The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

[Deadskins]

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

I'm not saying the league is right, but the Haynesworth deal probably couldn't have been done in a capped year. The Bears should also be getting hit for the Peppers deal, though, if they wanted to at least be consistent.

[Deadskins]

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.

I don't see how that's possible.

[Kilmer72]

Not sure how Valid this is, seeing as how the pokes said they would let it go.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -cap-mess/

[Countertrey]

Not sure how Valid this is, seeing as how the pokes said they would let it go.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -cap-mess/

From the article

Adding to the teams’ frustration, we’re told, is that the deal to take away the cap money was brokered between NFLPA executive DeMaurice Smith and the NFL Management Council Executive Committee, without a full vote of NFLPA leadership or NFL ownership. The chairman of the CEC is Giants owner John Mara, whose team benefits directly from the removal of cap room from two of his chief division rivals.

It’s unknown whether the Redskins and Cowboys are bluffing in order to force a compromise, or whether they indeed truly intend to file suit. Reducing the allegations to writing necessarily will expose that the league was engaged in collusion in 2010, which could have all sorts of unintended consequences for the entire NFL, including the Redskins and the Cowboys.

And so the real question is whether the Redskins and Cowboys are angry/crazy enough to drop a grenade into a room they won’t be able to escape.

The answer very well could be yes.

I was not aware of how deeply... and singularly... Mara was involved in this. Apparently, the ethic of the Mara family mind died with Wellington. This was corrupt from the roots up. Mara needs to be removed from the CEC. Knowing that there was no vote among ownership, it's hard to tell how much support he will get. If Mara were willing to screw with two of the most powerful owners... what chance would a Jacksonville or Buffalo have?

We beat the Giants twice last year. It will be good to do it twice a year from here on out. Only, now, the mission will be to destroy them.

Frankly, I think the Danny may initiate some action, in hopes of getting the NFL to back off... but I don't see him taking it to court... the cost would, ultimately be huge... akin to burning down the house to remove the squirrels in the attic...

[skinsfan#33]

I think Snyder will either file a law suit or let it be know that he intends on doing so before the next owners meeting on the 25th. At the owners meeting he will ask that the owners vote to make the cap reductions official. I'm sure there are several owners that don't like what Mara and Gotohell have done to the Skins (and Cowgirls), but might not be willing to rock the boat. However, if the Danny is threatening to sue the NFL, John Mara, Gotohell, every member of the Executive committee and the NFLPA he will get the votes he needs to set things straight.

It is on the best interest of the NFL to fix this before the courts do. No one in the NFL really wants the little owner to pull the pin on that legal grenade.

[Kilmer72]

I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about. I am assuming it is keeping money out of the hands of the players during 2010. So, what we did was pay off players during an uncapped season which was OKed by the league. There was no written rule and both the Cowboys and Redskins said they were never told about this. Other teams did it and they weren't punished for a non rule only us. What really gets me is the timing. So, if anyone can really find fault with what the Redskins did wrong please link some sort of valid sorce. All I see is two teams getting screwed in Mara's division. Even some Philly fans think this is messed up and they don't like us. If this can be broken down in laymans terms I would like to hear it.

[Irn-Bru]

I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the quick-and-dirty summary is this:

Normally the NFL operates by negotiating with the NFL Players Association (a union). The fact that the league is working with a union means that it's making arrangements with players that all of the players agree to. Hence the owners could all talk to each other and decide on a position, then pitch it to the NFLPA, and if the PA agreed everything could move forward.

2010 was a year without the NFLPA, meaning there was no player's union in place. Among other things, that means that if all of the owners talked to each other and decided on certain financial actions (e.g., keeping player salaries down), they'd be acting in unison while the players were all left to fend for themselves (with no union representation). That could be in violation of US competition laws.

So the question is whether owners in fact worked together in that way ("collude" just means to plot together).

So, if the Redskins broke rank and payed players more than the rest of the owners, and then were punished for doing so, doesn't that imply that there were rules the Redskins were supposed to be following? And if those rules were in place, they were there without the consent of a players union.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's (roughly) the point of view the Skins would argue from.

[1niksder]

I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the quick-and-dirty summary is this:

Normally the NFL operates by negotiating with the NFL Players Association (a union). The fact that the league is working with a union means that it's making arrangements with players that all of the players agree to. Hence the owners could all talk to each other and decide on a position, then pitch it to the NFLPA, and if the PA agreed everything could move forward.

2010 was a year without the NFLPA, meaning there was no player's union in place. Among other things, that means that if all of the owners talked to each other and decided on certain financial actions (e.g., keeping player salaries down), they'd be acting in unison while the players were all left to fend for themselves (with no union representation). That could be in violation of US competition laws.

So the question is whether owners in fact worked together in that way ("collude" just means to plot together).

So, if the Redskins broke rank and payed players more than the rest of the owners, and then were punished for doing so, doesn't that imply that there were rules the Redskins were supposed to be following? And if those rules were in place, they were there without the consent of a players union.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's (roughly) the point of view the Skins would argue from.

