NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Again, i really want to know what the NFLPA thinks about this:

1) its taking away salary cap space from teams poised to actually spend it, and giving 1.6MM extra to teams, many of which have no intention of spending it.

2) there was no salary cap, and no CBA during 2010. Essentialy, what the skins and cowboys are being penalized for is not "colluding" with the other 30 teams to violate antitrust laws and limit player salaries when they had no authority to do so.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I expect the league to follow actual rules. Not make shit up as they go along. It's sort of how a civilized society works.

Or to enforce the rules by not approving restructured contracts that violate their own rules (if that is the case).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Again, i really want to know what the NFLPA thinks about this:

1) its taking away salary cap space from teams poised to actually spend it, and giving 1.6MM extra to teams, many of which have no intention of spending it.

2) there was no salary cap, and no CBA during 2010. Essentialy, what the skins and cowboys are being penalized for is not "colluding" with the other 30 teams to violate antitrust laws and limit player salaries when they had no authority to do so.

Well the 1.6 to the other teams makes up for it. The player pool stayed the same.

[FRPLG]

The fact that they allowed the contracts at the time and warned teams "or else" screams collusion. NORMALLY the league would have simply rejected the deals. In the midst of the labor dispute that would have been bad because they would have had to offer an explanation that would have been 1000000000% put into play as possible collusion.

[Ruhskins]

From Andrew Brandt:

Andrew Brandt ‏ @adbrandt
The "Uncapped League Year" article in previous CBA makes no mention of any warning to teams. Sense that push for this came from teams.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Oh yes. We are absolutely "guilty" on this.

Im wondering if thats how they came up with the full 21 million for him. If it was an option bonus we wouldnt have paid nearly any of it, i would think. Dont know about the 15 on Hall though.

Redskins’ Albert Haynesworth plans to report to training camp - Washington Times

It’s unknown whether the club has tried to recoup at least a portion of the $22 million in signing bonus money paid to Haynesworth during the 2010 season.

Signing bonuses were subject to forfeiture under the recently expired collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players’ union, and the Redskins protected themselves last offseason when they converted Haynesworth’s $21 million option bonus to a signing bonus.

The additional $1 million is a prorated portion of the $5 million signing bonus Haynesworth earned when he signed with the Redskins.

[SmootSmack]

I think we're still in decent cap shape, just not "outstanding" like we were a few hours ago

And who knows, maybe they did this on purpose. A kind of "beg for forgiveness, rather than ask for permission". Perhaps the penalty ultimately was not as bad as not restructuring the deals in the first place"

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The fact that they allowed the contracts at the time and warned teams "or else" screams collusion. NORMALLY the league would have simply rejected the deals. In the midst of the labor dispute that would have been bad because they would have had to offer an explanation that would have been 1000000000% put into play as possible collusion.

Damn good point. I wonder if the NFL has language in the CBA to address this issue in some way though?

A statement from the NFLPA would be nice.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well the 1.6 to the other teams makes up for it. The player pool stayed the same.

yes, but my point was a number of those teams are grossly under the cap every year (bengals, bucs, etc.), so the money is going to waste.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Rules or not, if the league is telling you to not do something, and you do it anyway, what do you expect?

Except we were following the rules and the league was attempting to collude to void the prior rules set forth in the prior CBA which specifically said that there was to be an uncapped year.

The uncapped year was something that to which all parties had agreed (players and owners). The uncapped year had been included as an intended poison pill. The owners knew what could happen as a result of it when they agreed to it - essentially, the salary cap would be busted for at least a year. That was the specific intent of that provision - to destroy the limitations created by the salary cap in hopes that it would be an incentive for the teams to reup the prior CBA. It failed to do so and some of the intended effects occurred.

The NFL management is now saying "We are punishing you for taking advantage of what this provision was specifically intended to do (f*** up the salary cap system)". IMHO, this is simply wrong and probably a violation of the labor laws governing collective bargining.

[Evilgrin]

Saves them from signing a few more OJ Atoghwe's

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think we're still in decent cap shape, just not "outstanding" like we were a few hours ago

And who knows, maybe they did this on purpose. A kind of "beg for forgiveness, rather than ask for permission". Perhaps the penalty ultimately was not as bad as not restructuring the deals in the first place"

If we split the $36M 50/50 against next year, we're already back up to around $17.5M in room with the Sellers and Atogwe cuts.

Not exactly cap hell.

[Ruhskins]

F'ing owners...

Rich Campbell ‏ @Rich_Campbell
It sounds to me like the owners strong-armed the union into agreeing to the penalties against WAS/DAL. Wild stuff.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If we split the $36M 50/50 against next year, we're already back up to around $17.5M in room with the Sellers and Atogwe cuts.

Not exactly cap hell.

right, not great. just good

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Damn good point. I wonder if the NFL has language in the CBA to address this issue in some way though?

A statement from the NFLPA would be nice.

as ashamed as i am, i actually sent florio and e-mail and raised this issue. no one else in the media seems to be raising it yet, and id love to have it addressed. without a CBA in place, the teams had not right to collude in this manner.