Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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.

I understand what your saying. I understand your trying to get us all to see how we might lose this battle. Fine. But it doesn't make the whole situation morally correct due to unlawful practices.

I'll play your game. I'm all for the league "punishing" us if they would like. Just like DS and JJ have my vote on taking all this to a labor relations board and pointing out that the other 30 owners colluded. At this point Goodell has pissed me off enough I don't care what he does as long as in the long run they lose the war. which they will. Lets see back in 1990 the Baseball Union won a whopping $280 mill dollar settlement. Imagine what it would be today? Go ahead Goodell keep pushing the issue and DS has my approval to keep pushing ours.

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.

and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.

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.

1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).

2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.

Oh and why would the league need to sit down with the NFLPA and bribe, strong arm, or whatever you want to call it, them into not filing a suit if the owners did nothing wrong? If they didn't break any laws then there would be no need to even get them involved. Simply punish the two teams and be done with it.

I think the league will have trouble with this "It's not collusion because it's about competitive balance, it's not about player salaries" line.

Q: What competitive advantage did the Redskins and Cowboys gain?
A: Extra cap room.
Q: How would they take advantage of this advantage?
A: By spending it on player salaries.

I may not be the brightest knife in the shed, but I think I may have spotted a flaw in the argument.

1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).

2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.

You don't argue with the cop period. But your arguement would be for the judge. If proven the cop instructed you that it was OK to speed then he ticketed you for it the judge would throw it out. You would not be punished.

As I see this will if it goes to court. The league approved the contracts. Don't come back later and cry foul when you have the opportunity to tell both teams they can't do that at the time.

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.

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

I was under the impression that, at the time, no NFL rule existed that was violated, but the "detrimental conduct" clause is pretty broad and subjective.

I think the league will have trouble with this "It's not collusion because it's about competitive balance, it's not about player salaries" line.

Q: What competitive advantage did the Redskins and Cowboys gain?
A: Extra cap room.
Q: How would they take advantage of this advantage?
A: By spending it on player salaries.

I may not be the brightest knife in the shed, but I think I may have spotted a flaw in the argument.

I'd imagine the arguement is going to be that by freeing up all that space we in the future would be able to sign all the top talent in FA and no one else would be able to. However what was presented to me that I didn't know was all the CAP room the other teams had which really makes the arguement a moot point since they had just as much if not more CAP space to pick up all the top FA's.

and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

I'd imagine the arguement is going to be that by freeing up all that space we in the future would be able to sign all the top talent in FA and no one else would be able to. However what was presented to me that I didn't know was all the CAP room the other teams had which really makes the arguement a moot point since they had just as much if not more CAP space to pick up all the top FA's.

I think you missed the point. The NFL is saying that the instructions on how to treat the uncapped year weren't collusion because they weren't trying to suppress salaries. But, by trying to stop teams from (perfectly legally) gaining future cap room to spend on salaries, that's exactly what they were doing.