Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZeroTolerance

Dallas, Washington stripped of cap space

Recommended Posts

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

 

The NFL is taking away millions of dollars of salary-cap space belonging to the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins for front-loading contracts during the uncapped 2010 season, according to league sources.

 

The salary cap is projected to be $120.6 million in 2012, but the Cowboys will lose $10 million, while the Redskins will be docked $36 million in cap space, sources said.

 

Dallas and Washington can split the cap loss over the 2012 and '13 seasons in whatever form they prefer, with $1.6 million each going to the other 28 NFL teams, the sources said.

 

The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders are the only two teams that will not receive a portion of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$36 million in cap space AND no 1st round picks the next two years (plus a 2nd rounder). I wonder how much of that is because of Haynesworth?

 

Griffin better be AMAZING.

 

(edited to add that I know the recent trade and this cap penalty are unrelated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$36 million in cap space AND no 1st round picks the next two years (plus a 2nd rounder). I wonder how much of that is because of Haynesworth?

 

Griffin better be AMAZING.

 

(edited to add that I know the recent trade and this cap penalty are unrelated)

 

The Skins can break it up over the next 2 years, so they could still be a factor in FA the next 2 years. Its bad but not the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners just jealous of deep pockets of Dan Synder & Jerry Jones. No violations, just smart maneuvering by these two, which caused reaction by NFL HQ

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners just jealous of deep pockets of Dan Synder & Jerry Jones. No violations, just smart maneuvering by these two, which caused reaction by NFL HQ

 

.

From what I've heard, the NFL saw salary dumps coming, and warned all the teams that excessive dumping would be punished. They all still did such dumps, but the Cowboys and Redskins were egregious offenders, and the Raiders and Saints somewhat less so (them not getting the extra cap space).

 

This has been in the works for a while, with negotiations with the player's union, which is why we haven't gotten an official cap number this year yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least NE actually won something when they cheated - these retreads cheat and still miss the playoffs? Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners just jealous of deep pockets of Dan Synder & Jerry Jones. No violations, just smart maneuvering by these two, which caused reaction by NFL HQ

 

.

 

I bash him sometimes, but I actually have a little respect for Jones. He could still stand to step out of the way a little more, but he's at least learned from some of his mistakes and he did win 3 rings a long time ago.

 

Snyder is a doosh and a horrible person. I have nothing against the Skins personally (hell, they are the team I dislike the least in that division) but Snyder can eat a d!ck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least NE actually won something when they cheated - these retreads cheat and still miss the playoffs? Pathetic.

 

There was no cheating done here. The league approved all of the signings and there was no salary cap. This won't stick. Cowboys and Redskins have already made statements that they haven't been contacted by the league and both look forward to free agency.

 

Interesting that this announcement comes out the day before free agency opens. Goodell can go fock himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. The league approves all contracts and approved these at the time. The nfl would need to punish itself. There has been no "official, written" notice given to either team - Bruce Allen issued a statement to that effect. Also, in the skins case, they paid d hall 15m and fat Albert haynesworth 21m that year so the nfl set the punishment at 36m. However that assumes the skins would've paid them zero in 2010, which is obviously not accurate. Look for a deal to be worked out which will dramatically reduce the "punishment" and allow the nfl to save face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. The league approves all contracts and approved these at the time. The nfl would need to punish itself. There has been no "official, written" notice given to either team - Bruce Allen issued a statement to that effect. Also, in the skins case, they paid d hall 15m and fat Albert haynesworth 21m that year so the nfl set the punishment at 36m. However that assumes the skins would've paid them zero in 2010, which is obviously not accurate. Look for a deal to be worked out which will dramatically reduce the "punishment" and allow the nfl to save face.

 

+1.... This "punishment" is in all probability not legally enforceable on several grounds and at any rate it will never be litigated, but in all likelihood a "settlement" will be agreed to by both the league and the specific two teams very quickly.

