SBXVII
05-08-2012, 01:59 PM
Another good write up;
salary cap penalty | Tumblr (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/salary-cap-penalty)
OK. Now the original CBA (Set of agreed rules by which the NFL and NFLPA govern) which was constructed in the 90s was intended to expire in 2010. The makers of this old CBA put in an uncapped 2010 year in place in order to almost scare the two sides into an agreement for a new CBA prior to entering into that unwelcoming uncapped year. But that didn’t happen. Enter 2010. No CBA regulation on spending, teams are allowed to spend as they please. No cap, no floor.
Now here’s what irks me about this whole thing.
1.The teams broke no rules- Imagine driving on the German autobahns and someone warns you that you shouldn’t drive so fast because in two years there is going to be a speed limit and you could get punished for what you did. Rules are time specific and in instances like this retrospective punishment is uncalled for. Evidence that no rule was broken is the fact that the LEAGUE APPROVED ALL THE CONTRACT CHANGES WHEN THEY HAPPENED.
2.It is collusion and conspiracy- The timing stinks of collusion. Why not bring out this issue last year? Well because the NFLPA would have no choice but to call foul at that time because players would realize the proof that there were some “UNWRITTEN rules” the owners colluded by. This would enrage the players because you are penalizing “big spenders” like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and thus taking away money that could be going to the players. Well this begs to ask the question: “Why did the NFLPA agree to these penalties now?” ENTER CONSPIRACY. NFLPA Director DeMaurice Smith’s contract is set to expire this month. Many believe that if he did not continue to elevate the salary cap from years past, his job would be lost. The penalties issued to Dallas and Washington and subsequently redistributed to the other 28 teams puts the cap just above last years. Job secured De! Well done.
3.New Rule inclusion- First off, the New CBA did not even have any punishment for teams that took advantage of the uncapped year. This was a revision to the CBA that was not even taken to vote by the owners but rather changes were made by “side letter agreements.” Something this important should not have been left up to “after the fact” revisions constructed without votes. Additionally, if spending so much more gives you an unfair shot at winning and thus upsetting the “competitive balance” then why doesn’t spending significantly less upset this balance in the opposite direction. The Bucs, Chiefs, and Jags all spent absurdly low amounts of the “floor-less” cap in 2010. People questioned the Malcolm Glazer (Bucs Owner) of using that year to pay off the debts he owed to the Manchester United soccer club he also owned. The New CBA has included a Salary Cap minimum or floor that every team must adhere to. So why weren’t those cheap teams warned of possible penalties for their cheap spending?
A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.
salary cap penalty | Tumblr (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/salary-cap-penalty)
OK. Now the original CBA (Set of agreed rules by which the NFL and NFLPA govern) which was constructed in the 90s was intended to expire in 2010. The makers of this old CBA put in an uncapped 2010 year in place in order to almost scare the two sides into an agreement for a new CBA prior to entering into that unwelcoming uncapped year. But that didn’t happen. Enter 2010. No CBA regulation on spending, teams are allowed to spend as they please. No cap, no floor.
Now here’s what irks me about this whole thing.
1.The teams broke no rules- Imagine driving on the German autobahns and someone warns you that you shouldn’t drive so fast because in two years there is going to be a speed limit and you could get punished for what you did. Rules are time specific and in instances like this retrospective punishment is uncalled for. Evidence that no rule was broken is the fact that the LEAGUE APPROVED ALL THE CONTRACT CHANGES WHEN THEY HAPPENED.
2.It is collusion and conspiracy- The timing stinks of collusion. Why not bring out this issue last year? Well because the NFLPA would have no choice but to call foul at that time because players would realize the proof that there were some “UNWRITTEN rules” the owners colluded by. This would enrage the players because you are penalizing “big spenders” like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and thus taking away money that could be going to the players. Well this begs to ask the question: “Why did the NFLPA agree to these penalties now?” ENTER CONSPIRACY. NFLPA Director DeMaurice Smith’s contract is set to expire this month. Many believe that if he did not continue to elevate the salary cap from years past, his job would be lost. The penalties issued to Dallas and Washington and subsequently redistributed to the other 28 teams puts the cap just above last years. Job secured De! Well done.
3.New Rule inclusion- First off, the New CBA did not even have any punishment for teams that took advantage of the uncapped year. This was a revision to the CBA that was not even taken to vote by the owners but rather changes were made by “side letter agreements.” Something this important should not have been left up to “after the fact” revisions constructed without votes. Additionally, if spending so much more gives you an unfair shot at winning and thus upsetting the “competitive balance” then why doesn’t spending significantly less upset this balance in the opposite direction. The Bucs, Chiefs, and Jags all spent absurdly low amounts of the “floor-less” cap in 2010. People questioned the Malcolm Glazer (Bucs Owner) of using that year to pay off the debts he owed to the Manchester United soccer club he also owned. The New CBA has included a Salary Cap minimum or floor that every team must adhere to. So why weren’t those cheap teams warned of possible penalties for their cheap spending?
A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.