The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:50 pm

I can somewhat understand the penalty. Not really, but for arguments sake let's just say it is justified. What I don't get is how they are going to give that confiscated cap space to the other teams??? How could that be more unfair? Not only penalize us, but reward the rest of the league? That's doing double damage. The Danny and the crypt keeper should get together and sue the NFL a la Al Davis. We should get to pick a player of our choice from every other team as restitution. :twisted:

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:52 pm

Affects the trade? I don't see this even being brought up. Good reporters keep you locked with speculation that would keep viewers interested.... I hope

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:53 pm

Deadskins wrote:I can somewhat understand the penalty. Not really, but for arguments sake let's just say it is justified. What I don't get is how they are going to give that confiscated cap space to the other teams??? How could that be more unfair? Not only penalize us, but reward the rest of the league? That's doing double damage. The Danny and the crypt keeper should get together and sue the NFL a la Al Davis. We should get to pick a player of our choice from every other team as restitution.

They did that in order to get the NFLPA to agree to the penalties.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:56 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:Hogster you are a Lawyer. What can we do?

REALLY

hopefully 1niksder can give us some input - he's a lot more familiar with the salary cap

and has more NFL savvy

Not sure how an "uncapped" year in the collective bargaining agreement can be enforced as a capped year at a later date

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:00 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:Hogster you are a Lawyer. What can we do?

REALLY

hopefully 1niksder can give us some input - he's a lot more familiar with the salary cap

and has more NFL savvy

Not sure how an "uncapped" year in the collective bargaining agreement can be enforced as a capped year at a later date

I sure hope we don't take this BS lying down.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:02 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:Hogster you are a Lawyer. What can we do?

REALLY

hopefully 1niksder can give us some input - he's a lot more familiar with the salary cap

and has more NFL savvy

Not sure how an "uncapped" year in the collective bargaining agreement can be enforced as a capped year at a later date

That's what I am trying to figure out. There has to be legalities. Where do we fall? If Nik has the answers great if not I figured a lawyer might have some thoughts.

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:03 pm

Or how contracts that were approved can be later not only penalized but also beneficial to every other team. Donate it to charity... Seems like double jeopardy.. fine us and help our opposition? That's fair since in an uncapped year or.not all we did was get rid of bums like fat al. Not sure what the hall reconstruction was but instead of... "They should cut me..." Maybe he helps pay w some of his salary? It's total crap jus glad it hurt the pukes aswell if there is ANY silver lining that is it

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:06 pm

From NFL.com

The Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins will have considerably less to work with when free agency opens on Tuesday.

The NFL has taken away millions in salary cap space from both teams after the two NFC East clubs pushed spending into the uncapped year to save money under the cap in 2011 and '12.

The money taken from Dallas and Washington will be put back into the pool, and spread in cap space among the other clubs. Teams were warned not to spend into the uncapped year as a way of circumventing the salary cap in the future.

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years," the NFL said in a statement.

"To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."

Prior to the uncapped year, the competition committee warned teams that punishment would be levied for taking advantage of the circumstances. The Redskins and Cowboys were the most egregious offenders, as they dumped huge base salaries to players such as DeAngelo Hall, Albert Haynesworth and Miles Austin into the 2010 season in order to get the big numbers in those deals off the books while there was no cap.

The Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints took advantage on a more marginal level, in terms of front-loading contracts.

The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.

;furious;

DarthMonk

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:11 pm

ALBERT HAYNESWORTH IS A TOTAL LONG-PUNT!!!

oneman56 · Post by **oneman56** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:12 pm

First the NBA revoking a trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to other owners complaining and the league stating it's tyring to preserve competitive balance and now this crap. I get that if we did something wrong then get punished but this seems very sketchy and if the Saints and Raiders violated the same rules without punishment then why are they not punished. The same infraction should render the same or similar punishment. Sounds like the rest of the league doesn't want Snyder to be able to go out and get free agents so they complained and sold the idea of "competitive balance" to the league. Either that or i'm just being irrational because I was so pumped for tomorrrow....could be that, sigh.

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:17 pm

According to the carry over thread we might be around 45 million in cap space

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37552

jmooney · Post by **jmooney** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:26 pm

Appearantly the bears did the same thing with J.Peppers contract along with Green Bay, that player hasn't been named.

Neither of those teams were penalized.

SprintRightOption · Post by **SprintRightOption** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:30 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
It's actually insane. The league was instructing teams not to spend above normal in the uncapped year. That's wildly illegal. It's a restraint of trade and they could have been sued into oblivion had any of that come out.

But the most recent CBA absolved the owners of any antitrust litigation, so now the league is punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not colluding with everyone else in previous CBA. The NFLPA signed off on this, unbelievably, by having that salary allocated to other teams. The thing is, this punishment just strengthens any future collusion. The NFLPA should be furious.

From a guy I'm discussing this with...

Assuming the new CBA included a provision against and anti-trust lawsuit, that provision is unlawful. You cannot include in a contract a provision that violates the public policy of the United States. If it were not so then slavery would be legal by contract.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I do, It seems you are the one with legally challenged ideas.

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:31 pm

My guess is this was announced so close to the start of FA so that the Redskin and Cowboys would have limited time to respond legally.

I hope the Redskins and Cowboys legal departments have shared phone calls today. There has to be some way for these penalties to at least be reduced.

gay4pacman · Post by **gay4pacman** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:31 pm

the eve of free agency and the nfl pulls this?

not sure how fair this is......and no ability to appeal?

