PDA

View Full Version : NFL Salary Cap



Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 05:42 PM
I came across this and found it interesting:


Schefter reports that the Cowboys will lose more than $10 million and that the Redskins will lose $36 million. (And now we know why the Redskins got the Griffin deal done last week; the Rams likely would have wanted even more for the second overall pick now.)
The teams can divide the cap losses between 2012 and 2013 in any portion they want. As of Sunday, the Redskins more than $30 million in cap space in 2012. The Cowboys had less than $5 million.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/league-strips-cowboys-redskins-of-millions-in-cap-space/

To get stripped of $36mill in cap space in one yr is pretty rough. I'm no fan of Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder but I thought it was fair game to take advantage of the uncapped yr. Apparently Goodell feels ifferently. I'd think those two owners would be livid about now. Thoughts?

NJReds
03-12-2012, 05:59 PM
Not sure what to make of it. I thought the league approved all contracts. Also, didn't the Bears give Julius Peppers an outrageous deal, too?

I think a lawsuit might be in order. Although the Cowboys could defer the hit to next year, when they have a lot of dead money expiring, and the cap is expected to go up due to the TV deal.

Wouldn't be collusion if the league told teams that they couldn't spend freely in year without a salary cap? I would think that the NFLPA would get involved, too.

RichRed
03-12-2012, 06:25 PM
I definitely smell a lawsuit.

Puffy
03-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Nope, no lawsuit coming.

The NFL and the NFLPA agreed on this. Also, this is not the league pushing for this - its the owners themselves. They were told not to do this and all the teams who obeyed are the ones who want teams that didn't to pay this.

What people seem to be missing here is what the Cowboys and Redskins (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and the Saints) did was to sign multi-year deals with players and front loading them to 2010. The punishment is not for uncapped year in 2010, it's for now having players on team at lower than normal cap numbers - in other words, circumventing cap.

Again, teams were warned not to do this - 28 teams listened. 4 didn't.

NJReds
03-12-2012, 10:15 PM
Nope, no lawsuit coming.

The NFL and the NFLPA agreed on this. Also, this is not the league pushing for this - its the owners themselves. They were told not to do this and all the teams who obeyed are the ones who want teams that didn't to pay this.

What people seem to be missing here is what the Cowboys and Redskins (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and the Saints) did was to sign multi-year deals with players and front loading them to 2010. The punishment is not for uncapped year in 2010, it's for now having players on team at lower than normal cap numbers - in other words, circumventing cap.

Again, teams were warned not to do this - 28 teams listened. 4 didn't.

Smells like collusion. Agreement not to spend. Also, the contracts were approved by the league, and there was (reportedly) no written warning from the league.

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 10:27 PM
Not sure what to make of it. I thought the league approved all contracts. Also, didn't the Bears give Julius Peppers an outrageous deal, too?

I think a lawsuit might be in order. Although the Cowboys could defer the hit to next year, when they have a lot of dead money expiring, and the cap is expected to go up due to the TV deal.

Wouldn't be collusion if the league told teams that they couldn't spend freely in year without a salary cap? I would think that the NFLPA would get involved, too.

Are you sure they have an option to defer it to next yr? I haven't seen that written anywhere. In order to keep the Players Assoc happy they raised the other team's cap a proportional amount so the total cap money has not changed. Of course there's no floor this year so I really don't know what that accomplishes

NJReds
03-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Are you sure they have an option to defer it to next yr? I haven't seen that written anywhere. In order to keep the Players Assoc happy they raised the other team's cap a proportional amount so the total cap money has not changed. Of course there's no floor this year so I really don't know what that accomplishes

Yes. The teams can defer the penalty to next year, or spread it over this year and next. I'm on an iPad, so it's a pain to post a link, but that is the case. The Cowboys have $20M in dead money coming off next year, so this shouldn't hurt them that much.

