NFL Penalizing Salary Cap for Cowboys and Commanders

[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.

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

Collusion....

Hear that sound.......that's me patting myself on the back for figuring that out and being a complete newb in the legal game.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Well, arch rivals team up to defeat the common enemy.

This should be fun

 

[bysbox1]

"This is the official statement of Commanders general manager Bruce Allen on recent media reports of an adjusted salary cap for the 2012 season:

“The Washington Commanders have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”

So you potentially have the league dishing out out fines to 2 headstrong (and very wealthy) NFL owners for something that the league approved at the time it was done . . . .

This is going to get real ugly.

 

[SkinsFan82]

I honestly don't think Dan or Jerry has a choice but to accept it.

Guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Mike Florio seems to be taking a different viewpoint from you entirely.

I realize using Florio in a football argument isn't really solid ground, but he is a lawyer. Until I see someone else with a law degree or legit experience like this say otherwise, I'll take him seriously.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I could see Dallas and Washington "pushing back" on this and ultimately getting their penalties cut in half.

 

[SkinsFan82]

I could see Dallas and Washington "pushing back" on this and ultimately getting their penalties cut in half.

Yeah, that's something else I've heard. They let it slip that they're penalized 10 and 36 but don't send it out in any formal way, so after it's negotiated down there is nothing to retract from before.

 

[burmafrd]

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.

JJ and DB win in a walk if this goes to court. The NFL approved all those contracts. Bottom line. To say otherwise now means they lose in a court of law

 

[The30YardSlant]

Well, arch rivals team up to defeat the common enemy.

This should be fun

It worked for the Greek states :laugh2:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

You are inserting supposition for fact. Short of reading the NFL charter we cannot make any claims to the authority granted the commissioner. We jsut do not know.

Now even if he has the authority to unilaterally decide to impose cap changes on teams which we do not know that he does, then using competitive imbalances from contracts that his office approved when their was no cap in place is specious as well.

The owners granted the commissioner unlimited power in dealing with players but i doubt they gave similar carte blanche over themselves. We will find out though because the initial response from the clubs was not compliance.

 

[JonJon]

JJ and DB win in a walk if this goes to court. The NFL approved all those contracts. Bottom line. To say otherwise now means they lose in a court of law

 

[casmith07]

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

Collusion....

Except that they did engage in collusion, either the NFL owners, or the NFL with DeMaurice Smith to save his skin.

Either way, it's wrong 100% around. And the argument in the inverse - dumping players to accelerate cap hits into the uncapped year - is completely ignored by the league.

It's wrong. 100% wrong. The Commanders and Cowboys should appeal this, and if not, take it to court.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I could see Dallas and Washington "pushing back" on this and ultimately getting their penalties cut in half.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were reduced and allowed to be spread over more years (say 3 years) just so the NFL can make it go away

 

[Woods]

I could see Dallas and Washington "pushing back" on this and ultimately getting their penalties cut in half.

I hope JJ pushes back and threatens Goodell with a lawsuit unless Goodell lets it go.

 

[NinePointOh]

Yes, that is true, but if we had taken the entire $10 million hit next year, the same little nip here and tuck there would have given us $5 million more to spend this year. Asking to take that $5 million hit this year tells us that we're *planning* to spend at least $5 million less than we could have -- and making that $5 million impossible to spend, even if we wanted it. Why not take the $10 million hit next year, *plan on* carrying over at least $5 million, then go ahead and use it if we absolutely need it or an unbelievable opportunity arises, either in free agency or before the trade deadline?

This is like loaning someone a bunch of money, telling them that all they need to do is pay you back a little *less* than that amount next year -- and then telling them that they CAN'T pay you back any earlier, no matter how much you beg for it or how badly you need it. Does anyone really think that would be wise?

Are we required to actually make a binding declaration in advance as to which year we want to take the cap hit? Or can we start spending and decide later?

 

[The30YardSlant]

Wouldn't surprise me if they were reduced and allowed to be spread over more years (say 3 years) just so the NFL can make it go away

They should go away entirely, the Cowboys and Commanders are being penalized for choosing to NOT participate in collusion.

 

[silverbear]

Like I've said previously - we aren't getting Williams or anything of great consequence in free agency.

Be prepared.

Well, he's a One Trick Pony
One trick was all that horse could do
He does that one trick only
It's the principal source of his revenue

 

[boysfanindc]

I think that is why both teams are saying they have not seen anything in writing, this is going to be a negotiation.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Well, arch rivals team up to defeat the common enemy.

This should be fun

Well that made me laugh.

Course we are Superman and ya'll are Lex Luther.

Almost used Batman and the Joker, but I like the Joker...

 

[Woods]

I think that is why both teams are saying they have not seen anything in writing, this is going to be a negotiation.

Good point. Goodell the teflon man.

 

[Doomsay]

There was no reason to anticipate that it *would* happen. There was a chance that the dead money *might* be eliminated, but that was contrary to the rules of the CBA. Some teams took a chance and won. We didn't, and we're still paying for it.

Seems like it was a better than average chance to take, especially given the future cap burden of the players we intended to cut in any case, but it is hindsight, to be fair.