Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

You could say the Patriots threatened competitve balance by acquring too many draft picks. And, like in this case, disperse them among all their competitiors.

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News (http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/cowboys-take-advantage-of-unca.html)

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/08/bears-can-pull-the-plug-on-peppers-after-one-year/)

No way this can precede arbitration. I just have a hard time believing anyone even SEMI-neutral can agree with what he did. Was it within his rights? Maybe. Should an arbitrator side with the NFL? Evidence would suggest in the Redskins and Cowboys favor.

Arbitration is a process outlined in the CBA, and the CBA is involved only because Goodell wanted to modify the salary cap.

If he had taken away draft picks, arbitration wouldn't be a option. They would have to sue - and they won't do that.

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/08/bears-can-pull-the-plug-on-peppers-after-one-year/)

Maybe. I've seen so many conflicting things on his contract, I'm just not going to bother with it.

There were other contracts structured in a similar fashion, though.

Arbitration is a process outlined in the CBA, and the CBA is involved only because Goodell wanted to modify the salary cap.

If he had taken away draft picks, arbitration wouldn't be a option. They would have to sue - and they won't do that.

Sure, but just like I said before, it's a forest-for-the-trees situation and if the neutral party has any sense, we win.

Details be damned, there is just too much evidence in our favor. Goodell's power has no bearing when we go to arbitration. The arbitrator makes all decisions regardless of NFLPA/Goodell's power.

Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.

He never tried to impose his own salary cap in an uncapped year.

There's a difference between players fighting a league for the right to impose discipline on them and league members suing themselves because they don't like how a Commissioner they appointed used they authority they gave him, and that 29 other members agreed with.

And, they can always attempt to sue the League, but they won't because that would be stupid for everybody involved. And they would have to prove that the Commissioner abused authority that they granted him sole discretion to apply.

If every team took a league to court for every bit of discipline they thought unfair, leagues wouldn't exist. At some point, Snyder will say, "I like making 9 figures and trying to win football games better than I like spending years in court and getting screwed by the League every way possible forever."

Sure, but just like I said before, it's a forest-for-the-trees situation and if the neutral party has any sense, we win.

Details be damned, there is just too much evidence in our favor. Goodell's power has no bearing when we go to arbitration. The arbitrator makes all decisions regardless of NFLPA/Goodell's power.

And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

I really don't see why its better to take this licking. It seems like you are parrotting Mara's it could have been worse. But, its not and at this point Goodell is not going to strip either team of draft picks, which certainly would have had the possibility of being very ugly had he chosen that route. Both sides are going to arbitration and its possible the skins get some redress. At this point they have nothing to lose.

He never tried to impose his own salary cap in an uncapped year.

There's a difference between players fighting a league for the right to impose discipline on them and league members suing themselves because they don't like how a Commissioner they appointed used they authority they gave him, and that 29 other members agreed with.

And, they can always attempt to sue the League, but they won't because that would be stupid for everybody involved. And they would have to prove that the Commissioner abused authority that they granted him sole discretion to apply.

If every team took a league to court for every bit of discipline they thought unfair, leagues wouldn't exist. At some point, Snyder will say, "I like making 9 figures and trying to win football games better than I like spending years in court and getting screwed by the League every way possible forever."

If he's telling teams they can't spend money the way the CBA allows, then yes he's trying to overrule the CBA and impose his own version of the salary cap.

And I was providing an example of the league going to court over something that Goodell supposedly had the "sole discretion" to decide. That power isn't any where near as absolute as you try to make it sound.