Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

[arnie_uk]

i think then haloti is saying did they then spend the $50 000 in year 2 and 3 on someone else, ie in total paying an extra 100k but there is no evidence ot suggest they paid any players more in the following years

If you're employer plans on paying you $50,000 a year for the next 3 years, but then instead pays you $150,000 in the first year, they did not spend any more money on you than they already would have.

They simply paid everything at once.

That's what the Redskins and Cowboys did and got caught.

[Haloti92]

You are right the extra money was not removed from the system but spread around to other teams. That is why the NFLPA agreed to it. All the NFL did was restore the competitive balance moving forward as opposed to letting the Cowboys and Redskins have a ton of cap space because they are wealthy enough to dump salary in an uncapped year.

Yes, there was nothing against the rules about what was done. It was collusion (owners against players). Two owners did not go along with the collusion (at their own peril). The aggrieved party, the NFLPA (players) is/was not willing to fight it because they spent the chip at the bargaining table over the new CBA.

More teams could not do this because most teams could not afford to do it. Basically the Redskins and Cowboys were using the uncapped year to circumvent future salary caps not to improve their team in the uncapped year. If they signed players to 1 year massive deals this would not be an issue. They basically pulled salary they would have owed forward and dumped it into the current year. They did not pay the players any more than they would have in a capped year they just put it all in one year. The NFL which thrives on having a level playing field took action to level it under the new CBA.

All teams could do it according to the rules. The financial situation, or as I noted, the desire (eg. Peter Angelos wealth vs spending) of the owners isn't relevant to the discussion in terms of the rules. Yes, without a salary cap rich and/or free-spending owners have an advantage. That is why salary caps exist. However, there was no salary cap.

I would only say that if, as a league, one wants the protections against such consequences that a salary cap gives, then do not agree to play without a salary cap.

As for the powers being used/claimed to mete out the penalty, they are indeed new and were agreed to in the new CBA, but after the fact. This is shady, even if legal (and it likely is, and we'll never know how a judge will decide because no one is going to pursue it any further). Like I said, I have little sympathy for Jones or Snyder, they knew this was a possibility. In fact, they should have known (and perhaps did know) it was a high probabilty. Maybe they just decided to gamble on the penalty being less than the advantage gained.

[Haloti92]

i think then haloti is saying did they then spend the $50 000 in year 2 and 3 on someone else, ie in total paying an extra 100k but there is no evidence ot suggest they paid any players more in the following years

The evidence is that they spent to the cap, and would have forever going forward (had they not been penalized), at least under the same ownership.

[HoustonRaven]

i think then haloti is saying did they then spend the $50 000 in year 2 and 3 on someone else, ie in total paying an extra 100k but there is no evidence ot suggest they paid any players more in the following years

No player since has received more than their contract amount, thus they didn't spend "$50 Million more" on player salaries.

How do I know that? Because the Skins claimed to have $36 Million in cap room this year, which was taken away.

[B-more Ravor]

The players involved is different from the "players" in general or as a whole. My only point is that the extra money spent, was just that, extra money. It was real, measurable extra compensation that went to "the players." How it gets accounted for on a ledger isn't as important as the fact it was extra or more than it would have been (at least in terms of the collusion angle).

But, there was no "extra" money involved. Haynesworth was already due a $21M bonus, they just altered some of the wording of the contract to cause all of the $21M to hit in the 2010 league year, which was uncapped, instead of being prorated, as originally written. The Skins did the same thing with DeAngelo Hall. The Cowboys used the uncapped year to have Miles Austin's new contract count $17M in the uncapped year (again, instead of being prorated).

All of those manuevers were way out of whack for how the Cap was usually handled, but not because of the amounts involved, but because of the manner in which the "bookkeeping" was handled.

The league was fine with teams paying - even overpaying - during the uncapped year, but they were not fine with teams using it to circumvent normal Cap principles and the normal ways of handling Cap matters.

Heck, the Ravens spent $3.5M on a back-up QB in 2010. Many teams - the Ravens included - spent MORE (some WAY more) than what the Cap would have otherwise been in 2010 had it not been uncapped.

So, there was no effort to limit spending (collusion) - it was only about maintaining the "integrity of the Cap rules" (my wording) that had existed under the old CBA (and that are largely the same under the new CBA).

What the Skins and Cowboys did went way over that line - and against what they had repeatedly been warned. A warning that teams like the Ravens actually followed. The Ravens could have tried to dump McGahee before the lockout when the uncapped year was still in effect, but failed to do so. I wrote about it many times and wondered why they didn't take advantage of the uncapped year. Now, we know why.

[Haloti92]

If you're employer plans on paying you $50,000 a year for the next 3 years, but then instead pays you $150,000 in the first year, they did not spend any more money on you than they already would have.

They simply paid everything at once.

That's what the Redskins and Cowboys did and got caught.

Again, you keep looking at individuals. I apologize, I am not sure how I can explain it any differently, I am still too vague/confusing. But I'll try one last time.

You have more than one employee. You are allowed, by law, to spend $50k on your employees, in total, per year.

Scenario 1: You spend that maximum $50k for 5 years. After 5 years, you have paid $250k to your employees. We don't care what your employees individual salaries were, or who got what percentage, only that you paid, in real money, from your pocket to theirs, $250k.

Scenario 2: You spend that maximum $50k for 2 years ($100k), then are allowed a one-time/one-year reprieve from the maximum $50k limit. You pay your employees $150k in year 3 ($150k). Year 4 brings back the old rules, and in that year and year 5 you pay your employees $50k per year ($100k). After 5 years you have paid your employees $350k. We don't care what your employees individual salaries were, or who got what percentage, only that you paid, in real money, from your pocket to theirs, $350k.

