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 if it gave them another 1.6 mill to spend. whether they use it or not is moot. I still am of the opinion that the reason most voted not to give back the CAP space is because the teams spent the extra 1.6 mill for themselves already and they can't give it back. The "Nay" vote is a formatlity.

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.

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

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.

I didn't write that I thought the Skins could be punished based on this - I wrote that that's the League's argument.

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."

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

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.

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

As far as I know, the teams are bound by three things:

1.) The CBA
2.) NFL rules
3.) Laws

Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

If true, which bindings did they violate, as they existed at the time of said violation?

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.

I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...

1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.

2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

As far as I know, the teams are bound by three things:

1.) The CBA
2.) NFL rules
3.) Laws

Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

If true, which bindings did they violate, as they existed at the time of said violation?

2) The NFL bylaws give the Commissioner broad powers to impose discipline for vague reasons. If the Commissioner thinks they acted to the detriment of league and affected competitive balance, he has the authority to punish them harshly.

He apparently said in advance "don't do X (or I will consider it conduct detrimental and a violation of competitive balance)" and they did X.

The real issue here is procedure and authority to impose discipline. The Commissioner doesn't have the authority to modify the salary cap.

He does have the authority to take draft picks. At any time he could just say, "fine, you can have your cap money back, I'm taking away your first round pick in the upcoming draft." I expect Minnesota would be happy to get a few picks for the chance to take RG3 at #3.

He did something he doesn't really have the authority to do, but it's easier on the Skins than what he does have the authority to do. In addition, 29 owners apparently have his back, so the Skins are kinda screwed, fair or not.

The only hope here is that the League decides that they want this to go away quickly and quietly, and come to a reduced penalty to keep people like Mara from saying dumb stuff in public.

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?

The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.

Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.