U.S. Court of Appeals overturns Judge Doty on 2012 collusion case

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The advantage comes in the subsequent years where the team isn't forced to utilize cap dollars for the money they've spent. Amount spent wasn't the problem. How it was applied to skirt the cap in future years was.

Beyond that there was the disadvantage for the rest of the league from the fact that the contracts for Austin, Haynesworth, and Hall artificially spiked the franchise tag numbers the following year.

WR: $9.5M in 2010 to $11.3M in 2011. This cost the Charges with Vincent Jackson.

DT: $7M to $12.5M, Ravens tagged Ngata in 2011.

CB: $9.6M to $14M

Oh its you again. i know you know that the court rejects such arguments.

 

[Califan007]

Alright, I'll try to explain this one more time...

1. It's not false. All the teams were warned to not front load contracts because essentially it outreached its jurisdiction of the uncapped year. To further explain, Miles Austin was given a 6 yr $54MM deal with 17MM base in 2010. Meaning the Cowboys were essentially able to sign a top notch (at the time) receiver for 5 years 37MM of cap space.

Why is this unfair? Because they were able to retain top notch talent and inflate the market in the process by exploiting the uncapped year in a manner that reached into future. The Miles Austin contract played a large part in SD not being able to retain VJax, because Austin was a far less proven player and VJax wanted more.

Your team were worst offenders, giving Haynesworth a heavily front loaded contract and dumped $41MM [of $100MM] of his guaranteed money in 2010, so that there would be a heavily reduced cap hit in future years. They also tried to dump as much money of DeAngelo Hall's $55MM contract into 2010 for the same reason.

The problem with this argument is, that is exactly what the uncapped year was supposed to allow. The NFLPA wanted the possibility of an uncapped year to exist precisely to keep the owners in line and give them one helluva incentive to bargain in good faith. Having the uncapped year hovering over their heads--and all the financial possibilities that go along with such--gave the players and their union a bargaining chip.

The owners, however, felt they had a way to avoid the unpleasantries of an uncapped year. Collusion, "warnings", call it whatever you want.

The fact is that the players became incredibly pissed once they realized that their bargaining chip--the uncapped year--had all of its bite removed from it when the league punished the Skins and Cowboys. If the NFL can use threats of future punishments all in the name of "unfair competitive advantage" to keep owners/GMs in line during uncapped years, then the value of that bargaining chip loses 100% of it's value.

 

[Califan007]

If the other teams thought the activity was excessive, they should have negotiated a different deal in 2006.

Exactly. Or, they should have used that "loophole" to their advantage in some other way.

 

[Califan007]

1.) Excessive in the sense that we tried to carry over the uncapped year into capped years.

2.) Name another example that's along the same lines as these.

1) I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here lol...Carry over uncapped year into capped years how, exactly?

2) My point was that saying the Skins and Cowboys tried to get a "leg up" on the rest of the league in terms of competitiveness was an empty phrase. They were allowed to do that, and every team every year is allowed to do that. There are guidelines and rules to follow, but those guidelines and rules do not exist in uncapped years. If they did, Goodell wouldn't have to issue verbal "warnings", he would just point to the rule/guideline/clause in writing.

 

[Nova]

The problem with this argument is, that is exactly what the uncapped year was supposed to allow. The NFLPA wanted the possibility of an uncapped year to exist precisely to keep the owners in line and give them one helluva incentive to bargain in good faith. Having the uncapped year hovering over their heads--and all the financial possibilities that go along with such--gave the players and their union a bargaining chip.

The owners, however, felt they had a way to avoid the unpleasantries of an uncapped year. Collusion, "warnings", call it whatever you want.

The fact is that the players became incredibly pissed once they realized that their bargaining chip--the uncapped year--had all of its bite removed from it when the league punished the Skins and Cowboys. If the NFL can use threats of future punishments all in the name of "unfair competitive advantage" to keep owners/GMs in line during uncapped years, then the value of that bargaining chip loses 100% of it's value.

Did you know it was the owners voted unanimously to end the the CBA 2 years early?

 

[Nova]

1) I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here lol...Carry over uncapped year into capped years how, exactly?

2) My point was that saying the Skins and Cowboys tried to get a "leg up" on the rest of the league in terms of competitiveness was an empty phrase. They were allowed to do that, and every team every year is allowed to do that. There are guidelines and rules to follow, but those guidelines and rules do not exist in uncapped years. If they did, Goodell wouldn't have to issue verbal "warnings", he would just point to the rule/guideline/clause in writing.

1.) It's been explained a few times, but the Miles Austin deal is a good example. 30% of his contract was shelled out in the uncapped year. No other year did his cap hit approach that number.

Again the over-simplified example:

1 year 100MM contract for Haynesworth in 2010: OKAY!

6 year 100MM contract for Haynesworth with 40MM of it paid in 2010: not okay


2.) C'mon... really? Seriously, provide an example of something that is actually similar to dumping contracts into an uncapped year to circumvent the impending future cap.

 

[Hoofbite]

Oh its you again. i know you know that the court rejects such arguments.

I don't really care. Just clarifying for that poster where the advantage came into play.

 

[cowboy_ron]

The cap space replaced along with a 1st rd comp pick for both teams as compensation would be nice

 

[Bware_Dware]

There is no speed limit, though they recommend going less than 80 and everyone agrees less than 80 is good, but still no speed limit. I go 95 and get a ticket for going 95 on a road with no speed limit.......

 

[Bware_Dware]

Also. What about the teams who barely spent a dime in the uncapped year then had boatloads of money the following year?

 

[junk]

I would be really surprised if there is any sort of impact to Dallas or Washington as a result of this. There is a reason Dallas and Washington didn't protest much when it happened. The owners suckered the players into a very favorable deal (and suckered a lot of dim witted fans into believing that the NFL was in any sort of danger of becoming insolvent under the previous deal)

This just sets the table for the next round of CBA negotiations. Proving collusion will give the NFLPA leverage the next time the CBA is up.

 

[slaga]

I'm not trying to get into a pro-longed legal battle. I just think Dallas and Washington deliberately tried to cheat the system, were called on it and had their hands slapped. I'm not angry or bitter about it being Mara that was on the committee.

If the courts find the League was also in the wrong, so be it. I would love to get some cap space back. Jones and Snyder both have huge egos and at times think the rules don't apply to them. It good to see them get put in their place sometimes.

I do not see how you can consider it cheating the system when the system was intentionally set up that way from the beginning and everyone knew it.

1.) It's been explained a few times, but the Miles Austin deal is a good example. 30% of his contract was shelled out in the uncapped year. No other year did his cap hit approach that number.

Again the over-simplified example:

1 year 100MM contract for Haynesworth in 2010: OKAY!

6 year 100MM contract for Haynesworth with 40MM of it paid in 2010: not okay


2.) C'mon... really? Seriously, provide an example of something that is actually similar to dumping contracts into an uncapped year to circumvent the impending future cap.

1.) Per the CBA that governed 2010, both contracts were okay. You can put your own spin on it but they both met all the requirements as bargained for between the NFL and the NFLPA.
2.) Uncapped means uncapped. Do you seriously think front loading or renegotiating a contract to accelerate a cap hit is ok every year except the uncapped year? I do not follow that logic at all. You seriously want someone to provide examples of doing something that was legal to do and every single team was given the exact same opportunity? There was nothing bargained for in the CBA that those contracts did not meet. That is exactly why the NFL had to approve those contracts in 2010. They could not prevent them in 2010 because they met all of the legal requirements and had they not approved them they would have had to give a reason. But there were rule no violations they could cite. The only line they crossed was the illegal, collusive "warning" that had no legal standing. It is also why to this day the NFL says openly that Dallas and Washington did not break any rules, because they didn't!

 

[slaga]

Just to tack on to my last post, if that warning was legal and not collusive, the NFL would have cited that as the reason back in 2010 to not approve the contracts, but we all know they did not do that...

 

[Nova]

I do not see how you can consider it cheating the system when the system was intentionally set up that way from the beginning and everyone knew it.


