Explanation on why the Skins are being targeted in the uncapped year fiasco

I posted this on CPND and it is on Twitter but thought I would post it here for my ES colleagues as well.

Now I don't agree with this at all because the NFL approved all these contracts but it does bring some rationalization behind the NFL decision.

Its a twitter explanation I gave to Rich Tandler so please read from the bottom up.............

57s Robert Large‏@PCinOz

But this will be the cornerstone of the NFL argument - that those two contracts were done differently to the others.

1m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

How is AH and DH case different to TW, Rak or Peppers based on what the NFL secretly told the team owners/GM;s?

2m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@PCinOz @Rich_Tandler There was no breakdown of info on what was "allowed" and what wasn't so how do the NFL have a leg to stand on anyway?

6m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@PCinOz @Rich_Tandler Thats why the SKins and Boys should take this to court they would win hands down

6m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler Thats the difference. Should it matter? No. But the NFL are quarantining that issue to hit the SKins with.

7m Rich Tandler‏@Rich_Tandler

@PCinOz In other words, they're making it up as they go along. Not the way it's supposed to operate. I know you know that, just odd.

7m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler Totally agree, they have found a way to seperate abuses with new or unpaid money from already paid and earned money

8m Rich Tandler‏@Rich_Tandler

@PCinOz . . . the cap hit if they want to release Peppers. Same thing, just a new contract.

9m Rich Tandler‏@Rich_Tandler

@PCinOz No, it was a brand new contract when he signed as a UFA with the Bears. Paid out big $ in 1st year to lower cap later and reduce . .

9m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler I;m just using the openalty number to rationalise the NFL decision, not saying that the NFL is right to exclude other abuses

10m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler Was any of Peppers money already earned and paid

11m Rich Tandler‏@Rich_Tandler

@PCinOz I get that. Just don't see why the Bears aren't in the same boat.

11m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler The diff is the NFL are focused on those two already paid & prorated option bonuses, not accelerating yet to be paid/earned

13m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler ...but also accelerates already paid option bonuses to AH ($21m) and DH ($15m). Now what was the penalty? 21+15

14m Robert Large‏@PCinOz

@Rich_Tandler Rich Rich look at the Skins that year, renegotiated Orakpo and Williams contract to accelerate as yet unpaid future bonuses...

Rich Tandler‏@Rich_TandlerReply

he Bears signed Julius Peppers as a UFA in 2010 to a deal with a $35 million cap hit. But they escape penalty here. Why?

OK, so those two contract were done "differently" from others. Why were those "different" evil, bad contracts then subsequently approved by the NFL officially with no problem?

PC, wasn't this documented as being the same thing Allen did with Jeff Faine in Tampa. or not ? Seems like the precedent would have been set back then if so.

Thanks for the insight. Haynesworth strikes again...

Would you mind reformatting so it reads from top to bottom?

The NFL dosen't have a leg to stand on. The redskins are being targeted because they weren't involved in the collusion. **** the Commish!

The NFL dosen't have a leg to stand on. The redskins are being targeted because they weren't involved in the collusion.

Spot on, it looks like he wants to inject socialism in the NFL.

Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen said. “Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”

Well hopefully we can hold on to the 36 million...

Spot on, it looks like he wants to inject socialism in the NFL.

Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen said. “Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”

Huh what?

The NFL already has socialistic policies. It's the reason why it's so healthy with regards to all teams getting the same cut.

No need to inject another boogeyman into this situation.

The boogeyman term to use is the Redskins and Cowboys didn't play along with the "collution" that was going on behind the scenes between the owners.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/the-cowboysredskins-salary-cap-mess-from-square-one/

This is a great explanation of how the other 30 teams colluded to make the uncapped year penalty null and void and then held Demaurice's feet to the fire to make him go along with it. If I'm a player I petition for Demaurice to be fired for this and Roger to be HEAVILY FINED for violating the collective bargaining agreement. He's running the league like the mafia.

I'm not familiar with accelerating already paid bonus', so it stood out to me as fundamentally different contract situations from Peppers or Schaub (who had an option bonus picked up that triggered an extension). The NFL would have a hard time penalizing a team for front loading a contract or coincidentally having bonus' hit during the uncapped year. However it did appear that the Skins changed the structure of the contracts that already existed to accelerate the cap hit. Not to say I think the team should have been penalized. It's absurd. But I could see the difference in intent and operation.

Do you have the time to explain a few more things?

What is the deal with accelerating these bonus'? Can you explain how it works in real terms (money to player) and cap terms, in a normal circumstance? If it is already paid how is it accelerated? Is it a situation of bonus' being triggered but not paid in 2010 and we moved those payments to 2010? Is this otherwise standard operating procedure every year? If so I would assume teams may do it before the start of the new league year to eat up leftover cap space.

I agree with Florio. I don't understand the players acceptance of the move. Why would the players be OK with taking money away from those who will spend to give to those who don't?

I agree with Florio. I don't understand the players acceptance of the move. Why would the players be OK with taking money away from those who will spend to give to those who don't?

This to me is the part that really sticks in my craw, DeMaurice Smith sandbagged the NFLPA membership in this just to keep his job and hopes that no one notices what the actual results were? How in the hell was this accepted by the players (if it actually was)?

