SI.com: Proving that NFL teams agreed to a secret salary cap will not be easy (long but excellent read)

[KCClybun]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

It's understandable why other clubs were mad. No one is saying the Redskins and Cowboys are innocent, but even given the Redskins and Cowboys kind of screwing things up for those teams, choosing to do something illegal and collude and come to an agreement that there's a salary cap in place when there really isn't and then retroactively punishing them two years later for inconviencing smaller-market teams still isn't justifiable.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and in this case, the other owner's wrong may very well end up costing the NFL more than they care to imagine. It's still collusion and an effort to punish the Redskins for not participating in said collusion.

[wrecker]

This thread is here to give new info a chance to flourish--and I'd been hoping someone would do it---and because it's based on a new, worthy separable article (such could have been done before). If some of you **** that up by repeating all the same discussion it's on you.

:evilg:

Sorry for complaining. I just thought this thread fell under rule 7.

More than likely, most news/information has already been posted and is the subject of discussion in existing threads. Most current and relevant topics usually have any number of variations active in threads at any given time. If you wish to discuss that topic, you are encouraged to do so in one of those existing threads.

[ILoveMySkins]

Really, is it our fault that the other teams cannot keep up financially? The Skins and Boys are in the top 5 ( I think) of most profitable sports teams in the WORLD! They must be doing something right. I understand that the other teams may have a beef about the salaries that the Skins and Boys pay, but to gang up on them as they did was just wrong.

The NFLPA and NFL agreed to the terms of the CBA defining how the Franchise Tag was to work. From what I have read , the NFLPA hates the Franchise tag, only the NFL wanted it. It seems as thought the NFL owners are trying to collude again against the Skins and Boys to prevent them from inflating the Franchise Tag.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it makes sense that other teams would be upset by this. The Skins are profitable but to what extent without revenue sharing? This is a different world now than in the 80's. This league lives and dies with the TV contracts and these stations are paying for the markets and not the team. Do the Skins become the Orioles without it? I don't know. Anyway, everyone keeps wondering why anyone would be upset by the Skins and Cowboys doing this and this seems to be the best reason given to date. Regardless of the wealth of any teams owner.

[panel]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

That is what was supposed to happen. The uncapped year was supposed to be motivation for the league to complete a new agreement, because if they didn't there would be this uncapped year where all hell was supposed to break loose, because there would be not rules on spending. The league was not intimidated by this year like they should have been, and thus, were in a position to lock out the players. The reason the league was not scared about the uncapped year is because they agreed to put in a secret cap a head of time.

The franchise limit should have been MUCH larger than it was, because other teams should have been all competing for players in a true open market. To say that other teams have a right to be mad that the market for players when up slightly because the skins and Cowboys did not collude is crazy. The market should have been much much high had the rest of the teams not colluded as well.

If the teams did not collude, then there would not have been a lockout, because the teams would not want a TRUE un-capped year.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's what the OP gives you lol :yes:...The guy who wrote the article linked in the OP:

"Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law."

Well I feel pretty good about myself right now, because this was my exact take on the issue without having read the article previously.

First, the NFLPA arguably waived away these claims by virtue of the CBA ratified on Aug. 4, 2011. For instance, Article 3(a) of the new CBA states that the NFLPA "releases and covenants not to sue" the NFL or any NFL club for "collusion with respect to any League Year before 2011 ..." The language is unambiguous. On the other hand, the NFLPA maintains that it was denied knowledge of the league's allegedly collusive actions. The NFL, like the NFLPA, had a duty to bargain in good faith and negotiate in fair dealing. A "secret" side agreement to have a de facto salary cap would likely constitute breaches of those duties.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html#ixzz1voKOKT1X

If this is the strength of the NFL's argument then they are done for....

Also in regards to evidence, expect the NFL to wonder why it has taken the NFLPA two years to uncover supposed evidence of a widespread conspiracy among potentially hundreds of persons, many of whom are in regular contact with media.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html#ixzz1voLDzEQU

Well Mr. Investigator, in regards to evidence why did it take two years to uncover the supposed evidence of wrong doing among the financial institutions who's illegal and conspiratorial behavior brought about the collapse of the world economy, especially considering many of the heads of those institutions are in regular contact with the media?

[pjfootballer]

The other teams are mad because the franchise tender was raised, but we would have to pay the same for Vincent Jackson as the Chargers would have and what the Bucs did. It effects us also. Jackson was supposed to be one of the players we were coveting.

