Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Makes it seem like it goes back to divisional in fighting, all though I can't see 29 teams siding with the current SB winner

I can see all owners taking the free cap space and I can see all owners "uniting" in the face of potential legal battles. Just like all owners voted yes on the previous CBA when a bunch of them hated it or suspected it wasn't a good deal. Shocker, it sucked for them and they had to opt out leading to this mess. 29 owners voting "yay" means nothing from an ethical standpoint. 29 "yay and here's why"s with an eloquent and well thought out rationale might be useful. Other than that it was a rubber stamp.

Seeing as they argue that it hurts the future aka the current cap and cba... is there any language in the current cba agreed upon by both sides as pertaining to the matter? If there was I'd think that we would have heard about it by now.

There is plenty of language in the previous CBA (google 2006 NFL CBA) about what could and couldn't be done re: salary cap treatment in an uncapped year, including:

- In contracts signed in an uncapped year, salary (excluding signing bonus) couldn't decrease more than 30% from the uncapped year to future capped years.

- In contracts signed in a capped year prior to an upcoming uncapped year, any bonuses loaded into the uncapped year would be treated as signing bonus and the cap hit would be spread across the whole contract.

Snyder and Jones will argue that there are specific rules to cover specific situations, there was no rule to cover this specific situation, and the League approved the contracts at the time.

The League will argue that there was a clear agreement not to unduly shift salary cap hit into an uncapped year, they attempted to address this as best they could in the CBA, but either couldn't catch everything or couldn't negotiate that rule in advance. And, they didn't address this in 2011 because there were more pressing issues to address - like starting the season.

I think the 'Skins got screwed here, but the more I read of the CBA, the previous CBA, and the NFL bylaws, the more I think they should start trying to get along with the other owners.

While I DO NOT think the Redskins did anything wrong, they did create a competitive advantage for themselves. In theory, the cap should allow all teams to be competitive for a short time, then they will lose some players and have to retool due to the cap. It may not have given us an immediate advantage, but it most certainly gave us the possibility of being more competitive in the future.

The Redskins hamstrung themselves with contracts and used the uncapped year to alleviate that strain. That is where the competitive balance comes into play. The reason why it isn't an issue for many of those other teams, is they didn't have to drastically drop cap space to get where they were -- we did. The salary cap it an attempt to keep players moving and force teams to be careful with their money, we violated 'the spirit' of that philosophy.

That said -- the Redskins did nothing wrong and it was a very, very smart move. Even if the penalty stands, which I severely doubt it will -- it gave us a significant amount of manuverability. I see no real difference between restructuring deals and tossing huge salaries for new FAs into that single year -- the end result is the same, keeping your future cap number down while paying some high-priced players.

I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.
Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, that may be the most relevant part of all. According to the NFL Bylaws, 24 votes pretty much trumps all.

I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

and that something violates the labor laws. Two teams chose not to break the law and are getting punished for not doing so. Thats the nice pretty message being sent to the little kids.

As long as everyone agrees it's ok to break the law. If someone does not follow the agreement even though its against the law and or does the right thing we will punish him.

Sounds like bullying to me.

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

And the fact that the Skins and Cowboys didn't break any of the 2006 CBA provisions, and there is no disagreement on that, makes the question of punishment questionable. If the Skins had written a contract that violated the 30% rule, it would have been voided by the league. If the Skins had written a contract that contained language forbidden by the 2006 CBA it would have been voided by the league. None of the contracts were voided by the league at the time, why? because they were allowed by the 2006 CBA. Why didn't the league simply get with the NFLPA and adjust the rules, because the NFL would have been accused of collusion. Why, now 2 years later are they punishing the Skins and Cowboys, well according to you, it's simply because they can. Maybe 24 does overrule legal sense, if the Skins and Cowboys aren't willing to blow up the whole system, but I tend to think that an arbitrator, once given the opportunity will do what it takes to make it right. Keep in mind, and I am certain of this, if the arbitrator does say he has jurisdiction, (and if he doesn't it will be on your explanation of the 24 etc), that all parties have, in advance, accepted the arbitrator's right to make a final ruling.

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

you seem to see this as proof the Skins/Cowboys can be punished, but I see it the opposite way. The league wrote the rules of what could and could not be done, and the Skins didn't violate them. You can't come back and punish them because you weren't smart enough to write effective rules.

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

Collusion's a threat to the NFL:
Collusion’s a threat to NFL - BostonHerald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1061120272&format=&page=1&listingType=sco#articleFull)

"If the owners were found to have colluded during the uncapped year the penalty could be the most feared one in jurisprudence: treble damages. If this mess ends up in court and that $46 million is trebled, that’s a $138 million hit to the owners, similar to the one baseball owners took for colluding to suppress salaries between 1985-87. Major League Baseball forked over $280 million to the union."