 

IMO this is the NFL's way of throwing a small bone in the direction of the other 30 owners who basically stayed in line with a wink-and-nod understanding not to severely front-end load player contracts during the 2010 uncapped year, while two of the deepest pocketed owners took advantage. It seems to me that it will benefit all parties - the two teams who took advantage, the league, the other 30 teams, and even the NFLPA - to make this issue disappear very quickly - and with a very quiet and much cheaper slap on the hands for the Boys and the Skins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't see how this sticks. Seems to me the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rule at the time. A gentlemen's agreement, perhaps; but not a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to realize.. the whole NFL is a gentlemen's agreement.

 

And those guys get royally ticked if you screw them over, so this is revenge.

 

Expect this to stick, and even if it doesn't.. the fact is that by announcing the day before the FA period they won't have any recourse so they will miss out on players who won't want to take a chance with their contracts not approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a gentlemans agreement be the same as collusion? Shouldn't the nflpa have something to say about this also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a gentlemans agreement be the same as collusion? Shouldn't the nflpa have something to say about this also.

That is what is being missed by the apologists. The NFLPA agrees to this penalty. It allows them to get more money.

 

The Skins and Cowboys can cry all they want, but the League has this right with no appeal policy. The Executive Commitee and the Commish are handing out punishment to the teams who were warned six times not to do something.

 

The league had to approve the contracts at the time they were signed to avoid collusion charges by the players and then they had to get the players approval to impose this penalty for the same reason. This is going to stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners just jealous of deep pockets of Dan Synder & Jerry Jones. No violations, just smart maneuvering by these two, which caused reaction by NFL HQ

 

.

 

both owners are shady and underhanded. they should dock them draft picks too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no cheating done here. The league approved all of the signings and there was no salary cap. This won't stick. Cowboys and Redskins have already made statements that they haven't been contacted by the league and both look forward to free agency.

 

Interesting that this announcement comes out the day before free agency opens. Goodell can go fock himself.

 

Interesting that only Redskins and Cowboys fans defend this shady practice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that only Redskins and Cowboys fans defend this shady practice...

 

I'd have to say that the NFL strikes me as an entity that is completely without a plan, making it up as they go along. The NFL is being run by clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that only Redskins and Cowboys fans defend this shady practice...

Looks like a combination of a group of owners pissed off bcoz they didn't think to do this themselves and a commissioner who is trying to cover his own ass for leaving the back door open. The shady practice here appears to be coming from the league office - threatening and warnig owners not dot do something even though no rules were in place to prohibit it.

 

Cop walks into a donut shop, warns a customer not to take the last donut. Customer ignores and eats it - cop issues them a citation for doing something they were warned not to do. Not much difference - same stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a combination of a group of owners pissed off bcoz they didn't think to do this themselves and a commissioner who is trying to cover his own ass for leaving the back door open. The shady practice here appears to be coming from the league office - threatening and warnig owners not dot do something even though no rules were in place to prohibit it.

 

Cop walks into a donut shop, warns a customer not to take the last donut. Customer ignores and eats it - cop issues them a citation for doing something they were warned not to do. Not much difference - same stupidity.

 

You do realize that this happens all the time in the NFL. This is one example.

 

Another example - the "poison pill" in contracts. When Steve Hutchinson was signed to a poison pill offer by the Vikings, there was no rule against it. The Seahawks responded with signing Nate Burleson to a poison pill contract. Both teams hurt each other and the league told them and any other team that you cannot do a poison pill contract or you will be punished. No one did it again. Then, they fixed it in the next CBA.

 

In a league like this, you can't just "fix loopholes" in the rules. You would have to get NFLPA agreement to any rule that could potentially impact money or you can get sued for anti-trust violations. That is BIG money. You tell teams not to do it and then you fix it in the next CBA.

 

The Cowboys and Skins KNEW they were playing with fire and they got burned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that this happens all the time in the NFL. This is one example.

