Cap Space Hell -- NFL Hammers Cowboys & Redskins

Even though they say they aren't, to me it looks like the other owners are punishing Dallas and Washington for front-loading contracts during the non-capped year. How fair do you think this is, to basically change the rules after the fact? Could have a significant impact on the two teams.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7677375/sources-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-lose-millions-cap-space

Not too sure on the technicalities, and need to read more on whether or not it is actually fair to penalise them. From what I have seen, surely the NFL has to approve all contracts, so they would have had the opportunity to tell the Skins and Cowboys what was going to happen. If they did the contracts anyway then more fool them, but it does seem a bit like the smaller teams are punishing these 2, who have a reputation for big spending.

Purely looking at Washington, this effectively means they have lost a good portion of their drafts and cap space for the next 2 years, they were expected to go hard after a few of the free agents to surround RG3. I still think this ruling will get challenged, seems a big hit for the Skins in particular

As stated elsewhere, would be surprised if there's no litigation around this. Can't see how you can punish a team when they haven;t broken any rules. If the NFL say they were told not to spend money in a year where there is no cap, then its pretty plain its collusion when the other teams back the commish.

I've said a fair bit on the other thread but I think it stinks. Seems to me that the other teams are punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not agreeing to collude with them in the uncapped year to keep the players salaries artificially low. The bit that makes me laugh is that they warned 6 times not to break a rule that didn't exist. Roger Goodell was happy to ratify the contracts at the time cos he knew the Players Union would be all over him if he didn't since there was no rule to limit how much money these guys could get paid. Players Union were backing the Skins and Cowboys again this time around but the NFL threatened them this time with making the salary cap lower for everyone and therefore to protect the majority of players, the Union caved in. To me, it's dirty tricks from the NFL and smaller market teams cos they've taken umbrage at them not joining in the collusion that took place in 2010 that saw the smaller teams want to limit how much the players could earn. Not saying that the Skins and Cowboys were thinking about anything beyond advantageously front loading money as the uncapped year allowed them to do but the fact is, there was nothing in the rules to say they couldn't. The uncapped year is just what it was - uncapped and it was put in to the previous CBA to incentivise owners to a deal on a new CBA before it kicked because the possibility for the wealthier teams to use it to their advantage always existed.

I don't see how this could ever stand up in court and it wouldn't surprise me Snyder and Jones took it there as they don't strike as the kind of guys that would be afraid to do so.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up in court. I just don't see how you can say spend what you like, approve the contracts, then hit them retroactively.

From what I can tell the problem wasn't how much $ the Redskins and Cowboys spent but how they manipulated contracts in the uncapped year to gain advantage in subsequent years. These teams moved to front load multi-year contracts and dump large salaries.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

The Cowboys and Redskins engaged in “systematic dumping” of salaries into the uncapped year, despite the warnings.

Mike Florio, PFT.

Front loading multi-year contracts=benefits to teams beyond the uncapped year.

“The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement’s early years,” the league said in a statement forwarded to PFT by spokesman Greg Aiello. “To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.”

The league wants to maintain "competitive balance" so teams were warned not to take advantage of the uncapped year by manipulating contracts.

It is no coincidence that the Cowboys and Redskins are the two richest teams in the NFL.

Despite the salary cap are they just spending more than the lower teams can afford?

Dallas have denied being told about the front loading contracts, there was no CBA in place, all contracts are sent to NFL head office to be signed off, so it's not as if the NFL did not anything about it. Also why are the Bears not being penalised they paid Julius Peppers $30 million dollars in 2010, and $13 million last year, is that not front loading a players contract, there is a $17million difference in a year.

Its as usual the small market teams that are colluding, but somebody should surely be looking at them, for paying low salaries, how can some teams have upwards of $40 million to spend, surely these teams are colluding by driving salaries down, I go back to Peppers again when he was at the Panthers he was a Pro Bowl DE one of the best, yet the Panthers never need bothered to offer a contract, and take the Bucs last year they gave a Punter a $19 million contract, no matter how good a Punter is, and he can punt the ball out of the stadium, he is not worth a contract that you would pay a very good #2 QB.

Leedscowboys wrote:Dallas have denied being told about the front loading contracts, there was no CBA in place, all contracts are sent to NFL head office to be signed off, so it's not as if the NFL did not anything about it.

As far as I can tell the league couldn't stop Dallas spending $ on a contract because, as you say, it was an uncapped year. They would have no basis to do so with no cap. All the league could do was advise they didn't want this to happen and warn teams that manipulating contracts in the uncapped year could lead to action being taken in order to maintain competitive balance.

Leeds - whilst that contract was OTT, I would always value a top rank punter higher than a #2 QB. In a game where success is based largely on starting field position, ST should never be under rated.

Back to the topic in question, I can't see how the NFL can argue that it was behaving lawfully when it told teams to restrict salaries in an uncapped year. Surely they are in breach of anti trust laws if they try to do so? The whole reason for the CBA is to avoid state prosecution under AT, so someone in Washington must be licking their lips at the chance to take them on over this?

Leeds - whilst that contract was OTT, I would always value a top rank punter higher than a #2 QB. In a game where success is based largely on starting field position, ST should never be under rated.

I am not underrating a Punter, just pointing out that $19 million is a lot for a Punter

It was your comparison with a #2 QB that I was referring to. I certainly don't rate a $19M contract for either!

skins4ever wrote:It was your comparison with a #2 QB that I was referring to. I certainly don't rate a $19M contract for either!

I could have put a WR or TE

Well if we're being picky, whilst I don't expect a #2 QB to see the field much, I'd expect a #2 WR or TE to be on the field a lot!

skins4ever wrote:Back to the topic in question, I can't see how the NFL can argue that it was behaving lawfully when it told teams to restrict salaries in an uncapped year. Surely they are in breach of anti trust laws if they try to do so? The whole reason for the CBA is to avoid state prosecution under AT, so someone in Washington must be licking their lips at the chance to take them on over this?

My understanding is they didn't tell teams to restrict the total $, as you say they couldn't anyway, just that restructuring and manipulating contracts during the uncapped year might lead to consequences. That's the big thing for me, the front loading of contracts in order to gain an advantage in subsequent years. e.g. the Miles Austin contract.

If they officially said that 'it might lead to consequences' then its semantics, as that is just a veiled threat. In court, that kind of language will get argued out as such.

To be frank, I have little sympathy for any of them (its millionaires/billionaires arguing about how to cut up a giant money pie after all), but its the hypocrisy that galls me. Especially considering the NFL had plenty of time to negotiate a new CBA before this became an issue.

skins4ever wrote:If they officially said that 'it might lead to consequences' then its semantics, as that is just a veiled threat. In court, that kind of language will get argued out as such.

Obviously we, as fans, have no idea exactly what was said but there were reports that it was brought up repeatedly with the owners. We'll see how it plays out going forward.

twelve283 wrote:

skins4ever wrote:Back to the topic in question, I can't see how the NFL can argue that it was behaving lawfully when it told teams to restrict salaries in an uncapped year. Surely they are in breach of anti trust laws if they try to do so? The whole reason for the CBA is to avoid state prosecution under AT, so someone in Washington must be licking their lips at the chance to take them on over this?

My understanding is they didn't tell teams to restrict the total $, as you say they couldn't anyway, just that restructuring and manipulating contracts during the uncapped year might lead to consequences. That's the big thing for me, the front loading of contracts in order to gain an advantage in subsequent years. e.g. the Miles Austin contract.

