NFL Penalizing Salary Cap for Cowboys and Commanders

[Pabst]

How much were the Cowboys under the cap prior to this garbage?

Just curious, while the Commanders got hit *huge*, I was wondering which team it will impact more.

Honestly, it depends on how they spread out the money over the 2 years. I don't see either team being hit particularly hard by it. The cap charge against Washington is staggering, but they have enough room this year to absorb it all if they wanted to.

I think it hurts the Commanders a little bit more, if only because of the size of money and the fact they gave up so many draft selections for RG3. I figured the Commanders were going to have to go UFA to flesh out their roster the next couple years, and this might hurt that strategy.

Dallas has a lot of dead cap space on this years' cap already, but it all comes off the books next year. So they could just push the whole 10 mil, or at least the majority of it, over to next year, and be fine.

But again, I don't think it hurts either team very much.

The reason to be really pissed off is that, #1, these penalties happened in the first place, and #2, apparently the Packers (per Adam) flaunted the rules just as badly, if not worse, and received no penalty.

 

[CIWhitefish]

Where is the legitimate 'systematic dumping' of salaries by Dallas?








YR

This. I just don't see it.

 

[NeonDeion21]

According to Calvin Watkins, he says that, "Technically Cowboys didn't break any rules but it seems people are upset at how Austin deal was done in 2010 and changed in 2011."

 

[sonnyboy]

The ONLY contract that we frontloaded in 2010 was Miles Austin's, and his contract still complied with the 50% down rule (his 2010 "cap" number was $17,078,000, and his 2011 cap number was $8,540,000). A few other cap numbers were barely higher in 2010 than in 2011.

Meanwhile, several other teams frontloaded contracts and will not be penalized at all.

The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure. The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011. Apparently, it was perfectly OK for them to dump money into the uncapped year.

Well then how is this justified!

Fairly obvious this all came about do to some crying from one or more NFL teams.

Only two NFC East teams have been singled out. Anyone care to guess who's ***** was hurting so bad that they had to go crying to the Commish?

My money's on the mother ****ing piece of **** eagles.

 

[cobra]

First off, fans have no standing to file suit. So you can drop that thought.

The teams and players could be the applicants for injunctive relief.

The fact that there was "unofficial agreement" or "edict" to really have an unofficial salary cap in 2010--an agreement that is not part of the CBA--is an agreement itself that is a price restraint not evidenced by the CBA which is the exclusive location for such agreements per the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

For those that aren't certain, here is a very simplistic explanation of the law: 32 companies cannot get together and decide they'll have a cap (or floor) as to how much they are willing to pay. That conduct violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

So for example, say the 5 biggest computer manufacturers said "we will not pay more than $1 for a processor." That would be the same as the salary cap, because paying for labor is the same as paying for component parts. Well, processor makers would be forced to sell for that amount because it is an agreement between the guys who control the market.

That is "price-fixing" or "price restraint" and it is prohibited anti-competitive behavior.

Congress granted the NFL a waiver of anti-trust allegations when the merger occurred. That allowed the NFL to engage in such decisions but the only mechanism by which they are permitted to do it with respect to labor is through the CBA. It is the exclusive mechanism. If they are making agreements not contained in the CBA, they have a problem.

This also has an over-lapping issue with the NLRA as it relates to the wages of a union separate from the CBA, which is the exclusive bargaining provision for working with a union.

This is really a legally dicey move by the NFL.

I've seen some suggestion that this was an agreed result. If that is the case, then it may be a non-issue. But I have a hard time believing Jerry agreed to this. And if it a punitive measure against a dissenting voter, there are other issues regarding collusion.

I'll be interested to reading the formal wording of this because it smacks of being problematic.

Oh, and if there are equally bad "violaters" but certain firms are singled out for punishment, it makes it more likely this is anti-competitive behavior (as the standards are adjudged on a rule of reason that looks for neutral application).

 

[InTheClouds]

I'll say one thing:

If Snyder and Jones pool their resources and get this **** overturned, then in my mind the Cowboys are cool at least until we play each other

 

[RS12]

Well then how is this justified!

Fairly obvious this all came about do to some crying from one or more NFL teams.

Only two NFC East teams have been singled out. Anyone care to guess who's ***** was hurting so bad that they had to go crying to the Commish?

My money's on the mother ****ing piece of **** eagles.

Nope it was the usual hat in hand gang. Brown, Bidwell, Marc Davis, Spanos etc.

 

[boysfanindc]

Some of the reports I am hearing in DC are that this was a recent development, that was negotiated between the NFL and the players association.

Apparently the cap was going to be between 115-117M, which would have looked bad for the union, having the cap going down in the second year.

