Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

rgiii countdown: T-3 days!

That's better ;).

Just want to say a quick Thanks to JoeReadskin and Hoophead,they have brought alot more to light in this then I ever imagined was involved.

Glad someone enjoyed it

Since I'm new here, I'm not sure how strong language is appropriate, but I will say that your less-than well thought out arguments previously were what inspired me to read the documents.

And I would also say that I find Mara's behavior and comments in this matter to be less than optimal.

Finally, I would say that if I were the fan of a team blessed by Lady Luck I would spend significantly less time agitating fans of teams with lesser fortune than you seem to.

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

The modification I'm talking about is:

"Where 'Salary Cap' previously referred to one number for all Clubs, in 2012 and 2013, it will be $18m less for the Redskins, $5m less for the Cowboys,..."

To make this penalty, the NFLPA and NFLMC would have had to sign a side letter modifying the CBA to include a sentence like that.

One issue that I hope the arbitrator may raise is that the way the whole CBA is written, and the way the Salary Cap is discussed throughout, that change doesn't make sense as written.

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

I didn't say it prohibits exactly what the Skins did. It addresses other similar ways of doing what the Skins did.

I said that punishing the Skins otherwise for doing what the Skins did is not evidence of collusion, because the CBA has clauses that try to accomplish the same thing.

It will be interesting 1) to see if the arbitrator chooses to hear the case, I wouldn't be shocked for him to say it falls outside his purview, and 2) if he does choose to hear it, how wide the discussion will be. If it will be narrowed simply to procedural issues, or if the Skins/Cowboys are able to get him to open it up to a more thorough investigation.

Of course we may not hear any of it, except the final outcome...

As explained earlier in the thread:

Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.




Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.

Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.


So, why didn't the league veto the contracts? I have always been under the impression that the league looks at all contracts to make sure they fall within the guidelines of the CBA. If the contracts both teams signed didn't fall into the guidelines as they are trying to say why didn't they veto, not approve, make both teams restructure them again, whatever? Why wait for 2 yrs then decide to punish?

And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.

Or, if the Commissioner has broad powers to discipline teams for vague reasons, you warn people in advance that:

An Uncapped year means you can spend as much as you want
An Uncapped year does not mean you can "hit delete" on bad contracts by shifting all the future salary cap hit into the uncapped year
We have written provisions into the CBA towards this effect
It's impractical to try to think of every possible case in advance, but be advised I will view attempts to circumvent this as adversely affecting competitive balance
I will discipline teams accordingly if necessary


In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.