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 11:07 PM
Yes. The teams can defer the penalty to next year, or spread it over this year and next. I'm on an iPad, so it's a pain to post a link, but that is the case. The Cowboys have $20M in dead money coming off next year, so this shouldn't hurt them that much.

No problem. Don't worry about posting a link. Thanks for the info!

Chip R
03-12-2012, 11:33 PM
It's a good thing the NFL has a salary cap. It sure kept the New York Giants from winning it all.

NJReds
03-13-2012, 09:54 AM
No problem. Don't worry about posting a link. Thanks for the info!

Here's a link from the Dallas Morning News with a good summary from the Dallas perspective: http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7678693/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-takes-risk-roger-goodell-makes-pay

Some highlights from the article:


The Cowboys' crime: circumventing an apparent unwritten rule regarding the uncapped 2010 season.

Goodell is omnipotent, the league's Alpha and Omega, its judge and jury. All must bow before him and kiss his ring -- even Jerry, who pays 1/32 of his salary.

Now, more than ever, this is Goodell's league.


The NFL didn't like Miles Austin's 2010 contract extension, even though it approved the deal.

The Cowboys signed the wide receiver to a six-year extension worth $54 million and paid him a $17 million base salary, which worked within the rules of an uncapped season. In a capped season, players are normally given large signing bonuses that are prorated over the course of the contract to come up with a salary cap charge.



Here's the gist of what the NFL's Management Council said about the salary cap circumventions.

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance," the NFL said in a statement, "particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years."



This sounds like what might have happened: The owners convened, colluded and created their own set of ground rules for how to handle the uncapped season. Jerry, as he usually does, violated the spirit of the agreement in a never-ending quest to gain an edge. So did the Redskins, Saints and Raiders.


Since the owners had an illegal agreement, so to speak, Jerry figured that if any of the owners whined about his approach, the worst he'd receive was a public reprimand and a fine. Back in the day, Jerry probably would've been right. Times have clearly changed.


Whining about this predicament is worthless. An appeals process doesn't exist, and life has never been fair. Sure, Jerry could sue the NFL -- Al Davis did it a million times -- and a court might rule in the Cowboys' favor 10 years from now and return their salary-cap space.



Jerry and the Cowboys took a calculated risk by not following the letter of an unwritten law. Honor among thieves is a fallacy.

NJReds
03-13-2012, 09:58 AM
Oh ... and according to ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/cowboys-redskins-say-they-complied-with-salary-cap-in-2010/) ... here's why the NFLPA turned a blind eye to the collusion:


The union has opted not to pick at old scars, in large part because the league’s willingness to bump up the 2012 salary cap from $116 million to $120.6 million likely averted a mutiny against NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, whose contract expires this month.

Sea Ray
03-13-2012, 10:23 AM
It's a good thing the NFL has a salary cap. It sure kept the New York Giants from winning it all.

What's that supposed to mean?

Sea Ray
03-13-2012, 10:26 AM
It's important to add here that this ruling was not handed down by Goodell but from a committee made up of other owners so Jerry Jones' gripe is with his fellow owners, not the league

NJReds
03-13-2012, 11:02 AM
It's important to add here that this ruling was not handed down by Goodell but from a committee made up of other owners so Jerry Jones' gripe is with his fellow owners, not the league

But the league handed down the punishment. It's not just Jones that has a gripe. I'm sure Dan Snyder isn't happy, either.

Could you imagine if this happened in baseball. The league owners put in an "unwritten" rule to keep teams from spending (paying players)? The NFLPA is a very weak union, and the NFL owners just trampled them again.


I hope the Saints are ready for their punishment for the bounty system. My guess is that it's going to be brutal.

dabvu2498
03-13-2012, 11:19 AM
I hope the Saints are ready for their punishment for the bounty system. My guess is that it's going to be brutal.