TXSkinsFan · Post by **TXSkinsFan** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:34 pm

Can we structure any free agent contracts to be back loaded so they kick in higher guarantees after the penalties?

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:34 pm

SprintRightOption wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
It's actually insane. The league was instructing teams not to spend above normal in the uncapped year. That's wildly illegal. It's a restraint of trade and they could have been sued into oblivion had any of that come out.

But the most recent CBA absolved the owners of any antitrust litigation, so now the league is punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not colluding with everyone else in previous CBA. The NFLPA signed off on this, unbelievably, by having that salary allocated to other teams. The thing is, this punishment just strengthens any future collusion. The NFLPA should be furious.

From a guy I'm discussing this with...

Assuming the new CBA included a provision against and anti-trust lawsuit, that provision is unlawful. You cannot include in a contract a provision that violates the public policy of the United States. If it were not so then slavery would be legal by contract.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I do, It seems you are the one with legally challenged ideas.

You do realize that the NFL has an anti-trust exemption, right?

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:36 pm

Smithian wrote:My guess is this was announced so close to the start of FA so that the Redskin and Cowboys would have limited time to respond legally.

I hope the Redskins and Cowboys legal departments have shared phone calls today. There has to be some way for these penalties to at least be reduced.

It was announced now because the NFLPA and NFL just reached an agreement on this. The penalty issue was part of the discussions on the 2012 salary cap.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:39 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Smithian wrote:My guess is this was announced so close to the start of FA so that the Redskin and Cowboys would have limited time to respond legally.

I hope the Redskins and Cowboys legal departments have shared phone calls today. There has to be some way for these penalties to at least be reduced.

It was announced now because the NFLPA and NFL just reached an agreement on this. The penalty issue was part of the discussions on the 2012 salary cap.

So is this going to affect the trade?

SprintRightOption · Post by **SprintRightOption** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:40 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
It's actually insane. The league was instructing teams not to spend above normal in the uncapped year. That's wildly illegal. It's a restraint of trade and they could have been sued into oblivion had any of that come out.

But the most recent CBA absolved the owners of any antitrust litigation, so now the league is punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not colluding with everyone else in previous CBA. The NFLPA signed off on this, unbelievably, by having that salary allocated to other teams. The thing is, this punishment just strengthens any future collusion. The NFLPA should be furious.

From a guy I'm discussing this with...

Assuming the new CBA included a provision against and anti-trust lawsuit, that provision is unlawful. You cannot include in a contract a provision that violates the public policy of the United States. If it were not so then slavery would be legal by contract.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I do, It seems you are the one with legally challenged ideas.

You do realize that the NFL has an anti-trust exemption, right?

And federal racketeering charges are brought all the time.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:44 pm

SprintRightOption wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
SprintRightOption wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
It's actually insane. The league was instructing teams not to spend above normal in the uncapped year. That's wildly illegal. It's a restraint of trade and they could have been sued into oblivion had any of that come out.

But the most recent CBA absolved the owners of any antitrust litigation, so now the league is punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not colluding with everyone else in previous CBA. The NFLPA signed off on this, unbelievably, by having that salary allocated to other teams. The thing is, this punishment just strengthens any future collusion. The NFLPA should be furious.

From a guy I'm discussing this with...

Assuming the new CBA included a provision against and anti-trust lawsuit, that provision is unlawful. You cannot include in a contract a provision that violates the public policy of the United States. If it were not so then slavery would be legal by contract.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I do, It seems you are the one with legally challenged ideas.

You do realize that the NFL has an anti-trust exemption, right?

And federal racketeering charges are brought all the time.

You think that the Justice Department is going to bring racketeering charges against the NFL? Take off your tinfoil hat and get out of your parents' basement.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:48 pm

HEROHAMO wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Smithian wrote:My guess is this was announced so close to the start of FA so that the Redskin and Cowboys would have limited time to respond legally.

I hope the Redskins and Cowboys legal departments have shared phone calls today. There has to be some way for these penalties to at least be reduced.

It was announced now because the NFLPA and NFL just reached an agreement on this. The penalty issue was part of the discussions on the 2012 salary cap.

So is this going to affect the trade?

The latest from the Washington Times ncluded this:

It also was unclear how Saturday’s agreement between the league and the union would impact the trade Washington and St. Louis settled upon Friday.

Not all that helpful unfortunately.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:49 pm

Just so long as the trade is not affected we will be OK. Brace yourselves for the punishment of Greg Williams as well. Hopefully we dont get punished for it too.

From what I am seeing the 36 million in cap space is plenty punishment for one team. Its not a slap on the wrist rather a few cane stick whacks to the bum. Hopefully that is punishment enough. The league will also come to a decision on the punishment regarding the pay for play or pay to "injure" fiasco at the end of this week.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:55 pm

OK I think we should all hope for the best until this punishment is final. I dont see how they could do that to us but man oh man that would be the absolute worst. OK I cant bear the thought anymore. Gonna go on shutdown mode until there is some finality to the punishment. I dont think the NFL would do that to us. (I hope) [-o<

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:59 pm

HEROHAMO wrote:OK I think we should all hope for the best until this punishment is final. I dont see how they could do that to us but man oh man that would be the absolute worst. OK I cant bear the thought anymore. Gonna go on shutdown mode until there is some finality to the punishment. I dont think the NFL would do that to us. (I hope)

It wouldn't be in the NFL. The issue was the Redskins agreeing to trade so many picks thinking they had all of their salary cap space to work with.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Re: The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Re: The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Re: The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties