Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

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

There is a hearing tomorrow, which will undoubtedly lead to more hearings. But since it was a spiritual agreement and the league and PA signed off on the docs, I don't see how it will stand up in court. Meaning - I think they WILL get their cap money back.

Any thoughts?

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowbo...ys-cap-hearing

**Captain Silver** · 05-09-2012, 05:14 PM

I don't think so, but stranger has happened. I mean one reason we are stuck franchising Ray Rice is because we didn't up in an uncapped year. I can't see how it is fair to the other 30 teams to give Dallas or Washington anything.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 05-09-2012, 05:15 PM

I think they should.

The NFL is really walking on some incredibly shaky and flimsy ground lately with these punishments...This, Bountygate (I find it baffling that the league seems to assume they don't have to share any hard evidence with anybody), even the McBean lift of his punishment as long as he didn't challenge them in court.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 05:20 PM

I don't think they will or should. Every team was warned and they were pretty much the only ones that didn't listen.

**Ravenswintitle** · 05-09-2012, 05:55 PM

It was an uncapped year. There was nothing in writing to say they shouldn't rework some of their contracts. An agreement 'in spirit' just doesn't typically hold up in court but then again the NFL's rights to maintain competetive balance may override things.

This is a good article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...JzBU_blog.html

According to several people familiar with the case, the league found that the Redskins and Cowboys technically violated no salary cap rules but sought to gain an unfair competitive advantage when the salary cap went back into effect. The two teams, according to those people familiar with the case, paid money to players during the uncapped year that otherwise would have been paid in subsequent years with the salary cap back in place. That way, the money never counted against the cap and the teams cleared salary cap space in future seasons.

The 2010 season was played without a salary cap under a provision in the sport’s previous labor agreement. It went back into effect last year with the ratification of a new CBA by the league and union.

**Jeremiah W** · 05-09-2012, 06:02 PM

It seems very effed up to penalise teams for not breaking any rules.

I have also heard that just trying to fine teams for breaking "the spirit of the cap" what ever that means, proves illegal collusion and exposes the NFL to damages for enforcing an artificial cap in what was supposed to be an uncapped year.

Also Jerry Jones made a very hard to argue point. The leauge had to approve all of those contracts in the first place. If they had a problem with them, they should have dealt with it then, not after the fact.

**bmorecareful** · 05-09-2012, 06:02 PM

All of the contracts were approved by the league and there was no rule, regulation, or covenant that prohibited the Redskins and Cowboys conduct at the time of the contracts.

This whole business to me is simply the NFL punishing two teams for not engaging in collusion, a practice which (unlike the Redskins and Cowboys contracts) is specifically prohibited.

The NFL deserves to get egg on their face over this in a huge way. If DC and Dallas really, really want to, they have the nuclear option in their back pocket of ratting out the NFL's unspoken collusion practices to whoever will listen. That would blow up the entire NFL.

**Mista T** · 05-09-2012, 06:38 PM

No. The arbitrator would likely have to find that the Commissioner's actions were beyond his authority, or abusive.

Don't forget, Ravens fans, that our salary cap would be lowered if the Redskins and/or Cowboys were to regain their caps.

**Boulderraven** · 05-09-2012, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mista T

No. The arbitrator would likely have to find that the Commissioner's actions were beyond his authority, or abusive.

Don't forget, Ravens fans, that our salary cap would be lowered if the Redskins and/or Cowboys were to regain their caps.

I doubt that happens because teams already made transactions, but they might borrow that money from future caps is my best guess.

**Jeremiah W** · 05-09-2012, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Mista T

No. The arbitrator would likely have to find that the Commissioner's actions were beyond his authority, or abusive.

Don't forget, Ravens fans, that our salary cap would be lowered if the Redskins and/or Cowboys were to regain their caps.

Under what rule is the Commish punishing the teams though? This seems like the definition of "beyond his authority and abusive" unless he has the right and privalege to make the rules up as he goes along.

Again, how can the league approve the contracts and then punish the teams for making them?

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 07:04 PM

Question for all those thinking they shouldn't be penalized?

Why didn't every team do it?

**Jeremiah W** · 05-09-2012, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Question for all those thinking they shouldn't be penalized?

Why didn't every team do it?

Because the Commish said not to, or in other words collusion. Either way I can not see punishing teams for going above what the cap would have been as fair. Also if there were a few teams to take money from to spread around, it should have been the teams that spent well below what would have been the salary floor.The Boys and Skins punished themselves already by spending the most money and not winning a playoff game.

Anyway reversing the argument here is sort of like having to prove you are not guilty. What rule did they break? Just because they were the only 2 to take advantage of the rules does not mean they broke them. It is a very good question about why the other teams did not do it. Just do not know what rule the Commish is able to use here to punish 2 teams I always root against.