Washington & Dallas Penalties - Make Sense????

[Patler]

The "penalties" assessed against Washington and Dallas for their salary cap shenanigans in 2010 don't really make a lot of sense. Presumably the amount each was penalized bears some relationship to the amount each dumped excessively into the uncapped year.

- By reducing their caps over the next two years (divided in whatever manner each team chooses) all the NFL did was make each team play with the same amount over 2010-2013 that the others are using.

- The increase given 28 teams, $1.6 million or so, is so small as to be fairly irrelevant.

- Cash strapped teams might not see much of an advantage in an increased cap #.

- If the maneuvers at the time allowed the teams to sign a player they otherwise could not have, they are better off for having violated the understandings, and if they have no roster emergencies now, the "penalties" are of little consequence.

- The "penalties" simply allow Snyder and Jones to pocket more profits than they intended too, because the "penalties" simply decrease the expenses for each.


Now, if the NFL had actually taken the cash away from the two along with the cap reductions, and divided the cash among the others along with the cap increases, then there would have been penalties. Since each team had intended to spend the extra money anyway, it would make some sense simply to take it from them and give it to the others.

[pbmax]

If I recall, the cap that year would have been $126 or $129 million.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/pft-rewind-cowboys-redskins-issue-was-obvious-in-2010/

Cowboys spent $166.5 and Redskins $178.2 million. So the cap penalties are not tied directly to the phantom cap number, perhaps it is specific to the contracts that the league objected to?

[sharpe1027]

Calling it a penalty may be misleading. As you noted, Dallas and Washington's average salary cap numbers over the three year period will end up being virtually the same as every other team's numbers. Its not really a penalty so much as lessening the advantage they already gained by front loading contracts.

Actually, I'd say they came out ahead since they are allowed to freely spread the "penalty" value how they want over two years. That gives them flexibility that no other team has.

[Patler]

If I recall, the cap that year would have been $126 or $129 million.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/pft-rewind-cowboys-redskins-issue-was-obvious-in-2010/

Cowboys spent $166.5 and Redskins $178.2 million. So the cap penalties are not tied directly to the phantom cap number, perhaps it is specific to the contracts that the league objected to?

I'm sure that's the case, which is why I stated the amount each was penalized presumably "bears some relationship to the amount each dumped excessively into the uncapped year." I didn't expect it to be a dollar for dollar direct offset for monies above the expected cap in 2010. But there is some relationship to the amounts dumped. I assume a lot of teams dumped some amounts into the uncapped year. It probably does relate to individual contract analyses, and what was out of whack (by some retroactive standard dreamed up in the league office) in some specific contracts.

To my way of thinking, uncapped is uncapped, and it shouldn't matter how much or how little any team spent that year. As PFT points out, if over-spenders are penalized for the sake of "competitive balance" why aren't the under-spenders also penalized?

Since the penalties aren't really much of a penalty, this seems more like the league taking advantage of a situation to show the NFLPA who really has control in their relationship. It makes Smith, the executive board and the negotiating team just a little bit beholding to the owners for not decreasing the cap this year, and what the players gave in return is nothing, as both side realize.

[Lurker64]

The league apparently wanted teams to collude (there's some quote of "six warnings" about this) and in this situation they got the NFLPA to let them, since the NFLPA was sort of over a barrel since the league promised that they would massage the cap number in order to get something better than last year (otherwise it would have been 4-7m less than last year), and there's no way D. Smith gets reelected if the cap goes down two years in a row.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is partly the commissioner pandering to smaller revenue owners who are unhappy that they got the short end of the stick in the new CBA compared to teams like Dallas and Washington.

[pbmax]

I'm sure that's the case, which is why I stated the amount each was penalized presumably "bears some relationship to the amount each dumped excessively into the uncapped year." I didn't expect it to be a dollar for dollar direct offset for monies above the expected cap in 2010. But there is some relationship to the amounts dumped. I assume a lot of teams dumped some amounts into the uncapped year. It probably does relate to individual contract analyses, and what was out of whack (by some retroactive standard dreamed up in the league office) in some specific contracts.

To my way of thinking, uncapped is uncapped, and it shouldn't matter how much or how little any team spent that year. As PFT points out, if over-spenders are penalized for the sake of "competitive balance" why aren't the under-spenders also penalized?

Since the penalties aren't really much of a penalty, this seems more like the league taking advantage of a situation to show the NFLPA who really has control in their relationship. It makes Smith, the executive board and the negotiating team just a little bit beholding to the owners for not decreasing the cap this year, and what the players gave in return is nothing, as both side realize.