1.) Per the CBA that governed 2010, both contracts were okay. You can put your own spin on it but they both met all the requirements as bargained for between the NFL and the NFLPA.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying it doesn't really matter. This is a long post, most of it is just me repeating myself, so for the TL;DR version, just skip to the Final Thoughts.

2.) Uncapped means uncapped. Do you seriously think front loading or renegotiating a contract to accelerate a cap hit is ok every year except the uncapped year? I do not follow that logic at all.

Slaga, you seem like a smart guy. Think about it.

Accelerating a cap hit in a capped year, you still have to deal with the restraints of the cap. You still have to work the cap to field a team in a particular year, possibly having to cut ties with another player or players you may have wanted to keep.

Accelerating a cap hit in an uncapped year means you're giving yourself a mulligan on a bad contract, or obtaining a player at a high cost and artificially inflating the market. Hoof explained it well about a page or 2 back.

You already know this.

You seriously want someone to provide examples of doing something that was legal to do and every single team was given the exact same opportunity? There was nothing bargained for in the CBA that those contracts did not meet. That is exactly why the NFL had to approve those contracts in 2010. They could not prevent them in 2010 because they met all of the legal requirements and had they not approved them they would have had to give a reason. But there were rule no violations they could cite. The only line they crossed was the illegal, collusive "warning" that had no legal standing. It is also why to this day the NFL says openly that Dallas and Washington did not break any rules, because they didn't!

Every single franchise was given the same opportunity but we were the only ones that took that opportunity because we were the only ones to not heed the warnings.

The Warnings:

The warnings were not threats. The NFL warned that trying to circumvent the cap for future years could be correctable by the new CBA. Not that they would be punished for it.

For the same reason the Salary Cap was implemented in the first place, the other owners knew that circumventing the future cap was a bad idea that was not for the good of the league, but rather in the interest of the few.

Were the warnings illegal?

That's hard to say, and that's why it's probably being examined again. But the two biggest points the NFL could make is that It was not a matter of spending and the NFLPA ultimately was okay with what was going on. The case could be made it ultimately benefited the players because it benefited the league and the players are the dependent.


Dallas and Washington were not visionaries... as you mentioned, anyone could have done what they did. The others just did not take the risk because of what could have happened among other reasons.


Final Thoughts:
I'll conclude with this because we just keep going back and forth.

I'm not saying you're wrong because I've been in your position before. I used to fight tooth and nail with Giants fans over the issue. I just think you have to challenge yourself to look at it differently.

We're not the good guys. Just because we approach this from our own POV as fans of the Boys/Skins, does not mean we're wearing the white hat. And it doesn't mean that the NFL is evil. And it doesn't mean the opposite either. We can't just feel like the NFL is out to get us or that we're owed anything-- we are part of a league.

In the end, our advantage was cancelled out and overall was probably better for the rest of the league... is that so bad?

 

[slaga]

For the most part I agree with your final thoughts with one caveat. The NFLPA lobbied for the uncapped year intentionally. I am absolutely positive they gave up some concessions to get that written into the previous CBA. The owners took it upon themselves to "bridge" the salary cap through the uncapped year which I still do not feel was legally or ethically correct, although it was probably best for NFL as a whole. I will not challenge myself to accept illegal activity as the proper way to handle the situation. The proper way would have been to negotiate a new CBA before the old one expired or let the uncapped year be what it was supposed to be and not hide behind some (fill in the blank) catch all "competitive balance" nonsense.

I find the owners as a whole, not just Danny and Jerry, responsible for the cluster that was the uncapped year. Jerry and Danny did not ignore the warnings because it was the "right" thing to do. They ignored them for personal gain. None of the owners were "right" in this fiasco. None!

And if the NFL is found guilty of collusion, I will pin that directly on the arrogant, billionaire owners too.

 

[slaga]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying it doesn't really matter. This is a long post, most of it is just me repeating myself, so for the TL;DR version, just skip to the Final Thoughts.



Slaga, you seem like a smart guy. Think about it.

Accelerating a cap hit in a capped year, you still have to deal with the restraints of the cap. You still have to work the cap to field a team in a particular year, possibly having to cut ties with another player or players you may have wanted to keep.

