Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

Personally I kinda got the impression that the league warned about a specific issue. The Redskins and Cowboys chose to do what they did and reworked contracts because it was not what the warning was referencing. After the fact Goodell decides to take it to the Exec Committee to see if something should and could be done about what the two teams did.

It was my understanding the whole arguement the two teams have is that what they did was not warned against doing. However after the fact Goodell wants to some how twist the warning to fit what the two teams did do. This is why I think we will win along with the fact the league did not have issue's with the contracts when they had the opportunity to. Had the league done what ever they do.... deny, veto, decline, whatever and sent the contracts back to the two teams and told them "per our agreement you can't do this" there would be no need for punishment. Instead they let the contracts happen, then get tied all up in the new CBA talks, and what ... 2 yrs later decide ... oh we don't like what you did here so ... we want to punish you. Thats wrong. Why the delay? They were not in constant talks with the NFLPA. The owners held meetings outside the CBA meetings. They could at any time have decided on a punishment.

I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

.
I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.

[HoopheadVII]

And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

I think the league had to wait for any punishment to make sure that it didn't come back and bite them. Had the league not approved the re-structured contracts when they happened, it could have given the Players ammunition on their suit against the league.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.

I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.

I know of one arguement he makes and that is there is no proof that there was an agreement, but in all actuality the warning is kinda the agreement.

I've heard him say the league does not approve contracts... thats the other arguement. My issue is if they don't approve, agree to, or have any say in them then there is no technical reason to send the contracts to the league. Teams have to send all contracts to the league for some sort of OK in order to move foreward. The league could have easily "not agreed", "denied", "declined", "requested teams fix", or just tell the teams "according to our agreement CAP or not, CBA whatever you can't make this contract.... restructure it". They didn't. Why? .....

because as we all have learned had they done that the NFLPA would have had ammunition for their collusion case against the owners. I keep saying the league can't have it two ways. Allow the contracts so they don't get into trouble for colluding, then 2 yrs later punish the two teams for failing to collude with them. Thats BS.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.

We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.

Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?

If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.

Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?

If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

We need some die hard Cowpukes or Redskins senator to raise a stink about this.

[Monkeydad]

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the current CBA and the arbiter's authority.