Going forward nothing changes, in Scenario 2 your employees as a whole are richer and always will be.

[HoustonRaven]

:grbac:

Again, where is this extra money you keep speaking on?

You need to back that up with a source, link, etc because there is ZERO evidence that any extra money was ever there or spent on players.

[arnie_uk]

but as houston pointed out, the skins didnt spend the max they could have every year. They were 36mil under the cap last year, maybe they were planning on spending it, but they didnt...

Again, you keep looking at individuals. I apologize, I am not sure how I can explain it any differently, I am still to vague/confusing. But I'll try one last time.

You have more than one employee. You are allowed, by law, to spend $50k on your employees, in total, per year.

Scenario 1: You spend that maximum $50k for 5 years. After 5 years, you have paid $250k to your employees. We don't care what your employees individual salaries where, or who got what percentage, only that you paid, in real money, from your pocket to theirs, $250k.

Scenario 2: You spend that maximum $50k for 2 years ($100k), then are allowed a one-time/one-year reprieve from the maximum $50k limit. You pay your employees $150k in year 3 ($150k). Year 4 brings back the old rules, and in that year and year 5 you pay your employees $50k per year ($100k). After 5 years you have paid your employees $350k. We don't care what your employees individual salaries where, or who got what percentage, only that you paid, in real money, from your pocket to theirs, $350k.

Going forward nothing changes, in Scenario 2 your employees as a whole are richer and always will be.

[Haloti92]

But, there was no "extra" money involved. Haynesworth was already due the bonus, they just restructured the deal to cause all of the $21M to hit in the 2010 league year, which was uncapped, instead of being prorated, as originally written. The Skins did the same thing with DeAngelo Hall. The Cowboys used the uncapped year to have Miles Austin's new contract count $17M in the uncapped year (again, instead of being prorated).

All of those manuevers were way out of whack for how the Cap was usually handled.

The league was fine with teams paying - even overpaying - during the uncapped year, but they were not fine with teams using it to circumvent normal Cap principle and the normal ways of handling Cap matters.

Heck, the Ravens sent $3.5M on a back-up QB. Many teams spent MORE than what the Cap would have otherwise been in 2010 had it not been uncapped.

So, there was no effort to limit spending (collusion) - it was only about maintaining the "integrity of the Cap rules" (my wording) that had existed under the old CBA (and that are largely the same under the new CBA).

What the Skins and Cowboys did went way over that line - and against what they had repeatedly been warned. A warning that teams like the Ravens actually followed. The Ravens could have tried to dump McGahee before the lockout when the uncapped year was still in effect, but failed to do so. I wrote about it many times and wondered why they didn't take advantage of the uncapped year. Now, we know why.

I am aware of the way in which the teams restructured. But it still results in more player compensation in total, regardless of which year it occurs in. I am also aware they were way out of whack for how the Cap was usually handled, but the situation was not usual, nor was there a Cap (to handle).

I did not know about the inclusion, in the old CBA, of the rule about "maintaining the integrity of the Cap rules" even in the uncapped year. But now that you educated me, I am even more confused as to why the league approved the contracts, considering they actually were against the stated, agreed upon, rules. I was operating under the assumption that the contracts broke no rules (on the books at the time). In other words, why warnings about unknown future penalties instead of rejection of the contracts because they were not allowed under the rules?

As for the league being okay with extra spending in the uncapped year. How would the league have felt about a multiple year deal for a FA that included a massive 1st year guaranteed salary, with subsequent years having a league minimum or minimal salary? I assume that is against normal Cap principle?

I understand exactly what was gained (by the Cowboys and Skins), I just didn't/don't see where it was disallowed by the rules. But you are saying it was, which is new to me.

As for collusion, the only thing that matters is that the ownership (league) took steps outside the agreed-upon (by the two parties, the league and the NFLPA) rules to limit player compensation in general. It doesn't matter if they only sought to limit only one of the two or three ways in which an enterprising team could pay the players more. Any limitation outside the rules would be collusion. However, you are telling me that the rules that were in place at the time prohibited what the Cowboys/Skins did. That is a different story entirely. The "way over the line" implies there was a line, an implication I was not aware of. Warnings contra to the rules in the old CBA would not be considered a line, but the rules themselves are certainly a line.

[Haloti92]

but as houston pointed out, the skins didnt spend the max they could have every year. They were 36mil under the cap last year, maybe they were planning on spending it, but they didnt...

I wasn't aware of that, I have seen different numbers, such as:

http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/08/29/upda...-all-32-teams/

Seems stupid for the Skins to push all that money into 2010 and risk the wrath of the league only to see most of the advantage evaporate the next year. Or why free up cap space you don't need/use?

[Haloti92]

:grbac:

Again, where is this extra money you keep speaking on?

You need to back that up with a source, link, etc because there is ZERO evidence that any extra money was ever there or spent on players.

If you have been arguing that the Skins spent under the cap in 2011 by the amount the spent over the cap in 2010, then I missed it. This is the only way in which there could be no extra money paid to the players. From what I have seen this was not the case, but perhaps it was. I missed your source and my source(s) certainly are not gospel.

[wickedsolo]

I think what Haloti92 is saying is that by the Skins accelerating that extra lump sum to Haynesworth in the uncapped year they generated enough room to pay more money to more players in the following seasons. Not that any specific player is getting more than what they're contract was worth.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's kind of how I read it.