Why didn't Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder fight the cap penalty harder?

[Proximo]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

It was a slimey deal and if all the other relevant parties involved think it was, you can't blame them for cleaning it up a bit. They knew what they were doing and just didn't care.

The only thing slimy about the deal was the fact that all of the owners (with the exception of Snyder and Jones) engaged in collusion, and got away with it. Add to that the fact that the only 2 owners that didn't collude were punished. With that being said I don't see how anyone can defend the punishments levied against the 'Skins and Cowboys.

Do you know what collusion is?

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by Fmart322

I think it's because had they went to the ends of the earth to battle the NFL Over this it would open a big ol can of worms. The NFLPA would have sued over collusion, they still might. The nfl would be wide open for all to see how it works, something they don't want.
That being said, don't be surprised if the redskins continue the fight. They have more to gain/lose in this.

I think this is right on th money. Unfortunately, the fans and the players are the ones that suffer.

Maybe next time the CBA needs to get renewed, we won't be so eager to believe the owners when they are crying financial woe.





YR

[junk]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

I think this is right on th money. Unfortunately, the fans and the players are the ones that suffer.

Maybe next time the CBA needs to get renewed, we won't be so eager to believe the owners when they are crying financial woe.





YR

Yeah, no kidding.

Snyder and Jones probably don't care all that much about pursuing it because they made so much from that new CBA. A $5 million cap penalty? Who cares when you consider the likely billions they'll make from the new CBA.

The whole thing is just arrogant on the NFL's part though. They basically admitted to collusion. The owners were so full of it during that whole process.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

mm-hmm . Yup.

The NFL did not agree to their contract agreement whereby they would have one year of completely unrestricted free agency as a result of opting out of the CBA.

And heaven forbid that a team try and get an advantage within the rules. Had the NFL not been deceptive and acting in bad faith any team could have been able to seek the same advantage.

Teams could have but they didn't. Even with contractual and legal rights they chose not to. Is that not indicative that they were operating on something that they believe supersedes both of those? Why would they not? And for that matter, why didn't Dallas just go balls to the wall. Screw it, if you have contractual and legal rights why not just bring everyone in? Too much money for Jerry? Doubtful.

It will probably make things a lot easier for both of us if I just disclose that I'm not interested in the legal aspect of the situation. In that regard, I would assume that you probably have less interest in discussing the issue with me.

I'm not interested in this aspect because legality is, and never will be, the end-all to any discussion. Lets not pretend like it is. Some of the most hotly contested topics in our society fall directly on the line of legality and principle. We have decade long fights over some of the issues in spite of the legal aspect.

And this isn't to say that principle is where my stance solely originates from but I would say that it is a part.

Secondly, I have no interest in the topic because I don't share the same faith that I assume you have (at the very least not to the same degree) in the infallibility of the legal system. I'm not in any desire to fall into the "it's legal/illegal, so it must be" mindset because there are certainly things for which the legal stance isn't good enough. See hot topic issues again for an example.

Lastly, I'm not interested because ultimately it was agreed upon by the Players Union. Doesn't this make it no different than any of the other things that are agreed upon between the two groups? Or are we to differentiate based on one being not "legal enough"?

This really shouldn't be shocking for me to say I don't care to discuss the legal aspect. In between those finely plucked statements you quoted me with was some context that should have given you a big enough hint that I wasn't talking about the legality of the issue.

That's why I mentioned Casillas and his intent. Sure, it was within the rules but that doesn't change the fact that his intention was to get a benefit out of it that he otherwise wouldn't get. Listen to his comments where he says that deer antler (current drug of PED discussion, although not sure if anyone even knows if it works) is "nothing" and his comments how how he could "feel it".

Just as with him, Jerry had an intent to gain an advantage that he otherwise couldn't have.

Having the contractual or legal right to fall back on doesn't clean up a slimy move and I don't think we need to look much further than the 1st Amendment for numerous examples.

Nevermind a division rival was calling the shots on this one.

Well, that is his job being the leader of the group who has sole bargaining rights for the NFL. It would only make sense he is involved with working it out with the Players Union.

Whether or not Mara is a scumbag is one point, to expect a guy elected to a position of authority only to be told that he can't be trusted to act without bias is another. Why not just elect a guy without those concerns?

[TwoDeep3]

How many Super Bowls would be held at the Death Star if Jerry slapped the NFL with a lawsuit?

[Zordon]

Jerry wasn't about to go to war with the people who will decide if he gets another super bowl in his palace.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Proximo

The only thing slimy about the deal was the fact that all of the owners (with the exception of Snyder and Jones) engaged in collusion, and got away with it. Add to that the fact that the only 2 owners that didn't collude were punished. With that being said I don't see how anyone can defend the punishments levied against the 'Skins and Cowboys.

Do you know what collusion is?

Tell me all about it. Enlighten me.

And then when you are done with that, explain to me how Dallas could NOT have signed Austin to the exact same length and dollar amount WITHOUT allocating the salary in such a ridiculous manner.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Why weren't any of the rest of the teams who went above the ceiling punished?

I mean, if you're reducing the argument to that, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Clearly these two teams went above and beyond.