[KCClybun]

The other teams are mad because the franchise tender was raised, but we would have to pay the same for Vincent Jackson as the Chargers would have and what the Bucs did. It effects us also. Jackson was supposed to be one of the players we were coveting.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the insiders said we weren't really in on Vincent Jackson. We wanted Pierre and Morgan, YAC guys.

Your point still sort of stands, though.

[Jumbo]

Sorry for complaining. I just thought this thread fell under rule 7.

Well, you were wrong, and you're not on staff (read the last part of rule 18 for pertinent info there), and now--your polite and well-meant apology aside--you've further violated my directive in my previous post to put such commentary in the feedback forum. You would normally be banned for a week at this point for a rule 18 violation if we were being hardass sticklers about it, or you were anything other than the fine upstanding poster your patents obviously raised you to be. .

Complaining is not a problem. Doing it pointlessly in extended fashion, and off-topic in a topical thread, is a problem and is against the rules.

Back to the topic.

(p.s. I am glad you read and care about the rules )

[ILoveMySkins]

That is what was supposed to happen. The uncapped year was supposed to be motivation for the league to complete a new agreement, because if they didn't there would be this uncapped year where all hell was supposed to break loose, because there would be not rules on spending. The league was not intimidated by this year like they should have been, and thus, were in a position to lock out the players. The reason the league was not scared about the uncapped year is because they agreed to put in a secret cap a head of time.

The franchise limit should have been MUCH larger than it was, because other teams should have been all competing for players in a true open market. To say that other teams have a right to be mad that the market for players when up slightly because the skins and Cowboys did not collude is crazy. The market should have been much much high had the rest of the teams not colluded as well.

If the teams did not collude, then there would not have been a lockout, because the teams would not want a TRUE un-capped year.

This has nothing to do with competing for player's though. The league never stopped the Skins from signing Albert to a one year $100,000,000 contract. What they are fighting is that the Skins signed Albert to a bad contract while the cap was in place and used the uncapped year to bail themselves out. by bailing themselves out of a problem contract they effected other teams this year. The NFL couldn't say no to the restructuring at the time because that would have been collusion.

I don't think anyone's right here but as wrong as the league is the Skins and Cowboys are just as guilty. They're all looking out for themselves and this time the Skins and Cowboys paid the price.

[MattFancy]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

So Breer in a way enhances the NFLPA's case. Even him explaining it like that just makes the other owners look worse. There is still nothing Snyder and Jones did that was wrong. The NFL is clearly in the wrong here, the only thing that could save the NFL is the clause in the CBA about not suing for collusion. If that doesn't hold up, I think they're screwed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wait....there are rules for ES....dang buncha Nazis! :ack:

[2cents]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

Well but the thing is that they can go f(*&^ themselves because if it wasn't for the money we make and give them, they would be all out of business anyway because they only survive by revenue sharing because most of them are not very good owners to say the least.

[Jumbo]

Wait....there are rules for ES....dang buncha Nazis! :ack:

Some of us had a troubled youth.

Leading by example (posting a link to the post, not repeating it or any commentary here), here's some interesting stuff in the other thread in an artcile I posted today--

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?363378-Per-Schefter-amp-PFT-NFL-salary-cap-debacle-continues-updates-include-NFLPA-filing-collusion-lawsuits-links-and-discussion-current-MET&p=8997053&viewfull=1#post8997053

[E-Dog Night]

Really, is it our fault that the other teams cannot keep up financially?

No it isn't, but there are 5.6M people in the DC Metro area (far more than most other markets), and it is also one of the most affluent areas in the country. And the franchise goes back to the 1930's, and in terms of number of championships over the years, is one of the most successful teams in the history of professional football. Put those factors together and you have a situation where it makes it quite a bit easier to be highly profitable in this modern era than, say, Jacksonville, or Tampa Bay, or. St. Louis, or Arizona...I could add many teams to this list.

So Snyder may sometimes look like a master marketer - and certainly he is very good - but he has a large, wealthy fan base that ravenously eats anything he puts on the plate. Not too tough to look like a marketing guru under those circumstances.

One of the big reasons the Redskins are as popular as they are is because the NFL itself is widely popular. And a big reason why the NFL is as popular as it is, is because there is revenue sharing and a salary cap. No team can turn into the New York Yankees and do nauseating things like pay millions for players they don't even intend to play, but sign just to keep the off the rosters of other teams. Fans really hate that type of thing, and it's that type of thing that keeps baseball firmly in 2nd place as the nation's most popular sport.

