PFT:Cap penalties reportedly getting in way of London Fletcher deal

[Smurf85]

Well this is starting to hurt now. I didn't really think this was the reason why Fletcher hasn't signed, but now it looks to be that way. This really is pissing me off now.

Given the public statements on both sides, we would have expected to have word of a new deal between the Redskins and linebacker London Fletcher by now.

The Redskins said they wanted him back and Fletcher said he wanted to return, so what’s the hold up? According to Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com, it is the $18 million cap penalty levied on the Redskins for their spending during the uncapped 2010 season.

“LB Lorenzo Alexander says NFL cap penalty hindering contract talks 2 re-sign LB London Fletcher & could lead 2 vets leaving in ’13,” Marvez said via Twitter.

The second half of Marvez’s report isn’t much of an issue. The Redskins have been moving in a younger direction and that would likely have continued whether or not they were docked by the NFL. Most of the veterans at risk of leaving — including Alexander, whose contract expires after next season — would likely be players whose production level has dipped to a place where their departure wouldn’t create many problems. But Fletcher was crucial to the team’s defense last season and he’s been playing at a very high level for the last three years, so losing him would be a major negative for the team.

Dealing with the cap squeeze in the next two years is particularly relevant for a 37-year-old player like Fletcher. Spreading out the cap hit over many years, as they did with free agent acquisitions Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan, is less of an option with Fletcher. There’s probably a way to get a deal done, though it may take compromise on both sides.

Fletcher would have to take a little less money and the Redskins might have to build some dead money into the end of the deal if the relationship is going to continue.

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

[PCS]

Link Smurf. Link.

[Smurf85]

Link Smurf. Link.

Fixed it

My Fault. :doh:

[LaRonDontLikeUgly]

Just read this. Super-bummed. At this point though, I think if Fletcher wants to play next season he is still going to get the most money here.

[bowhunter]

Fletch may well be the poster-child of the cap penalties. I do not think he will sign before the cap appeal is settled. He just might get used as Redskins "exhibit A"

[jivelikenice]

Is this actually true? I thought we had $11 MM in cap space. The problem is we can create more but not until June 1st. I'd dip into the draft picks money because they don't have to sign until TC roles along and by then we can open up more space. The only concern is that some of the rooks might not participate until they sign their deal.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Is this actually true? I thought we had $11 MM in cap space. The problem is we can create more but not until June 1st. I'd dip into the draft picks money because they don't have to sign until TC roles along and by then we can open up more space. The only concern is that some of the rooks might not participate until they sign their deal.

nobody really knows.. but my guess is about ~7 million at the moment..

problem being.. we have to sign all our draft picks. Griffin will cost us roughly 5.

We dont have another 6-7 to sign Fletch... unless we start axing other vets.

As I originally specualted.. the whole cap scandal is going to cripple our defensive backfield this year. I'm sure re-signing Fletch and signing a vet FS or SS was in our plans for FA. But as of right now, we can do neither.

[cjbrown]

This may have a silver lining. The skins can show actual damages in their grievance and request compensation, not just return to status quo. They can request to be made whole. If we had to cut some players right after the announcement and could not sign others this shows damage and the skins may legitimately request compensation from an arbitrator.

[Missouri_Skins_Fan]

Skins Lawyer..."Your Honor, it's unfortunate that we had to let a Exhibit A: multi-pro Bowler like London Fletcher walk because of these false & unfounded allegations against us. We abided by the rules as is Section: C-43917 & yet we continue to sit on the sidelines as we watch all the players in Free Agency walk & sign to other teams.

But we would be satisfied by the courts and their affirmation on this issue. We believe

we could be compensated with a 1st & 2nd rd draft choice for the next 3 years of 13', 14' & 15' and that all parties would be satisfied on this matter.

This is our request and that all issues, will be closed on our side, your honor."

[rk3025]

How much does Hawthorne need to sign?

[Crazy Levi]

Meh. Don't believe any of this stuff till I see actual proof.

Could easily be fed from the FO who are trying to excuse cheapness in the dealings with Fletch.

Fletch should sign anyway. Obviously if anybody was offering a better deal he'd take it.

[SKINS'n'Spurs]

I don't think it's cheapness from the FO which is holding back this deal. or at least "cheap" is not the best word to describe it. How about "being sensibly rational in the current economic environment" ? We would love to give LF59 big money because he has deserved it, but we CAN'T give someone his age a 5 yr deal, it's insane, just doesn't make sense. So we are between a rock and a hard place on how to spread out his big money due and at the same time leave enough in under the cap to sign rookies. I would hope the FO can just bulldoze these NFL chumps in this owner's meeting this week and come out with a carte blanche to sign whoever they want and for whatever they want.

[Missouri_Skins_Fan]

IMO, I don't think London has been signed because we can't afford it.

I think he hasn't been signed, because he will be used as Exhibit A on why there was an unfair competitive balance against the Redskins on this CAP situation & arbitration.

