The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:37 pm

The Bucs ate up $30.2 million of cap room with the signings of Carl Nicks, Vincent Jackson and Eric Wright....

How did they do that?

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:19 pm

I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:22 pm

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.

I been blowing up Sheft and Morrison for two days on twitter ROTFALMAO

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:18 pm

1niksder wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.
I been blowing up Sheft and Morrison for two days on twitter

Add Pat Kirwin to your email. Mtc@nfl.com

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:19 pm

1niksder wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.
I been blowing up Sheft and Morrison for two days on twitter

I did my best. They don't think the owners will do anything.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:47 pm

1niksder wrote:The Bucs ate up $30.2 million of cap room with the signings of Carl Nicks, Vincent Jackson and Eric Wright....

How did they do that?

That's actually crazy. Don't we play 'em yet again?

DarthMonk

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:38 pm

1niksder wrote:The Bucs ate up $30.2 million of cap room with the signings of Carl Nicks, Vincent Jackson and Eric Wright....

How did they do that?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:34 am

So what's the deal, are we fighting this, or what? I know they had a conference call with the league office, and their last press release said they were proceding as if nothing had happened. But have there been any indications that they will contest this in court, or are they just going to roll over and take it?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:37 am

They have to be careful... they could damage their antitrust exemptions by going to court... this is probably a potential minefield for all owners...

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:38 am

Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:40 am

You would think... except that there has already been injury caused to the skins... possibly to the Cowboys, as well. It's likely that this impaired their ability to pursue several free agents... so, how does Snyder recoup losses, if he doesn't sue?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:42 am

Countertrey wrote:You would think... except that there has already been injury caused to the skins... possibly to the Cowboys, as well. It's likely that this impaired their ability to pursue several free agents... so, how does Snyder recoup losses, if he doesn't sue?

That's assuming they're not really proceding as if nothing's changed.

Britskin · Post by **Britskin** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:14 pm

i've never heard of being punished for not colluding to a salary cap in a salary cap free year ... thats darn original thinking by the NFL

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:20 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:You would think... except that there has already been injury caused to the skins... possibly to the Cowboys, as well. It's likely that this impaired their ability to pursue several free agents... so, how does Snyder recoup losses, if he doesn't sue?

That's assuming they're not really proceding as if nothing's changed.

The NFL would simply dis-approve any contract that would take them over the cap limit that the league imposed.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:24 pm

Deadskins wrote:Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?

Snyder & Jerry are NOT risking losing the anti trust deal over this

this is not over, but ...

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:51 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?

Snyder & Jerry are NOT risking losing the anti trust deal over this

this is not over, but ...

Seems as if it is. Not much they CAN do. Pat Kirwin didn't think they would be able to do anything. The other 8 teams may be punished at some other time.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:16 pm

I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:43 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

Uh, right.. I'll let you think that. :wink:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:39 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

I'll know the fact when everyone else does, I'll figure out what it means to the cap. I'm the Cap guy, never claimed to be a lawyer but there are a few on this site.

If you want insight on what might be ahead you might want to ask one of them. If you need a breakdown of that, no prolem...

Here ya go....

Ask one the members that occasionally steps in with their legal points of view, without really explaining why they have this knowledge, rather than the ones or one that is always pointing out that they're a attorney but seems to lacks legal knowledge on each and every situation. You've been around long enough to know who is who. If I had to co-sign on anybody ....

It would be the one on the TH.n staff

As far as how this will effect the team and the cap, nothing has changed... the contract are set up (and have been approved by the NFL) in a way that they can and will ne void in 2014 win the cap is rumored to blow up. The NFL cap penalties will have passed and any court action should be over too, if it gets that far.

Again I'm no attorney, agent or expert on legal documents but that contract (the Redskins contract sumitted to the NFL this year) Adam Carriker signed is almost identical to the ones Hall and Haynesworth signed.

Still not being a attorney or agent, Hanyesworth and Hall's Cap savings in 2010 totaled the amount of the Skins penalty and the team is and has been carrying dead cap on AH for the past two years. To me $26M was a few million too high and the team should at least get that back.

FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle so it more than likely the little general will go full steam ahead or some direction with this.

No one as brought this up anywhere in any discussion..... lets see it Pat and Tim do follow ups.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:31 pm

Redskins, Cowboys have little recourse

By Dan Graziano

Look, I'd love to keep hammering the NFL for its ridiculous decision earlier this week to strip the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys of $36 million and $10 million, respectively, in cap room over the next two years. The league deserves to be hammered, and almost everyone else (just as the league hoped they would) is ignoring the story in favor of free agency. But the fact is that there is almost nothing the Redskins or Cowboys can do about this, and the few avenues available to them are avenues they're extremely unlikely to pursue.