So it was a negotiation between the 2 sides, NFL saying we will give you 120M cap if you get on board with taking the cap space away from the Boys and skins.

Seems like both sides came up with it to cover their arses.

 

[JonJon]

This and 15 other examples will be why this would not pass muster in court. The question is do the Cowboys and Commanders want to bother being painted as outlaws.

The other side of this is we waited to cut veterans when the bonus accelerated onto the cap. Had we done it in 2010 like many teams, we would have very little dead money. It seems to me that with the dead money we have by respecting the rules, we are being penalized on both ends.

That is the part that I don't get. We held onto guys like Roy Williams and Marion Barber, which is why we have dead cap space on the books in the first place, while other teams just dump the players with large contracts completely and have hefty free agency pockets to work with because of it. Now, the NFL takes more money away from the Cowboys and gives it to the other teams??? Does not make sense.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

According to Calvin Watkins, he says that, "Technically Cowboys didn't break any rules but it seems people are upset at how Austin deal was done in 2010 and changed in 2011."

Screw them! I'm upset about the Giants winning the Super Bowl. So lets take that away from them. I mean really. I freakin' hate Goodell and what he has come to represent.

 

[JonJon]

According to Calvin Watkins, he says that, "Technically Cowboys didn't break any rules but it seems people are upset at how Austin deal was done in 2010 and changed in 2011."

So the NFL is penalizing the Cowboys and Commanders because other teams were not smart enough to work the cap this way and are now mad because of it? Rid-ic-u-lous.

 

[Avery]

The NFL can settle this matter easily if we can gain an additional pick at the end of the first round for showing favortism.

 

[sonnyboy]

Nope it was the usual hat in hand gang. Brown, Bidwell, Marc Davis, Spanos etc.

Has this been reported?

 

[JohnsKey19]

Some of the reports I am hearing in DC are that this was a recent development, that was negotiated between the NFL and the players association.

Apparently the cap was going to be between 115-117M, which would have looked bad for the union, having the cap going down in the second year.

So it was a negotiation between the 2 sides, NFL saying we will give you 120M cap if you get on board with taking the cap space away from the Boys and skins.

Seems like both sides came up with it to cover their arses.

That makes sense. SDogo made a point in another thread that the Cowboys were anticipating a penalty of some sort but maybe 3 mil less of a hit. If I'm wrong SDogo, please correct me.

 

[Doomsday101]

This was from March 9th 2010

Here are five fascinating trends and changes that have accompanied the start of free agency in the first uncapped year:

1. The uncapped year has some teams deciding to dump salary early in the contracts in case a cap returns: The Julius Peppers deal in Chicago is the perfect example. Peppers received a $6.5 million signing bonus but the Bears also elected to give him a $12.5 million roster bonus in 2010 and a $10.5 million roster bonus in 2011. Peppers will make $20 million in 2010, $11.5 million in 2011 and $9 million in 2012. Were the cap in effect in 2010, Peppers' cap number would be $14.853 million. Fullback Leonard Weaver of the Eagles received a $3.7 million roster bonus in 2010 on a three-year, $11 million contract that included only a $300,000 signing bonus.

2. Teams are doing extra to clean up their cap problems in this uncapped year: The Washington Commanders released nine veterans when free agency opened. Those released accounted for $62.2 million of dead cap money. If the $123 million cap were in effect, the Commanders would be $39 million over. The Dallas Cowboys kept their team intact. They would be $34 million over the cap and have $107 million in base salaries. Seven other teams, including the Vikings, Seahawks and Panthers, would also be over the cap.

3. Because of the cap cleaning, teams are getting younger: The Panthers are a classic example. They released five players who were in their 30s -- quarterback Jake Delhomme, fullback Brad Hoover, linebacker Na'il Diggs and defensive tackles Damione Lewis and Maake Kemoeatu. That leaves wide receiver Steve Smith, kicker John Kasay and punter Jason Baker as the only Panthers currently under contract over the age of 30. On the flip side, the St. Louis Rams, who got too young last year, are trying to get more seasoned with the signings of 32-year-old defensive tackle Fred Robbins and 32-year-old quarterback A.J. Feeley.

4. As expected, teams are working the trade market harder than ever because of the lack of quality free agents: There were seven trades in the first four days, and teams are willing to unload players quicker. The fact that teams are willing to accept 2011 picks illustrates their eagerness to make a deal. The Eagles took a sixth-round pick in 2011 from Tampa Bay for wide receiver Reggie Brown. The Seahawks took a 2011 pick from the Browns for quarterback Seneca Wallace. The Chargers took a third-round pick in 2011 from the New York Jets for cornerback Antonio Cromartie. In past years, teams were willing to wait longer for draft choices they could use in the current draft, rather than in subsequent years.


