WP: Redskins salary-cap woes were a hometown production (Wise)

I actually agree with a lot of what he says here. 'Cept i was saying it last year.

Of course, Wise takes it too far as usual. Mainly because he is a jackass and a bitter human being and he cant help it. But, he is correct about why we are in this mess. Im not even interested in the collusion argument at this point. Acting shocked that the NFL is a corrupt organization that operates outside of the rules is not news, and it shouldnt be to anyone who has been paying attention for the last thirty years.

What im interested in is how the Team has been able to operate within the clearly defined (albeit illegal) parameters set by this group of crusty old billionaires.

It’s called organizational hubris, and it was practiced most deftly by the team’s brain trust during 2010, the year the league did not have a salary cap in place leading up to its labor standoff.

The team has somehow convinced many of its legions these sanctions just appeared like white smoke over the Vatican.

Reality Refresher: Three years ago NFL owners agreed that teams would not be allowed to exploit the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage. There was not a written edict violated or a binding contract broken. There were simply a few teams who made a mockery of a negotiated solution to preserve competitive NFL balance, and the most conniving and manipulative among those teams, the Redskins and the Cowboys (who suffered lesser penalties), basically got voted off the island by their peer group.

Read the full article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-salary-cap-woes-were-a-hometown-production/2013/03/14/d16937e4-8ce7-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

I can't...I just can't click on the link and give that dolt another page hit for his article. I refuse.

That said...it's a BS penalty, and there's no argument at all in my mind.

Not arguing collusion at all, but how in the world did it give us an "unfair competitive advantage" compared to what the Bears, Bucs, etc did? We spent money in a way to clear cap space in the future. That's what the Bears did. The Bucs took it the other way, not spending money in order to have future cap space. The two reasons it was considered "unfair" because A) Mara was coming up with the penalty; and We had just traded for the 2nd draft pick.

That's where I lose it.

Mara did it because he felt threatened by a division rival, and tried to stop our getting better. Plain and simple.

I hate Wise..I won't click and give him a view.

I refuse to click on the link and give Wise any hits. That being said, the very beginning quote "there were a few teams who made a mockery of a negotiated solution to preserve competitive balance,and the most conniving Redskins and Cowboys, etc., etc." sounds like spoon-fed Mara hogwash to me.

That "negotiated solution" was illegal collusion. I agree we made a mockery of it, and we should have..

And the BS line that they've somehow fooled us fans into thinking it came out of nowhere is also complete and utter garbage. We all know where it came from, but it seems only Wise can't see that it was illegal collusion. Plus, that Vatican line is stupid and a lame attempt at trying to be current. White smoke doesn't just appear out of nowhere, like Wise is suggesting, rather there are events leading up to it and everyone knows to look for it. What a waste of space. The Post's sports department is just abysmal these days. Cue tomorrow's article crying about the team name again.

I don't often disagree with you Zoony but I do here.

UnWise - Tool

I've got a 5 word response on the entire matter: "The NFL approved the contracts."

All of them, for every single player, on every NFL team for the 2010 season.

End of story.

Oh, and Wise isn't

Here is where UnWise Mike lost me - "But it was forbidden that particular year, when the Redskins used it to create future flexibility, so they could spend like crazy in a year they happened to acquire Griffin."

Do i agree that we made moves due to questionable decisions in the past? Heck yeah, the big Al signing was horrendous.

Where I am lost is the FACT - the transactions were approved. Last i checked Mike, Forbidden does not equal approval.

Not arguing collusion at all, but how in the world did it give us an "unfair competitive advantage" compared to what the Bears, Bucs, etc did? We spent money in a way to clear cap space in the future. That's what the Bears did. The Bucs took it the other way, not spending money in order to have future cap space. The two reasons it was considered "unfair" because A) Mara was coming up with the penalty; and We had just traded for the 2nd draft pick.

That's where I lose it.

Mara did it because he felt threatened by a division rival, and tried to stop our getting better. Plain and simple.

Yup Mara AND Lurie.. More than a coincidence, isn't it?

Reality Refresher: Three years ago NFL owners agreed that teams would not be allowed to exploit the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage. There was not a written edict violated or a binding contract broken. There were simply a few teams who made a mockery of a negotiated solution to preserve competitive NFL balance, and the most conniving and manipulative among those teams, the Redskins and the Cowboys (who suffered lesser penalties), basically got voted off the island by their peer group.

UnWise Mike, the dunderhead. What he is describing here is the dictionary definition of collusion.

It is funny that he refers to the Redskins and Cowboys actions as "conniving" and "manipulative", but gives the NFL as free pass on their illegal and corrupt tactics.

I won't click on the link because I refuse to go to the Washington (Com)Post website and give them any hits. (Un)Wise is a perfect example of why.

When it comes to contract labor law, it was invented to prevent this type of unfair practice. But hey this is a sport right?

Mara did it because he felt threatened by a division rival, and tried to stop our getting better. Plain and simple.

This is all that matters.

Yes the Redskins broke a "handshake agreement" but it wasn't just us. Other teams did it to the degree we did. Why didn't they get punished?