I agree that the NFL got to have its cake and eat it too in this instance. Save the NFLPA's bacon and punish the recalcitrant teams despite the fact that the punishment is for a rule that could be unenforceable.

However, the NFL had to pick how to calculate the penalty. What I am curious about is what constituted dumping in the mind of the NFL. The total cap number (which may be meaningless here) shows a $12 million dollar gap. But the penalty has a $26 million difference. And no team is uttering a peep about the situation. Not even the aggrieved.

And the Union must not fear the precedent being set by those contracts being deemed "against competitive balance".

Oddly, the closer to the 2010 year the penalty occurs, the less impact it has. They were dumping to save themselves future cap space. What might have hurt more is cutting that space in 2014, when everyone and their brother expects the cap to explode.

[Patler]

However, the NFL had to pick how to calculate the penalty. What I am curious about is what constituted dumping in the mind of the NFL. The total cap number (which may be meaningless here) shows a $12 million dollar gap. But the penalty has a $26 million difference. And no team is uttering a peep about the situation. Not even the aggrieved.

And the Union must not fear the precedent being set by those contracts being deemed "against competitive balance".

Oddly, the closer to the 2010 year the penalty occurs, the less impact it has. They were dumping to save themselves future cap space. What might have hurt more is cutting that space in 2014, when everyone and their brother expects the cap to explode.

Andrew Brandt's column today has quotes from his column back in 2010 when the Redskins and Cowboys did what they did:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Capless-crackdown.html

It looks like the Redskin's penalties are from basically two contracts that moved $36 million into 2010, with no impact on future salary caps.

[woodbuck27]

Creativity helps ‘Skins manage cap charge with Morgan deal

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2012, 1:32 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sanfrancisco49ersvmiamidolphins2xmunibn6vil-e1331745658413.jpg?w=244 Getty Images

Redskins officials reportedly are “furious” (as they should be) about the removal of $36 million in salary cap space. And so it can be said that they’ve chosen both to get mad — and to get even.

Apart from any formal effort to challenge their punishment-without-a-crime, the Redskins are looking for ways to craft new contracts that will help them manage the cap charges in 2012.
With receiver Josh Morgan (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4919/josh-morgan), for example, a $5.5 million signing bonus on a two-year deal will count only $1.1 million toward the cap in 2012, even though it should have chewed up $2.75 million.

The Redskins pulled it off via a five-year contract that will void to two. It means that, instead of a $2.75 million cap charge in 2012 and 2013, the bonus will count as only $1.1 million in 2012 and, presumably, $1.1 million in 2013, and then $4.4 million in 2014, once the cap penalties are gone and the salary cap shoots up under the new TV deals. (Unless, of course, the league finds two years from now that the Redskins were trying to obtain an unfair competitive balance via a contract the league office approved.)

Morgan also will be paid a fully-guaranteed base salary of $1.8 million in 2012, along with a $200,000 workout bonus. In 2013, he’s due to receive a $3.8 million base salary and a $200,000 workout bonus.

Morgan also is eligible to pocket $250,000 in each year for a Pro Bowl berth.

It adds up to $7.3 million fully guaranteed, $7.5 million that is as a practical matter guaranteed (if he shows up for the workout program), and $11.5 million in two years with another $500,000 available if he makes it to the Pro Bowl in both years.

At an average of $766,000 per reception from 2011, that’s not a bad deal.

[woodbuck27]

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options

Posted by Mike Florio on March 15, 2012, 8:40 AM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/redskins_cowboys_cap_space_punishments_jerry_jones _dan_snyder-e1331815180456.jpg?w=250 Getty Images

The Cowboys and Redskins are faced with the combined loss of $46 million in salary cap space over the next two years for treating the term “uncapped year” too literally two years ago. And their fans want to know if the teams will be fighting the NFL on this point.

The answer is, “Maybe.”

A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the Cowboys and Redskins are exploring all options for challenging the decision.

That means a lawsuit could be coming. But while the late Al Davis wouldn’t have blinked before loading the legal cannon, Redskins owner Dan Snyder and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones could be influenced by consideration of the big picture.

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. The idea was, apparently, to keep more money in the pockets of the owners and out of the pockets of the players, in advance of the possibility of a full season without football. Arguing that the NFL has now punished the Redskins and Cowboys for breaking ranks necessarily would expose that strategy.

And with the league and the NFLPA likely to, at some point, be engaged in contentious labor negotiations again, disclosing past instances of collusion could make it harder to employ the same tactics in the future.

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.

No decisions have been made as to whether a lawsuit or some other tactic will be pursued. But for now the Redskins and Cowboys aren’t willing to simply shrug their shoulders and take it.

