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

[akhhorus]

Damn that John Mara, forcing 29 owners(and 3 absentions) to confirm the sanctions that the majority of owners were initially pushing for and forcing the union and entire competition committee to go along with it at gunpoint lol. All just to keep a 5-11 team down....

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Good thing for the NFL that the Skins/boys were penalized for circumventing the 2010 cap then lol.

And we are back to the point that 2010 was uncapped. You cannot circumvent that which does not exist pursuant to the governing document of the league.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

And we are back to the point that 2010 was uncapped. You cannot circumvent that which does not exist pursuant to the governing document of the league.

You're right. The league sanctioned them for circumventing the cap in 2011 and 12. If the uncapped system continued until Haynesworth's contract expired(or if the skins cut him before the new CBA was signed), they couldn't have been sanctioned for it.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You're right. The league sanctioned them for circumventing the cap in 2011 and 12. If the uncapped system continued until Haynesworth's contract expired(or if the skins cut him before the new CBA was signed), they couldn't have been sanctioned for it.

So if it wasn't OK to do that, why except an uncapped final league year from the 30% rule? Uncapped years before the final league year still had the rule, which would have covered exactly this situation. Seems to me they built what we did right into the old CBA. I think that the league's argument is pretty weak. The other teams just didn't like the rule and tried to change it with some vague non-written threats.

[silverspring]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You're right. The league sanctioned them for circumventing the cap in 2011 and 12. If the uncapped system continued until Haynesworth's contract expired(or if the skins cut him before the new CBA was signed), they couldn't have been sanctioned for it.

The contract had changed by the time the new cap had taken affect. They weren't violating the new cap with his current contract, so that is BS.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

So if it wasn't OK to do that, why except an uncapped final league year from the 30% rule? Uncapped years before the final league year still had the rule, which would have covered exactly this situation.

Because the league allowed a future bonus conversion in 2010 where it was converted into roster or signing bonus(but would be spread out over the life of the contract into the future). Lots of teams took advantage of it. Thats not circumventing the future cap figures. If the skins did that, none of this would be happening, and the skins would only have had an additional 6.2 million of cap charges in 2011-14.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Seems to me they built what we did right into the old CBA. I think that the league's argument is pretty weak. The other teams just didn't like the rule and tried to change it with some vague non-written threats.

Thats possible, but it seems like the rest of the league(not just the owners) were really cheesed off by these moves by the skins/boys. I can understand why with moving 36 million in future cap charges to circumvent them.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Because the league allowed a future bonus conversion in 2010 where it was converted into roster or signing bonus(but would be spread out over the life of the contract into the future). Lots of teams took advantage of it. Thats not circumventing the future cap figures. If the skins did that, none of this would be happening, and the skins would only have had an additional 6.2 million of cap charges in 2011-14.

OK, but that doesn't answer my question. The fact is that what we did was contemplated and specifically allowed when the rules were written.

[bergiemoore]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Because the league allowed a future bonus conversion in 2010 where it was converted into roster or signing bonus(but would be spread out over the life of the contract into the future). Lots of teams took advantage of it. Thats not circumventing the future cap figures. If the skins did that, none of this would be happening, and the skins would only have had an additional 6.2 million of cap charges in 2011-14.



Thats possible, but it seems like the rest of the league(not just the owners) were really cheesed off by these moves by the skins/boys. I can understand why with moving 36 million in future cap charges to circumvent them.

I don't question why the rest of the league is upset. They have every right to be. Jerry and Dan interpreted "uncapped" a little too literally.

I question whether or not the league has the authority to alter the terms of the 2011 CBA, specifically, the bit that states how the salary cap will be the same for all clubs, without a vote from the NFLPA membership.

I also question the ethics of the executive committee, which blackmailed DeMaurice Smith with lowering the salary cap right before his re-election, in order to get his approval of the salary cap reductions for the Skins and Cowboys. This second question isn't a legal one, and will probably have no bearing on the arbitration. It just seems unsavory.

[oldskinfan]

I have read in other sports columns that the reason the owners were *really* upset at the Redskins was that by converting future payments to guys like Haynesworth and D-Hall into up-front payments, they inflated the average salaries at those positions and make it difficult for certain organizations like San Diego to franchise and try to retain V-Jax.

Remember, that, in essence is what they did. They did NOT go out there and sign every free agent available and run a $300m cap number in order to try to buy a championship. They made it difficult for teams to RETAIN some of their players.

So if that is the case, I say the punishment should fit the crime. Make the Redskins lose their Franchise tag for 3 years. That would certainly please the NFLPA (they hate the franchise tag), the 'Skins could lose some FA this way, and there is no fight over the cap number.

Instead, we know the other owners are envious of the financial success of the Cowboys and Redskins, so they used this as an excuse to "throw the book" at them.

My 2 cents.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

OK, but that doesn't answer my question. The fact is that what we did was contemplated and specifically allowed when the rules were written.

Except that the league warned teams that doing so could leave them open to punishment if the cap came back. 28 teams complied.

Originally Posted by bergiemoore

I also question the ethics of the executive committee, which blackmailed DeMaurice Smith with lowering the salary cap right before his re-election, in order to get his approval of the salary cap reductions for the Skins and Cowboys. This second question isn't a legal one, and will probably have no bearing on the arbitration. It just seems unsavory.

Saying that "you have a choice, approve the sanction or see everyone's cap figure go down about a million each" isn't blackmail imo. The CBA says that the total cap figure has to be X(one way or the other).

Originally Posted by oldskinfan

I have read in other sports columns that the reason the owners were *really* upset at the Redskins was that by converting future payments to guys like Haynesworth and D-Hall into up-front payments, they inflated the average salaries at those positions and make it difficult for certain organizations like San Diego to franchise and try to retain V-Jax.

