MTK
03-11-2006, 11:29 PM
Will it ever end??
By Len Pasquarelli
• On the subject of Arrington, his situation last week is indicative of how some league owners talk a good game, and then fold when it's time to stand behind their words. The Redskins were aided in their quest to squeeze under the salary cap last week when Arrington elected to forfeit $4.4 million in deferred signing bonus money which was part of his 2003 contract extension. The move raised a lot of eyebrows around the league.
Several NFL teams had claimed that the Redskins could not mathematically get under the salary cap if it was set in the $94 million range, which it initially was (at $94.5 million), and that Washington needed a cap level in the $98 million range to be in compliance with the spending limit. And, presto, suddenly the team gained $4.4 million in cap relief (you do the math on the difference between $98 million and $94 million) when Arrington forfeited the deferred bonus money.
While no one was publicly willing to charge the Redskins with attempting to circumvent the cap, there were plenty of whispers that owner Dan Snyder had conspired to get the money to Arrington by surreptitious means.
Some owners contended they would request that commissioner Paul Tagliabue investigate the Arrington forfeiture in an attempt to ascertain if Snyder has played fast-and-loose with the cap rules, which could merit a fine and possible loss of draft choices. Such charges are difficult to prove, of course, but there have been three cases under the current system in which teams were sanctioned for violating the cap rules. Of course, when push came to shove, the whispered charges against Snyder and the Redskins were just bombast, and no team has officially sought an investigation of the Arrington matter.
By Len Pasquarelli
• On the subject of Arrington, his situation last week is indicative of how some league owners talk a good game, and then fold when it's time to stand behind their words. The Redskins were aided in their quest to squeeze under the salary cap last week when Arrington elected to forfeit $4.4 million in deferred signing bonus money which was part of his 2003 contract extension. The move raised a lot of eyebrows around the league.
Several NFL teams had claimed that the Redskins could not mathematically get under the salary cap if it was set in the $94 million range, which it initially was (at $94.5 million), and that Washington needed a cap level in the $98 million range to be in compliance with the spending limit. And, presto, suddenly the team gained $4.4 million in cap relief (you do the math on the difference between $98 million and $94 million) when Arrington forfeited the deferred bonus money.
While no one was publicly willing to charge the Redskins with attempting to circumvent the cap, there were plenty of whispers that owner Dan Snyder had conspired to get the money to Arrington by surreptitious means.
Some owners contended they would request that commissioner Paul Tagliabue investigate the Arrington forfeiture in an attempt to ascertain if Snyder has played fast-and-loose with the cap rules, which could merit a fine and possible loss of draft choices. Such charges are difficult to prove, of course, but there have been three cases under the current system in which teams were sanctioned for violating the cap rules. Of course, when push came to shove, the whispered charges against Snyder and the Redskins were just bombast, and no team has officially sought an investigation of the Arrington matter.