When the story broke Monday, my first thought, as I wrote at the time, was that the owners appeared to have engaged in collusion by conspiring to limit spending in the uncapped 2010 season and that the Cowboys and Redskins were being punished for not going along with that plan. So I reached out to ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson and asked him if I was on the right track. Here's his response:

The NFL collusion clause (Article 17, P. 119) in the new CBA is very narrow in its definition of collusion. It applies only to certain contract procedures and any agreement among owners that would restrict the offers made to players. It is limited to multi-team decisions on whether to negotiate with a particular player, whether to submit an offer sheet, whether to offer a contract, and whether to include a right of first refusal. It is nothing like the broad anti-collusion clause that became famous in MLB. There is nothing in the NFL definition of collusion that applies to the Dallas and Washington frontloading of contracts. What the league did certainly sounds like what we normally think of as collusion, but it does not appear to violate anything in the CBA. If Dallas or Washington want to do something about the penalties, they would be forced to rely on an antitrust action, an enormous undertaking. It would be similar to the numerous cases that Al Davis filed over the years. I doubt that either Jones or Snyder would be willing to undertake so massive an effort.

I share his doubt. The idea of Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder bringing an antitrust suit against the other members of a cartel of which they themselves are members is farfetched to say the least. I know that the Redskins, at least, have made inquiries about how they can fight these penalties, but the odds are that nothing ends up happening on that front.

The NFLPA isn't going to be any help either. They agreed as part of the Brady settlement at the end of the lockout to drop all pending litigation against the league, including the collusion charges they were intending to pursue. And while they could technically revisit those charges in light of the stunning new evidence the league has presented that it did, in fact, engage in collusive behavior during the uncapped year, don't hold your breath. The NFLPA (as we also reported Monday) agreed to these penalties last weekend in a settlement after the league threatened to cut this year's salary cap by $4 million or $5 million per team. It's highly doubtful the union, which was blindsided by this whole thing, is eager to open those negotiations back up.

The NFL is remorseless in its arrogance and its hypocrisy. It doesn't believe it has to answer to anyone. The lockout (which was clearly a sham, since we now know the league was instructing teams on how to behave while awaiting what it considered an inevitable solution) was more proof of that than anyone should ever need. This latest incident is just a far more narrowly focused example of the same thing. The Cowboys and the Redskins did something the rest of the owners didn't like, so the rest of the owners ganged up on them and took away some of their money. Mob justice, sanctioned by the commissioner. It's not right. It's not fair. But in the end, there's almost nothing the Cowboys and Redskins can do about it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/55373/redskins-cowboys-have-little-recourse

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:36 pm

1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:06 am

1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

I'll know the fact when everyone else does, I'll figure out what it means to the cap. I'm the Cap guy, never claimed to be a lawyer but there are a few on this site.

If you want insight on what might be ahead you might want to ask one of them. If you need a breakdown of that, no prolem...

Here ya go....

Ask one the members that occasionally steps in with their legal points of view, without really explaining why they have this knowledge, rather than the ones or one that is always pointing out that they're a attorney but seems to lacks legal knowledge on each and every situation. You've been around long enough to know who is who. If I had to co-sign on anybody ....

It would be the one on the TH.n staff

As far as how this will effect the team and the cap, nothing has changed... the contract are set up (and have been approved by the NFL) in a way that they can and will ne void in 2014 win the cap is rumored to blow up. The NFL cap penalties will have passed and any court action should be over too, if it gets that far.

Again I'm no attorney, agent or expert on legal documents but that contract (the Redskins contract sumitted to the NFL this year) Adam Carriker signed is almost identical to the ones Hall and Haynesworth signed.

Still not being a attorney or agent, Hanyesworth and Hall's Cap savings in 2010 totaled the amount of the Skins penalty and the team is and has been carrying dead cap on AH for the past two years. To me $26M was a few million too high and the team should at least get that back.

FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle so it more than likely the little general will go full steam ahead or some direction with this.

No one as brought this up anywhere in any discussion..... lets see it Pat and Tim do follow ups.

Now they are building some kind of case for something.

Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The NFL will says the Redskins moved moved money (and allocated cap space) agreed upon and paid in a previous year and money from future years into one pile and counted it in the uncapped year.

That would be the only ground the NFL would have to stand on, but.... Montgomery's just re-worked his contract that dumped money into this year's cap but in the end frees up $2M in cap space. This re-worked contract has been approved by the NFL, it moves pro-rated cap money into 2012 freeing up space in future years (just like Hall & AH's deals), it provides current cap space (just like Hall & AH's deals would have if there had been a cap), and because Monty re-signed last week and the new league year is only 4 days old, the contract they just re-worked and had approved by the NFL had money agreed upon, paid-out, spread over future years is just what they say the Redskins are being punished for doing thinking it would only be done in a uncapped year.

"the Danny's" ego is too big for him to let this go and ground work is being laid for something. It's a no win situation for the NFL... "the Danny" can go into any court in the land, show what he's done over the last 10 years and get 12 people to agree there is no such thing as a salary cap, or if there is he's never been even close to being over it.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:41 am

1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:06 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.

They are doing the same thing in capped years, the league is approving the same type of deals now that the cap is back in place so why are they trying to reverse approvals they made when there was no cap.

It's ground work showing the contracts aren't anything new and therenwas no restriction on offering those contracts then or now.

If it was a advantage in the uncapped year that no other teams could use or were illegal why are the Redskins submitting and getting approved the same type of deals on capped years

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:33 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.

Yeah, and lets face it. There will be more phantom calls than usual if we fight them.