Cowboys and Redskins losing cap space

[clyde_carbon]

Meh. It's business. People use loopholes all the time.

 

[Taz_Hokie]

Bruce Allen released a statement about an hour ago, basically telling Goodell he can go fuck himself.

“The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”

Statement from... | Facebook

NFL removes cap space | Washington Examiner

The Cowboys released a similar statement.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

That is what I was wondering, the league fucking approved these deals. Seriously amazed they are pulling this stunt.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Good luck Goodell. Go after the two most aggressive owners and two of the most powerful franchises in the league! I love that Bruce Allen basically told that red headed spokes-ape to pound sand.

This is a two year punishment. I GUARANTEE the Skins play to the full cap this year and then spend the next calendar year dismantling this crap in courts if need be. This may be the end of the spokesape as well.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Wasn't it the other owners that voted to screw over the Cowboys and Redskins? I imagine Jerry Jones and Snyder/Allen are going to have a hard time weaseling their way out of losing cap space if it was the other owners that were behind this.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Wasn't it the other owners that voted to screw over the Cowboys and Redskins? I imagine Jerry Jones and Snyder/Allen are going to have a hard time weaseling their way out of losing cap space if it was the other owners that were behind this.

It is not hard to prove collusion in this case. They told the other owners they would get more cap space for fucking over two teams. I guarantee this does not happen, lolz at people who think it will.

 

[Kinzu]

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under the Cap: Redskins Utilizing the Uncapped Year

So basically the Redskins re-worked Hansworth and Hall's deals from option bonuses to signing bonuses raising their cap numbers for the 2010 season but giving them cap relief in the following years. They had a freaking 170 million dollar cap number that year. They also did this knowing they could face fines and punishment for it when the new CBA was signed.

The biggest reason they will not win a court case on this is because they were warned not to do it, and the owners give Goodell the power to do these things. They would only stand a chance at getting this ruling overturned if the majority of the owners disagreed with it, and I some how doubt they will do that.

 

[Kinzu]

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years. To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."

ProFootballWeekly.com - League fines Cowboys and Redskins for cap issues

Apparently it's in the new CBA that the league had the right to do this. The Cowboys and Redskins will just have to suck it up and take it. They have no ground to fight this on if it's in the CBA they agreed to sign.

Also does no one think it's funny how many find this wrong of the league? It's ok for 2 teams to gain an unfair advantage in future years by massively front loading contracts or using the uncapped year to off load bad contracts, but we do not think it's ok for a team to film another teams practice before the Super Bowl. What's the difference exactly? They both create an unfair advantage and both deserve punishment in my opinion.

The reason other teams are getting a 1.6 million dollar cap increase is so this does not punish the players. They are taking the cap number the Cowboys and Redskins are losing and dividing it throughout the league so that the total combined cap number is the same. They have to do this to keep the NFLPA happy.

 

[MHSL82]

If they had buyer's remorse on the RGIII trade, do you think they could cite this financial hardship (due to its immediacy and the fact that the deal was made in reliance of being able to use up to its cap for FA signing instead of the draft) to get out of the deal? I read an article stating that the deal would not be submitted until Tuesday and something to the tune of "this would be a lot to give up if Washington doesn't change its mind before Tuesday." I would think if you were warned about taking advantage of the loophole, you're in tough luck on using that as an excuse, but if the deal is unofficial until 1 PM Pacific time, you could do it. But this is only if they had buyer's remorse, and even with the lower cap number (going it draft-free), would look really bad and would preclude any smaller deal later for the second pick. Also, when the original contracts were made, pre-uncapped year, they knew they were strapping their available cap. It's just the timing and reliance on what they thought they had that might have led to the RGIII trade.

 

[fordman84]

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years. To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."

ProFootballWeekly.com - League fines Cowboys and Redskins for cap issues

Apparently it's in the new CBA that the league had the right to do this. The Cowboys and Redskins will just have to suck it up and take it. They have no ground to fight this on if it's in the CBA they agreed to sign.

Also does no one think it's funny how many find this wrong of the league? It's ok for 2 teams to gain an unfair advantage in future years by massively front loading contracts or using the uncapped year to off load bad contracts, but we do not think it's ok for a team to film another teams practice before the Super Bowl. What's the difference exactly? They both create an unfair advantage and both deserve punishment in my opinion.

The reason other teams are getting a 1.6 million dollar cap increase is so this does not punish the players. They are taking the cap number the Cowboys and Redskins are losing and dividing it throughout the league so that the total combined cap number is the same. They have to do this to keep the NFLPA happy.

The difference is that all contracts go through the commissioners office, so everyone everywhere knew exactly what Dallas and Wash were doing. No videos of practice or film goes through the commissioners office, it is all under the table and shady. Dallas and Washington didn't try to pay players on the side or anything shady, they did everything by the book and by the contract. The commissioner can say "the rules allow this but please don't do it" all he wants, but if the rules are one way when the contracts are sent through AND the commissioner approves them, then how can he come back and punish you?

It would be like them lowering a speed limit by 5 miles an hour and then sending you a $50k ticket for all the times you drove on the road over the new limit.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

In addition:

1. The owners wouldnt set the 2012 salary cap until the NFLPA agreed to one of two options: 1. either less money for players in 2012 than 2011 OR 2. Vote for salary cap penalties against two teams (Redskins and Cowgirls) with that penalty money evenly distributed among the other 28 teams and a higher salary cap.... hmmmmmm.....

2. The owners voted for the punishment when offered an additional 1.6 million in cap space to throw these two teams under the bus.

The NFL has no leg to stand on here and this will cost Goodell his job. Bank on it.

The only thing that the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty of here is not taking part in collusion.

 

[fordman84]

Jerry and Snyder are not two people I'd want to mess with. They are two of the most influential owners in the league, as well as two of the most shrewd. As much as I make fun of Danny-boy, the made millions by being smart.

I'd say that a few phone calls to owners from both of them that have the tone of "ok, go along with this. We will just have to see how future votes go on other more important issues." to get some other teams back on the Skins/Boys side. Those two head up some pretty powerful committees in the NFL as well. Not the right people to be voting against.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

I remembered enough about the uncapped year to remember, once hearing about rumors of cap maneuverings on Monday, that the Cowboys and Redskins were the most likely targets of any effort to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Along with pretty much everyone else.

I’d forgotten some of the details. Fortunately, a few of you have better memories than me.

On September 18, 2010, we explained that, in the absence of the salary cap, Dallas owner Jerry Jones and Washington owner Daniel Snyder had dumped millions into the uncapped year. For the Cowboys, the number was $166.5 million. For the Redskins, it was $178.2 million.

“Both teams run the risk that the new CBA will include some type of reallocation provision aimed at reversing the effects of contracts engineered to take full advantage of the uncapped year,” we wrote at the time. “Though Jones and Snyder may regard such an outcome as unfair, two votes wouldn’t be enough to block the move.”

The problem is that the new CBA didn’t attempt to reallocate cap dollars, most likely because any effort to ding the Redskins and Cowboys for taking advantage of the rules of the uncapped year would have made the NFLPA even more convinced that the teams were indeed colluding in 2010 to hold down spending in the uncapped year. (Indeed, the league said nothing at all about the Cowboys/Redskins issue during the uncapped year, or during the CBA discussions.)

So instead the NFL waited until 2012, when the NFLPA was “scrambling” to find a way to prevent the team-by-team salary cap from shrinking for the first time ever. So instead of regarding the league’s proposal as the “Eureka!” moment that confirmed the existence of collusion prior to the lockout, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith apparently embraced the opportunity to avoid the challenge of explaining to the Executive Committee and the Board of Player Representatives at the upcoming annual meeting how and why the new CBA resulted in a salary cap that somehow dropped.

At the other extreme in 2010 were four teams who remained under $100 million: the Cardinals, Jaguars, Chiefs, and Buccaneers. If the league is so concerned that the Redskins and Cowboys skewed competitive balance by forcing too many dollars into the uncapped year, why isn’t the league equally concerned that the teams that didn’t spend contributed to any actual or perceived issues of competitive balance?

 

[fordman84]

I remembered enough about the uncapped year to remember, once hearing about rumors of cap maneuverings on Monday, that the Cowboys and Redskins were the most likely targets of any effort to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Along with pretty much everyone else.

I’d forgotten some of the details. Fortunately, a few of you have better memories than me.

On September 18, 2010, we explained that, in the absence of the salary cap, Dallas owner Jerry Jones and Washington owner Daniel Snyder had dumped millions into the uncapped year. For the Cowboys, the number was $166.5 million. For the Redskins, it was $178.2 million.

“Both teams run the risk that the new CBA will include some type of reallocation provision aimed at reversing the effects of contracts engineered to take full advantage of the uncapped year,” we wrote at the time. “Though Jones and Snyder may regard such an outcome as unfair, two votes wouldn’t be enough to block the move.”

The problem is that the new CBA didn’t attempt to reallocate cap dollars, most likely because any effort to ding the Redskins and Cowboys for taking advantage of the rules of the uncapped year would have made the NFLPA even more convinced that the teams were indeed colluding in 2010 to hold down spending in the uncapped year. (Indeed, the league said nothing at all about the Cowboys/Redskins issue during the uncapped year, or during the CBA discussions.)

So instead the NFL waited until 2012, when the NFLPA was “scrambling” to find a way to prevent the team-by-team salary cap from shrinking for the first time ever. So instead of regarding the league’s proposal as the “Eureka!” moment that confirmed the existence of collusion prior to the lockout, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith apparently embraced the opportunity to avoid the challenge of explaining to the Executive Committee and the Board of Player Representatives at the upcoming annual meeting how and why the new CBA resulted in a salary cap that somehow dropped.

At the other extreme in 2010 were four teams who remained under $100 million: the Cardinals, Jaguars, Chiefs, and Buccaneers. If the league is so concerned that the Redskins and Cowboys skewed competitive balance by forcing too many dollars into the uncapped year, why isn’t the league equally concerned that the teams that didn’t spend contributed to any actual or perceived issues of competitive balance?

And the lawyers for both teams won't hesitate to bring this point up. This is 100% a "EUREKA! WE HAVE COLLUSION AND CAN PROVE IT" moment. The NFL already was bitch-slapped by Davis and the Raiders in 1980, think they want to go down that road again with what is obvious to even the biggest Cowboys haters that we have collusion going on? "Hey, there is no cap this year, but don't spend money or else". That is collusion, and the courts will agree. You can't have agreements between owners and keep anti-trust immunity.

Any other NFLPA leader would have kicked the NFL right in the balls. He wouldn't have had to grovel, he could have said "give us what we want or we will disband your anti-trust immunity". Instead he took the easy road.

 

[Kinzu]

It's not collusion if they agreed to this in the CBA. They agreed to give the NFL the right to adjust team salary caps for 2012 and 2013. Jerry and Dan both agreed to this when they signed the CBA. They also were warned during the 2010 season that working contracts like that could mean incur penalties when the new CBA was finished.

I don't get why anyone should feel sorry for them. They were warned and did it anyway, and now they have to pay the price for it. That's the way rules work. The NFL signed off on the deals because they had no choice. If they declined them they could have faced charges from the NFLPA. It was an uncapped season and the league had no right to veto the deals. They did however warn teams that doing such contracts could come back to them in the CBA. The other owners in the league took notice and followed the rules (mostly), but the Cowboys and Redskins did not follow along and tried to game the system. The other owners took notice and have made sure they do not get away with it.

If what the Cowboys and Redskins did was ok, then every team in the league should have been able to do the same thing.

The NFLPA was kinda forced to agree to this, but that is way the negotiations work. The league wanted a lower cap number and the players wanted a higher cap number. The league offers the higher cap if the players agree to punishment of the Cowboys and Redskins and the players accept. The players get more money and the league got to right a wrong. The players honestly get the better deal by getting more money.