I'm only really mad because of the lack of consistency in punishments honestly and how (when) they were handed out.

Not arguing collusion at all, but how in the world did it give us an "unfair competitive advantage" compared to what the Bears, Bucs, etc did?

Exactly :yes:...

This part here:

Three years ago NFL owners agreed that teams would not be allowed to exploit the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage.

...is abso-freakin-lutely laughable.

The whole freaking POINT of every NFL franchise's existence is to "gain a competitive advantage" ...an advantage in finances, in wins, in players, in coaches, in scouting, in popularity, in everything. Not to mention that by verbally agreeing to not utilize the uncapped year as, well, an uncapped year (lol), the owners have for all intents and purposes neutered the whole idea of an uncapped year and why it was in the CBA to begin with.

Wise needs to stop regurgitating the Goodell/Mara mantra of "unfair competitive advantage" and actually question NFL authority. However, he only seems interested in questioning the Redskins management, most likely because it stirs up controversy and thus site hits. If Wise was the same guy who tweeted a knowingly false news story just to "make a point", then it's ridiculous that he still holds a job with WP.

**** UnWise Mike. All day. Dude is a tool among tools.

You know, the more I think about this, and considering Mara's comments about "no Haynesworth deals this year," the fact that the Redskins outbid Mara for Fatty (which should be punishment enough); Mara has been itching for retribution.

This is all because Mara didn't get his was a couple of years ago. This is just payback.

All the league had to do was say no to the contracts. That's what they would do any other year in the existence of the league. That's why no one else has ever been cap penalized like this in any year, capped or uncapped. In other words, the LEAGUE actually took advantage of the uncapped year by 'letting' a couple teams break the rules so they could punish them later. If it were a capped year, the letter of the law wouldn't have allowed the contracts to go through. The league made the decision to let them. That's on them.

Speaking of fairness (since that's what this is all about right?), it's awfully unfair to give the contracts a thumbs up then punish you later. This is an odd comparison, but it actually reminds me of Joe Gibbs asking an official if he's allowed to call 2 timeouts. "you can." What was stopping that ref from being decent, fair, and just telling Joe it's a penalty?

"Here's these contracts. They're made differently than usual but this is an uncapped year after all. Can we make these contracts?"......... "you can."

That's my problem. It's like being set up.

I feel dirty for having clicked that link, but I figure I should read the thing and extract quotes in order to rebuke it fairly.

Now:

Reality Refresher: Three years ago NFL owners agreed that teams would not be allowed to exploit the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage.

What Wise fails to understand is that such an agreement was illegal collusion, end of story. The only reason the NFL isn't being sued by the NFLPA and sacked by the Justice department is because the NFLPA foolishly signed away their right to sue, and they and the teams themselves are the ones with standing to sue. I saw Wise's twitter storm a few days ago, and he was told this numerous times that an agreement about salaries in the uncapped year was an illegal agreement, and Wise seems to sort of just brush that to the side with the notion that the NFL is the NFL and can do what it wants.

There was not a written edict violated or a binding contract broken.

This should be the end of story. Redskins and Cowboys (and Saints and Raiders to a lesser extent) were unfairly punished. If there's nothing in writing then there's no rationale for punishment.

There were simply a few teams who made a mockery of a negotiated solution to preserve competitive NFL balance, and the most conniving and manipulative among those teams, the Redskins and the Cowboys (who suffered lesser penalties), basically got voted off the island by their peer group.

Again, agreement was illegal, but setting that aside, Wise ignores all the other teams who acted similarly. Bears spent 8M over phantom cap and bought Julius Peppers. Raiders were punished, and yet Vikings, Seahawks, Jets, and Packers all spent more than them. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/

11 teams spent over 130 million with the phantom cap of 123M in place.

And let's not forget that in most years there is a salary floor. Most of the time it's above 90% of the cap, but we'll be generous and only mention the teams who spent below 80% of the phantom cap. Cards, Jags, Chiefs, and Bucs all spent below 80%.

The NFL's rationale for punishment was weak to begin with, but they have nothing to stand on when you consider that 4 teams spent more than the Raiders, and yet none of them were punished, and the cap floor issue was sort of just swept under the rug.

Reality Refresher II: In 2010 the team employed a deceptive loophole that allowed them to distribute all of Albert Haynesworth’s $21 million signing bonus and make it count against the 2010 salary cap, instead of rationing it over the length of his deal. This is doable in years the NFL imposes a salary cap. But it was forbidden that particular year, when the Redskins used it to create future flexibility, so they could spend like crazy in a year they happened to acquire Griffin.

A clause written directly into a contract that all parties agreed to and the league approved can hardly be called a "deceptive loophole." It was neither deceptive, nor a loophole.

Nor was it forbidden that year. For it to have been forbidden the NFL would have had to put something in writing or put to an official vote, something Wise admits no one did. If no one did anything official it isn't forbidden.

Yes the Redskins made many poor contract decisions and it would have created severe cap problems if they didn't act as they did during the uncapped year. Were their actions during the uncapped year completely morally sound? Probably not. But Wise ignores that the NFL committed the first sin here, they allowed the uncapped year to happen.

