SkinsTillIDie Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Yes, a lack of a CBA is quite worrying. But what if, for whatever reason, there is no new CBA, and we are in the proverbial "salary cap hell." Len Pasquarelli claims that we "might have to play with as many as 15-20 rookies, all earning the minimum salary, to squeeze close to the cap." If that is anywhere near accurate, then why even worry about getting under the cap if it means that we forfeit the entire 2006 season, and essentially the next three plus years as well? Why would we even worry about getting under the cap? The NFL would not disqualify us from competition. In 2000, Pittsburgh were fined $150,000 and were forced to give up a third rounder for salary-cap violations. In 2004, the Broncos were fined almost $1,000,000 and forced to give up a third-rounder for cap circumvention that allowed them to win two Super Bowls. Yes, the penalty would be more severe for us. We may be fined $3,000,000 and a second and third round pick, or god forbid, a first rounder. But these ramifications are significantly less catastrophic then the possibility of having to dissemble our team and rebuild the franchise around a dozen plus rookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggface gremlin Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 It would be cheating. It also would taint anything the Redskins do. but...... The new cba will get done and the salary cap will be around 105-110 mil. Only way the Redskins are in cap hell is if a new cba isnt reached , but breaking news it will be:) The Redskins can trim down to 105 and pick up a couple fa's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawboy_2000 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I remember reading somewhere that the Broncos are $30 million over the cap, and they are not "in hell." So why is the media concerned about us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Why would we even worry about getting under the cap? The NFL would not disqualify us from competition. In 2000, Pittsburgh were fined $150,000 and were forced to give up a third rounder for salary-cap violations. In 2004, the Broncos were fined almost $1,000,000 and forced to give up a third-rounder for cap circumvention that allowed them to win two Super Bowls. Yes, the penalty would be more severe for us. We may be fined $3,000,000 and a second and third round pick, or god forbid, a first rounder. But these ramifications are significantly less catastrophic then the possibility of having to dissemble our team and rebuild the franchise around a dozen plus rookies. What you describe above is not exactly the way it happened. The Broncos were caught several years after the fact, when Al Davis blew the whistle on them. And they were in violation of only 1 or 2 contracts. Pittsburgh was never actually caught by the league but voluntarily revealed and admitted they had been in violation. If the Redskins are over the cap, they would have to cut elite players to get under the cap, just like the Titans had to do last year. I don't know if you can really call that cap hell though, because the Titans have a lot of money to play with this year, and just re-signed Vanden Bosch. They may have had a lousy season in 2005 anyway, with all their injuries. :laugh: But the penalty for being over the cap and not getting in compliance is quite severe, something like a fine of $1 million per day, plus later on draft choices. As a result, no team has ever failed to get under the cap. Lets hope the Redskins can avoid this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 A lot of teams are in Cap Hell this year :doh: We are one of them :doh: The league could care less about us but they won't let there dear Colts be ripped apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 What you describe above is not exactly the way it happened.But the penalty for being over the cap and not getting in compliance is quite severe, something like a fine of $1 million per day, plus later on draft choices. As a result, no team has ever failed to get under the cap. Lets hope the Redskins can avoid this scenario. Hmmm... Didn't realize that the penalties were so severe... Bottom line is, if the NFL doesn't come to an agreement, the league will suffer greatly for the next few years. I don't really see why columnists are focusing on our problems when the whole league will struggle for survival as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome2 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 You know how college booster clubs give some athletes cars and other things like that? I think someone should attempt that at the NFL level. Basically, players would sign a deal with the Redskins for maybe a couple million less than they are worth, but a completely unrelated company, offers them "unrelated" "endorsement" money to go along with their contract. That way, the players make the money they want and the Redskins have more cap space to sign even more high-quality players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res_Novae Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 All extreme skins members should donate 10 bucks to assist in the losses due to a player cutting back his salary. :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoreSkins Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 We have Dan Snyder, "Master of the Cap". I have no worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkB452 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 You know how college booster clubs give some athletes cars and other things like that? I think someone should attempt that at the NFL level. Basically, players would sign a deal with the Redskins for maybe a couple million less than they are worth, but a completely unrelated company, offers them "unrelated" "endorsement" money to go along with their contract. That way, the players make the money they want and the Redskins have more cap space to sign even more high-quality players. Good idea. Too bad Snyder sold off Snyder communications, but there's always Six Flags!