The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
**ch44
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby chiefhog44 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:51 am

SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?


Snyder & Jerry are NOT risking losing the anti trust deal over this

this is not over, but ...


Seems as if it is. Not much they CAN do. Pat Kirwin didn't think they would be able to do anything. The other 8 teams may be punished at some other time.
Miss you 21

12/17/09 - Ding Dong the Witch is Dead...Which Old Witch? The Wicked Witch.

1/6/10 - The start of a new era

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:16 pm

I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too
We are very fortunate to have Kirk Cousins but Griffin has a huge upside IMO

Robert needs to continue to get better and to do that he needs time on the field - hopefully sooner than later

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

**ch44
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby chiefhog44 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:43 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too


Uh, right.. I'll let you think that. :wink:
Miss you 21

12/17/09 - Ding Dong the Witch is Dead...Which Old Witch? The Wicked Witch.

1/6/10 - The start of a new era

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:39 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too


I'll know the fact when everyone else does, I'll figure out what it means to the cap. I'm the Cap guy, never claimed to be a lawyer but there are a few on this site.

If you want insight on what might be ahead you might want to ask one of them. If you need a breakdown of that, no prolem...

Here ya go....

Ask one the members that occasionally steps in with their legal points of view, without really explaining why they have this knowledge, rather than the ones or one that is always pointing out that they're a attorney but seems to lacks legal knowledge on each and every situation. You've been around long enough to know who is who. If I had to co-sign on anybody ....


It would be the one on the TH.n staff :D

As far as how this will effect the team and the cap, nothing has changed... the contract are set up (and have been approved by the NFL) in a way that they can and will ne void in 2014 win the cap is rumored to blow up. The NFL cap penalties will have passed and any court action should be over too, if it gets that far.

Again I'm no attorney, agent or expert on legal documents but that contract (the Redskins contract sumitted to the NFL this year) Adam Carriker signed is almost identical to the ones Hall and Haynesworth signed.

Still not being a attorney or agent, Hanyesworth and Hall's Cap savings in 2010 totaled the amount of the Skins penalty and the team is and has been carrying dead cap on AH for the past two years. To me $26M was a few million too high and the team should at least get that back.


FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle so it more than likely the little general will go full steam ahead or some direction with this.

No one as brought this up anywhere in any discussion..... lets see it Pat and Tim do follow ups.
:D
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

Canes Skin
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Postby CanesSkins26 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:31 pm


Redskins, Cowboys have little recourse

By Dan Graziano

Look, I'd love to keep hammering the NFL for its ridiculous decision earlier this week to strip the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys of $36 million and $10 million, respectively, in cap room over the next two years. The league deserves to be hammered, and almost everyone else (just as the league hoped they would) is ignoring the story in favor of free agency. But the fact is that there is almost nothing the Redskins or Cowboys can do about this, and the few avenues available to them are avenues they're extremely unlikely to pursue.

When the story broke Monday, my first thought, as I wrote at the time, was that the owners appeared to have engaged in collusion by conspiring to limit spending in the uncapped 2010 season and that the Cowboys and Redskins were being punished for not going along with that plan. So I reached out to ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson and asked him if I was on the right track. Here's his response:

The NFL collusion clause (Article 17, P. 119) in the new CBA is very narrow in its definition of collusion. It applies only to certain contract procedures and any agreement among owners that would restrict the offers made to players. It is limited to multi-team decisions on whether to negotiate with a particular player, whether to submit an offer sheet, whether to offer a contract, and whether to include a right of first refusal. It is nothing like the broad anti-collusion clause that became famous in MLB. There is nothing in the NFL definition of collusion that applies to the Dallas and Washington frontloading of contracts. What the league did certainly sounds like what we normally think of as collusion, but it does not appear to violate anything in the CBA. If Dallas or Washington want to do something about the penalties, they would be forced to rely on an antitrust action, an enormous undertaking. It would be similar to the numerous cases that Al Davis filed over the years. I doubt that either Jones or Snyder would be willing to undertake so massive an effort.