The NFL basically decided to have their cake, your cake, my cake, and everyone else's cakes, and eat them all. They wanted to squeeze the NFLPA by having a lockout, which required them to not renegotiate a new CBA and go through an uncapped year. The uncapped year was specifically put in the CBA to create incentives to get a deal done because the idea was that in an uncapped year contracts would balloon, and the owners didn't want that. But instead of accepting the consequences of their gambit to squeeze the NFLPA, they implemented a phantom cap.

Of course, it's funny because 14 teams apparently didn't listen to the memo anyway and went over 123M, 11 of them going over 130M, but still only 4 of those teams were hit with anything.

Wise starts on the right path when he admits that there were no written rules broken, and that the punishments were somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and harsh, but promptly ignores those facts to basically say the Skins were in the wrong anyway, which is not true.

At the end of the day, the NFL is justified in doing what they did because the NFL owners can do whatever they want with a vote within the laws of the United States, and they even circumvented that with clever contracting. That doesn't make the NFL right, and it doesn't make us wrong. It just makes the punishment all that more arbitrary.

Even if this whole business makes me mad as hell, I sort of agree with the basic premise, except I have ZERO doubt that John Mara saw this as a very convenient way to weaken two teams in his own division. At the very least, he should have recused himself of any involvement BECAUSE the two teams in question were in his division. He did exactly the opposite; he led the charge, and that makes him nothing but a petty, vindictive little man.

If I'm bring honest with myself, I have to admit -- I wouldn't be nearly as upset about the way the penalties were laid down if it happened to some other team. Especially if it happened to, say, the Cowboys and the Patriots. I might instinctively know it's a bunch of bull****, and it might disgust me on some level that the owners of NFL teams are glorified mafia bosses, but it wouldn't cause me angry thoughts of what I’d like to do to John Mara if I ever met him in a dark alley.

In the end, this column is just another in a series of axe-grinding hatchet jobs by UnWise Mike. If Wise wasn't so blinded by his own pithy contempt for all things Snyder, he (ostensibly) could have crafted a more eloquent, original and thought provoking argument than to hack up a lazy re-wording of this column, which posted almost exactly one year ago today.

It's irony that this guy has Wise as a surname because he is anything but. I'm not giving that tool any more hits. I can't agree with anyone blaming the cap penalties on the Redskins. They didn't break any rules. The league did.

All the league had to do was say no to the contracts.

The league couldn't say "no" to the contracts, because if you go by the CBA and every written rule and by-law, the Skins and Cowboys did nothing wrong. The league had no basis for saying "no" to the contracts. And they knew it. And Allen and Snyder knew it.

And the reality is, the league would not have been able to administer any cap punishment whatsoever unless the NFLPA agreed to it...the agreement was needed by both the NFL and the players union to--in essence--ratify the CBA after the fact to now include a "rule" that both teams allegedly broke. If the NFLPA had said "nope" to the punishments, there would have been nothing Goodell or Mara could have done.

And wtf, who's 'making a mockery of a negotiated solution to preserve competitive NFL balance.'??? What a childish thing to say, they didn't alter the contracts to mock the NFL....they did it because the previous regime made the contracts ridiculous. There was nothing conniving or manipulative about it, no matter what they want to do, the league has to approve it, and THEY DID. This is written like Shannahan went Watergate with ski masks and flashlights. wtf

The only way I'll lean away from this is that....perhaps the Redskins should have known damn well the league was going to **** them. Probably should have bit the bullet, accepted the dictatorship-ish nature of the NFL and just followed the made up rules.

---------- Post added March-14th-2013 at 11:06 PM ----------

if you go by the CBA and every written rule and by-law,

That's the thing, they weren't. They were making up rules as they went, as you pointed out. By 'saying no to the contracts', I don't mean in a letter-of-the-law way, I mean a conversation with Bruce and some league/players association people discussing how it may not be a good idea because a punishment could be made in the future. At first, this is exactly what we heard, what Goodell and Mara said. After hearing Bruce and Mike mention that no such warning was made, I believe them.

From what I gather, there was a vague warning given to all the teams about not messing around in the uncapped year. When it comes to the contracts in particular, everyone acted as if they would be fine, there was no such warning about that. With Tampa and other teams doing similar (but different) things, the Redskins had even more reason to believe it would be ok.

And yea, it's important that people understand this is the NFLPA, too. I understand that.

Just a refresher of what Graz said, to counterpoint Mr. "Wise":

And if there are people out there who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds.

There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told, more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too, saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of the argument.

But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37421/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking

There is absolutely nothing surprising at all about this article. Under no circumstances can we expect anything resembling unbiased, factual journalism from Unwise when it comes to the Redskins. Nor can we even take his editorial columns seriously. His personal crusade against the Redskins name will cloud and taint every article he writes about the team.

Do yourselves a favor. Just stop reading Unwise. Not for boycott purposes (they never work) but, just to save yourself the wasted time.

This coming from a guy that just dissed a US Veteran.

UnWise Mike ‏@MikeWiseguy

@mattsfusaf Another punk, using camo in his avatar to prove how tough he is. You small man, you. Beat it.