Not to mention nobody would ever suggest that being LESS competitive (through spending less money) in one season would actually GIVE a team a competitive advantage for the next 4-5 years down the road.

Your argument is absurd

1) The punishments were arbitrary and based on no rules whatsoever. If you are going to punish Washington and Dallas, you need to punish Tampa and JVille for "violating the spirit of the salary floor" and impacting compettive balance

2) Yes being LESS competitive was a huge factor in giving Tampa a competitive advantage last offseason. See the Carl Nicks and Vincent Jackson deals. Those don't happen unless Tampa spends as little as did in the year with no rules

When a division rival owner brags at the owners meetings about how draft picks could have been taken away, you know it was personal. John Mara attempted to knee cap the Redskins and Cowboys. And in poetic justice his team was out of the playoff picture once ours lined up for the division title

[NIBGoldenchild]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Is that what's apparent here?

Collusion is what is apparent here. The conversation among the owners to attempt this SHOULD'VE NEVER TAKEN PLACE. It was illegal. Which is why the NFL pushed so hard to get a restriction against the NFLPA to be able to sue the league for collusion for anything that happened in 2010. They knew it was going to come out, and they knew Goodell would be making excuses in front of Congress once again if they couldn't get that into the next labor agreement.

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

How many Super Bowls would be held at the Death Star if Jerry slapped the NFL with a lawsuit?

Three? Wait...four? Fourteen?

[Reverend Conehead]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Cause I'm not so disillusioned to think that a temporary time without "rules" would allow someone to simply disregard them when they have previously operated under those rules and will undoubtedly operate under those same rules again in the near future

Just as with Casillas and the DMSO thread. Some people were asking why it's bad if it isn't banned and completely missing the real issue at hand was the intent to gain an advantage. If you are willing to make exceptions based on the banned status itself, you've essentially granted amnesty to any PED user who is ahead of the curve and is using substances that have yet to be banned because they were cooked up in someone's lab somewhere and nobody has heard of them yet.

[View Full Quote]In this case, the team wrote contracts that they wouldn't have written a year prior or a year after. Contracts they could not have written for that matter because they wouldn't have had the space. And they did it with the full intention of reaping the benefits in years that they absolutely knew the rules would be in place. On top of that, for at least Austin's contract, it raised the Franchise Tag amount for WRs the next year something like 1M, IIRC, and that is a league-wide effect.

The whole thing is kind of funny in another aspect in that Stephen's response was that it was basically nothing. Wouldn't prevent Dallas from doing anything and the cap space can always be made. Why would they write the contract like that in the first place if the cap is basically a non-issue? Why not just write the contract as they did for nearly all other plays they've signed in the last few years? The answer is because while making cap space is almost never an issue just as Stephen has said, simply having cap space without having to make it is another story.

It was a slimey deal and if all the other relevant parties involved think it was, you can't blame them for cleaning it up a bit. They knew what they were doing and just didn't care.

It's actually quite simple. The rule was that there was no salary cap in 2010 and then the league punished two teams for violating a non-existent salary cap. Their rationale was that these two teams didn't participate in the illegal collusion that was agreed upon. It's a case of 30 teams and the league behaving in slimy was and two teams being unfairly punished for it. If they didn't want teams to spend over X amount of dollars in 2010, then they should have put a salary cap in place in 2010. Why not do that? Write real rules; put them on paper.

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Tell me all about it. Enlighten me.

And then when you are done with that, explain to me how Dallas could NOT have signed Austin to the exact same length and dollar amount WITHOUT allocating the salary in such a ridiculous manner.

Well, if that were true, then why did Mara and Goodell have a problem with it?

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by Reverend Conehead

It's actually quite simple. The rule was that there was no salary cap in 2010 and then the league punished two teams for violating a non-existent salary cap. Their rationale was that these two teams didn't participate in the illegal collusion that was agreed upon. It's a case of 30 teams and the league behaving in slimy was and two teams being unfairly punished for it. If they didn't want teams to spend over X amount of dollars in 2010, then they should have put a salary cap in place in 2010. Why not do that? Write real rules; put them on paper.

[AmishCowboy]

Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan

Your argument is absurd

1) The punishments were arbitrary and based on no rules whatsoever. If you are going to punish Washington and Dallas, you need to punish Tampa and JVille for "violating the spirit of the salary floor" and impacting compettive balance

2) Yes being LESS competitive was a huge factor in giving Tampa a competitive advantage last offseason. See the Carl Nicks and Vincent Jackson deals. Those don't happen unless Tampa spends as little as did in the year with no rules

When a division rival owner brags at the owners meetings about how draft picks could have been taken away, you know it was personal. John Mara attempted to knee cap the Redskins and Cowboys. And in poetic justice his team was out of the playoff picture once ours lined up for the division title

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by 5Stars

Well, if that were true, then why did Mara and Goodell have a problem with it?

Because they allocated the salary to their benefit to an egregious amount that gave them ridiculously low cap hits during a time when there was a cap. Is that not obvious?

No signing bonus, 17M base salary the 1st year. They basically took what you would expect a signing bonus to be and instead of having to prorate it over the contract, they gave it to him as a base salary.