NFL Penalizing Salary Cap for Cowboys and Commanders

[EJ Blue]

I'm guessing they're going to ignore the cap penalty and operate like it's not there. If/when the league sends them written notification they'll appeal and if the league refuses to budge, to court we go. Because the league has no legal basis from what I've seen for this and they have no ground to stand on.

That's pretty bold statement. What makes you guys think the Cowboys or Commanders would win this case? They're not bigger than the NFL. These front office people were aware of what they were getting into, even if you don't want to believe it.

 

[silverbear]

Oh yeah, I agree...didnt mean it to come off as "36 million? Pfft....pocket change!"

I was just saying it doesn't make the Commanders up against the cap instantly, they can still be active. They can't go out and sign VJax, Nicks, Carr and 4-5 other top guys, but they can still make a run at VJax and some other more value based players to get line depth and work on some secondary help.

On Jackson, I read on kffl today that the Bucs are the frontrunners to sign him... just skimmed past the headline, didn't read why they said that...

 

[Hoofbite]

I almost wonder if the NFL reluctantly signed off on the contracts knowing it wouldn't look good to reject a contract for "undisclosed reasons" during a time of CBA turmoil and a lockout on the horizon.

 

[SkinsFan82]

That's pretty bold statement. What makes you guys think the Cowboys or Commanders would win this case? They're not bigger than the NFL. These front office people were aware of what they were getting into, even if you don't want to believe it.

What were they getting into though? They violated no rule or law, they followed the CBA.

It would appear that the other owners are guilty of collusion if anyone is guilty of something here.

Please explain what they did wrong other than ignore someone who asked them not to spend money, despite having no basis for doing so.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Could be. The press release statements are almost identical. Perhaps Jerry & Danny have already discussed this and plan to move forward as you have described.

If no written rules were broken and the league approved the contracts, one would assume a legal challenge would have a good chance.

I would think a resolution is reached before that would ever happen.

Roger is playing the game. Its all a smokescreen. 30 teams are pissed/jealous. They decide collusion is the way to go and Roger, becasue he has to deal with ALL the owners imposes the penalty, quite possibly knowing it will not stick. Its all a PR move. Its a big deal for the media and fans. The other 30 owners are happy - Roger made them happy with this move.

Jerruh and Danny Boy challenge with their lawyers. The NFL knows it won't stand up to a legal challenge. Roger "eventually" resolves this issue with the "claim" that its not worth the legal fight and potential damage to the league, blah, blah, blah. He can say to the other 30 owners, "I did all that i could . . . . . . . . "

Everybody wins and everybody gets something.

 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rs-say-they-complied-with-salary-cap-in-2010/

Collusion....

Before the uncapped year of 2010, the NFL told the teams “at least six times” not to dump salaries into the uncapped year. But any agreement among the teams aimed at limiting spending in the uncapped year constitutes clear and obvious collusion.

The league approved the contracts when submitted because the union would have cried foul if the NFL had tried to apply limits to the uncapped year that didn’t exist in the CBA. All along, the league planned to serve up a cold plate of salary-cap revenge against the Cowboys and Commanders at a later date, at a time when the union would be inclined to agree to an after-the-fact effort to punish anyone who opted not to limit the players’ supply of cash in the months before the lockout.

In hindsight, the league’s effort to penalize the Commanders and Cowboys (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints) proves that the NFL indeed had a plan in place to keep spending low, either by not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets or by hiding behind internal budgets to justify a failure to aggressively spend in unrestricted free agency.

The union has opted not to pick at old scars, in large part because the league’s willingness to bump up the 2012 salary cap from $116 million to $120.6 million likely averted a mutiny against NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, whose contract expires this month.

The the procedure for challenging the action isn’t clear, but the Cowboys and Commanders should fight. Though the NFL deftly persuaded the players to agree with the plan, the Cowboys and Commanders are being penalized for one simple reality.

They refused to engage in collusion.