 

[RedneckNiner]

Goodelll Just needs the mustache and he could be the next Fuhrer. He already seems to thing he is the football god and that he must rule with an Iron fist. Good for the Redskins for flipping der furher the finger. Part of me likes the fact that the deadskins and cowturds got hurt. But Goodell has just come off like a power mad douche who thinks the NFL is all about him.

 

[Kinzu]

Goodelll Just needs the mustache and he could be the next Fuhrer. He already seems to thing he is the football god and that he must rule with an Iron fist. Good for the Redskins for flipping der furher the finger. Part of me likes the fact that the deadskins and cowturds got hurt. But Goodell has just come off like a power mad douche who thinks the NFL is all about him.

Punishing a team for trying to cheat the system makes him a Fuhrer? besides it's not so much Goodell handing out this punishment as it is the league owners. They are the ones that wanted this done. They were told not to do it so they did not, but the Cowboys and Redskins basically put up their middle finger and did it anyway. They now have to face the consequences for their actions. The rest of the owners were not going to let them get away with it. Now then if every team in the league had been allowed to do what the Cowboys and Redskins did then this would not be an issue, but they were told not to and most of them played by the rules.

 

[wartyOne]

Goodelll Just needs the mustache and he could be the next Fuhrer. He already seems to thing he is the football god and that he must rule with an Iron fist. Good for the Redskins for flipping der furher the finger. Part of me likes the fact that the deadskins and cowturds got hurt. But Goodell has just come off like a power mad douche who thinks the NFL is all about him.

Goodell answers to the owners. Not the Redskins' owner. Not the Cowboys' owner. All of the owners.

Point blank, Washington is super-fucked, and Dallas is pretty fucked. They can piss and moan all they want. They're facing the other 30 owners, 28 of whom want this passed. It will pass. Washington is about to enter top five status for the next decade. Unfortunately, that only generates 7 top five picks. Dallas is, and will continue to be, a joke as long as JJ is the owner. They're the new Oakland Raiders.

Hey, Danny. How much would you trade for our long snapper? The next six firsts?

 

[bone3421]

It's not collusion if they agreed to this in the CBA. They agreed to give the NFL the right to adjust team salary caps for 2012 and 2013. Jerry and Dan both agreed to this when they signed the CBA. They also were warned during the 2010 season that working contracts like that could mean incur penalties when the new CBA was finished.

I don't get why anyone should feel sorry for them. They were warned and did it anyway, and now they have to pay the price for it. That's the way rules work. The NFL signed off on the deals because they had no choice. If they declined them they could have faced charges from the NFLPA. It was an uncapped season and the league had no right to veto the deals. They did however warn teams that doing such contracts could come back to them in the CBA. The other owners in the league took notice and followed the rules (mostly), but the Cowboys and Redskins did not follow along and tried to game the system. The other owners took notice and have made sure they do not get away with it.

If what the Cowboys and Redskins did was ok, then every team in the league should have been able to do the same thing.

The NFLPA was kinda forced to agree to this, but that is way the negotiations work. The league wanted a lower cap number and the players wanted a higher cap number. The league offers the higher cap if the players agree to punishment of the Cowboys and Redskins and the players accept. The players get more money and the league got to right a wrong. The players honestly get the better deal by getting more money.

they didnt break any rules though....the old cba had an uncapped year built into when it expired so they have to go by one cba and not the other cba that everyone agreed to

 

[bone3421]

Punishing a team for trying to cheat the system makes him a Fuhrer? besides it's not so much Goodell handing out this punishment as it is the league owners. They are the ones that wanted this done. They were told not to do it so they did not, but the Cowboys and Redskins basically put up their middle finger and did it anyway. They now have to face the consequences for their actions. The rest of the owners were not going to let them get away with it. Now then if every team in the league had been allowed to do what the Cowboys and Redskins did then this would not be an issue, but they were told not to and most of them played by the rules.

so hey mister ninerfan i forbid you to drive over 20 miles an hour.....there i told you you cant do something that the law/rules allow you to do ....listen to me or i will spank you