Redskins just got hosed: $36 mil of capspace gone

[Rafael122]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... n-tuesday/

Skins and league talked on Tuesday and the NFL admitted the Skins did nothing wrong. This is making my head hurt.

[Nivek]

Key passage from that PFT article:

...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.

[verbal8]

But a person familiar with the case said while “there was no cap violation,” contracts by the team “were structured in a manner designed to secure an unfair competitive advantage” when the salary cap returned. That person said there was no basis for the league to disapprove the contracts at the time, during the uncapped year, but the league felt there was a basis to act now.

The union agreed to the resolution reluctantly, the person said. Union officials believe that neither team did anything wrong or attempted to circumvent the salary cap. But the union acquiesced to the decision because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

The most coherent explanation I've seen so far, but it's still bogus no matter how you say it. Problem is that I don't know how much legal recourse they have since this money grab was negotiated as part of the new CBA.

I think the approval of the contracts severely weakens the justification for the penalty. Also I think the re-distribution of the cap space is essentially bribing the union to keep quiet about it. I think this really is about how the other owners feel about Snyder and Jones.

I also agree with Kevin's point about underspending. Look at all the money TB has thrown around in Free Agency. I bet it really helped having year of cheap salary to be able to afford it.

[LyricalRico]

Re: Why other teams that spent a lot in 2010 aren't being penalized - What more people have said as this has worn on is that the Skins didn't overspend in 2010 on new contracts, but they accelerated existing contract to count against the uncapped year instead of future years when there would be a cap. Apparently that was what the league warned teams against. So while it was still an unwritten agreement that exceeded the rules, which still is by definition collusion, it wasn't colluding specifically to keep salaries low in 2010.

I'm guessing that's why the players didn't make a stink about it when it came up in the CBA negotiations. The issue was manipulation of contracts, not withholding of money. So the party that the "collusion" was against has agreed to this and in exchange received a higher salary cap number in the new CBA than what the owners were initially offering. In the end, the players aren't actually losing any money, but were able to negotiate a higher cap financed by the penalty on the Skins/Cowboys.

Yes, I'm still upset based on the principle that you can't say there is no cap and then turn around and punish people for salary cap violations. I'm also still wary of the NFL simply allowing the contract manipulations to happen and waiting until they had a chance for some payback, almost like they were looking for a chance to stick it to Snyder/Jones. And of course the worst part is that they waited until the eve of free agency to spring this.

But...I've pretty much concluded that there's really nothing the Skins/Cowboys can do since 1) this penalty was collectively bargained and 2) the players aren't technically losing any money. If they went the "nuclear" route, the only route it could take is a debate on anti-trust laws and the role of collective bargaining in sports. Now you're talking about potentially messing with business model of the NFL and every other major sports league, and that's getting in to "cutting off your nose to spite your face" territory. IMO they should just grin and bear it, while continuing to remind Goodell that they could have blown this thing up but didn't and so he owes them one.

[Rafael122]

Just look at the Bengals, 50 million in cap space and they haven't used a lot of it. It's ridiculous, Skins are actually trying to improve their team.

[Ruzious]

It sounds like the Skins are taking this to arbitration - which sounds like the sensible course of action. It likely would have done more harm than good to have taken it to court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

[Ruzious]

Hello? Echo echo... echo.

Anyway, if the Skins win in arb, any thoughts on maybe them getting compensated by the league? The league's action - and the TIMING of their action - disadvantaged the Skins, and forced them to dratically change their free agency plans. The timing especially made it look punitive and petty on the part of the other NFL owners.

I think - if the Skins win the arb case, they should get at least a high draft pick to compensate for the damage the league cost the Skins.

[Rafael122]

They still would rather have the cap space, a draft pick wouldn't help them, 1 player vs. the possibility of not getting multiple players? Not even fair. Eric Winston would have been the perfect right tackle for them, been in the zone blocking scheme his entire pro career and we couldn't sign him.

[Ruzious]

I hear ya - that's my point that the Skins were very much damaged, but I wouldn't poopoo getting awarded a high draft pick. It'd be nice to actually develop players like Winston.

Really, the NFL should give the Skins all those picks they traded to get RG3.

[verbal8]

I hear ya - that's my point that the Skins were very much damaged, but I wouldn't poopoo getting awarded a high draft pick. It'd be nice to actually develop players like Winston.

Really, the NFL should give the Skins all those picks they traded to get RG3.

Maybe compensatory draft picks are a possibility, but I think they are later in the draft. Hopefully they should be able to get the cap space back for next year. I think arbitration is likely to lead to something in the middle of "Skins get compensation for everything" and "the entire punishment is upheld". It would not shock me to have the penalty for this year stand(not that I think it is really fair) and get the cap space back next year. I could see compensatory pick or two due to the timing of the penalty.

[Ruzious]

I'm speechless. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -redskins/

Really, NFL owners? Really? Really?

[TNBT]

I don't understand a huge amount about the CBA in the NFL, and I haven't read the links posted here, so I'm just going to say what seems to me to be what the situation is. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The NFL and the players agreed to have a year with no cap. Because of this, we signed a bunch of guys for a lot of money, but structured the contracts so that the bulk of the money would be paid to them during the uncapped year, therefore meaning that we would still be able to fit under the cap when it came back the next year. Now the NFL are saying that we gained an "unfair advantage" but getting all these guys in that manner, and as such they are penalizing us now when they approved the contracts in the first place. Is that right?

If so, then what the hell is wrong with the NFL and other team owners? Are the other teams and the league being run by a group of monkeys or something? If you, as the league, KNOW that certain contracts are going to give a team an unfair advantage in the future and therefore violate the rules, then why the f*ck would you approve them in the first place?


I have to go lay down for a while... this is making my head hurt.

[Rafael122]

Because they all wanted the salary cap to increase which means more money for players and to a certain extent the Players Association. If I'm not mistaken. It was either penalizing the Skins and Cowboys and have a higher cap or not penalizing them and having a smaller cap. In the end the Cowboys and Skins got hosed.

[hands11]

I had forgotten this happened.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... n-cap-case

So any update on this ?

[verbal8]

I had forgotten this happened.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... n-cap-case

So any update on this ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

It was dismissed by the arbitrator because he interpreted it as not being subject to arbitration. The Skins and Cowboys did not pursue the issue further.

[LyricalRico]

Adam Schefter was on the Sports Fix (ESPN 980) today and said that there still could be a favorable ruling on this for the Skins this upcoming offseason, so stay tuned.

Either way, isn't it great that the Giants ownership was the driving force behind this illegal penalty and now they have to watch the Skins in the playoffs while they sit at home? Take that, Mara family!

[Rafael122]

If they get some of the $ back, that will help. They need help at the right tackle spot, they need a tall corner, a free and strong safety. Probably an inside linebacker as well.