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

The Cowboys and Redskins have challenged the NFL's recent agreement with the NFL Players Association to set the salary cap for 2012 and to reallocate certain salary cap room from Dallas and Washington to 28 other clubs.

The reallocation aspect of the agreement is intended to address competitive issues arising from contract practices by those clubs in the 2010 League Year intended to avoid avoid certain salary cap charges in 2011 and later years.

Under the agreement with the NFLPA, the two clubs will be charged at total of $46 million in cap room in the 2012 and 2013 seasons ($18 million per year for Washington; $5 million per year for Dallas). That room, instead, will be reallocated to 28 other clubs in the 2012 or 2013 season as determined by the Club. (The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders, which engaged in similar contract practices in 2010 at a far different level, will not receive any additional cap room. Those two clubs have not challenged the agreement with the NFLPA.)

The agreement will promote competitive balance without reducing the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.

The arbitration will be heard by Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania. No date has been set for a hearing. The clubs were advised of the proceeding at today's league meeting. The NFL and Clubs will have no further comment at this time.

Deadskins wrote:Sorry Charlie, I fear no Cowpie fan.

fetus wrote:I sentence John Mara to death by football to the groin for his involvment in these atrocious acts

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:

fetus wrote:I sentence John Mara to death by football to the groin for his involvment in these atrocious acts

As long as Grossman aint throwing the footballs, after a few hours Mara's groin would be virtually unscathed although on the upside there's a chance his face would take a bit of a pounding...

The chairman of the NFL Management Council is John Mara, part of the group that owns the New York Giants. When Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder walk into that room to air their grievances, they can first point to the statement made by Mara on Sunday to ESPN.com's Calvin Watkins, in which the owner of a division rival gratuitously states that the two teams are lucky their punishments weren't worse.

"I thought the penalties imposed were proper. What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they're lucky they didn't lose draft picks."

Well, there are a few problems with Mara's statement. First, he establishes a serious conflict of interest case against the Management Council -- it could very easily be argued that existing owners should either step down from the Council, or that the council should not have the ability to rule against its competitors. That's antitrust at the very least. Second, the "spirit of the salary cap" statement is just plain silly -- if you want something that really goes against the spirit of the salary cap, try the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement in which it was agreed by both sides that such an expiration would make an uncapped year possible. The salary cap had no spirit at that point in time, because it was dead in all possible ways.

1niksder wrote:NFL owners by hand vote this morning affirmed salary cap sanctions on Redskins and ttiT, who were not in room.

If the Cowboys and the Redskins filed their grievance against the league and the NFLPA just for show -- just to make it look to their fans and the rest of the general public as if they're fighting back -- then they'd be out in front of this, barking about it as loudly as they wanted to bark. Instead, they're keeping quiet, in spite of ample opportunity to respond, as they prepare to make their case in front of an arbitrator.

That's the way you act if you have confidence that you're right and can win, as the Cowboys and Redskins do and should. The penalties came from the NFL Management Council -- a group headed by Mara and determined to act in what it believes is the best interest of the league. The NFL's owners decided, among themselves and in the absence of consultation with the players, to attempt to restrict spending during a 2010 season that did not have a salary cap. They are angry at the Redskins and Cowboys for not going along with that.

But arbitrator Stephen Burbank isn't going to be beholden to what Mara and the majority of the NFL's owners believe is in their best interest. He's most likely to rule in favor of common sense. And common sense is on the side of the Cowboys and Redskins here.

If this penalty was rooted in common sense, the NFL's owners would be mad at teams like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who spent well below the level where the salary floor would have been. If this were really an issue of future competitive balance, as the ruling establishing the punishments claims it is, then teams that didn't spend enough in 2010 would be punished as well. But the fact that they're only going after the two teams that overspent in 2010 -- or restructured contracts to take short-term hits in an effort to allow them to spend more down the road -- indicates that this is not a competitive balance issue. It's a salary restriction issue.

The NFL's owners don't care as much about competitive balance as they do about keeping player salaries at as reasonable a level as possible. Every team in the league could have behaved exactly as the Cowboys and Redskins did in 2010, but they'd all agreed not to. There was no rule prohibiting them from doing so -- they just all agreed. It was a sketchy arrangement that I'm frankly surprised Mara is so aggressively willing to defend. And the fact that he's the one talking freely about this while the Cowboys and Redskins are keeping mum indicates to me that they know they're right, and he knows he's wrong, and that everybody knows the ultimate decision might end up reflecting just that.

Countertrey wrote:The more I see... the more I'm thinking there could be penalties to the league. The Redskins, and the Cowboys, were injured... and, it appears there was malice involved...

The Hogster wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The more I see... the more I'm thinking there could be penalties to the league. The Redskins, and the Cowboys, were injured... and, it appears there was malice involved...

I agree. The tough part would be ascertaining what remedy is appropriate. Since we can't cancel all of the FA contracts that have been signed, and re-open Free Agency. I would propose that the Skins and Cowboys be awarded Compensatory draft picks to compensate for the injury.

A $36M penalty with $18M due this year to me would equal at least a 2nd round pick this year--more like a 1st. We either missed out on at least 1 big free agent or 2-3 mid-tier veterans.

If I'm Burbank, I overturn this penalty. Give the Skins their cap space back, and award them a compensatory 1st round pick. 33rd overall.

The Cowboys should be due a 4th due to the relatively small hit they took. But, nobody cares about them.

Let’s start with “the NFL’s recent agreement with the NFL Players Association.” Exactly who in the NFL and in the Players Association agreed to this is unclear. We know that the full ownership of the NFL did not take a vote on it. It has been reported that the NFL Executive Committee, headed by Giants owner John Mara, a prime beneficiary of the penalties against Dallas and Washington, negotiated the sanctions with the union. But Jerry Jones is a member of that committee and he knew nothing about it.

The NFL (rather, whatever part of the NFL is in charge of this fiasco) continues to ignore the fact that teams like the Bucs, Chiefs, Jaguars, and Cardinals took advantage of the uncapped year, which did not have a spending floor either, to spend under $100 million on players salaries. This affected competitive balance more than the Redskins and Cowboys overspending did (if “overspending” is indeed possible in a uncapped year). Whatever the issue is here, whatever reason the decision to slap the penalty on the Redskins and Cowboys, competitive balance is not it.

The Hogster wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The more I see... the more I'm thinking there could be penalties to the league. The Redskins, and the Cowboys, were injured... and, it appears there was malice involved...

I agree. The tough part would be ascertaining what remedy is appropriate

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The more I see... the more I'm thinking there could be penalties to the league. The Redskins, and the Cowboys, were injured... and, it appears there was malice involved...

You never know what they will rule though.
I'll be happy if the cap is just restored.
He could rule that even if no rule was broken they had the power to do it.

SkinsJock wrote:Kaz - let me understand this - in one sentence you refer to 'they' and in another to 'he'
I think you mean the NFL as 'they' and the arbitrator as 'he'?

Countertrey wrote:There's plenty of evidence that a punitive response toward the league is warranted... we don't know that it is within the scope of the arbitors authority to do so.

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.

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:There's plenty of evidence that a punitive response toward the league is warranted... we don't know that it is within the scope of the arbitors authority to do so.

I think we do, and it is.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

Countertrey wrote:If he does not penalize the league, it will most likely be because he has no authority to do so... we don't know the scope of his charter with the league.

Mara was acting as an agent of the league, the action was validated by the commisioner, and given the force of rule, resulting in injury to two of it's member teams.

It is also clear that Mara directly benefited from this ruling, and that other teams have directly benefited from this ruling, as the amount of the penalty has been added to their salary cap... Many have negotiated with this additional cap in hand, as a tool to sign free agents... this qualifies them as benefactors, as well.

There is evidence of conspiracy, as Jerry Jones, a member of the committe responsible for this was not n[color=orange]otified of this action... suggesting nefarious motivation. The timing was designed to inflict maximum injury, with no opportunity for appeal before injury occured. [/color]

There's plenty of evidence that a punitive response toward the league is warranted... we don't know that it is within the scope of the arbitors authority to do so.

The league has a huge problem... No matter the outcome, expect the busy bodies from the Senate to want to know "who put Machiavelli in charge of the NFL?" ...