 

[bysbox1]

Well, if the NFL sent out a memo warning teams not to do this and we still did it, then the Jones boys are even bigger idiots than I originally thought.

The problem with this is the league approves every contract. So if it was in violation of some rule, they should have come out and said so when the contract was turned in for approval.

 

[E-Dog Night]

It's wild to see Commanders and Cowboys fans uniting on this issue. That alone should send a message to the league that there's something very wrong here!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What were they getting into though? They violated no rule or law, they followed the CBA.

It would appear that the other owners are guilty of collusion if anyone is guilty of something here.

Please explain what they did wrong other than ignore someone who asked them not to spend money, despite having no basis for doing so.

they tried to do it through an agreement with the NFLPA. The thing is that they have to justify penalizing some teams and not others. Contracts that the league approved and did not violate any rules are not going to hold up in court. Perhaps there is some rule in the NFL charter that we are not privy to but I doubt that.

I wonder at this point with how the teams are responding whether or not this will go to court. i do not think that Jones much less Snyder would have any hesitation in gutting the authority of the commissioner perceived or otherwise in the face of the alternative.

 

[Staxxxx]

Full Story

The league approved the contracts when submitted because the union would have cried foul if the NFL had tried to apply limits to the uncapped year that didn’t exist in the CBA. All along, the league planned to serve up a cold plate of salary-cap revenge against the Cowboys and Commanders at a later date, at a time when the union would be inclined to agree to an after-the-fact effort to punish anyone who opted not to limit the players’ supply of cash in the months before the lockout.

In hindsight, the league’s effort to penalize the Commanders and Cowboys (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints) proves that the NFL indeed had a plan in place to keep spending low, either by not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets or by hiding behind internal budgets to justify a failure to aggressively spend in unrestricted free agency.

The the procedure for challenging the action isn’t clear, but the Cowboys and Commanders should fight. Though the NFL deftly persuaded the players to agree with the plan, the Cowboys and Commanders are being penalized for one simple reality.

They refused to engage in collusion.

 

[Smashin222]

Basically the league screwed the Players Union:

o why did the union agree? The sources explain that the NFL offered to help pump up the 2012 team-by-team salary cap in exchange for the union’s agreement to remove cap money from the Cowboys and Commanders. One source said that, without the NFLPA’s agreement regarding the removal of cap room from the Cowboys and Commanders, the 2012 salary cap would have been in the range of $116 million per team. (One source said that the number at one point was presented to the union as being a paltry $113.5 million.) With the players agreeing to remove $46 million from the Cowboys and Commanders, the league agreed to a massaging of the salary and benefit numbers in order to get the 2012 salary cap up to $120.6 million. (The recalculation also kicked in some additional money that otherwise would not have been devoted to salary and benefits for 2012.)


Thus, the union had no real option. Without consenting to the reduction of the Commanders and Cowboys cap numbers, the unadjusted cap limit would have dropped, for the first time ever.

And with NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith up for re-election this month, he quite possibly would not have been re-elected.

......................
The union already was prepared to pounce on any possible evidence of collusion. If the NFL had decided to reject contracts because teams were taking advantage of rules that the teams had every right to take advantage of, the NFLPA would have sued — and the case would have been bolstered by the fact that, on at least six occasions, the NFL had told the teams not to treat the uncapped year as a salary dump. So the NFL approved the contracts and delayed punishment until a point where the league had leverage to persuade the union to agree to an effort to take action after the fact against teams that refused to collude.

 

[SkinsFan82]

The problem with this is the league approves every contract. So if it was in violation of some rule, they should have come out and said so when the contract was turned in for approval.

Exactly, they approved the contracts knowing full well they would find a way to punish them down the road. They knew the NFLPA would jump all over them if they said no at the time, so they let it slide.

Then when it comes time for the salary cap for 2012 they go to the NFLPA and say "ohhh sorry, going to drop from 120 to 116, unless you agree to this", so they had to choose between losing 128 million in player salaries (32x4) or 46 million, so they went with the lesser and got it past.

 

[bysbox1]

The NFL has to approve every single contract that is signed, no chance this wasnt discussed in 2010.

EIther that or the league said it was okay in 2010 and now they're backing out of it.

Utter BS . . . . . . .

 

[Woods]

they tried to do it through an agreement with the NFLPA. The thing is that they have to justify penalizing some teams and not others. Contracts that the league approved and did not violate any rules are not going to hold up in court. Perhaps there is some rule in the NFL charter that we are not privy to but I doubt that.

I wonder at this point with how the teams are responding whether or not this will go to court. i do not think that Jones much less Snyder would have any hesitation in gutting the authority of the commissioner perceived or otherwise in the face of the alternative.

that's why JJ should perhaps dump all of the $10mm into 2013 and fight this in the meantime, along with Snyder. Unless JJ thinks he doesn't stand to win and/or doesn't want to take the risk of losing even if he believes he's in the right.

 

[E-Dog Night]

The problem with this is the league approves every contract. So if it was in violation of some rule, they should have come out and said so when the contract was turned in for approval.

And...bingo.

The timing is what removes any doubt that there's something very conspiratorial and underhanded in this whole business.

I'm as mad as hell right now.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

like someone else said 10 mil is manageable. 36 mil....holy crap! That's going to sting and really hurts their FA plans. I wonder what cap space is like for next year for both teams.

Its equally as bad. They have the cap space to absorb it. Our fine is much smaller but so is our available cap space.

This sucks no matter how you slice it. :bang2:

 

[bysbox1]

Either way, it still takes $5 mil of firepower away, because we could have used that restructuring to add to our cap budget to sign more players instead of doing it to pay a debt.

A debt that will go into every other team's pocket. So that means we are basically paying roughly 323000 for a player (or players) on every other team.

The only thing that makes this not sting as bad is the fact that the Skins have it worse.

Wow . . . . .

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

Gene Wilder = Roger Goodell

[youtube]HaoySOGlZ_U[/youtube]

 

[bysbox1]

And...bingo.

The timing is what removes any doubt that there's something very conspiratorial and underhanded in this whole business.

I'm as mad as hell right now.

Yep. And if I'm Jerry and Danny, I'm appealing this. And if the appeal does not go through, I'm taking this to court.

This is WAY underhanded.

 

[Hoofbite]

What were they getting into though? They violated no rule or law, they followed the CBA.

It would appear that the other owners are guilty of collusion if anyone is guilty of something here.

Please explain what they did wrong other than ignore someone who asked them not to spend money, despite having no basis for doing so.

The basis for doing so is to maintain competitive balance.

They entered into the CBA just as the players did. Punishment comes at the discretion of the commissioner, who works for the collective group of owners and was likely directed to act by the competition committee.

I think I read in one of the posts in here that "competitive balance" was the reason for taking the space away from teams who deliberately attempted to gain an advantage structuring contracts in a manner that made them nearly inconsequential to the cap after 2010.

I honestly don't think Dan or Jerry has a choice but to accept it. What are they going to do, argue against competitive balance? The same competitive balance that essentially acts as their foundation for having a CBA in the first place so they can hold a draft and place restrictions on player movement? They're going to argue that?

He punished the Patriots and he's gonna punish the Saints because those teams agreed to abide by the rules and did not.

And before people point out that there was no rule, there doesn't need to be one. The league has these nifty little ways of punishing people despite any sort of violation of the rule.

For players, they throw out some line about behaving in a way that reflects poorly on the league.

You don't think there's a similar "catch all" that will apply to teams?

Compromising the integrity of the league doesn't seem like too far of a stretch.

Jones and Snyder are going to take their lashings. The same thing that makes them powerhouses on the ownership level is the same thing that they will protect the most. Their insane amounts of income that dwarf other teams. Any sort of action that compromises the income is going to hit them first because these guys make a damn big share of it.

It sucks and it pisses me off.

I'm just glad Dallas got 10M instead of 36M, I guess.