Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Status

[MTK]

Holy F

[Mechanix544]

Yes, if anything, the players get jipped out of potential earnings due to us not spedning as much as we could. Its not a fine, just a limit on what we CAN spend on all player salaries.

If you want to know who benefits, and who pays for it, well, ultimately the players take it on the chin in this situation. It took 36 million dollars away from the pot that they could have earned over a two year period.

Here is an easy way to look at it - Its like the NFL gave us an NFL credit card with a 12000 dollar limit. They then found out about our pornography and unpaid 1-900 phone call addiction which negatively impacted our credit score. So they THEN came back, after the credit card was issued, and right before Christmas, and lowered our credit limit to 10,200 dollars, thus inhibiting our right to spend 12,000 dollars on telephone blowjobs like your 31 other pervert friends.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

Yes, if anything, the players get jipped out of potential earnings due to us not spedning as much as we could. Its not a fine, just a limit on what we CAN spend on all player salaries.

If you want to know who benefits, and who pays for it, well, ultimately the players take it on the chin in this situation. It took 36 million dollars away from the pot that they could have earned over a two year period.

Here is an easy way to look at it - Its like the NFL gave us an NFL credit card with a 12000 dollar limit. They then found out about our pornography and unpaid 1-900 phone call addiction which negatively impacted our credit score. So they THEN came back, after the credit card was issued, and right before Christmas, and lowered our credit limit to 10,200 dollars, thus inhibiting our right to spend 12,000 dollars on telephone blowjobs like your 31 other pervert friends.

No the players are kept whole. They took the $36 million they told us not to spend, and spread it around to the other teams in the league, allowing them each to spend a little more to make up for it.

That's why the players agreed to go along with this BS in the first place.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No the players are kept whole. They took the $36 million they told us not to spend, and spread it around to the other teams in the league, allowing them each to spend a little more to make up for it.

That's why the players agreed to go along with this BS in the first place.

There is a salary cap but not a salary floor. Didn't some of the cheapskate owners stay well under the salary cap last season?

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would have spent right up to their cap numbers to get better players. Some of the other owners would not and, I think, did not.

The players got screwed, afterall.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

There is a salary cap but not a salary floor. Didn't some of the cheapskate owners stay well under the salary cap last season?

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would have spent right up to their cap numbers to get better players. Some of the other owners would not and, I think, did not.

The players got screwed, afterall.

No there still is a floor. But if a team isn't going to spend to the cap anyways then what does adding space to their limit matter? So yeah the players most likely lost out on some money overall.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

No there still is a floor. But if a team isn't going to spend to the cap anyways then what does adding space to their limit matter? So yeah the players most likely lost out on some money overall.

One of the (many) BS aspects of the penalties is that we supposedly violated the collusive agreement not to take advantage of a cap less year. Yet, many owners benefitted by spending well under the would be cap floor during the non-capped year. I didn't see any of them getting penalized for violating
"the spirit of the salary cap" or taking "advantage of a one-year loophole."
Mara says Redskins, Cowboys are lucky they didn’t lose draft picks | ProFootballTalk

So, it was okay to take advantage of the cap less year in a manner that immediately harmed the players, BUT, it was not okay to take advantage of it in a way that would ultimately benefit the players (by giving more money to spend to the owners who actually spend it).

Mara is a douche.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

There is a salary cap but not a salary floor. Didn't some of the cheapskate owners stay well under the salary cap last season?

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would have spent right up to their cap numbers to get better players. Some of the other owners would not and, I think, did not.

The players got screwed, afterall.

Good point. THe Redskins and Cowboys should point this out to De Smith. Might be a pertinent point in the fight with the league. Even if moot it's worth a shot.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

Yes, if anything, the players get jipped out of potential earnings due to us not spedning as much as we could. Its not a fine, just a limit on what we CAN spend on all player salaries.

If you want to know who benefits, and who pays for it, well, ultimately the players take it on the chin in this situation. It took 36 million dollars away from the pot that they could have earned over a two year period.

