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

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

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.

I think that is smart thinking...why not? No salary cap was in place, and another team or two did the same thing.

Is it the Cowboys or Redskins fault because Mara was to dumb to do the same thing in a year with no salary cap?

Then, Mara crys to Goodell and instead of fining all teams, he fines just the ones in the NFC-E?

[Proximo]

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.

It was a yes or no question. Do you know what it is?

I guess it doesn't matter anyway, because you're missing the point. Collusion is illegal. All of the owners (with the exception of Snyder and Jones) engaged in collusion. Snyder and Jones chose not to engage in the collusion and treated that year like an uncapped year, which is exactly what it was. As a result they were penalized. That's what this boils down to. And that's why the penalties were BS.

You can go on and on about Austin's contract or any other contract for that matter, and it will not change the facts that I have stated above.

[Hoofbite]

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

A majority of the league was over where the cap ceiling would have been.

The reason that they didn't punish your two example teams is the same reason they didn't punish teams who were over. You're asking why they didn't punish two teams who were under and I'm asking why they didn't punish 15-20 teams who were over.

It's obvious that wasn't the sole deciding factor.

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

Aside from the fact that you're skipping over the 2011 season as though it weren't even there and the Bucs started just splurging the moment the cap went back into place, there's nothing that says they couldn't have made those moves if they had met the minimum. You can structure contracts to fit guys in situations in which you have little space, you don't think a team could do so with butt loads of space?

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

Mara wanted picks......no picks were taken.

Mara being a scumbag doesn't account for the fact that there's a reason he didn't punish them to the extent that he wanted to. What do you think that reason might be? Other members of the committee?

[Proximo]

Originally Posted by 5Stars

I think that is smart thinking...why not? No salary cap was in place, and another team or two did the same thing.

Is it the Cowboys or Redskins fault because Mara was to dumb to do the same thing in a year with no salary cap?

Then, Mara crys to Goodell and instead of fining all teams, he fines just the ones in the NFC-E?

Well said. The two teams that chose to actually treat the uncapped year like an uncapped year got penalized. The penalties that were levied against them are garbage.

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by Proximo

Well said. The two teams that chose to actually treat the uncapped year like an uncapped year got penalized. The penalties that were levied against them are garbage.

My list of the most hated teams in the NFC-E were...

eagles

Redskins

Giants

Now, the Giants are my most hated team because of this crap! Crybaby Eli got to go to the Giants when he was drafted by the Chargers. I wonder how much Mara played a deal in that crap!

I despise the Giants more than the eagles.

And...I hope the Harlem Globetrotters slam dunk the Giants!

[SkinsFan28]

Hoofbite,

I think you are off-base, the sanctions were pretty clearly punitive for actions that, in the moment were approved by the league offices and valid under the CBA at the time.

That said, neither penalty is enough to go to the mat for by either team. The Redskins obviously got hit hard, but last year had rollover and cap space to mitigate it, and this year I imagine they will simply push about half of it into future years, and minimize the impact of it. Weigh that against a case where a court rules the owners acted in collusion to violate the terms of an existing CBA, and when the next CBA negotiations came up, the owners would be at the players mercy. That's why the NFLPA isn't letting it drop, they want some court somewhere to say the owners colluded.

Ultimately, although the penalties are a pain for both teams, neither is going to kill the golden goose that is the NFL.

[remdak]

If you want to look at this in a "glass half full" way, just remember that the Cowboys will have an "extra" $5 million in cap to work with in 2014 when the penalty expires. The Skins will have a huge amount so Snyder can go on a spending spree again in 2014.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

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.

THERE

WAS

NO

CBA

TO

DICTATE

CONTRACT

TERMS

OR

PARAMETERS.

Who cares what contracts they made? They broke no rules.

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

THERE

WAS

NO

CBA

TO

DICTATE

CONTRACT

TERMS

OR

PARAMETERS.

