DallasInDC
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 5,806
The more I read about the collusion penalties, the more I wonder if the 30 league owners didn't collude against the NFLPA using the Cowboys and Commanders as pawns. I may be totally off base, but hear me out.
The obvious:
Mara had a strategic vested interest to penalize the cowboys and skins, teams in his division to limit their ability to build a competitive advantage. So it makes perfect sense why he would identify these two teams out of potentially 10 other teams that they could have included in the collusion penalty.
The NFLPA could be motivated to agree. If the difference between agreeing and not agreeing is truly the cap being $113mm vs. $120mm that would allow potentially $224mm more in revenues to be available to the players (or $128mm if the $116mm number was more likely). Especially given the penalty will be allocated to the other teams cap. It would make since for the NFLPA to agree. (Personally, I think the owners knew the number was $120 but used the $113/$116 as leverage in negotiating with the NFLPA).
Now for the conspiracy part:
Given the fact that the penalty based off of nothing contractually written and could have been applied to other teams but wasn't makes you wonder what is the motivating factor to follow through with this...especially considering it would leave the door open to a lawsuit.
My theory - it is a historical fact that Snyder has moved the market for player salaries when he wants to go all out for a player. This artificially drives up players salaries in general and specifically for the position of the FA he is targeting. This has to tick off the other owners, especially the small market teams and the owners who do not like to spend their money. Similarly, the Cowboys are a team that is willing to spend big money on a FA when they decide to play in the FA market (it was obvious that this may be one of those seasons) - maybe not to the tune of Snyder but definitely more so than most other owners. Take into consideration that you have two of the highest value, highest revenue generating franchise and owners willing to spend (e.g. Jerry carrying the highest payroll in the league the last few years), these two franchises' represent a threat to the other NFL owners who may want to spend as little as possible while still collecting huge revenues from the revenue sharing pot. By penalizing these two teams, at least temporarily (for 2 years) prevents them from offering outlandish contracts to a player to ensure no one else gets him. (In Jerry's case, I'm sure he wasn't going to lose a player he coveted two years in a row because he was outbid). It makes sense for the owners to want to tamp down on the big spenders with little regard for the economics of the small market/small spender teams. They could also do so with the comfort of being able to justify to them they are protecting the competitive balance (parity). This also serves as an opportunity to stick it to the "Maverick" owners who have the wherewithal are not afraid to spend at all costs to win.
So with that said, one question would be why would that be an issue if there is a salary cap floor? My answer is that if player salaries rise too fast, the floor is no longer an issue because it would be exceeded not by choice but through the regular cost of business as a result of higher baseline salaries. I believe the floor is a point of contention amongst some owners and if they have to adhere to it they want to do so on their terms, i.e. stay as close to the floor as possible as opposed to going beyond it because higher player salaries dictate it.
This may also explain why the teams are not seeking an injunction and appealling the penalty. It would, on the surface, appear both teams have a case, i.e. 1) this was not contractually specified outcome to an action, 2)they were singled out whereas, this same issue could be applied to multiple teams, and 3) the contracts were approved by the NFL office. After they announced to the two teams what was going to occur, they explained their resaoning and with a wink wink, nod nod, indicated will make this up to you somewhere else, maybe agreement that both teams will get to host upcoming SB's (remember Danny wants to host a SB as well - and if NY pulls it off in a cold weather location Danny will be frothing at the mouth to get one as well).
If you really, really really, want to take this conspiracy further, you could add that the SB's are fixed and the "competition Committe" already indicated that even if you had the extra cap space, we are not giving you a SB in the next couple of years so it would be a waste of your money anyway...if you decide to sue us, we will delay your next SB even farther....however, if you go along with this, we may accelerate you on the list. Of course this is much closer to the aliens built the pyramids and instructed the Mayans type of conspiracy.
I know this may sound crazy, but I can't help but wonder why only two teams in one division (with the most willing to spend owners) were targeted...and they are not fighting back on what seems to be an unjust penalty....just a thought.
The obvious:
Mara had a strategic vested interest to penalize the cowboys and skins, teams in his division to limit their ability to build a competitive advantage. So it makes perfect sense why he would identify these two teams out of potentially 10 other teams that they could have included in the collusion penalty.
The NFLPA could be motivated to agree. If the difference between agreeing and not agreeing is truly the cap being $113mm vs. $120mm that would allow potentially $224mm more in revenues to be available to the players (or $128mm if the $116mm number was more likely). Especially given the penalty will be allocated to the other teams cap. It would make since for the NFLPA to agree. (Personally, I think the owners knew the number was $120 but used the $113/$116 as leverage in negotiating with the NFLPA).
Now for the conspiracy part:
Given the fact that the penalty based off of nothing contractually written and could have been applied to other teams but wasn't makes you wonder what is the motivating factor to follow through with this...especially considering it would leave the door open to a lawsuit.
My theory - it is a historical fact that Snyder has moved the market for player salaries when he wants to go all out for a player. This artificially drives up players salaries in general and specifically for the position of the FA he is targeting. This has to tick off the other owners, especially the small market teams and the owners who do not like to spend their money. Similarly, the Cowboys are a team that is willing to spend big money on a FA when they decide to play in the FA market (it was obvious that this may be one of those seasons) - maybe not to the tune of Snyder but definitely more so than most other owners. Take into consideration that you have two of the highest value, highest revenue generating franchise and owners willing to spend (e.g. Jerry carrying the highest payroll in the league the last few years), these two franchises' represent a threat to the other NFL owners who may want to spend as little as possible while still collecting huge revenues from the revenue sharing pot. By penalizing these two teams, at least temporarily (for 2 years) prevents them from offering outlandish contracts to a player to ensure no one else gets him. (In Jerry's case, I'm sure he wasn't going to lose a player he coveted two years in a row because he was outbid). It makes sense for the owners to want to tamp down on the big spenders with little regard for the economics of the small market/small spender teams. They could also do so with the comfort of being able to justify to them they are protecting the competitive balance (parity). This also serves as an opportunity to stick it to the "Maverick" owners who have the wherewithal are not afraid to spend at all costs to win.
So with that said, one question would be why would that be an issue if there is a salary cap floor? My answer is that if player salaries rise too fast, the floor is no longer an issue because it would be exceeded not by choice but through the regular cost of business as a result of higher baseline salaries. I believe the floor is a point of contention amongst some owners and if they have to adhere to it they want to do so on their terms, i.e. stay as close to the floor as possible as opposed to going beyond it because higher player salaries dictate it.
This may also explain why the teams are not seeking an injunction and appealling the penalty. It would, on the surface, appear both teams have a case, i.e. 1) this was not contractually specified outcome to an action, 2)they were singled out whereas, this same issue could be applied to multiple teams, and 3) the contracts were approved by the NFL office. After they announced to the two teams what was going to occur, they explained their resaoning and with a wink wink, nod nod, indicated will make this up to you somewhere else, maybe agreement that both teams will get to host upcoming SB's (remember Danny wants to host a SB as well - and if NY pulls it off in a cold weather location Danny will be frothing at the mouth to get one as well).
If you really, really really, want to take this conspiracy further, you could add that the SB's are fixed and the "competition Committe" already indicated that even if you had the extra cap space, we are not giving you a SB in the next couple of years so it would be a waste of your money anyway...if you decide to sue us, we will delay your next SB even farther....however, if you go along with this, we may accelerate you on the list. Of course this is much closer to the aliens built the pyramids and instructed the Mayans type of conspiracy.
I know this may sound crazy, but I can't help but wonder why only two teams in one division (with the most willing to spend owners) were targeted...and they are not fighting back on what seems to be an unjust penalty....just a thought.