Here is an easy way to look at it - Its like the NFL gave us an NFL credit card with a 12000 dollar limit. They then found out about our pornography and unpaid 1-900 phone call addiction which negatively impacted our credit score. So they THEN came back, after the credit card was issued, and right before Christmas, and lowered our credit limit to 10,200 dollars, thus inhibiting our right to spend 12,000 dollars on telephone blowjobs like your 31 other pervert friends.

First of all, i think your analogy is crude and inappropriate for this site. Its certainly not the type of thing i want to read when i come here, especially when im at work.

Secondly, the 36 million didnt disappear. the cap dollars the league took away from the skins and the other 3 penalized teams was evenly distributed among the entire league. The only reason the Union supported the penalty, was because the league told them the penalty was the only way they'd allow the cap to stay "flat" as opposed to decreasing, which woul dhave made the union look bad.

You see, the current union leadership told the players that the cap would continue to go up by something like 10% a year, like it had been in previous years. However, under the new CBA, the cap isnt going up and isnt expected ot any time soon. If the had gone DOWN, in the first year after the new CBA was signed, the union would have faced a mutiny. The penalties against the 4 teams allowed the owners to be vindictive against teams that refused to illegally collude against the players, and it allowed the union (who was supposed to represent the players interests) to save face against their constituents.

Ultimately, the players are the ones getting screwed by all of this. The league has deceived them time and time again and its own union is weak and doesnt represent their interests.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The league has deceived them time and time again and its own union is weak and doesnt represent their interests.

Their union is indeed weak. Actually more accurately they are "fake tough". But I think they're made weak by their members. They signed a crap deal for them because the players didn't really have the guts to force a true work stoppage into the season. Now they're stuck with it for 10 years. Think how pissed they're going to be in 5-6 years when the cap hasn't really gone up any.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Their union is indeed weak. Actually more accurately they are "fake tough". But I think they're made weak by their members. They signed a crap deal for them because the players didn't really have the guts to force a true work stoppage into the season. Now they're stuck with it for 10 years. Think how pissed they're going to be in 5-6 years when the cap hasn't really gone up any.

Demaurice Smith came in talking a big game, didn't back it up at all. The deals Upshaw made seem like hitting the lottery in comparison.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Demaurice Smith came in talking a big game, didn't back it up at all. The deals Upshaw made seem like hitting the lottery in comparison.

Upshaw and Tags had a good relationship and everyone seemed to understand that working together was better for all rather than trying to squeeze one more percent from the other guy. In essence...it became a union/employer thing.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

First of all, i think your analogy is crude and inappropriate for this site. Its certainly not the type of thing i want to read when i come here, especially when im at work.

Secondly, the 36 million didnt disappear. the cap dollars the league took away from the skins and the other 3 penalized teams was evenly distributed among the entire league. The only reason the Union supported the penalty, was because the league told them the penalty was the only way they'd allow the cap to stay "flat" as opposed to decreasing, which woul dhave made the union look bad.

You see, the current union leadership told the players that the cap would continue to go up by something like 10% a year, like it had been in previous years. However, under the new CBA, the cap isnt going up and isnt expected ot any time soon. If the had gone DOWN, in the first year after the new CBA was signed, the union would have faced a mutiny. The penalties against the 4 teams allowed the owners to be vindictive against teams that refused to illegally collude against the players, and it allowed the union (who was supposed to represent the players interests) to save face against their constituents.

Ultimately, the players are the ones getting screwed by all of this. The league has deceived them time and time again and its own union is weak and doesnt represent their interests.

I wonder what would have happened if the NFLPA said no we won't sign the agreement. Yeah the NFL threatened to reduce the CAP but by how much for each team? Also one would think the players would have been up in arms had the NFL came out after just getting over a hold out and said "Oops, sorry we have to lower the CAP." For what reason? I'd also think that would be a breach of the contract they just agreed to. NFL punishes the two teams there would be proof of collusion.

I think the NFLPA should have said no thank you and then said try to lower the CAP now less then 6 months after you agreed to pay the amount.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I wonder what would have happened if the NFLPA said no we won't sign the agreement. Yeah the NFL threatened to reduce the CAP but by how much for each team? Also one would think the players would have been up in arms had the NFL came out after just getting over a hold out and said "Oops, sorry we have to lower the CAP." For what reason? I'd also think that would be a breach of the contract they just agreed to. NFL punishes the two teams there would be proof of collusion.