I share his doubt. The idea of Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder bringing an antitrust suit against the other members of a cartel of which they themselves are members is farfetched to say the least. I know that the Redskins, at least, have made inquiries about how they can fight these penalties, but the odds are that nothing ends up happening on that front.

The NFLPA isn't going to be any help either. They agreed as part of the Brady settlement at the end of the lockout to drop all pending litigation against the league, including the collusion charges they were intending to pursue. And while they could technically revisit those charges in light of the stunning new evidence the league has presented that it did, in fact, engage in collusive behavior during the uncapped year, don't hold your breath. The NFLPA (as we also reported Monday) agreed to these penalties last weekend in a settlement after the league threatened to cut this year's salary cap by $4 million or $5 million per team. It's highly doubtful the union, which was blindsided by this whole thing, is eager to open those negotiations back up.

The NFL is remorseless in its arrogance and its hypocrisy. It doesn't believe it has to answer to anyone. The lockout (which was clearly a sham, since we now know the league was instructing teams on how to behave while awaiting what it considered an inevitable solution) was more proof of that than anyone should ever need. This latest incident is just a far more narrowly focused example of the same thing. The Cowboys and the Redskins did something the rest of the owners didn't like, so the rest of the owners ganged up on them and took away some of their money. Mob justice, sanctioned by the commissioner. It's not right. It's not fair. But in the end, there's almost nothing the Cowboys and Redskins can do about it.


http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/55373/redskins-cowboys-have-little-recourse
Suck and Luck

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16059
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:36 pm

1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:06 am

1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too


I'll know the fact when everyone else does, I'll figure out what it means to the cap. I'm the Cap guy, never claimed to be a lawyer but there are a few on this site.

If you want insight on what might be ahead you might want to ask one of them. If you need a breakdown of that, no prolem...

Here ya go....

Ask one the members that occasionally steps in with their legal points of view, without really explaining why they have this knowledge, rather than the ones or one that is always pointing out that they're a attorney but seems to lacks legal knowledge on each and every situation. You've been around long enough to know who is who. If I had to co-sign on anybody ....


It would be the one on the TH.n staff :D

As far as how this will effect the team and the cap, nothing has changed... the contract are set up (and have been approved by the NFL) in a way that they can and will ne void in 2014 win the cap is rumored to blow up. The NFL cap penalties will have passed and any court action should be over too, if it gets that far.

Again I'm no attorney, agent or expert on legal documents but that contract (the Redskins contract sumitted to the NFL this year) Adam Carriker signed is almost identical to the ones Hall and Haynesworth signed.

Still not being a attorney or agent, Hanyesworth and Hall's Cap savings in 2010 totaled the amount of the Skins penalty and the team is and has been carrying dead cap on AH for the past two years. To me $26M was a few million too high and the team should at least get that back.


FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle so it more than likely the little general will go full steam ahead or some direction with this.

No one as brought this up anywhere in any discussion..... lets see it Pat and Tim do follow ups.
:D


Now they are building some kind of case for something.

Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The NFL will says the Redskins moved moved money (and allocated cap space) agreed upon and paid in a previous year and money from future years into one pile and counted it in the uncapped year.

That would be the only ground the NFL would have to stand on, but.... Montgomery's just re-worked his contract that dumped money into this year's cap but in the end frees up $2M in cap space. This re-worked contract has been approved by the NFL, it moves pro-rated cap money into 2012 freeing up space in future years (just like Hall & AH's deals), it provides current cap space (just like Hall & AH's deals would have if there had been a cap), and because Monty re-signed last week and the new league year is only 4 days old, the contract they just re-worked and had approved by the NFL had money agreed upon, paid-out, spread over future years is just what they say the Redskins are being punished for doing thinking it would only be done in a uncapped year.