Accelerating a cap hit in an uncapped year means you're giving yourself a mulligan on a bad contract, or obtaining a player at a high cost and artificially inflating the market. Hoof explained it well about a page or 2 back.

You already know this.

You act as if there is some "bridge" for the salary cap for the uncapped year. Any "bridge" for the salary cap that the owners built without the NFLPA signing off on, is illegal. That is the main purpose of the CBA. That is a fact! You are basing this part of your argument on something that either did not exist or was illegal. Think about it...

 

[Nova]

For the most part I agree with your final thoughts with one caveat. The NFLPA lobbied for the uncapped year intentionally. I am absolutely positive they gave up some concessions to get that written into the previous CBA. The owners took it upon themselves to "bridge" the salary cap through the uncapped year which I still do not feel was legally or ethically correct, although it was probably best for NFL as a whole. I will not challenge myself to accept illegal activity as the proper way to handle the situation. The proper way would have been to negotiate a new CBA before the old one expired or let the uncapped year be what it was supposed to be and not hide behind some (fill in the blank) catch all "competitive balance" nonsense.

I find the owners as a whole, not just Danny and Jerry, responsible for the cluster that was the uncapped year. Jerry and Danny did not ignore the warnings because it was the "right" thing to do. They ignored them for personal gain. None of the owners were "right" in this fiasco. None!

And if the NFL is found guilty of collusion, I will pin that directly on the arrogant, billionaire owners too.

You act as if there is some "bridge" for the salary cap for the uncapped year. Any "bridge" for the salary cap that the owners built without the NFLPA signing off on, is illegal. That is the main purpose of the CBA. That is a fact! You are basing this part of your argument on something that either did not exist or was illegal. Think about it...

So, why does it matter if the NFLPA was like "okay, that's cool".

 

[slaga]

So, why does it matter if the NFLPA was like "okay, that's cool".

If the NFLPA was like "okay, that's cool", they would not be pursuing a collusion case.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, why does it matter if the NFLPA was like "okay, that's cool".

Because they never said that and are now suing the NFL for collusion. Are you daft?

Agreeing to the deal two days before free agency starts or risking the season. The court understands the meaning of the word duress even if you do not.

And you don't seem to understand that the salary cap and the accounting practices you treasure are a privilege that the NFL lost the right to enforce the moment they opted out of the NFL. What is obvious to everyone but you is that the NFL opted out with the intent of never honoring their agreement.

The Cowboys acted in good faith pursuant to the CBA they signed and were fulfilling the last year of after the owners opted out.

 

[Nova]

Because they never said that and are now suing the NFL for collusion. Are you daft?

Agreeing to the deal two days before free agency starts or risking the season. The court understands the meaning of the word duress even if you do not.

And you don't seem to understand that the salary cap and the accounting practices you treasure are a privilege that the NFL lost the right to enforce the moment they opted out of the NFL. What is obvious to everyone but you is that the NFL opted out with the intent of never honoring their agreement.

The Cowboys acted in good faith pursuant to the CBA they signed and were fulfilling the last year of after the owners opted out.

(also for @slaga )

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...reed-to-cowboysredskins-salary-cap-sanctions/

The NFL’s decision to remove salary cap space now from teams that dumped salary into the uncapped year of 2010 technically constitutes a violation of the labor deal with the players, because the CBA allowed teams to spend at will in the uncapped year, subject to specifically negotiated limits (e.g., six years to unrestricted free agency, the “Final Eight Plan”).

But it’s not a violation if the players agree to it.

Multiple sources with knowledge of the dynamics tell PFT that the NFLPA agreed to allow the NFL to take $10 million in cap space from the Cowboys and $36 million from the Commanders and redistribute the money to all other teams, except the Saints and Raiders. On the surface, the decision of the players to permit money to be robbed from two rich teams that like to spend it and given in equal chunks to 28 other teams (including poor teams that like to hoard it) makes little sense. With the Bengals already near $50 million in cap space, their $1.6 million share of the Cowboys/Commanders cap room quite possibly will be wasted.