Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

**HoustonRaven** · 05-09-2012, 08:52 PM

If your boss tells you not to do X three time and you end up doing X, you're subject to punishment. Makes no different if X was written down on paper.

And the collusion argument is 100% bupkis. 30 owners deciding something does not equate to collusion under labor rules. That went out the window when the owners, with NFLPA approval mind you, decided to split the cash evenly.

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-09-2012, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

If your boss tells you not to do X three time and you end up doing X, you're subject to punishment. Makes no different if X was written down on paper.

And the collusion argument is 100% bupkis. 30 owners deciding something does not equate to collusion under labor rules. That went out the window when the owners, with NFLPA approval mind you, decided to split the cash evenly.

I've seen no proof that they were told not to do this and the contracts were approved. The union is going to agree because it means more money to the players. I think the league may be caught with their pants down on this one

**HoustonRaven** · 05-09-2012, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

I've seen no proof that they were told not to do this and the contracts were approved. I think the league may be caught with their pants down on this one

1. The league has said so numerous times, and call them what you will, but liars has not been one of the names used to describe them.

2. If they didn't give the warning, the NFLPA would be screaming from the mountain tops.

3. 30 other owners are awfully quiet. If this was never said to the owners, we'd know about it by now. The other owners would be furious this went down.

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-09-2012, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

1. The league has said so numerous times, and call them what you will, but liars has not been one of the names used to describe them.

2. If they didn't give the warning, the NFLPA would be screaming from the mountain tops.

3. 30 other owners are awfully quiet. If this was never said to the owners, we'd know about it by now. The other owners would be furious this went down.

I'm not arguing, but can you show me where the league states that they made it clear? Read the Washington post article from the link above and it clearly states the teams did not violate any rule.

The other 30 owners would have their caps reduced I'd this is reversed, of course they aren't in favor of that.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-09-2012, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

I'm not arguing, but can you show me where the league states that they made it clear? Read the Washington post article from the link above and it clearly states the teams did not violate any rule.

The other 30 owners would have their caps reduced I'd this is reversed, of course they aren't in favor of that.

I read it.

Yes, they violated no salary cap rule because there was no cap rule to violate. It was an uncapped year.

But they were told during the owners meetings don't do anything. 30 other owners did what they were told.

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-09-2012, 09:53 PM

That's your opinion but there is no proof of it that I've seen. Heard Pat Kirwan And Tim Ryan ripping it this afternoon and they certainly feel this could be a huge embarrassment for the league, and I agree. Ultimately the arbitrator may simply throw it out, refuse to hear them, or rule that the league has sweeping authority to maintain competitiveness but if they go forward on the merits of the rules, it could get interesting.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-09-2012, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

That's your opinion but there is no proof of it that I've seen. Heard Pat Kirwan And Tim Ryan ripping it this afternoon and they certainly feel this could be a huge embarrassment for the league, and I agree. Ultimately the arbitrator may simply throw it out, refuse to hear them, or rule that the league has sweeping authority to maintain competitiveness but if they go forward on the merits of the rules, it could get interesting.

It's also the opinion of league sources who had knowledge of the warnings ....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...uncapped-year/

CNN / SI also state the teams were warned ....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...int/index.html

That fact doesn't seem to be in dispute.

**GOTA** · 05-10-2012, 05:33 AM

As Kirwin said, an unwritten rule really isn't a rule at all. I don't see how the NFL wins this one.

**Captain Offense** · 05-10-2012, 07:23 AM

I know that we do not have all of the details, so until the entire picture is fleshed out it is hard to come down hard on it. What I have heard so far though sounds like this scenario:

It is an "uncapped year" - which is a misnomer since there were poison pill provisions in anyway (but I digress). The League tells everybody that there are no limitations in place RIGHT NOW but there will be a CBA at some time and there will be provisions to deal with deals outside of the "cap"-like philosophy. Two teams go off the reservation (because they can at that point) and the League signs off on them because they are permitted at that time. The CBA is done and the NFL and the players agree to the retroactive smacking provision that is now at issue. If you were warned that this might be part of the new CBA and went your own way, were you then surprised? Or did you feel that the players would never agree to that term? Or were you advised that it would never stand up to a challenge?

This is how I understand it. Redirect my analysis if there are pieces that are not correct.

**GOTA** · 05-10-2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Offense

I know that we do not have all of the details, so until the entire picture is fleshed out it is hard to come down hard on it. What I have heard so far though sounds like this scenario:

It is an "uncapped year" - which is a misnomer since there were poison pill provisions in anyway (but I digress). The League tells everybody that there are no limitations in place RIGHT NOW but there will be a CBA at some time and there will be provisions to deal with deals outside of the "cap"-like philosophy. Two teams go off the reservation (because they can at that point) and the League signs off on them because they are permitted at that time. The CBA is done and the NFL and the players agree to the retroactive smacking provision that is now at issue. If you were warned that this might be part of the new CBA and went your own way, were you then surprised? Or did you feel that the players would never agree to that term? Or were you advised that it would never stand up to a challenge?

This is how I understand it. Redirect my analysis if there are pieces that are not correct.

I think that's pretty close but there are a couple of key points.

1. Even though it was an uncapped year there were all sorts of limitations built into the expired CBA that every team complied with. It wasn't a complete free for all where teams could push everything into that year and then come out of this with expensive players that didn't count for much cap space in future years. If you look at the articles that Ravor wrote at the time, which are probably archived on this site, you can see how teams still had to function within a set of guidelines. So there were significant limitations.

2. The NFL warned teams at the time not to do things beyond the agreement that was in place. They then approved these deals because they complied with that agreement. It was a on the record approval but an off the record 'you shouldn't have done that'.

Does the NFL have the right to punish teams who complied with the rules but didn't comply with the strong suggestions made by the league? That's what we'll find out.

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-10-2012, 09:33 AM

It's Washington that really got hit hard with $36M taken away. I believe it was because they cleared the Albert Haynesworth money from their books.

Dallas got a $10M hit allegedly for this

The contract at issue for the Cowboys is the six-year, $54 million extension the team gave receiver Miles Austin that included an unprecedented $17 million base salary when it began in 2011.

I also read somewhere (but can't find it now) that the money distributed to the other teams did not include the Saints or Raiders because they had minor infractions.

Very strange situation with lots of millions at stake

**srobert96** · 05-10-2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

I think that's pretty close but there are a couple of key points.

1. Even though it was an uncapped year there were all sorts of limitations built into the expired CBA that every team complied with. It wasn't a complete free for all where teams could push everything into that year and then come out of this with expensive players that didn't count for much cap space in future years. If you look at the articles that Ravor wrote at the time, which are probably archived on this site, you can see how teams still had to function within a set of guidelines. So there were significant limitations.

2. The NFL warned teams at the time not to do things beyond the agreement that was in place. They then approved these deals because they complied with that agreement. It was a on the record approval but an off the record 'you shouldn't have done that'.

Does the NFL have the right to punish teams who complied with the rules but didn't comply with the strong suggestions made by the league? That's what we'll find out.

There is a lot of unknowns. It really depends on what the new collective bargaining agreement looks like. It also depends on what the agreement is among owners as to the power and latitude the league has to impose penalties. There may a vague rule that governs franchises around trying to gain a competitive advantage. It would allow the nfl to cover things that may or may not be covered under specific rules. While on the surface it looks bogus the rules for governing the NFL are different than a typical business. The other owners voted to approve the punishment and the NFLPA approved the punishment and that may be enough.