NFLPA D Smith Suspects Collusion

[SkinsHokieFan]

You're literally saying exactly what he said.

So, I'll pose the questions again.



You think they were penalized simply for being over what the cap would have been projected to be at?



1. Do you think the contract was deliberately written to provide low cap numbers for years beyond 2010?

2. Do you think Dallas is hit with the cap penalty if they would have given a 1 year, $17M deal instead?


I'm simply looking for an opinion on the matter. I've heard all the legal and cap arguments. I'm looking for opinion at this time.

Seeing that John Mara and Goddell basically pulled this out of their Philly, I have no doubt in either scenario the Cowboys would have penalized

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I think it is relevant. They could have paid Austin every single dollar they did AND avoided the cap penalty by not structuring it in the manner that they did.

Do you think they still receive the penalty if Austin signs a 1 year, $17M contract in 2010?

Who knows and who cares? What they actually did do met the standard for collusion that the SCOTUS has already set. They got away with it because of the waiver the NFLPA signed. It is what it is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You think they were penalized simply for being over what the cap would have been projected to be at?

What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap.

What do you think?

 

[Muhast]

Wouldn't it be easy to argue collusion with the fact that only 1 RFA has signed with another team in the last 5 years (Mike Bell saints-Eagles).

RFA was set up so that teams could make offers on players, allowing the original team to match the offer. Yet even though several teams are sitting on 10 millions + nobody is making offers on good players. It would be very easy for one of these teams to snag Cruz away by front loading contracts so that NYG can't match, but no one is making a move on any of these good players.

Is there a gentlemans agreement not to do poison pills anymore( Ala Minn Vs Seattle: Hutchinson/Sydney Rice)?

If so, isn't that collusion?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

All I know is that Goodell and Mara admitteed that they the league told teams to not violate the spirit of the salary cap during an uncapped season or there would be a penalty later on.

That's collusion, cut and dry.






YR

 

[Sonny#9]

All I know is that Goodell and Mara admitteed that they the league told teams to not violate the spirit of the salary cap during an uncapped season or there would be a penalty later on.

That's collusion, cut and dry.






YR

And that dingbat Dee Smith sign off on them all. And then tried to sue, claiming he "didn't know". Please. He is as incompetent as they come.

 

[Hoofbite]

What do you think?

I'm asking if it was solely that 1 year. I don't. I think they likely looked at a number of things including how far the effects are actually felt.

Don't you think the lasting impacts of having 1/3rd of a contract never get attributed to the cap are a little more important than any single year?

If you think it was just solely the 2010 year they were worried about in terms of "would be" cap number, you'd have to explain why the rest of the teams weren't penalized and preferably without conspiracy theories.

 

[muck4doo]

I'm asking if it was solely that 1 year. I don't. I think they likely looked at a number of things including how far the effects are actually felt.

Don't you think the lasting impacts of having 1/3rd of a contract never get attributed to the cap are a little more important than any single year?

If you think it was just solely the 2010 year they were worried about in terms of "would be" cap number, you'd have to explain why the rest of the teams weren't penalized and preferably without conspiracy theories.

Let's look at a 100% fact. There was no cap in place that season, and there was a reason for that. The Cowboys and Commanders did nothing wrong that year, The NFL even approved the contracts. Later, Mara said the Cowboys and Commanders violated "Spirits of Rules" that didn't exist when the NFL approved those contracts. Those are 100% guaranteed facts.

 

[Ren]

I'm asking if it was solely that 1 year. I don't. I think they likely looked at a number of things including how far the effects are actually felt.

Don't you think the lasting impacts of having 1/3rd of a contract never get attributed to the cap are a little more important than any single year?

If you think it was just solely the 2010 year they were worried about in terms of "would be" cap number, you'd have to explain why the rest of the teams weren't penalized and preferably without conspiracy theories.

Did we gain an advantage by doing it? of course we did otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Lots of other teams did the same either signing players to front loaded contract or going bellow the cap floor. But, it's all irrelevant because none of them including us or the skins violated and agreements or rules other then "the spirit of the cap" when doing it. Problem is teams agreeing to honor "the spirit of the cap" is collusion and penalizing us and the Skins for it is basically admitting to it.

Doesn't matter if we gained an advantage doing it cause we broke no rules

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

I blame D.Smith for this travesty. This fool, metaphorically, got a mudhole stomped in him during negotiations that summer, and allowed two of the worst possible scenarios to occur for the duration of this CBA.

From here until the CBA expires, the owners can keep salaries down...stealing more revenue from the players through collusion and there is nothing that the players union, who is supposed to be protecting them, can do about it. The penalties against the Commanders and Cowboys are an example to the rest of the league that you follow suit or get your kneecaps broken too. They would've never so blatantly admitted collusion and embarassed the two most profitable franchises in the league if the NFLPA could make them pay for it. The other egregious error is allowing Goodell to have "God mode" on nearly all player related issues on and off the field.