 

Another example - the "poison pill" in contracts. When Steve Hutchinson was signed to a poison pill offer by the Vikings, there was no rule against it. The Seahawks responded with signing Nate Burleson to a poison pill contract. Both teams hurt each other and the league told them and any other team that you cannot do a poison pill contract or you will be punished. No one did it again. Then, they fixed it in the next CBA.

 

In a league like this, you can't just "fix loopholes" in the rules. You would have to get NFLPA agreement to any rule that could potentially impact money or you can get sued for anti-trust violations. That is BIG money. You tell teams not to do it and then you fix it in the next CBA.

 

The Cowboys and Skins KNEW they were playing with fire and they got burned.

Link to the bolded? That would be very interesting, because it would have been very illegal and would have invalidated the leagues anti-trust exemption, since a federal arbitrator ruled they were allowable in 2006.

 

So, please share your link where the NFL "told them and any other team that you cannot do a poison pill contract or you will be punished."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what is being missed by the apologists. The NFLPA agrees to this penalty. It allows them to get more money.

 

The Skins and Cowboys can cry all they want, but the League has this right with no appeal policy. The Executive Commitee and the Commish are handing out punishment to the teams who were warned six times not to do something.

 

The league had to approve the contracts at the time they were signed to avoid collusion charges by the players and then they had to get the players approval to impose this penalty for the same reason. This is going to stick.

You do realize that ANYONE, or ANY ENTITY, can file a lawsuit for anything, at any time, right? Since that is a fact, I would be shocked if there wasn't a lawsuit, or reduction (or dismissal) of the punishment as a means of avoiding a lawsuit.

 

Since you seem to feel that the league has the right to mete out this punishment, perhaps you would be able to show us where (in the league by-laws or old CBA) where they get this right from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to the bolded? That would be very interesting, because it would have been very illegal and would have invalidated the leagues anti-trust exemption, since a federal arbitrator ruled they were allowable in 2006.

 

So, please share your link where the NFL "told them and any other team that you cannot do a poison pill contract or you will be punished."

Much of it is rumor and innuendo around the league since they don't typically share their memos with everyone, but supposedly this happened with Wes Welker back in 2007. Pats were told by the league that they need to negotiate a deal instead of doing a poison pill.

 

I don't have a link to the memos that the league sent around on the salary cap info either. Does that mean that it does not exist?

 

Do you question just the poison pill or the fact that the league has the ability to tell its teams what is and what is acceptable without rewriting the CBA? Just trying to find out what we are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cowboys and Skins KNEW they were playing with fire and they got burned.

I'm okay with teams getting popped for cheating, even my own. But when my team is fined for violating a rule that nobody can produce - it raises questions. Snyder and Clowny are not geniuses by any means when it comes to putting players on the field. But as you said, this is a big money issue - and one thing these two are extremely gifted at, it's big money business. I'm guessing we've not heard the last of it - be interesting to see what pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to the bolded? That would be very interesting, because it would have been very illegal and would have invalidated the leagues anti-trust exemption, since a federal arbitrator ruled they were allowable in 2006.

 

So, please share your link where the NFL "told them and any other team that you cannot do a poison pill contract or you will be punished."

 

They weren't told they would be punished but the league and many of the teams came down hard on the Vikes for the use of the "poison pill" contract.

 

Can't search and search but this article touches on it...

 

 

VIKES CATCH LEAGUE'S IRE

 

A league source tells us that the recent ownership meetings in Florida featured a storm of resentment directed at the delegation representing the Minnesota Vikings.

 

The reason for the discontent was the poison pilled offer sheet that the Vikings presented to former Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson three weeks ago. The NFL ultimately attempted to challenge the offer on behalf of the Seahawks.

 

"Everyone was talking about the group of people with more balls and ego than brains," said one source, in reference to the four men who run the organization: owner Zygi Wilf, V.P. of player personnel Fran Foley, V.P. of football operations Rob Brzezinski, and head coach Brad Childress.