I'll be honest twelve, I don't see the problem with front loading the contracts. The uncapped year was put into the last CBA for a reason - to make it unattractive to not have a new deal negotiated before that point. It's unattractive from the owners point of view because it means teams like the Skins and Cowboys could use their financial muscle to use it to their advantage. It's unattractive from the player's perspective because it took away the salary floor which let some teams "go cheap" for the year and pay less to the players which in turn let them churn out a healthier profit. Funny then that only those teams who were adjudged to have spent "too much" (which in itself is a ludicrous statement since we're talking about an uncapped year!!) that have been penalised and nothing has been done to those teams that took advantage of it in other ways that helped them generate cash which no doubt is coming in handy now (the Bucs have been very active in FA so far!!). This has nothing to do with some perceived bending of the rules and everything to do with the other owners settling personal vendettas against Snyder and Jones cos they don't like the brash way they do business.

Sorry, I also meant to say that the whole thing is silly and petty and does the NFL and Roger Goodell no favours. At best iit makes him look incompetent and at worst, it makes him look as corrupt as the owners who have perpetrated this.

One interesting side note - who is the chairman of the NFL Management Council, the group that decided that of all the teams that took advantage of the uncapped year that it should be the Cowboys and Redskins who got punished? The owner of the New York Giants.

The whole thing stinks from top to bottom.

Number-25 wrote:

twelve283 wrote:

skins4ever wrote:Back to the topic in question, I can't see how the NFL can argue that it was behaving lawfully when it told teams to restrict salaries in an uncapped year. Surely they are in breach of anti trust laws if they try to do so? The whole reason for the CBA is to avoid state prosecution under AT, so someone in Washington must be licking their lips at the chance to take them on over this?

My understanding is they didn't tell teams to restrict the total $, as you say they couldn't anyway, just that restructuring and manipulating contracts during the uncapped year might lead to consequences. That's the big thing for me, the front loading of contracts in order to gain an advantage in subsequent years. e.g. the Miles Austin contract.

I'll be honest twelve, I don't see the problem with front loading the contracts. The uncapped year was put into the last CBA for a reason - to make it unattractive to not have a new deal negotiated before that point. It's unattractive from the owners point of view because it means teams like the Skins and Cowboys could use their financial muscle to use it to their advantage. It's unattractive from the player's perspective because it took away the salary floor which let some teams "go cheap" for the year and pay less to the players which in turn let them churn out a healthier profit. Funny then that only those teams who were adjudged to have spent "too much" (which in itself is a ludicrous statement since we're talking about an uncapped year!!) that have been penalised and nothing has been done to those teams that took advantage of it in other ways that helped them generate cash which no doubt is coming in handy now (the Bucs have been very active in FA so far!!). This has nothing to do with some perceived bending of the rules and everything to do with the other owners settling personal vendettas against Snyder and Jones cos they don't like the brash way they do business.

The thing with the manipulation of the contracts isn't that teams spent too much in the uncapped year, if the Cowboys want to give Miles Austin a 1 year $17m deal then smashing, but when it's a multi-year deal which benefits them in subsequent years it's a problem IMO. Did they technically break the rules by doing this, no because it was an uncapped year, but they did upset competitive balance in future years. As for personal vendettas who knows, but some teams did take advantage of the uncapped year to help them down the road.

And the Bears did not do the same thing? Peppers was paid $31 million in 2010 and only $13 million last season, is that not doing the same thing.

Twelve - the thing about it is that the Skins and Cowboys took advantage but did nothing actually wrong by rule or law.

The reason its an issue, as stated is that the other teams did not take similar advantage by front loading contracts, but they dropped salaries - many took advantage, but the cheapskates aren't happy because they tried to keep salaries down.

In most competitive markets that's behaving as a cartel. As I said, the government has pretty much left them alone with the CBA's being in place, but if this sniffs of anti competitive practices, then the league could have legal difficulties they don't need right now.

Leedscowboys wrote:And the Bears did not do the same thing? Peppers was paid $31 million in 2010 and only $13 million last season, is that not doing the same thing.

I really don't know, the league doesn't think so for what ever reason.

skins4ever wrote:Twelve - the thing about it is that the Skins and Cowboys took advantage but did nothing actually wrong by rule or law.