You know something reeks when Florio is making that much sense, he has been all over this.

It is disturbing at how little coverage this is getting outside of PFT and skins/boys sites (and everyone reads PFT with a huge grain of salt anyway). I get NFL network trying to keep a lid on it, but ESPN should be all over this.

The lack of coverage is what the NFL was counting on. That is why they did the day before free agency and made it only partly hit this year. The moment players starting signing, this was old news. The only better timing would be to release this info on a Friday afternoon, and then it would still only be better if teams could start signing players either Monday morning or Saturday.

Does this also explain why the Cowboys got hit?...I didn't think Austin's contract extension would fall under the "already paid and earned money" umbrella.

I was under the impression that Allen changed the nature of Haynesworth's bonus BEFORE the Skins paid it. Haynesworth agreed to the change because he got the same money on the same day. Am I wrong?

It sounds like (according to Florio) that the head of the NFLPA DeMaurice Smith did this to save his own ass and job. Looks like we need to blow up his twitter account as well and keep reposting stuff. Expecially the video link where Florio explaines and breaks down this whole mess. We need to get this out into the main stream media.

DeMaurice Smiths twitter is

@DeSmithNFLPA

From what I understand, it was a pretty easy decision for the NFLPA. Either let the Skins and Cows take the blow and redistribute $46 mil to the other teams (no net loss of money to the players); or no punishment to the Skins and Cows, but the NFL lowers the cap to $116 mil from $120 mil. $4 mil/team x 32 teams = a net loss of $124 mil to the players. They simply chose the lesser of two evils.

With that said, I am completely and utterly disgusted by it all. Goddell is a tyrant making up the rules as he goes, picking and choosing who to punish for various crimes. Skins and Cows should sue.

I was under the impression that Allen changed the nature of Haynesworth's bonus BEFORE the Skins paid it. Haynesworth agreed to the change because he got the same money on the same day. Am I wrong?

I have come to accept that if the NFL says so, it is true, so I am ready for some sort of punishment. What is not sitting well with me is the sort of double punishment that is being handed down. You either tell the boys & skins to take a cap hit, or give that money as extra cap room to the other teams but not both, that is too much. The wrong is righted by taking away the advantage given through the cap hit, but to give an extra $1.6m to other teams is just pouring salt in the wound. Or give other teams $1.6 m and then the advantage the skins & boys had are essentially negated, now I could listen to someone saying that $1.6m to other teams doesn't provide them with the same size of advantage the skins & boys got, so I would consider a minor cap hit, $5 million to each team, to try and get some balance back, but when they already have to take the full cap I think that is punishment enough.

The penalty imposed by the NFL is the most disturbing thing I've ever seen and while I admit I'm a biased Skins fan, this should upset every sports fan. As an attorney, I can tell you that the NFL and the union would have big problems here in Washington or Dallas sued. Not only would this expose a dirty practice that the NFL and the union do not want publicized but the collusion here is plain and it includes the union unless it has taken action that has not become public yet (a possibility). Trying to be as unbiased as I can here, a responsible owner of the Washington Redskins would at least rattle the saber to find out whether the NFL would back down. At a minimum, I would expect that a compromise could be reached here that would significantly improve the cap situation.

Right or wrong, when the team's owner sues others in a highly public manner over far less, the fan base will be left wondering if a strong response is not forthcoming.

HTTR

The guy says that the Bears "Paid out big $ in 1st year to lower cap later and reduce ". This is affecting the competitve balance of the league and a blantant "front loading" of a contract during a non capped year. Same issue Skins are being hammered for. The league is wrong.

Yet another reason why the NFL of 2012 is just a shadow of what the game was. Godell is managing to ruin a good game for lots of reasons.

The penalty imposed by the NFL is the most disturbing thing I've ever seen and while I admit I'm a biased Skins fan, this should upset every sports fan. As an attorney, I can tell you that the NFL and the union would have big problems here in Washington or Dallas sued. Not only would this expose a dirty practice that the NFL and the union do not want publicized but the collusion here is plain and it includes the union unless it has taken action that has not become public yet (a possibility). Trying to be as unbiased as I can here, a responsible owner of the Washington Redskins would at least rattle the saber to find out whether the NFL would back down. At a minimum, I would expect that a compromise could be reached here that would significantly improve the cap situation.

Right or wrong, when the team's owner sues others in a highly public manner over far less, the fan base will be left wondering if a strong response is not forthcoming.

HTTR

Your dead on. If either or both owners sued, this not only could affect what the league has done to the Skins and Cowboys, it can affect how the league works as a whole. This decision that the league has made is a very dangerous precedent. The fact that the league is very quiet on this whole issue speaks volumes. I truly feel that the League is sweating this, but their hands are tied because of the other owners pressing this issues. What gets me is that a federal ruling a few years back ruled that the league is not one entity, but 32 individual businesses. If that is the case, then how can 30 seperate businesses get together and make a decision to punish 2 individual businesses. To me, that's like Wendy's, Burger King, and Taco Bell deciding to "punish" McDonalds for legally spending "too much" of their earned money to better their business.

If there is evidence of collusion as there appears to be. Could the NFLPA sue and rip up the CBA?