Smith should fall on his sword and resign, instead of wasting his time asking player agents to help him on a collusion case he can't win due to his own incompetence.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm asking if it was solely that 1 year. I don't. I think they likely looked at a number of things including how far the effects are actually felt.

Don't you think the lasting impacts of having 1/3rd of a contract never get attributed to the cap are a little more important than any single year?

If you think it was just solely the 2010 year they were worried about in terms of "would be" cap number, you'd have to explain why the rest of the teams weren't penalized and preferably without conspiracy theories.

There aren't any "conspiracy theories"

The fact is there was no cap in 2010, there was no cap in 2010 and there was no cap in 2010.

You can't violate a spirit of something doesn't exist

 

[SkinsFan28]

I'm asking if it was solely that 1 year. I don't. I think they likely looked at a number of things including how far the effects are actually felt.

Don't you think the lasting impacts of having 1/3rd of a contract never get attributed to the cap are a little more important than any single year?

If you think it was just solely the 2010 year they were worried about in terms of "would be" cap number, you'd have to explain why the rest of the teams weren't penalized and preferably without conspiracy theories.

The question should be, was the mechanism used in the contracts used only in that year, and the answer is no. The mechanisms both the Cowboys and the Commanders used were valid under both the CBA at the time, and the current CBA. The lack of a cap in 2010 was a purposeful inclusion by the players to bring the owners to the table, so as long as the mechanism was allowed by the CBA, any penalty for using it is unfair and unjustified. But again, it's a done deal, and as another poster said, DSmith sold out his union on 2 key points, in order to keep his job. He ought to resign, but you know he won't. And the next CBA is going to be bloody(figuratively, not literally)

 

[muck4doo]

The question should be, was the mechanism used in the contracts used only in that year, and the answer is no. The mechanisms both the Cowboys and the Commanders used were valid under both the CBA at the time, and the current CBA. The lack of a cap in 2010 was a purposeful inclusion by the players to bring the owners to the table, so as long as the mechanism was allowed by the CBA, any penalty for using it is unfair and unjustified. But again, it's a done deal, and as another poster said, DSmith sold out his union on 2 key points, in order to keep his job. He ought to resign, but you know he won't. And the next CBA is going to be bloody(figuratively, not literally)

Hate to agree with Skins fans, but they are completely right on this. That's why "Spirits" were mentioned when Mara gave his reason. I'm mad as a Cowboys fan we lost that cap space, and Commanders fans have every reason to be mad too.

 

[Nova]

There aren't any "conspiracy theories"

The fact is there was no cap in 2010, there was no cap in 2010 and there was no cap in 2010.

You can't violate a spirit of something doesn't exist

I could write an extremely long post, but I'll just try to sum up why that doesn't really matter.

1. The collusion case could be made for the NFLPA, but they signed off on the competition committee's actions, so that's out the window.

2. The NFL has loyalty to itself whose overall goal is to maximize profits. In order to be a part of the league, the Dallas and DC franchises have to abide by the NFL's rules. The 'spirit of competition' is less about competing on the field and more about making money. Therefore, if the NFL feels like a the cap sanctions will make more money for a revenue sharing league (and in turn make money for the two aforementioned franchises), then the league has the right to dock cap space, as justified by the vagueness of competitive balance.

 

[muck4doo]

I could write an extremely long post, but I'll just try to sum up why that doesn't really matter.

1. The collusion case could be made for the NFLPA, but they signed off on the competition committee's actions, so that's out the window.

2. The NFL has loyalty to itself whose overall goal is to maximize profits. In order to be a part of the league, the Dallas and DC franchises have to abide by the NFL's rules. The 'spirit of competition' is less about competing on the field and more about making money. Therefore, if the NFL feels like a the cap sanctions will make more money for a revenue sharing league (and in turn make money for the two aforementioned franchises), then the league has the right to dock cap space, as justified by the vagueness of competitive balance.

Did you really just invoke more "spirits" to make your case?

 

[Nova]

Did you really just invoke more "spirits" to make your case?

Not at all... I'm just explaining it like it is, or at least how I've interpreted it. If someone can shed some legal advice that would be great-- I've spent a lot of time researching what the Cowboys and Commanders can do and I've really found nothing but dead ends.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Not at all... I'm just explaining it like it is, or at least how I've interpreted it. If someone can shed some legal advice that would be great-- I've spent a lot of time researching what the Cowboys and Commanders can do and I've really found nothing but dead ends.

That is because the NFLPA signed off. There you would be correct in everything you have found and why Jerry and copmany did not fight it. I know a lot of fans don't like that and wan't to keep saying what they did was wrong(which we can all agree it was). But to your point it doesn't matter because the NFLPA backed itself into the corner and dropped the ball and at this point they gave the leagueall the power I would think.