Who cares what contracts they made? They broke no rules.

They were told not to anything concerning contracts that would give them an advantage when/if the salary cap came back. They did the exact thing the league told them not to do anyways. They were never told they couldn't spend money or go over a certain monetary limit, that would be the "collusion" everyone is screaming about.

AND the only punishment was setting the value of the contracts back to where they should've been the whole time. They didn't lose draft picks, pay a fine or receive any suspensions. Austin's cap number is right where it should be for a player of his caliber.

[NIBGoldenchild]

Originally Posted by bkight13

They were told not to anything concerning contracts that would give them an advantage when/if the salary cap came back. They did the exact thing the league told them not to do anyways. They were never told they couldn't spend money or go over a certain monetary limit, that would be the "collusion" everyone is screaming about.

AND the only punishment was setting the value of the contracts back to where they should've been the whole time. They didn't lose draft picks, pay a fine or receive any suspensions. Austin's cap number is right where it should be for a player of his caliber.

The league didnt have the right to tell them to not do something perfectly within their rights per the CBA, THAT is illegal.

[Blitzen32]

While Jerry definitely is playing the political game in order to get more Super Bowls in North Texas, I am pretty surprised that Snyder didn't go ballistic.

That petty little midget has been known to sue almost anyone for anything.

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by NIBGoldenchild

The league didnt have the right to tell them to not do something perfectly within their rights per the CBA, THAT is illegal.

The CBA has to do with the players vs the owners. The League's dealings with individual teams, which technically they are the parent company of, is entirely different. Each franchise operates within the rules set up by the league, including punishment for violations. Was there a specific rule for Spygate or Bountygate? No, but the league has the power to adjudicate those types of cases because the owners have set it up that way.

[Reverend Conehead]

Originally Posted by Blitzen32

While Jerry definitely is playing the political game in order to get more Super Bowls in North Texas, I am pretty surprised that Snyder didn't go ballistic.

That petty little midget has been known to sue almost anyone for anything.

He very well may have gone ballistic behind closed doors.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by Reverend Conehead

He very well may have gone ballistic behind closed doors.

He very well may have...

Did a river dance... behind closed doors.

Watched a best of Bob Ross show while painting... behind closed doors.

Taught a monkey taekwondo... behind closed doors.

Had a twister competition with three little people...behind closed doors.

Emailed the Pope a message that said no matter how old you get, never give up...behind closed doors.

Spoke on the phone with members of a Louisiana electric company about a prank to pull during the superbowl...behind closed doors.

Ordered 50 cases of silly putty to cut down on future face lifts...behind closed doors.

Put red wigs and freckles on all of his dolls in his doll collection...behind closed doors.



I guess we could say he did whatever we wanted to say he did and claim it was...behind closed doors.

[NIBGoldenchild]

Originally Posted by bkight13

The CBA has to do with the players vs the owners. The League's dealings with individual teams, which technically they are the parent company of, is entirely different. Each franchise operates within the rules set up by the league, including punishment for violations. Was there a specific rule for Spygate or Bountygate? No, but the league has the power to adjudicate those types of cases because the owners have set it up that way.

The negotiations were between the players and the owners, the CBA is an agreement between those parties and how the teams conduct business is an extension of that. At no point, no matter what the industry or scenario, can competing organizations enter into in a verbal agreement to dictate what their competitors can or cannot do within their legal limits. Considering that this situation affected the players negotiation position and took away the opportunity for the 2010 free agents to get fair market value, it was has everything to do with the CBA. The NFL cannot tell a owner/his team to not use perfectly legal actions, within the CBA, because they want skew the numbers in their favor for an upcoming negotiation. The NFL does not own any of the 32 teams, so no, they are not a parent company of the Dallas Cowboys or Washington Redskins. The only time I can recall a league owning one of it's teams is when the NBA had ownership over the New Orleans Hornets.... and abused it. (Blocking Chris Paul trade to the Lakers.)