So the point is, the Redskins benefit from revenue sharing because it makes the league stronger as a whole, and they also have a much easier time paying large salaries, because the team is guaranteed to make money for all the reasons listed above.

[MattFancy]

I rarely agree with anything LaVar says or writes, but maybe as crazy as it sounds, he could be on to something here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/hard-hits/post/evidence-of-collusion-by-nfl-owners-is-clear/2012/05/24/gJQAUqIMnU_blog.html

Is it crazy to now suspect foul play in how the New Orleans Saints bounty situation was handled? All kinds of conspiracies will soon surface around how hard the NFL brought the hammer down on the Saints.

Maybe the Saints bounty punishment is a dual punishment. Since they didn't really get punished for the salary cap stuff like the Skins/Cowboys? Seems a little far-fetched, I know, but he could be on to something.

[rskin72]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

You stole my thunder. The other owners got PO'd that, based on how we manipulated contracts, it jacked up the going rate for some players who they THOUGHT they would otherwise be able to keep. While Mara was the clown face on this, some other owners were also miffed. So the public spanking evolved for the Skins and Boyz on the day prior to FA. Unfortunately, in the rush of the owners to get even with Snyder and Jones, they seemed to have pretty much admitted that there was a "secret cap" to the uncapped season. While the original problem revolved around inflation of going rates for position's, they could not penalize the teams for this, as the NFL approved the deals....so instead the "competive balance" approach was used, and this is where the league had to hint that there was a "gentlemen's agreement" salary cap that several teams had exceeded, but the Skins and Boyz were the worst offenders. Jerry and Dan....for their own reasons, and I am sure it had nothing to do with somehow making a statement against potential collusion charges....did not lock step with other owners that season, hence the problem and punishment.

So....based upon everything I have read about this, it would seem that we would have had a slam dunk case on this, that we were penalized for spending money, regardless of how, in an uncapped year. However, we did not even get to first base.....not necessarily on the merits of our case, but because Burbank decided that we had no basis to challenge the penalities because the NFL and the NFLPA both agreed to the punishment metted.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/22/burbank-suggests-that-cowboys-redskins-have-other-avenues-of-relief/

Burbank mentions that the Skins and Girlz could pursue other options for relief, but Dan and Jerry decide to try and mend fences (or maybe bide their time) rather than pursing Al Davisesque options.

Now, the NFLPA decides that maybe there was some collusion going on in 2010, a season where realistically team owners could have gone "Steinbrenner" and spent $$$$ to hire talent on their teams. Now they decide that maybe things were not as they seemed. Maybe when they signed off on the penalities, they were actually laying the groundwork for this legal challenge. But, based on what I have read.....I don't think so. I think that the NFLPA (i.e. Smith) choked when he saw the initial salary cap numbers for 2012, then went along with this in order to get caps increased. Bribery, and the desire to be re-elected as NFLPA head, drove that bus.

But, again based on what I have read, I think that the most likely outcome of this challenge is that it will be thrown out based on the rules of the new CBA that the NFLPA signed off on. I really do not see the management of the Redskins or the Boyz actively aiding the NFLPA, in this case, over the other owners in order to gain some measure of vengance. And, to be honest, I am not on the side of the NFLPA on this, as they could have protested months ago, and we may not have been faced with the last minute penalities from the NFL.

Merely my opinions there....while I hope some scenario will evolve out of this that will help our team......I am far, far from optimistic.

[E-Dog Night]

I rarely agree with anything LaVar says or writes, but maybe as crazy as it sounds, he could be on to something here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/hard-hits/post/evidence-of-collusion-by-nfl-owners-is-clear/2012/05/24/gJQAUqIMnU_blog.html

Maybe the Saints bounty punishment is a dual punishment. Since they didn't really get punished for the salary cap stuff like the Skins/Cowboys? Seems a little far-fetched, I know, but he could be on to something.

Nah. Like usual, Lavar's brain is taking a wrong turn at Albuquerque. If the NFL wanted to punish the Saints for the salary cap thing, they would have. One has nothing to do with the other IMO.

The league was presented with some pretty damning evidence in the way of that Gregg Williams tape and player admissions. And they are facing a lawsuit (re: concussions) which truly scares them, unlike this post-facto long shot from the NFLPA. They had to make an example out of someone to show that they are being proactive (or at least reactive) about head injuries.

Imagine if it came out in the concussion lawsuit that the league had knowledge of the bounties within the Saints organization, but did nothing to try and stop it.