 

"This group is on everyone's sh-t list," added the source. "League office, other teams, owners, personnel people."

 

The league office also isn't pleased, we're told, with the involvement of former management council employee Dave Blando in the crafting of the offer sheet that prevented the Seahawks from matching. Blando now works as a cap guy for the Vikings, and the thinking is that Blando had a key role in coming up with the term that would have made all of Hutchinson's seven-year, $49 million contract fully guaranteed if the Seahawks had matched.

 

Wilf bought the Vikings less than a year ago. Childress was hired days after the conclusion of the 2005 season to replace Mike Tice, who was fired minutes after a season-ending win over the Bears. Foley joined the organization not long thereafter from San Diego, where he had served as the director of pro personnel. Brzezinski has been with the team for seven years.

 

~pft.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of it is rumor and innuendo around the league since they don't typically share their memos with everyone, but supposedly this happened with Wes Welker back in 2007. Pats were told by the league that they need to negotiate a deal instead of doing a poison pill.

 

I don't have a link to the memos that the league sent around on the salary cap info either. Does that mean that it does not exist?

 

Do you question just the poison pill or the fact that the league has the ability to tell its teams what is and what is acceptable without rewriting the CBA? Just trying to find out what we are discussing.

I once heard a rumor that Marshall Faulk had ball cancer, but that doesn't mean it's true.

YOU stated, like it was a fact, that the NFL told teams they couldn't use poison pills. YOU used this pretend fact as some kind of support for your "logic" that the NFL was justified in punishing the Skins and Boys, despite them not actually breaking a real rule.

 

And, you are wrong about the Wes Welker situation. Yes, the Pats did consider offering a poison pill contract, but they did not do so. Not because the NFL told them not to, (like some little birdy told you after he heard it from his sister's cousin's roomate's best friend's uncle in a Baskin Robbins), but because those contracts cause problems with other teams, who are able to do the same thing back to you in the future (Hutchinson/Burleson) & because they weren't the only team interested in Welker-Minnesota was also in the running. By trading for Welker, THEN negotiating a contract (like they did) only cost them an additional 7th round pick, and prevented Minny from being able to steal him away.

 

As for your "A Few Good Men" rip attempt, you don't have to show me league memos about the salary cap, just show me where, IN WRITING, the league is given the power to punish a team for breaking a rule THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't told they would be punished but the league and many of the teams came down hard on the Vikes for the use of the "poison pill" contract.

 

Exactly, it was "peer pressure," for lack of a better word, that led to teams hesitating to use the poison pills, NOT the NFL forbidding it (by secret order :rolleyes: ). That's why when Seattle did the same thing to Minny, there was no punishment; it was looked at as the owners policing themselves. If a team uses a poison pill, it can/will come back to bite them in the end.

 

I was responding to Patriotsfatboy1 who was making up "facts" to support his rationale that the NFL is able to punish teams for violating non-rules by citing the NFL preventing teams from using poison pills, even though there was no rule forbidding them. As you pointed out, that's not the case, the owners are the ones who kept poison pills from being offered, not the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, it was "peer pressure," for lack of a better word, that led to teams hesitating to use the poison pills, NOT the NFL forbidding it (by secret order :rolleyes: ). That's why when Seattle did the same thing to Minny, there was no punishment; it was looked at as the owners policing themselves. If a team uses a poison pill, it can/will come back to bite them in the end.

 

I was responding to Patriotsfatboy1 who was making up "facts" to support his rationale that the NFL is able to punish teams for violating non-rules by citing the NFL preventing teams from using poison pills, even though there was no rule forbidding them. As you pointed out, that's not the case, the owners are the ones who kept poison pills from being offered, not the NFL.

 

Yeah, but the owners are the NFL...and in this case it's 30 (plus the Commish) against 2. So Dallas and Washington are focked...and as a Giants fan I'm all :banana: about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Skins GM

 

"The Washington Redskins 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Skins GM

 

"The Washington Redskins 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.