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtheRock1 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 You know how college booster clubs give some athletes cars and other things like that? I think someone should attempt that at the NFL level. Basically, players would sign a deal with the Redskins for maybe a couple million less than they are worth, but a completely unrelated company, offers them "unrelated" "endorsement" money to go along with their contract. That way, the players make the money they want and the Redskins have more cap space to sign even more high-quality players. I remember a similar type proposal being brought up by Nike for the Knicks in order for a marquee player (I'm not exactly sure who, but it may have been Lebron James) to be able to come to NY without breaking league violations/salary cap restrictions. The only difference between that proposal and this one is that a company wouldn't fork over a huge amount of money in order for a player to come to DC. The amount of money the company would pay would not bring them back the amount of revenue they would desire. DC isn't the #1 Market like NYC is or #2 like Chicago. Insetad it's somewhere around number nine. Face it, Dan Snyder's moves have finally caught up to him. They sacrificed the future in order to win in the last few seasons. Instead all they got was one trip to the playoffs as a #6 seed. Snyder has worked the cap for so many years and now it's finally catching up to him. Maybe the Skins will get lucky and have an uncapped season in 2007, this way Snyder can offer Brad Johnson 10 million per year to be the back-up QB, and maybe bring in John Abraham on a 10 year 450 million dollar deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamptonskinsfan Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 just another thought,let's say that there is no cba, that means that we will be in trouble THIS year, true. But next year it would an all out smorgasborg of players because EVERYONE knows Dan Snyder will pay and it being an Uncapped year he would be spending money on any of the players we need or want. not many teams can match Mr. Snyder when he wants to spend money. He has been able to in the past WITH a limit placed upon him and he still got who he wanted just imagine if the binders were to be taken off?? Imagine the possibilities. Not to mention i'm sure almost every team is gonna be in trouble because of back charged contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Problem is, eligibility of players for free agency gets moved up a couple more years in the uncapped year, so not nearly as many players will be available as you'd might think. Doesn't matter. A deal will be done. There would be too many losers otherwise. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Could anyone explain to me what is the CBA and why it is coming about now, and whos negotiating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Could anyone explain to me what is the CBA and why it is coming about now, and whos negotiating. It is the Collective Bargining Agreement. Basically, it is an agreement between the player's union and the NFL which defines their relationship. It is coming because the agreement is expiring. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 It is the Collective Bargining Agreement. Basically, it is an agreement between the player's union and the NFL which defines their relationship. It is coming because the agreement is expiring.Jason Bah, i knew that already except for the expiring bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spm Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Let's see.... I'm Dan Snyder and the small market owners are threatening me with cap hell for 2006. I think I would be willing to tolerate cutting a few prominent players in 2006 to ensure an uncapped league after 2007. After all, once the cap's gone, does anyone think the players will try to reinstate it? Probably not. Would the rest of the league be willing to make Snyder, Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and a few other owners' franchises the equivalent of the Yankees, Braves and Red Sox? I would hope not for competition's sake, but seeing how I root for the Redskins, maybe it's not such a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Believe the hype....Or not. You have two options. The deal WILL be done...If not, there are teams worse off than we are. Not many, but some. However, need I remind ANYONE that Gibbs is in power. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 This is just getting beyond a joke we and teams like us over the cap would be forced to cut not necessarly expensive players but more often than not fan faverotes because they are the ones whow often have cap friendly contracts to "help" the team out, because lets face it we could cut any number of Chris Cooleys, James Thrashes Nemos, etc etc because thier release fee actually save the team money. Ironically the likes of LaVAr Arrington and Chris Samuels with thier big contracts are safest. But this does not just bode badly for the Skins but for NFL in genral . With a strike muted already by the players association and TV rights deals in the balance the new proposals as to what would happen in an uncapped non CBA NFL set the NFL back 20 years . Players would have fewer chances to explore the relms of free agency, agents would have far fewer opportunities to squeeze teams for cash, anyone drafted in will either will be forced to play out 6 year contracts on peanuts comparitivly or sign short contracts and player development goes out of the window in that situation player turnover would go through the roof . IF no cap meens no limits the best players will go to the richest teams so say goodbye to parity and IF no CBA meens no revenue sharing teams will either move out of small or crowded NFL markets or we will face the prosect of teams gong to the wall and shutting down compleatly. And going back to TV rights again do you really think national carriers and sponcers will be interested in a game which is played out by the same 4 or 5 teams year in year out . To many people have too much to loose from the CBA not being reached . I have read somewhere that the current agrement actually runs to 2008 so NFL is going to have to pull something out of its ass to get something organised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Why would we even worry about getting under the cap? The NFL would not disqualify us from competition. No, but the NFL would begin to void the contracts and tenders of the Redskins' players until they're under the cap. Not only wouldn't the Redskins be allowed to sign anyone, they'd have players removed from their roster by the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 No, but the NFL would begin to void the contracts and tenders of the Redskins' players until they're under the cap. Not only wouldn't the Redskins be allowed to sign anyone, they'd have players removed from their roster by the NFL. Im curious about that, how do they decide who to cut? Is it a negotiation with the team, or does the NFL have a formula of who they cut like the highest cap hit first then down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Im curious about that, how do they decide who to cut? Is it a negotiation with the team, or does the NFL have a formula of who they cut like the highest cap hit first then down? According to the Falcons' director of football administration, the NFL starts voiding the most recent contracts and backtracks until the team is under the cap. I'm certain that any tenders for RFAs and EFAs would be voided, as well, since those also count against the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 A lot of teams are in Cap Hell this year :doh: We are one of them :doh: The league could care less about us but they won't let there dear Colts be ripped apart. Oh yes....blame EVERYTHING yet again on supposed media bias... :doh: If the Colts dont get "ripped apart" it'll be because they reworked salaries and made the necessary moves to not get in that state, just like how we'll do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.