The reason its an issue, as stated is that the other teams did not take similar advantage by front loading contracts, but they dropped salaries - many took advantage, but the cheapskates aren't happy because they tried to keep salaries down.

I mostly agree with this. Sorry I should have made my position clearer, I agree the Cowboys and Redskins did nothing wrong, they didn't technically break any rules. They did however take advantage of the situation to benefit them in future years and this is a problem.

The part I underlined is, as far as I can tell, 100% correct. For this not to be a problem either every team had to take advantage in this way or none of them did. According to the league 28 teams did not and 4 did, and the league is now trying to offset the problem.

To my knowledge it was the way they structured the contract and took advantage of the uncapped year, not the amount of $ paid in the contract.

But the issue is that the league have punished the Skins and Cowboys (and a couple of other teams to a lesser extent) for taking advantage and dumping salary into the uncapped year, whilst they themselves have taken similar if not equivalent financial benefit from the lack of a minimum salray during the same period. Both are wrong, but only 1 is punished.

Also, and I don't know the details so its supposition, if these contracts paid out big numbers in the uncapped year, but were signed up before last year, then surely the teams were taking a gamble on an uncapped year? They risked being punished by the cap if a CBA was agreed earlier, and won their gamble. The league are now seeking to effectively rewrite the rules to punish them for doing so. That's like a Vegas casino telling a $1M jackpot winner that they had to spend the winnings on a $1M a turn slot machine, but telling them only after they have won.

I think I read somewhere that the problem is that they restructured the contracts to dump money in the uncapped year.

Thing is Lowlandbrit, they weren't the only teams to do so and there were also other teams who "went cheap" due to the lack of a salary floor in the uncapped which will have helped save them a bit of cash which they are now putting to good use (see the big contracts handed out so far in FA by the Bucs and Jags), however the Skins and Cowboys were the only two teams who happened to be in the same division as the New York Giants who's owner just happens to be the Chairman of the Committee that made the decision to mete out these punishments. Roger Goodell dare not annoy the New York Giants, they're darlings of the Commish's office after all!! Not allowed to upset them so must give them their way! This was all entirely personal. Nothing in the slightest to do with fairness.

I'm not saying it's right or fair, just that it's what I've read. Other teams might have given frontloaded deals when signing players, but the deals that were punished were existing deals that were restructured to move the bonus money to the uncapped season.

Dan Graziano who does the NFC East blog for ESPN has done a few good pieces on this issue. He's just done another one - it's worth a read:-

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast

While he's right about the Skins and Boys being reluctant to sue given that explanation, it would be interesting to know if the government has any interest in revisiting the anti trust issue again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/are-redskins-heading-to-arbitration-on-salary-cap-case/2012/03/19/gIQA3WCBNS_blog.html

Sounds like the Redskins may be about to make a move on this salary cap nonsense. I get the impression though that this could be a long process and might not necessarily help them too much for this year if it were to go their way at all. Still, a point needs to be made and it would be great not to be saddled with this next season.

It is only arbitration, but if the arbitrator agrees with the Skins, the NFL would be pretty stupid to stick to its guns. Snyder would see that as a green light to go to court if they didn't back down.

Redskins and Cowboys are taking this to arbitration. Good stuff! I'm glad they're doing as much as is practical to do so to take a stand against Goodell and Mara.

Another excellent blog entry by Dan Graziano:-

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast

Owners have voted to ratify the decision, 29-0 with 1 abstention (curious who that could be). Vote was inevitable as Skins and Cowboys gone to arbitration. After last year and the Saints debacle I think this is short term thinking by the league. Alienating 2 teams and their fans isn't a good idea at the best of times, but after narrowly avoiding a locked out season? Most of the feedback I've seen on this (and its not all from Skins & Cowboys fans) is giving the league and the commissioner a lot of stick especially as more teams took advantage of the lack of a floor than took advantage of no cap.