes no distinction between new contracts and restructured contracts for the purpose of circumvention.

In the NFL, thats cap circumvention.

And in the real world, Haynesworth was supposed to pay the skins 26 million of his bonus money to void out the rest of his contract. Thats why they moved the bonus in the first place, so that the skins could *legally*(even with a cap in the future) get out from those guaranteed years. So, in a better example, the Rogues make Nigma's salary 20 million, then he pays the Rogues 12-15 million back to become a free agent, the Rogues void that contract out and the salaries don't rise(except for in how the future cap rises). The 30 million owed over 2010-2012 becomes 5-8 million in 2010. Why the skins didn't complete the transaction with Haynesworth: who knows.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The agreement was not tailored to any particular figure; it didn't have to be. It's simple arithmetic (see my immediately preceding post).

See above.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The NFLPA agreed to the change after (1) the NFL had announced the rule to teams, (2) teams had broken it, and (3) teams had been punished for breaking it. Unless you believe in ex post facto rule-making, I'd call that change by fiat.

You can call it the mexican hat dance if you want, but the Union could have told them to stuff it at anytime. And since there was agreement which could have stopped the action if one party disagreed, its not by fiat. By your logic, a bill successfully voted on by congress is decided by fiat. They didn't have to go along with the punishment(which wasn't official until after the union signed off on it btw, so you're wrong about #3 and probably #1). Neither did the other organs of the NFL.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You can call it the mexican hat dance if you want, but the Union could have told them to stuff it at anytime. And since there was agreement which could have stopped the action if one party disagreed, its not by fiat. By your logic, a bill successfully voted on by congress is decided by fiat. They didn't have to go along with the punishment(which wasn't official until after the union signed off on it btw, so you're wrong about #3 and probably #1). Neither did the other organs of the NFL.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong about #3; I don't see how I could be wrong about #1, since the League made its warning in 2010 and the NFLPA didn't approve the punishment until 2012. The NFLPA could have told them to stuff it, but there would have been consequences. The league played hardball with the salary cap figures and they relented.

And if Congress passed a bill saying that something I did two years ago was a crime and tried to send me to jail for it, I most certainly would disagree with it. Which is why the circumvention argument fails. What we did was envisioned by the CBA; it was the League's punishment for terminating the agreement prematurely. The NFL tried to change the rules to its advantage after the fact.

[hail2skins]

This is from ESPN

Originally Posted by ESPN

The union has spent much of the offseason challenging the league on a variety of issues -- from punishment handed down by commissioner Roger Goodell for the alleged roles of four players in the Saints' bounties program to appeals in drug-related discipline. Now comes the court action in Minnesota, filed one day after the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys had grievances dismissed after having their salary caps reduced for this season and next.

The Redskins are losing $36 million and the Cowboys $10 million for overspending during the uncapped season -- a revelation that, in part, spurred the union's claim of collusion.

Link to full article -> ESPN

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Hmm, I guess I was wrong about #3; I don't see how I could be wrong about #1, since the League made its warning in 2010 and the NFLPA didn't approve the punishment until 2012. The NFLPA could have told them to stuff it, but there would have been consequences. The league played hardball with the salary cap figures and they relented.

They can announce a potential rule to the teams(and they were warning them in 2007), but its not an enforceable rule until the union signs off on it.

Originally Posted by justinskins

And if Congress passed a bill saying that something I did two years ago was a crime and tried to send me to jail for it, I most certainly would disagree with it.

A better example is if congress/IRS warns taxpayers about a deduction taken(or income that didn't have to be taxed) in the past(and were for years) and they pass a law retroactively making you liable in future years for taking that deduction/income in the past.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Which is why the circumvention argument fails. What we did was envisioned by the CBA; it was the League's punishment for terminating the agreement prematurely. The NFL tried to change the rules to its advantage after the fact.

We're just going to have to disagree on this.

Originally Posted by hail2skins

This is from ESPN

Link to full article -> ESPN

Did the league says this in legal papers or is this from the union?

[hail2skins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Did the league says this in legal papers or is this from the union?

Everybody has an opinion. I believe that is the from the associated press and not a quote from the union or the nfl. The NFL has already said the Skins and Cowyboys didn't break any rules. They said they tried to gain a competitive advantage. How did they do that. By moving future money that would have been spent in future years to the uncapped year causing them to spend more in the uncapped year. Giving them an advantage of having more to spend in future years. Basically reducing their cap in the future.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

We're just going to have to disagree on this.

I guess "agree to disagree" is a good approach when one doesn't actually have a counter-argument.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

We're just going to have to disagree on this.

So that means only three or four more pages on it?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by hail2skins

Everybody has an opinion. I believe that is the from the associated press and not a quote from the union or the nfl. The NFL has already said the Skins and Cowyboys didn't break any rules. They said they tried to gain a competitive advantage. How did they do that. By moving future money that would have been spent in future years to the uncapped year causing them to spend more in the uncapped year. Giving them an advantage of having more to spend in future years. Basically reducing their cap in the future.

Its only relevant to the case if the League said that in official/legal paperwork. Otherwise its just an opinion.

And what the NFL is describing is textbook circumvention. Hence the penalty which everyone seems to think is proof of a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by justinskins

I guess "agree to disagree" is a good approach when one doesn't actually have a counter-argument.

You could actually say that if you didn't skip a lot of my last response to you. I've stated my case, I have yet to see a coherent response from you to any of it. Only a series of accusations, false equivalencies and attempts at dismissing evidence which contradicts what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

So that means only three or four more pages on it?

Yawn.