[Fritz]

Hate the Cowboys. And with Snyder owning the Skins, I would hate the Skins except he causes them to suck so badly.

[smuggler]

The $10 million (Cowboys) and $36 millions ('Skins) are exactly the amount of bonus money that the respective teams accelerated into the uncapped year.

[gbgary]

dal just keeps on signing free agents. wonder how they're doin' that!?

[woodbuck27]

dal just keeps on signing free agents. wonder how they're doin' that!?

Jerry Jones.

[smuggler]

Dallas has about a year left before the bottom drops out and they have to thoroughly rebuild. They figure they might as well just say FUCK IT and try for the stars this season. By the way, I have heard that the Redskins penalty was already lowered from the $36mil AND their 3rd round draft choice. If they try to take it to arbitration, they might actually get the whole penalty.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/redskins-cowboys-could-go-nuclear-over-cap-mess/

Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2012, 11:08 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/24/cowboys-redskins-cap-penalty-should-make-league-meetings-interesting/

Cowboys, Redskins cap penalty should make league meetings interesting

Posted by Mike Florio on March 24, 2012, 6:52 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/25/cap-penalties-reportedly-getting-in-way-of-london-fletcher-deal/

Cap penalties reportedly getting in way of London Fletcher deal

Posted by Josh Alper on March 25, 2012, 10:45 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/25/redskins-cowboys-file-grievance-against-nfl-nflpa/

Redskins, Cowboys file grievance against NFL, NFLPA

Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2012, 12:05 PM EDT

[smuggler]

If the arbiter sides with the league (probably not going to happen), the two teams stand to lose draft picks in addition to the cap space, since full penalties will be on the table during the arbitration.

[gbgary]

If the arbiter sides with the league (probably not going to happen), the two teams stand to lose draft picks in addition to the cap space, since full penalties will be on the table during the arbitration.

can't imagine the league doing that they did, against the two most visible owners, without doing their due diligence on the repercussions.

[Guiness]

Creativity helps ‘Skins manage cap charge with Morgan deal

Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2012, 1:32 PM EDT

The Redskins pulled it off via a five-year contract that will void to two.

mortgaging their future - I guess it could pay off if the expected cap jumps occur.

I wonder how the contract voids? Does it just say it voids, or is it a balloon payment before the 3rd year?

[Jimx29]

Cowboys spent $166.5 and Redskins $178.2 million. ....and won how many super bowls?

[woodbuck27]

If I recall, the cap that year would have been $126 or $129 million.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/pft-rewind-cowboys-redskins-issue-was-obvious-in-2010/

Cowboys spent $166.5 and Redskins $178.2 million. So the cap penalties are not tied directly to the phantom cap number, perhaps it is specific to the contracts that the league objected to?


"The total cap number (which may be meaningless here) shows a $12 million dollar gap. But the penalty has a $26 million difference" pbmax

pbmax...your $numbers$. I'm trying to line them up.

If for example the CAP was $130 M$. The Boys actuall spent $166.5 M$ and Redskins $178.2 M$

The Cowboys were over by $36.5 M$ and get a $10 M$ penalty in diminished CAP that can be spread out over one-two seasons.

The Washington RedSkins were over by $48.2 M$ or spent $11.7 M$ more than the Dallas Cowboys and received an initial penalty of $36 M$. That penalty is 36-10 or $26 M$ greater than what Dallas received as a penalty?

That's a $26 M$ discrepency on 'only' a $11.7 M$ extra over the CAP expenditure.

Why? has the NFL HO come down so much harder on the Washington Redskins Organization?

[pbmax]

Try this one for an explanation: http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?23735-Washington-amp-Dallas-Penalties-Make-Sense&p=656601&viewfull=1#post656601

[pbmax]

Does anyone remember how much the cap jumped in 2006? Because Kraft says its not going to be repeated in 2014.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/kraft-cautions-against-a-cap-spike-in-2014/

[Patler]

Does anyone remember how much the cap jumped in 2006? Because Kraft says its not going to be repeated in 2014.

Yes, I do remember. :wink:

[pbmax]

Yes, I do remember. :wink:

Are the details rattling around in there as well, or just the event? :)

[Patler]

Are the details rattling around in there as well, or just the event? :)

The details, too. Just had to have a little Monday morning time for being a smart-ass! :lol:

The cap went from about $86 million in 2005 to about $102 million in 2006, so the increase was about 18.6%.

[woodbuck27]

Try this one for an explanation: http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?23735-Washington-amp-Dallas-Penalties-Make-Sense&p=656601&viewfull=1#post656601

Thank You pbmax.