5. Moves in the first days of free agency point out where teams are likely to head in the draft: By signing Robbins and adding him to a three-tackle rotation, the Rams continue to show they are likely to take Sam Bradford with the first pick in the draft. They signed Feeley to be a bridge quarterback and may look to add another veteran, but Bradford seems to be the likely choice by the way the Rams are operating. The Lions are pointing to the selection of Nebraska defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh by picking up Kyle Vanden Bosch at defensive end and Corey Williams at defensive tackle. Why Suh over Gerald McCoy? First, Vanden Bosch went to Nebraska, Suh's school. Second, the Lions don't need as much pass-rush push out of a first-round tackle because they can use Williams at the three-technique. That would leave McCoy to go to the Bucs, and the Commanders, who have the fourth pick, to select between tackle Russell Okung and quarterback Jimmy Clausen.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4979079

 

[sonnyboy]

The NFL can settle this matter easily if we can gain an additional pick at the end of the first round for showing favortism.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. We fight this thing and ultimately the leagues settle's by granting the Cowboys and the Skins each one supplemental draft selection at the start of round one in 2013!

God knows the Skins could use it.

 

[trickblue]

First off, fans have no standing to file suit. So you can drop that thought.

The teams and players could be the applicants for injunctive relief.

The fact that there was "unofficial agreement" or "edict" to really have an unofficial salary cap in 2010--an agreement that is not part of the CBA--is an agreement itself that is a price restraint not evidenced by the CBA which is the exclusive location for such agreements per the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

For those that aren't certain, here is a very simplistic explanation of the law: 32 companies cannot get together and decide they'll have a cap (or floor) as to how much they are willing to pay. That conduct violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

So for example, say the 5 biggest computer manufacturers said "we will not pay more than $1 for a processor." That would be the same as the salary cap, because paying for labor is the same as paying for component parts. Well, processor makers would be forced to sell for that amount because it is an agreement between the guys who control the market.

That is "price-fixing" or "price restraint" and it is prohibited anti-competitive behavior.

Congress granted the NFL a waiver of anti-trust allegations when the merger occurred. That allowed the NFL to engage in such decisions but the only mechanism by which they are permitted to do it with respect to labor is through the CBA. It is the exclusive mechanism. If they are making agreements not contained in the CBA, they have a problem.

This also has an over-lapping issue with the NLRA as it relates to the wages of a union separate from the CBA, which is the exclusive bargaining provision for working with a union.

This is really a legally dicey move by the NFL.

I've seen some suggestion that this was an agreed result. If that is the case, then it may be a non-issue. But I have a hard time believing Jerry agreed to this. And if it a punitive measure against a dissenting voter, there are other issues regarding collusion.

I'll be interested to reading the formal wording of this because it smacks of being problematic.

Oh, and if there are equally bad "violaters" but certain firms are singled out for punishment, it makes it more likely this is anti-competitive behavior (as the standards are adjudged on a rule of reason that looks for neutral application).

Which is why we should roll the hit 100% to next year and file suit against the decision in the mean time...

Congress may get involved in this...

 

[RS12]

Has this been reported?

Somebody said earlier that money goes back to other teams. Who always has their palms out at league meetings. Not hard to figure where this came from. BTW Mike Brown is pretty much dispised by other owners for just this reason.

 

[AdamJT13]

The Packers, for instance, renegotiated Tramon Williams' contract late in the uncapped season to make his base salary more than $37 million. He got 1/17th of that each week for the last five weeks of the season, giving him a "cap" number of $15,043,000 that season. In 2011, when the cap returned, his cap number was $5.6 million -- barely more than one-third of the 2010 figure. The Packers also gave Nick Collins a roster bonus of $8.3 million in the uncapped year to give him a "cap" number of $10.95 million. The next year, when the cap returned, his cap number was only $5.18 million -- less than half. The same with Ryan Picket, but with a smaller bonus ($6,437,500) and smaller cap numbers ($8.44 million in 2010, only $4.21 million in 2011). The same with BJ Raji -- $5,222,500 roster bonus, $7.89 million in 2010, only $3.06 million in 2011. Apparently, it was perfectly OK for them to dump money into the uncapped year.

Scratch the part about Tramon Williams. Apparently, there initially was an error in the way that the contract was processed, and it has since been corrected. I was looking at info from the end of the 2010 season to see what we and other teams did that year. I've since looked at more recent information that clears up Williams' situation. The numbers that I posted for the other players are correct, though.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Which is why we should roll the hit 100% to next year and file suit against the decision in the mean time...

Congress may get involved in this...

good idea