 

Here we go.

 

Its going to be a challenge enforcing punishment when no written rule was broken and contracts were NFL approved.

 

Also, there is no punishment breakdown written for breaking the rules. There is no, "If team does X, the punishment is X" written anywhere.

 

The ruling and punishment is so arbitrary I don't know how it can be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that only Redskins and Cowboys fans defend this shady practice...

 

I am not a Redskins or Cowboys fan but I am defending those teams here. I don't condone the practice but at the same time it was not illegal. You can't go back and punish these teams for something that was not forbidden at the time. And I don't care that they were warned--if it wasn't against the rules then a warning holds no water.

 

I could "warn" you not to drink that third beer tonight. But what the hell can I actually do about it? It ain't illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding to Patriotsfatboy1 who was making up "facts" to support his rationale that the NFL is able to punish teams for violating non-rules by citing the NFL preventing teams from using poison pills, even though there was no rule forbidding them. As you pointed out, that's not the case, the owners are the ones who kept poison pills from being offered, not the NFL.

 

I think what PFB is saying is correct. No I am not going to scour the web for a link, but I seem to recall that there was talk of the league telling teams not to use the poison pill method after the Hutchinson/Burleson signings.

 

It isn't unprecedented for the league to punish conduct without a rule specifically prohibiting that conduct, but it doesn't mean that it's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Bears front load Julius Peppers?

 

Where is their cap hit?

 

This whole ruling is as curious as it is arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Bears front load Julius Peppers?

 

Where is their cap hit?

 

This whole ruling is as curious as it is arbitrary.

 

I think a number of teams took advantage of the uncapped year, but Dallas and Washington took much greater advantage than other teams (or at least that wad the perception among the owners).

 

Just goes to show how silly the whole thing is. You can break a rule that doesn't actually exist, just as long as you don't break the non-existent rule too much. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Bears front load Julius Peppers?

 

Where is their cap hit?

 

This whole ruling is as curious as it is arbitrary.

 

 

People keep linking all the other players that had a contract front loaded for last season, but a lot of this front loading still left these teams under the cap from the previous year. Which is fine, its the frontloading that led the teams to carry a salary that was like 20million over the previous years mark that made them targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what PFB is saying is correct. No I am not going to scour the web for a link, but I seem to recall that there was talk of the league telling teams not to use the poison pill method after the Hutchinson/Burleson signings.

 

It isn't unprecedented for the league to punish conduct without a rule specifically prohibiting that conduct, but it doesn't mean that it's right.

 

"Talk" means nothing. There was "talk" that Peyton Manning would never play again. There was "talk" that Brett Favre would return to play for the Texans after Schaub got hurt. There was "talk" that T.O. would sign with a team mid-season last year. There was "talk" that D-Mac was going to return after only a few weeks last year.

 

Due to the popularity of the NFL, and the proliferation of NFL and FF message boards, blogs, tweets, podcasts, etc, there is "talk" about virtually anything having to do with the NFL. So I'm sure that there was "talk" about the NFL telling teams not to use poison pills, but that doesn't mean the NFL actually did that (or could do that). There is no way the NFL could enforce a rule that didn't exist then, just as there is no way the NFL can enforce a rule that doesn't exist now.

 

The old CBA specifically laid out that an uncapped year was a possibility, and when it became a fact, the NFL sent out a "fact sheet" about the uncapped year. In neither place (the old CBA, or the NFL "fact sheet," was there anything saying teams could not give out large salaries during the uncapped year. The league is trying to retroactively punish teams for breaking a non-existent rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Skins sure haven't let this effect their offseason plans. They now have an entirely new WR corp.

 

I was fine with Garcon and Morgan, but I'd rather they grab an O-Lineman than Eddie Royal.

 

I think Hankerson will get another shot. But that kid has to work on his hands. He can't catch a cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×