Remember, that, in essence is what they did. They did NOT go out there and sign every free agent available and run a $300m cap number in order to try to buy a championship. They made it difficult for teams to RETAIN some of their players.

So if that is the case, I say the punishment should fit the crime. Make the Redskins lose their Franchise tag for 3 years. That would certainly please the NFLPA (they hate the franchise tag), the 'Skins could lose some FA this way, and there is no fight over the cap number.

My 2 cents.

+1. Great post.

[bergiemoore]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Saying that "you have a choice, approve the sanction or see everyone's cap figure go down about a million each" isn't blackmail imo. The CBA says that the total cap figure has to be X(one way or the other).

Here's a quote from a great article written by Kapalan of the Sports Business Journal:

The CBA calls for a 10-year player compensation average of 47 percent of revenue, before deductions and credits. The players’ take in 2012 after deductions and credits will be around 47.5 percent. The same development is expected in 2013, the last year with a compensation floor. As a result, when the TV deals are kicking in the following season, some of the accounting for essentially the overpayments in 2012 and 2013 begins..

[source]

The salary caps for 2012 and 2013 are borrowing money from future years, when the new TV contract is expected to kick in a lot more revenue than the current one. Players, who were initially told by the union that 2014 would see a sharp jump in the salary cap, are now being told that due to this borrowing, 2014, and on, will see only a gradual rise in the cap.

The same article also reports that Bob McNair, owner of the Houston Texans and chairman of the league’s finance committee, claims there was no quid pro quo between the league and the union in the agreement to sanction the Skins and Cowboys, but that raises all kinds of questions as to why the union would agree to take away cap space from 2 teams that are almost garaunteed to use it, and distribute it to 28 other teams, many of whom will not. There were a lot reports around the time that claim it was the NFL strong-arming the union to agree to these sanctions. Here's one:

“Why did we agree to it?” a former player said, rhetorically. “Because the league had us over a barrel. If we didn’t agree to the penalty for the Redskins and the Cowboys, the cap would have been $113 million, the players would have been [angry] and De would have gotten fired.

“What the league is doing is collusion, plain and simple.”

[source]

Whether you call it blackmail, strong-arming, or quid pro quo makes no difference to me.

[firehawk157]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Except that the league warned teams that doing so could leave them open to punishment if the cap came back. 28 teams complied.

I don't really think this can hold water legally. That's like telling people that prohibition is coming back and they better not get too drunk before it does because they'll be retroactively punished for it. There's a lot of precedent for it (ex post facto law).

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Saying that "you have a choice, approve the sanction or see everyone's cap figure go down about a million each" isn't blackmail imo. The CBA says that the total cap figure has to be X(one way or the other).

This isn't true, the CBA states explicitly (check page 3 or 4 of this thread) that the salary cap will be administered equally to all teams. What the NFL did was adjust that particular clause retroactively. In order to do this, they need to FIRST get approval of 2/3s of the owners (not after the fact) and 50%+1 of the players (which they never got at all).

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by bergiemoore

Whether you call it blackmail, strong-arming, or quid pro quo makes no difference to me.

So, whenever the union or the league issues even a veiled(or mild) threat about "not doing X" or "if you do that, we'll do X" or "if you don't agree to X, then we'll cut Y's pay" thats blackmail then? Thats called everyday business between labor and management in this country.

Originally Posted by firehawk157

I don't really think this can hold water legally. That's like telling people that prohibition is coming back and they better not get too drunk before it does because they'll be retroactively punished for it. There's a lot of precedent for it (ex post facto law).

Except that it wasn't ex post facto. I don't quite know why people aren't understanding this. The skins aren't being punished because they circumvented the non-existent cap in 2010. They were warned not to circumvent the cap in the future by using the uncapped year to do so. Your prohibition argument doesn't make any sense because there's a temporal element here.

Originally Posted by firehawk157

This isn't true, the CBA states explicitly (check page 3 or 4 of this thread) that the salary cap will be administered equally to all teams. What the NFL did was adjust that particular clause retroactively. In order to do this, they need to FIRST get approval of 2/3s of the owners (not after the fact) and 50%+1 of the players (which they never got at all).

Good luck with that argument to the arbitrator when the union and owners will say that they have no problem with the adjustments. Oh wait, they were "blackmailed" into it lol.

[skinsfaninva]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Except that it wasn't ex post facto. I don't quite know why people aren't understanding this. The skins aren't being punished because they circumvented the non-existent cap in 2010. They were warned not to circumvent the cap in the future by using the uncapped year to do so. Your prohibition argument doesn't make any sense because there's a temporal element here.

I am unsure of your argument. It makes no sense period. No cap is No cap. You can't be punished for circumventing a cap in the future that is unknown and year(s) down the road. If you want to argue that point, then the Skins were just spending their leftover cap space from 2018 in which they assume the cap will be x millions of dollars.

Oh that is right, I was told not to do something legal and now because I did not follow your instructions you are going to punish me so I don't disobey again.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninva

I am unsure of your argument. It makes no sense period. No cap is No cap. You can't be punished for circumventing a cap in the future that is unknown and year(s) down the road.

If there was no cap in 2011 and 12, the skins couldnt have circumvented it. The skins took money from 2011 and 12, moved it to 2010 solely to never have that money ever charged against the cap. That's circumventing it anyway you want to slice it and regardless of the rules in 2010.

And yes, you can be punished because the league specifically warned teams multiple times that if the cap came back in 2011(or at some point in the future) that shifting money like this could lead to sanctions.

Originally Posted by skinsfaninva

If you want to argue that point, then the Skins were just spending their leftover cap space from 2018 in which they assume the cap will be x millions of dollars.

The example only works if they're moving money from 2018 to today so that they never have that money charged against the cap(which can't happen because there's a cap now).