That's the point they will argue.... it's also why Smith from the NFLPA agreed with the owners. He's up for re-election and if it came out he was talking to the owners on behave of the players while that was going on he re-election won't be so easy. Well it's out now, it's just a matter if the NFL wants to go to court considering the record in court battles

[1niksder]

A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.

Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

[Deadskins]

A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.

Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us.

[Countertrey]

A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.

Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us.

It would probably have to come from every team that benefitted at the Redskins expense. Accepting the additional cap space would, effectively, equate to concurring with the decision to penalize the 'skins, therefore, making them complicit. I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

[Deadskins]

A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.

Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us.

It would probably have to come from every team that benefitted at the Redskins expense. Accepting the additional cap space would, effectively, equate to concurring with the decision to penalize the 'skins, therefore, making them complicit. I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he?

[SkinsJock]

.... I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he?

any updates on this?

OR

is the new 'Goodell edict' taking all the attention right now?

[Chris Luva Luva]

It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables

The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table

Snyder - kids table

[1niksder]

It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables

I agree

The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table

More like the head of the big kids table

Snyder - kids table

I'm pretty sure he was refusing to sit with Jerruh, now they and Benson might be looking for milk crates to build there own table. Might take a while because you know they're going to go big

[Deadskins]

.... I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he?

any updates on this?

OR

is the new 'Goodell edict' taking all the attention right now?

Nothing official, but apparently Bruce Allen said they are definitely going to fight it.

[DarthMonk]

It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables

I agree

The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table

More like the head of the big kids table

Snyder - kids table

I'm pretty sure he was refusing to sit with Jerruh, now they and Benson might be looking for milk crates to build there own table. Might take a while because you know they're going to go big

This is what I'm talkin' 'bout maibruthas.

There is OLD MONEY. NFL teams are toys for Old Money. For years Old Money owners lost money with their NFL toys. Danny is not Old Money. He's is New Money from marketing. His team is not a toy. Never was. It's gotta make money.

DarthMonk

[rskin72]

Well, I hope Snyder fights this.....but what I hear on NFL radio does not lend support to fact that Skins nor Cowgirls will fight as no one wants to open the collusion can of worms.

To me, from what I have read and heard, this is a pile of horse crap. What the heck would the league have done if we would have gone NY Yankees and just bought all the talent we could for a year?

I have NEVER been a fan of competitive balance idea.....limiting teams to what they can spend each year on salaries. This just flies in the face of capitalism......in addition, the more you spend does not necessarily equate to the amount of championships that you will win....see baseball for that. But, if one owner group does not want to spend money on their produce, but another does, I do not see where the one who wants to spend should be penalized.

Sorry, I ramble. Want to see this fought on, but do not hold out high hopes that we will get out from this stupid penalty.

[Countertrey]

I'm sure that Snyder is scratching to find a way to get redress without opening the league to threats from a collusion investigation. I guess it depends on who has the most devious lawyers (a double negative, I know ). Since there are more lawyers per capita in DC than most anywhere else, I imagine the Danny has access to a pretty good arsenal.

[Irn-Bru]

Hopefully Snyder seeks better legal advice than he did for his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper . . .

[Countertrey]

Hopefully Snyder seeks better legal advice than he did for his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper . . .

Welllllll.... which do YOU think has the better "Legal Department"... the Washington City Paper? Or the NFL?

Yeah... that's a bit of a step up... (he'll probably hire the Washington City Paper's team)

[Irn-Bru]

Yeah... that's a bit of a step up... (he'll probably hire the Washington City Paper's team)

Hahaha. "I need the best. I thought I had the best, but somehow Washington City Paper lawyers beat me. Hmmm . . . . "

[skinsfan#33]

Yeah... that's a bit of a step up... (he'll probably hire the Washington City Paper's team)

Hahaha. "I need the best. I thought I had the best, but somehow Washington City Paper lawyers beat me. Hmmm . . . . "

Do you guys know something I don't (ok, quit laughing)? I was under the impression that Snyder dropped the law suit when he got what he wanted; an apology.

[riggofan]

This story just gets more infuriating.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... oys_032212

It’s hard to know which is more galling:

The fact that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is openly promoting the idea of collusion in keeping down player salaries or the fact that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith was forced to accept it, according to sources.

As the NFLPA’s annual meeting of player representatives takes place this week in Marco Island, Fla., followed by the NFL owners meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., next week, one issue both sides must address is what appears to be an obvious case of collusion on the part of the league.

It sucks that this story is kind of getting buried beneath Manning, Saints, RGIII workout, etc; Let's keep our fingers crossed that Snyder goes to the mattresses on this one.

[1niksder]

This story just gets more infuriating.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... oys_032212

It’s hard to know which is more galling:

The fact that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is openly promoting the idea of collusion in keeping down player salaries or the fact that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith was forced to accept it, according to sources.

As the NFLPA’s annual meeting of player representatives takes place this week in Marco Island, Fla., followed by the NFL owners meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., next week, one issue both sides must address is what appears to be an obvious case of collusion on the part of the league.

It sucks that this story is kind of getting buried beneath Manning, Saints, RGIII workout, etc; Let's keep our fingers crossed that Snyder goes to the mattresses on this one.

It won't be buried long... The Redskins should be taking some type of action "in the near future", and that team in Texas will do like wise