I've been wondering about this, but avoiding "typical" sports media here recently. What's their punishment going to look like? Loss of draft picks? Forced personnel changes?

bucksfan2
03-13-2012, 11:22 AM
But the league handed down the punishment. It's not just Jones that has a gripe. I'm sure Dan Snyder isn't happy, either.

Could you imagine if this happened in baseball. The league owners put in an "unwritten" rule to keep teams from spending (paying players)? The NFLPA is a very weak union, and the NFL owners just trampled them again.


I hope the Saints are ready for their punishment for the bounty system. My guess is that it's going to be brutal.

As a Reds fan I would love to see Goddell as the commish. He acts in the best interest of all 32 teams, not a particular small amount of geographic teams.

Chip R
03-13-2012, 11:59 AM
What's that supposed to mean?

It means that for everyone who wants a salary cap in baseball, it doesn't keep a team in the largest market in the country from winning it all - again.

IslandRed
03-13-2012, 12:21 PM
Oh ... and according to ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/cowboys-redskins-say-they-complied-with-salary-cap-in-2010/) ... here's why the NFLPA turned a blind eye to the collusion:

That, and the fact that the players in question did get paid, probably more up-front cash than if the contracts had been structured to the NFL's liking. Add that to the other teams' caps being raised to compensate for the hit the Cowboys and Redskins took, and there's nothing to fight over here from the players' perspective.

Okay, there's that collusion thing, but sometimes you have to pick your battles.

IslandRed
03-13-2012, 12:24 PM
It means that for everyone who wants a salary cap in baseball, it doesn't keep a team in the largest market in the country from winning it all - again.

A cap isn't supposed to be about preventing big-market teams from winning, ever. Just about giving the smaller markets a fair chance to win, too. No one seems to mind New York winning when Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Indianapolis have also won recently.

Sea Ray
03-13-2012, 01:04 PM
It means that for everyone who wants a salary cap in baseball, it doesn't keep a team in the largest market in the country from winning it all - again.

????

First of all the Giants weren't the biggest spenders. Those were the Cowboys and Redskins as we just found out, but if you want to look at markets, fine. The Giants won this year and 4 yrs ago. In between there were championships from the vast markets of Green Bay, Pittsburgh and New Orleans. Before then it was Indianapolis. Clearly market size isn't a common denominator in these championships.

Salcaps shouldn't be in place to prevent a large market fronm ever winning. It should be in place in order to spread out the winning to all sorts of markets and it's done exactly that

RichRed
03-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Announcing the punishment the day before free agency was a little extra twist of the knife to the sides of Snyder and Jones.

The Skins and Dallas refused to go along with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" agreement (if it were in writing, it would've been clearly illegal). The other owners were mad that the bad boys didn't play ball with their little collusive scheme and demanded satisfaction from Goodell.

Never mind that all contracts were certified by the NFL at the time they were submitted. Wouldn't that have been the time to do something? Just void the contracts. But that couldn't happen, because no official rules were broken.

This whole thing stinks. I bet Mike Brown had something to do with it. ;)

Stray
03-13-2012, 02:53 PM
This is how I understand what's going on, and if I'm correct then the Redskins and Cowboys deserved their sanctions.

Since last year was an uncapped year they front loaded a lot of deals and cut players/restructured deals to take the cap hit on a year that it wouldn't hurt them. They were told several times that doing this would be unwise since the next CBA would have provisions allowing the NFL to recoup the cap that was 'cheated'. So essentially the Redskins tried to cheat the cap to gain an advantage over other teams, even after being told it wouldn't be allowed, and now they're paying for it. Sounds fair to me, and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder voted in favor of the latest CBA.

When I look at a team like the Steelers, they could have done the same kind of work last year to get some cap room this year, but instead they played by the rules and are having to make some tough cuts right now as a result.

I could be wrong here, but if my understanding is correct then I don't know how those two teams have any room to complain about this.

RichRed
03-13-2012, 03:14 PM
This is how I understand what's going on, and if I'm correct then the Redskins and Cowboys deserved their sanctions.