"the Danny's" ego is too big for him to let this go and ground work is being laid for something. It's a no win situation for the NFL... "the Danny" can go into any court in the land, show what he's done over the last 10 years and get 12 people to agree there is no such thing as a salary cap, or if there is he's never been even close to being over it.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16059
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:41 am

1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:06 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.

They are doing the same thing in capped years, the league is approving the same type of deals now that the cap is back in place so why are they trying to reverse approvals they made when there was no cap.

It's ground work showing the contracts aren't anything new and therenwas no restriction on offering those contracts then or now.

If it was a advantage in the uncapped year that no other teams could use or were illegal why are the Redskins submitting and getting approved the same type of deals on capped years
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

Hog
Posts: 2240
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:05 pm
Location: Midland, VA

Postby Kilmer72 » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:33 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.


Yeah, and lets face it. There will be more phantom calls than usual if we fight them.

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16059
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:41 pm

1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.

They are doing the same thing in capped years, the league is approving the same type of deals now that the cap is back in place so why are they trying to reverse approvals they made when there was no cap.

It's ground work showing the contracts aren't anything new and therenwas no restriction on offering those contracts then or now.

If it was a advantage in the uncapped year that no other teams could use or were illegal why are the Redskins submitting and getting approved the same type of deals on capped years

I'm not saying the league is right, but the Haynesworth deal probably couldn't have been done in a capped year. The Bears should also be getting hit for the Peppers deal, though, if they wanted to at least be consistent.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16059
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:43 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.


Yeah, and lets face it. There will be more phantom calls than usual if we fight them.

I don't see how that's possible. :evil:
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Hog
Posts: 2240
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:05 pm
Location: Midland, VA

Postby Kilmer72 » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:34 pm

Not sure how Valid this is, seeing as how the pokes said they would let it go.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -cap-mess/

the 'mudge
Posts: 14529
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:12 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:Not sure how Valid this is, seeing as how the pokes said they would let it go.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -cap-mess/

From the article
Adding to the teams’ frustration, we’re told, is that the deal to take away the cap money was brokered between NFLPA executive DeMaurice Smith and the NFL Management Council Executive Committee, without a full vote of NFLPA leadership or NFL ownership. The chairman of the CEC is Giants owner John Mara, whose team benefits directly from the removal of cap room from two of his chief division rivals.

It’s unknown whether the Redskins and Cowboys are bluffing in order to force a compromise, or whether they indeed truly intend to file suit. Reducing the allegations to writing necessarily will expose that the league was engaged in collusion in 2010, which could have all sorts of unintended consequences for the entire NFL, including the Redskins and the Cowboys.

And so the real question is whether the Redskins and Cowboys are angry/crazy enough to drop a grenade into a room they won’t be able to escape.

The answer very well could be yes.


I was not aware of how deeply... and singularly... Mara was involved in this. Apparently, the ethic of the Mara family mind died with Wellington. This was corrupt from the roots up. Mara needs to be removed from the CEC. Knowing that there was no vote among ownership, it's hard to tell how much support he will get. If Mara were willing to screw with two of the most powerful owners... what chance would a Jacksonville or Buffalo have?

We beat the Giants twice last year. It will be good to do it twice a year from here on out. Only, now, the mission will be to destroy them.

Frankly, I think the Danny may initiate some action, in hopes of getting the NFL to back off... but I don't see him taking it to court... the cost would, ultimately be huge... akin to burning down the house to remove the squirrels in the attic...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

#33
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Postby skinsfan#33 » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:01 pm

I think Snyder will either file a law suit or let it be know that he intends on doing so before the next owners meeting on the 25th. At the owners meeting he will ask that the owners vote to make the cap reductions official. I'm sure there are several owners that don't like what Mara and Gotohell have done to the Skins (and Cowgirls), but might not be willing to rock the boat. However, if the Danny is threatening to sue the NFL, John Mara, Gotohell, every member of the Executive committee and the NFLPA he will get the votes he needs to set things straight.

It is on the best interest of the NFL to fix this before the courts do. No one in the NFL really wants the little owner to pull the pin on that legal grenade.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football