[MattFancy]

Nah. Like usual, Lavar's brain is taking a wrong turn at Albuquerque. If the NFL wanted to punish the Saints for the salary cap thing, they would have. One has nothing to do with the other IMO.

The league was presented with some pretty damning evidence in the way of that Gregg Williams tape and player admissions. And they are facing a lawsuit (re: concussions) which truly scares them, unlike this post-facto long shot from the NFLPA. They had to make an example out of someone to show that they are being proactive (or at least reactive) about head injuries.

Imagine if it came out in the concussion lawsuit that the league had knowledge of the bounties within the Saints organization, but did nothing to try and stop it.

Good points. Like I said, I don't think he's right, but who knows.

[TaylorPickSix]

The more I think about this stuff, the more I wish DeMaurice Smith and Roger Goodell would both lose their jobs. I'd almost rather see that happen than the Skins get cap relief (keyword: almost).

[jeronimobrat]

Nah. Like usual, Lavar's brain is taking a wrong turn at Albuquerque. If the NFL wanted to punish the Saints for the salary cap thing, they would have. One has nothing to do with the other IMO.

The league was presented with some pretty damning evidence in the way of that Gregg Williams tape and player admissions. And they are facing a lawsuit (re: concussions) which truly scares them, unlike this post-facto long shot from the NFLPA. They had to make an example out of someone to show that they are being proactive (or at least reactive) about head injuries.

Imagine if it came out in the concussion lawsuit that the league had knowledge of the bounties within the Saints organization, but did nothing to try and stop it.

Excellent points E-Dog.

[Skins_R_Beast]

The more I think about this stuff, the more I wish DeMaurice Smith and Roger Goodell would both lose their jobs. I'd almost rather see that happen than the Skins get cap relief (keyword: almost).

This I can agree with. De Smith and Goodell are both incompetent and need to be replaced. They won't though, especially Goodell. The owners, for the most part, love what he is doing to the game. The fans however, aren't liking it, but we will keep buying merchandise, tickets, and the NFL package, so Goodell will keep looking good.

[rick7423]

No it isn't, but there are 5.6M people in the DC Metro area (far more than most other markets), and it is also one of the most affluent areas in the country. And the franchise goes back to the 1930's, and in terms of number of championships over the years, is one of the most successful teams in the history of professional football. Put those factors together and you have a situation where it makes it quite a bit easier to be highly profitable in this modern era than, say, Jacksonville, or Tampa Bay, or. St. Louis, or Arizona...I could add many teams to this list.

So Snyder may sometimes look like a master marketer - and certainly he is very good - but he has a large, wealthy fan base that ravenously eats anything he puts on the plate. Not too tough to look like a marketing guru under those circumstances.

One of the big reasons the Redskins are as popular as they are is because the NFL itself is widely popular. And a big reason why the NFL is as popular as it is, is because there is revenue sharing and a salary cap. No team can turn into the New York Yankees and do nauseating things like pay millions for players they don't even intend to play, but sign just to keep the off the rosters of other teams. Fans really hate that type of thing, and it's that type of thing that keeps baseball firmly in 2nd place as the nation's most popular sport.

So the point is, the Redskins benefit from revenue sharing because it makes the league stronger as a whole, and they also have a much easier time paying large salaries, because the team is guaranteed to make money for all the reasons listed above.

So what you are saying is that without teams like the Skins supporting and supplementing the other teams, they would nt be able to compete, and in some cases survive? And then to have those same teams that would not be able to compete/survive ***** slap us?

Makes you want to say 'huh?'.

[gkekoa]

It's very easy to prove there was a secret salary cap.

Ask the NFL why the Redskins and Cowboys were docked 36 and 10 million respectively in cap space.

That is proof.

[MattFancy]

It's very easy to prove there was a secret salary cap.

Ask the NFL why the Redskins and Cowboys were docked 36 and 10 million respectively in cap space.

That is proof.

Goodell said it was to maintain a "competitive balance"

[TerpSkin]

However, we did not even get to first base.....not necessarily on the merits of our case, but because Burbank decided that we had no basis to challenge the penalities because the NFL and the NFLPA both agreed to the punishment metted.

This is the part that I need some clarification on... to me, the NFL and NFLPA explicitly agreeing in 2011 to a punishment administered later in 2011 implicitly means that they agreed (in 2011) on a rule for 2010. Without a broken rule, there should be no punishment. It seems that this chronological paradox should render at least that portion of the agreement void or voidable or whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo is.