Since last year was an uncapped year they front loaded a lot of deals and cut players/restructured deals to take the cap hit on a year that it wouldn't hurt them. They were told several times that doing this would be unwise since the next CBA would have provisions allowing the NFL to recoup the cap that was 'cheated'. So essentially the Redskins tried to cheat the cap to gain an advantage over other teams, even after being told it wouldn't be allowed, and now they're paying for it. Sounds fair to me, and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder voted in favor of the latest CBA.

When I look at a team like the Steelers, they could have done the same kind of work last year to get some cap room this year, but instead they played by the rules and are having to make some tough cuts right now as a result.

I could be wrong here, but if my understanding is correct then I don't know how those two teams have any room to complain about this.

Then why weren't the offending contracts voided at the time? There were no official "rules," as I understand it, because such an agreement would've been illegal. Snyder and Jones went rogue and I'm sure that upset the other owners, but I don't see where the punishment is justified.

RichRed
03-13-2012, 03:26 PM
The season was uncapped. There was no cap. Teams stayed under a cap the year before, and the year after, but in the year of no cap, they spent what they wanted. There was nothing in the then-extant CBA that could have been used to penalize them for this. Hell, there was nothing in the next CBA, even though that would have been an ex post facto law, and illegal under any constitution worth its salt. So even if the NFL warned Washington and Dallas not to do what they were doing, Snyder's and Jones's lawyers would have pretty quickly concluded that there was to harm in using a loophole, and no risk either.

http://deadspin.com/5892791/in-the-name-of-competitive-balance-the-nfl-plays-the-bully-and-the-tyrant

EDIT: Sorry, there's some NSFW language in the article. Just a heads-up.

Stray
03-13-2012, 03:40 PM
Then why weren't the offending contracts voided at the time? There were no official "rules," as I understand it, because such an agreement would've been illegal. Snyder and Jones went rogue and I'm sure that upset the other owners, but I don't see where the punishment is justified.

I honestly don't know, I don't understand the NFL salary cap that much to be honest, just going by what I've read.

I guess it wasn't illegal, but they still have to take the cap hit that they tried to avoid?

AtomicDumpling
03-14-2012, 09:22 PM
The uncapped year meant you could spend whatever you wanted for that year, but it didn't give them the right to assign future salaries to the uncapped year. The Cowboys and Redskins attempted to game the system and exploit a perceived loophole to give them a dishonest edge over the rest of the league in future capped seasons.

RichRed
03-15-2012, 11:01 AM
The uncapped year meant you could spend whatever you wanted for that year, but it didn't give them the right to assign future salaries to the uncapped year. The Cowboys and Redskins attempted to game the system and exploit a perceived loophole to give them a dishonest edge over the rest of the league in future capped seasons.

But as you can see from the little chart in the article, they weren't the only ones who did this. And again, the contracts should've been voided two years ago if they were against the CBA.

NJReds
03-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Doesn't seem as though this is over.

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/15/cowboys-redskins-exploring-all-options/)



Suing over what essentially was a refusal to engage in collusion would confirm that the NFL was indeed engaged in collusion in the months preceding the 2011 lockout.


More importantly, the Redskins and Cowboys would be accusing their partners of corrupt, improper business practices. With the intense coverage that the NFL now enjoys, a legal fight featuring two arch rivals coming together and suing the entire league for meting out punishment for refusing to participate in inappropriate business practices against the players would attract much unwanted attention for the NFL.

Sea Ray
03-15-2012, 11:59 AM
I don't think it's news that they're exploring options. They'd be idiots not to but that doesn't mean it'll go anywhere

NJReds
03-15-2012, 03:10 PM
I don't think it's news that they're exploring options. They'd be idiots not to but that doesn't mean it'll go anywhere

It probably won't. Not sure Jones and Snyder want to "pull an Al Davis." As absurd as the penalty is, the league covered its bases pretty well on this one.