Exactly contrary to why we were penalized cap space, because of competitive balance.

Which I think is a brilliant move on our part.

[sjinhan]

I am just horrible with the search function so I cant find the post but.. there was one really extensive overview of the CBA by one of the ESers talking about what the Redskins can do to fight this...

I believe the post said only way to force an arbitration case to be heard is if a PLAYER makes a case that the league's actions are keeping him from making money that he normally would...

Maybe there is a backdoor agreement with Fletcher and Redskins to pursue the complaint against the league.. and after we win the case, Fletcher would be in for a nice pay day...

[Major Harris]

if sjinhan is right, and i had the same thought while reading the article, this could be huge. and very interesting. :munchout:

[sjinhan]

if sjinhan is right, and i had the same thought while reading the article, this could be huge. and very interesting. :munchout:

here is the link to the post.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?363378-Per-Schefter-amp-PFT-NFL-Taking-away-millions-of-salary-cap-space-from-Cowboys-amp-Skins-for-front-loading-deals-during-uncapped-year&p=8899538&viewfull=1#post8899538

here is the part I am referring to

ARTICLE 17

ANTI-COLLUSION

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

Agent;

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free

(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or

(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player

for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract. {Though it has been suggested that collusion is defined narrowly in the CBA, I’m not sure I agree: Section 1(a)(v), prohibits clubs and the NFL from agreeing to restrict or limit the Redskins’ decisionmaking concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to players for inclusion in their contract (including $ to be paid). I.e., the Skins allegation is that the NFL and its teams entered into an implied agreement to restrict or limit the clubs’ decisionmaking about the salary and bonuses to be provided in player contracts during the uncapped 2010 season, by precluding renegotiations that dumped large amounts into the uncapped year; the Skins were not party to that collusive agreement and were punished for stepping outside that collusive agreement}.

Section 5. Enforcement of Anti-Collusion Provisions: Except as provided in Section 16 (d) below, any player or the NFLPA, acting on that player's or any number of players' behalf, may bring an action before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Section 1 of this Article. In any such proceeding, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply. Issues of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding (including the amount of damages, pursuant to Section 9 below, if any). The complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that (1) the challenged conduct was or is in violation of Section 1 of this Article and (2) caused any economic injury to such player(s). {This suggests that only players (or the NFLPA) have the right to seek special master review under the CBA, not clubs. That means we may have to get one of our players to file the grievance, e.g., Josh Morgan says—I would have wanted to be able to sign an appropriate contract for more money, longer than 2 years, requiring more cap space, but was impaired in my ability to do so by the collusion that resulted in the Skins’ cap space being cut.}

Section 13. Effect of Salary Cap: In awarding any amount of damages, the System Arbitrator shall take into account that in any League Year no Club would have been authorized to pay out any Salary in excess of that permitted under the Salary Cap. {Arguably vaguely suggests that the System Arbitrator should be aware that clubs are authorized to pay out as much salary as they want so long as not in excess of the salary cap—a cap that did not exist in 2010.}

I would not be surprised if Redskins team up with Fletcher to file an Anti-Collusion complaint.

[Stonoman]

The best minds on finance right now are working for the Redskins.Dan will come out just fine.

[HigSkin]

I don't know, I thought they had options to restructure more contracts, like Trent Williams, which could free up $7 mil. It could be they just don't want to until a final decision is made or it's a good excuse to use while the arbritration is under way.

[rwleshin]

I would not be surprised if Redskins team up with Fletcher to file an Anti-Collusion complaint.

I'm really thinking that this is the case. Fletcher is the evidence the team is going to use. He's on board. It would explain why he has yet to visit any other teams and everything has been very very quiet so far.

[santanathegreat]

Although I feel the arbitration thing is a steep, uphill climb, we definitely have the ammunition on which to make a pretty convincing argument in our argument.

[Annonymous Source]

I would not be surprised if Redskins team up with Fletcher to file an Anti-Collusion complaint.

So what you are saying is that the Redskins should collude with Fletcher in order to defeat the collusion that was done by the NFL? Everybody is colluding with everybody! Is there anyone who needs someone to collude with?

[Win4us]

So what you are saying is that the Redskins should collude with Fletcher in order to defeat the collusion that was done by the NFL? Everybody is colluding with everybody! Is there anyone who needs someone to collude with?

Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, they be colluding errrbody around here

[Arsenic]

I once colluded in the backseat of a Chevy Malibu.

[SKINS'n'Spurs]

So what you are saying is that the Redskins should collude with Fletcher in order to defeat the collusion that was done by the NFL? Everybody is colluding with everybody! Is there anyone who needs someone to collude with?

Me, Me, I don't have a collusion partner yet....wait, what are we colluding about?

[rk3025]

Fletcher's agent is also RG3's agent so we do not want a year's wait to have RG3 learn the system and get set back a year's playing time.