[pbmax]

The details, too. Just had to have a little Monday morning time for being a smart-ass! :lol:

The cap went from about $86 million in 2005 to about $102 million in 2006, so the increase was about 18.6%.

So assuming 2013 is relatively flat as anticipated (say $122mil), the upper limit of the cap in 2014 is $122 increased 18.6% or

somewhere south of $145 million.

[Patler]

So assuming 2013 is relatively flat as anticipated (say $122mil), the upper limit of the cap in 2014 is $122 increased 18.6% or

somewhere south of $145 million.

When the CBS and Fox contracts were signed, they said fees would increase 6-7% each year during the contract. Not sure about the details on the other contracts. There was discussion at the time that there would be a significant, but not overwhelming cap increase the first year, but then relatively consistent growth each year.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/jones-a-member-of-the-cec-didnt-know-about-cap-deal/

Jones, a member of the CEC, didn’t know about cap deal

Posted by Mike Florio on March 26, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/browns-reportedly-outbid-for-pierre-garcon-and-josh-morgan/

Browns reportedly outbid for Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan By Washington Redskins.

Posted by Josh Alper on March 26, 2012, 11:40 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/27/owners-vote-to-impose-cap-penalties-on-cowboys-redskins/

Owners vote to impose cap penalties on Cowboys, Redskins

Posted by Mike Florio on March 27, 2012, 1:35 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nfl_g_jones11_576-e1332869698858.jpg?w=250 Getty Images
The collusion continues for the NFL ?

Comment woodbuck27:

What do you think?

[pbmax]

When the CBS and Fox contracts were signed, they said fees would increase 6-7% each year during the contract. Not sure about the details on the other contracts. There was discussion at the time that there would be a significant, but not overwhelming cap increase the first year, but then relatively consistent growth each year.

Robert Kraft expanded on his initial assertion about a cap baloon and said that the Networks asked for and got a slower growing curve in rights fees in early years of the deal. So the bulk of the increase to be paid would apparently happen after the first couple of years.

The subsequent explanation of why they wanted this (to demonstrate that it was a wise decision to management and investors) isn't quite as clear. And I am not sure if Kraft made that comment or the writer was paraphrasing others.

[gbgary]

can't imagine the league doing what they did, against the two most visible owners, without doing their due diligence on the repercussions.


and the league dog-piled dal and wash with the vote today. again...i don't think they'd have done this without feeling sure it would stick. i'll bet dal and wash just take their medicine without throwing a tantrum.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, I do remember. :wink:


I don't remember. I'm even trying to remember 'who am I' on Packerrats? Is cloneing in these days in the US of A?

CANADA IS ALWAYS SO BEHIND.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/browns-reportedly-outbid-for-pierre-garcon-and-josh-morgan/

Browns reportedly outbid for Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan By Washington Redskins.

Posted by Josh Alper on March 26, 2012, 11:40 AM EDT

Patler? Anyone??

How is it with 'the fact of' or a reality of... the CAP penalty on the Washington Redskins.

That this organization can be so fricken active in Free Agency? So active in pursueing an Andrew Luck or RG3? Where are they finding all the even 'virtual reality' .... $dough$ ?

Are they dreaming in technicolor or are we the fans being 'hood winked' by this CAP penalty...NO CAP penalty, bullshit?

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/goodell-no-issue-with-teams-spending-too-little-in-2010/

Goodell: No issue with teams spending too little in 2010

Posted by Josh Alper on March 28, 2012, 4:48 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/bucs-abstained-from-redskins-cowboys-vote/

Bucs abstained from Redskins, Cowboys vote

Posted by Mike Florio on March 28, 2012, 1:57 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/page/2/

Did NFLPA borrow against future salary caps to get to $120.6 million in 2012? (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/did-nflpa-borrow-against-future-salary-caps-to-get-to-120-6-million-in-2012/)

Posted by Mike Florio on March 28, 2012, 10:09 PM EDT

".. in exchange for taking $23 million in 2012 and 2013 from the Redskins and Cowboys, the salary cap was increased from $116 million per team to $120.6 million per team.

That’s $147.2 million. So where did it come from?" from Article above.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/

McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties

Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2012, 7:48 PM EDT

"Surely, the union got something. Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return." fr. Article

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

Comment woodbuck27:

The Washington Redskins Organization needs a core revision and a solid Franchise QB and supporting cast. When does the 'Bad News" stop?

Redskins remove 4,000 seats from FedEx Field (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/redskins-remove-4000-seats-from-fedex-field/)

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 3, 2012, 8:03 AM EDT