I think the NFLPA should have said no thank you and then said try to lower the CAP now less then 6 months after you agreed to pay the amount.

It would have been interesting if the NFLPA had had the balls to do what you suggest, but i'm pretty sure DSmith would have been voted out of office immediately had the cap gone down at all. Even if it wasnt significant, it would have completely eliminated any confidence the players had in him.

Still, its not like the NFLPA could have gotten a better deal - they had no leverage. Due primarily to the financial irresponsibility of so many players, the union simply could not afford to miss any games and the league knew, and exploited that fact.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I wonder what would have happened if the NFLPA said no we won't sign the agreement. Yeah the NFL threatened to reduce the CAP but by how much for each team? Also one would think the players would have been up in arms had the NFL came out after just getting over a hold out and said "Oops, sorry we have to lower the CAP." For what reason? I'd also think that would be a breach of the contract they just agreed to. NFL punishes the two teams there would be proof of collusion.

I think the NFLPA should have said no thank you and then said try to lower the CAP now less then 6 months after you agreed to pay the amount.

Dont come over to this section much and I realize that this is a week late. But the NFL cant lower the salary cap on the NFLPA, it is done by a formula that has been negotiated between the two. The salary cap was going down automatically due to the new CBA. What happened was the player percent of money went down due to the CBA having a smaller cut for the players. (Players money went from something like a 56% to 50% of overall money. Not sure of exact numbers).

IE.. These numbers arent real, just using easier than the real numbers to show the example. I also doubt the formula is this simple, im only using the basics of it.

Say the NFL makes 10 bil per year total. The players percentage is 60%. So they take 10 bil and divide by 60% giving 6 bil to the players. They then divide that by 32 teams, and thats the salary cap. 6 bil divided by 32 is the individual team cap, 187.5 mil per team. Say the new CBA drops the player share to 50%. So now we take 50% of 10 bil, or 5 bil for the players. Divide that by 32 and that is the new cap of 156.25 mil per team. Thats where the lowering of the cap comes from, the players getting a smaller percentage of the revenues than they had in the previous CBA without the revenues rising to make up for it.

Since the cap was going down, DeMaurice went to the NFL and asked if some future money could be moved from later years to this years cap to keep it from going down. The new TV agreements are already negotiated so the cap is expected to rise in 2015 or 2016 when those go into effect. When the NFLPA asked to have money moved forward, thats when Goodell and Mara hit the union with yes we will do that as long as you agree to the sanctioning of the teams we want. The union agreed.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Dont come over to this section much and I realize that this is a week late. But the NFL cant lower the salary cap on the NFLPA, it is done by a formula that has been negotiated between the two. The salary cap was going down automatically due to the new CBA. What happened was the player percent of money went down due to the CBA having a smaller cut for the players. (Players money went from something like a 56% to 50% of overall money. Not sure of exact numbers).

IE.. These numbers arent real, just using easier than the real numbers to show the example. I also doubt the formula is this simple, im only using the basics of it.

Say the NFL makes 10 bil per year total. The players percentage is 60%. So they take 10 bil and divide by 60% giving 6 bil to the players. They then divide that by 32 teams, and thats the salary cap. 6 bil divided by 32 is the individual team cap, 187.5 mil per team. Say the new CBA drops the player share to 50%. So now we take 50% of 10 bil, or 5 bil for the players. Divide that by 32 and that is the new cap of 156.25 mil per team. Thats where the lowering of the cap comes from, the players getting a smaller percentage of the revenues than they had in the previous CBA without the revenues rising to make up for it.

Since the cap was going down, DeMaurice went to the NFL and asked if some future money could be moved from later years to this years cap to keep it from going down. The new TV agreements are already negotiated so the cap is expected to rise in 2015 or 2016 when those go into effect. When the NFLPA asked to have money moved forward, thats when Goodell and Mara hit the union with yes we will do that as long as you agree to the sanctioning of the teams we want. The union agreed.

Good insight. Come over to this section more often!