NFL takes cap space from Redskins and Cowboys

[wwharton]

I agree but that's pretty much the story being put out there by both clubs. Whether true or not, if they try to take them to court on this I can't see how they don't have a case since none of this stuff was in writing or part of an official contract of some sort. If it's he said, she said then this could be a long and ugly process that makes the league look bad (since it's basically saying there really wasn't an uncapped year but a year with a gentleman's agreement between owners).

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I agree but that's pretty much the story being put out there by both clubs. Whether true or not, if they try to take them to court on this I can't see how they don't have a case since none of this stuff was in writing or part of an official contract of some sort. If it's he said, she said then this could be a long and ugly process that makes the league look bad (since it's basically saying there really wasn't an uncapped year but a year with a gentleman's agreement between owners).

While I agree that legally speaking the teams probably have an argument, I think people who say it wasn't really an uncapped year are missing the NFL's point. I don't think the NFL cares how much money teams gave to their players for that particular year since it was uncapped.

What the NFL does not like is that these teams used the uncapped year to circumvent the cap in the years to follow. They knew very well the cap would be back and made sure they could use the uncapped year to gain an advantage beyond that one particular year. On this part, I think the NFL can make a good argument in court even though it's ultimately going to be a judgement call on a judge's part.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by mercalnd

While I agree that legally speaking the teams probably have an argument, I think people who say it wasn't really an uncapped year are missing the NFL's point. I don't think the NFL cares how much money teams gave to their players for that particular year since it was uncapped. What the NFL does not like is that these teams used the uncapped year to circumvent the cap in the years to follow. They knew very well the cap would be back and made sure they could use the uncapped year to gain an advantage beyond that one particular year. On this part, I think the NFL can make a good argument in court even though it's ultimately going to be a judgement call on a judge's part.

Yeah I agree with that, but what I'm wondering (really wondering more than screaming that it's unfair because of) is how the NFL can say it was wrong for any team to do anything since there was no written agreement one way or another. We all know what the Skins and Boys were doing, and why it's shady... but the NFL saying behind closed doors to not do it is shady too, so how could that be presented as a solid argument?

[N51_rob]

I also read that if the NFLPA didn't agree with the NFL on fining the two teams this years salary cap was going to be around $116 million, which helped the NFL make this so. It is also why it was two days before FA before the 2012 cap number was revealed. Yeah, Herr Goddell, is like a mafia kingpin sometimes.

[mestevo]

Cap number wasn't revealed until when it was because they were reportedly massaging the numbers due to an increase in benefits decreasing the cap, as well as negotiating this penalty.

[N51_rob]

Isn't that basically what I said?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...cap-sanctions/

Quote:

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 Redskins 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/Redskins cap room quite possibly will be wasted. So why did the union agree? The sources explain that the NFL offered to help pump up the 2012 team-by-team salary cap in exchange for the union’s agreement to remove cap money from the Cowboys and Redskins. One source said that, without the NFLPA’s agreement regarding the removal of cap room from the Cowboys and Redskins, the 2012 salary cap would have been in the range of $116 million per team. (One source said that the number at one point was presented to the union as being a paltry $113.5 million.) With the players agreeing to remove $46 million from the Cowboys and Redskins, the league agreed to a massaging of the salary and benefit numbers in order to get the 2012 salary cap up to $120.6 million. (The recalculation also kicked in some additional money that otherwise would not have been devoted to salary and benefits for 2012.).... The delay in the release of the cap number directly arose from the Cowboys/Redskins conundrum. Absent this issue, the cap number would have been disclosed well in advance of the start of the 2012 league year, instead of only two days before it.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote:

As the Redskins were rounding up a bunch of receivers on Tuesday (they landed Pierre Garçon and Josh Morgan, and they’re working on Eddie Royal), the team also was trying to plead its case with the league office regarding Monday’s decision to strip $36 million in cap space from the team for treating the “uncapped year” of 2010 too literally. Per a league source, the Redskins engaged in a conference call with the league office regarding the situation. And the conversation, we’re told, included the league conceding to G.M. Bruce Allen that the Redskins violated no rules and did nothing wrong. The league explained that the Redskins’ actions (and the Cowboys’) “affected competitive balance.” As we’ve previously mentioned, both in print and during Tuesday’s PFT Live, what about the teams that opted to underspend in the year with no salary cap or salary floor? Those teams also necessarily affected competitive balance by choosing to be uncompetitive. The bottom line is that every team could have done what the Cowboys and Redskins did. The notion that not every team had the cash flow to do it, which was advanced on Tuesday’s NFL Live by former Colts Vice Chairman Bill Polian, is more than a little misleading. The Cowboys, for example, opted to give receiver Miles Austin $17 million in 2010. The Cowboys characterized it as base salary and not as a signing bonus to limit the impact in future years under the cap. That’s not an issue of cash flow. And any team giving a player a signing bonus in 2010 could have used this tactic instead. Besides, without a salary cap, teams with greater cash flow have the right to try to disrupt competitive balance by spending more money, even if it usually doesn’t work. (Indeed, the Cowboys and Redskins failed to get to the postseason in 2010 or 2011.) A cap is put in place to prevent the spend-to-win arms race, and the cap was removed in 2010 to give the owners an incentive to replace the CBA before risking that teams would try to buy a championship in the uncapped year. What many in the media are missing is that this entire controversy proves the league engaged in collusion in 2010, and that the Redskins and Cowboys are suffering the consequences now for refusing two years ago to participate in a violation of the labor laws.

123456loko

[N51_rob]

Take them to court Dan, Jerry. All Davis (RIP) spent many a good day suing the NFL for far less.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus