Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Monday, March 26, 2012 7:49:27 AM(UTC)
During the uncapped season of 2010, the Redskins and Cowboys went with some crazy contracts for players, apparently. And now the NFL is penalizing the Redskins and Cowboys $36 million and $10 million in cap space, respectively, for seeking a competitive advantage by front-loading contracts during the 2010 season, when there was no salary cap.

If there was a problem with each team front loading the contracts, why did the NFL approve them? I'm not one to come to the defense of many other teams, especially the Cowboys, but this seems really shady by the NFL. I relate it to telling my daughter it is okay to color on the walls, then a year later see the tic-tac-toe board she drew and grounding her for a week.



I'm hoping some of you can shed some light on what is going on here and why they deserved to be punished.
Pack93z  
#2 Posted : Monday, March 26, 2012 12:12:22 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post

If there was a problem with each team front loading the contracts, why did the NFL approve them?


To me.. it is simple why the NFL didn't reject them..


1) They were legal within the prior CBA structure in terms of the uncapped year.

2) If the NFL rejected them, they would be giving the players grounds to enhance leverage against the NFL in a collusion case with a lockout looming. Would have possibly hurt them in the courtroom.

3) The NFL has specifically warned clubs not to push money into the uncapped year in order to help future caps. But that is all they could do without hitting issue 2.

4) Hence why the are being docked only cap money, but the NFL is smart enough not try and cause anymore waves by pushing those dollars out into the other clubs cap pool.

In a nutshell.. these two collectively broke rank from the other owners, and now it is basically evening up the score.

By pointing to the "league approved them" defense.. these two are basically backing the NFL into more of a corner then they already are.

How.

It is just adding to the NFLPA case the next time the NFL tries to opt out or leverage the PA.. in the court of law the NFL is now basically going to have to confess that it operated under a self appointed cap, even though the out clause in the prior CBA stated there would be no such clause. NFL is taking a bit of a gamble into the future by pushing this issue.

It is giving the NFLPA future leverage.. and you think they aren't going to use it? lol.

Danny and Jerry played the other 30.. and honestly, playing this out is only going to hurt the owners overall.

The NFLPA isn't going to say anything for two reasons... 1) no cap dollars were lost. 2) it is only helping the union in the future.

Jerry probably cares less. he will be long gone from NFL operation side in 10 years and Danny.. he will be broke. ;)
Zero2Cool  
#3 Posted : Monday, March 26, 2012 1:36:13 PM(UTC)
but ... I am curious as to why the NFL is punishing teams for spending freely during the uncapped year. Whether or not Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder fighting this does not concern me nor do the ramifications. My point is, they shouldn't have to fight this because it shouldn't be happening. The NFL is talking about the integrity of the game, well, when you allow (or don't stop) something from happening, only to punish them later ... what does that say about how the NFL is operating?

Pack93z  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:07:18 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
but ... I am curious as to why the NFL is punishing teams for spending freely during the uncapped year. Whether or not Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder fighting this does not concern me nor do the ramifications. My point is, they shouldn't have to fight this because it shouldn't be happening. The NFL is talking about the integrity of the game, well, when you allow (or don't stop) something from happening, only to punish them later ... what does that say about how the NFL is operating?



The NFL owners made a pact that they wouldn't exceed a would be cap in the uncapped year. Basically, as I understand it, had two basic reasons.

1) To avoid teams spending freely and giving the players an item to point to in the legal proceedings to show that teams can spend more and would without a cap. Remember, the players had stated, the once the cap was nixed it would not be re-established. Hence why overall spending was down last year... the owners were operating on the notion that some clubs were losing money.. so a spending free for all would not be wise.

2) It would make it simpler to fit any contracts signed back under a cap environment once the CBA was agreed upon and the cap was reinstated.

Also.. I believe they wanted to maintain the level of competitive balance between clubs that could front a ton of money and clubs that had to operate under a budget. Example.. the Packers stock cash yearly to afford signing bonuses.. were as a Jerry Jones has much deeper cash reserves and could shell out cash more readily.

In a nutshell, the NFL couldn't void the contracts because they didn't have "legal" grounds to do so, however there was an agreement between the 32 clubs that they broke. Hence the cap fine... I think some if you read into Mara's comment yesterday wanted more than that.. picks to be included.

Jones and Danny boy backed the NFL as a whole into the corner last season.. repayment time.

Also note.. the gag order was placed on the topic today.. to avoid giving the players even more future ammo. Jones especially is becoming more and more like a rogue owner.. a maverick if you will like the old days Al Davis.
Zero2Cool  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:22:24 AM(UTC)
This forum software does allow the use of numerical itemizing .... just sayin!!!
  1. Item1
  2. Item2
  3. Item3


:-)


Thanks for the words to explain. I just think it's shady. I mean, really, who couldn't pick out the two owners who would break any kind of pact or "gentelmans" agreement?

I think I understand why the punishment, I just disagree with it. I'm thinking the punishment is just opening up a can of worms.
Cheesey  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:28:18 AM(UTC)
Wow.....i see both sides.
To me, it's hard to pick a side to be on in this argument, as Zero and Pack93Z both make GREAT points.
Zero2Cool  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:34:00 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
Wow.....i see both sides.
To me, it's hard to pick a side to be on in this argument, as Zero and Pack93Z both make GREAT points.


Yeah, well, I feel forking dirty for even appearing to be sticking up for the Cowboys in any shape or form. I just hate rules, really, I hate them. One of the reasons we have very few rules here on this little website. The 2010 season was uncapped, the smallest market team won the Super Bowl, two teams abused the no salary cap and it didn't help them one bit. Why dredge it up? To what benefit?

I just see more cons than pros with this. The notion of punishing someone for something they did a year later when it was assumed it was okay ... bothers me. Yes, I know, they had a "pact", but it was a pact, not a rule, not in writing, nothing of the sort. I know this has to be true because each owner was operating under a single identity.

I'd take Shawn's side, he's far smarter than I am. I'm just a fool who hates rules and what appears to be unjust punishment. I mean, if you tell me I can drive a Lamborghini off the lot with no consequences, you bet your ass, I am going to! And if you tell me a year later you're taking it back or pressing charges for theft, that's bull shit.
Pack93z  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:35:25 AM(UTC)
IMO.. it is a shady deal overall. But honestly, have you believed much either side (players or owners) has stated during the last about 4 years in terms of overall revenue and dividing it?

Long and the short of it.. this whole deal, the opting out of the CBA and the related theatrics have been suspect all along.

Everyone knows the NFL owners protected themselves with the TV contract and were setting things in play to appear that they were in jeopardy of losing money.. and they were set on strong arming the players with the lockout.. the courts hit them early and altered the course.. but in the end, the courts couldn't prove that the owners had acted entirely in bad faith.. or at least not up until the new CBA was agreed to.


IMO.. this is all about setting things in place for the next CBA negotiations and penalizing owners for stepping out of line.
Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:55:03 AM(UTC)
I think we have 9 or so years before worrying about the next CBA. (cross fingers)

And to make me feel a little more dirty ... I think Florio and I have a similar opinion on this ...
Mike Florio said:
In this case, two of the richest of the rich guys – Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder — also happen to be objectively correct, and we’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary. No rules were broken, no policies were violated, and the contracts were approved when submitted.



It was an uncapped year. They spent crazy and it didn't help them. I am just not seeing any positive from this penalty.
Pack93z  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:12:38 AM(UTC)
I think you are missing my point.. by the letter of the law, yes the NFL doesn't have just cause to take the money away from these clubs.

But we know.. it has been proven over and over, the NFL itself is nothing more than a collect of billionaires running a business as a whole. Self regulation is part of that business arrangement, the NFL as a whole set a operating guideline in which to follow.. two stepped outside of that line and broke rank.

The business is now penalizing them.. think of it as not following a directive at work, doing said job but not to their set standards. You are going to feel repercussions upon it.

If Jones and Snyder push this legally.. yes I think they will win. But at what cost and damage to the NFL overall?

They played the system in place.. against recommendations of the league as a whole. Now they are getting spanked for it.

You don't think the NFPA will use this in the future.. hell yes they will. Hence the gag order placed upon it post haste.

Don't think everyone is thinking ahead to the next round of negotiations.. see how fast Kraft back tracked off the notion that the NFL cap isn't going to expand when the new TV deal kicks in.. he softened his words is a hurry.

The business world I have grown up in, especially dealing on the union side of things, all actions and reactions are used all the time. Pain in the ass to walk that fine agreed upon line, most of the time it punished both sides more than it helped, thus of the life in dealing with a black and white union code.
Zero2Cool  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:16:33 AM(UTC)
No sir, I do get your point. I am saying, the positives for penalizing them is not worth while. You even indicated as such with the next CBA, NFLPA using this as leverage, etc ... that's where I'm saying, they didn't even break any actual rule, so quit penalizing them because it's going to blow up in your face.

Pack93z  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:25:31 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
No sir, I do get your point. I am saying, the positives for penalizing them is not worth while. You even indicated as such with the next CBA, NFLPA using this as leverage, etc ... that's where I'm saying, they didn't even break any actual rule, so quit penalizing them because it's going to blow up in your face.



There I agree.. but one thing we also know about NFL owners in general, they have very large egos and this speaks of flexing their muscle back upon those that broke rank.

Yes.. IMO, the net result is a net loss for the owners in general. But using emotion in place of logic is generally a net loss overall.

I didn't see this move coming from the NFL, as it exposes them for past actions, but I can understand why they are doing it. Jones and Snyder played the rest.. and they cannot stand to be have been taken.
Pack93z  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:24:58 AM(UTC)
The NFLPA didn't wait long to jump on this one, that is once the ruling was upheld.

It was a misplay by the owners.. they themselves opened this can of worms up via a collusion charge being levied upon the league. And the league, via the ruling against the Cowboys and Redskins, basically proved the case of the PA.

Zero2Cool  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:40:45 AM(UTC)
I don't much like that the NFL penalized the Redskins and Cowboys. I don't know wink nod agreement the owners may have had with one another either. I just think penalty benefits no one and has negative ramifications.
Pack93z  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:18:04 PM(UTC)
By all rights.. per the rules, I agree, they should be held no penalty.

But again, the egos of the owners compelled them to take action.

And that same ego drove Jerry and Danny Boy to appeal... and honestly from the standpoint I believe they were just in challenging this.

But it still doesn't change that the egos of the owners opened themselves up to this latest action by the NFLPA.. and thus will damage future leverage for the owners. Mark this little issue the next lockout/strike. It will play large.
gbguy20  
#16 Posted : Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:39:33 AM(UTC)
My favorite part about this whole thing is that the NFLPA agreed to the cap penalties and now here they are suing.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
wpr (5h) : I liked the Sat Sun version.
beast (11h) : HELL YEAH! ... the draft was SOOOO MUCH BETTER in the ol Saturday/Sunday format... only people that I've heard disagree are those that don't really follow the draft and just random get updates on thei
beast (11h) : Key word there is "proven"... not if they're true, but if you can prove it. Jerry Jones said the same thing for Greg Hardy, it wasn't "proven".
Zero2Cool (13h) : Flat out honesty from 49ers GM
Zero2Cool (13h) : John Lynch: “if these charges are proven true, if Reuben did hit this young lady, he won’t be part of our organization moving forward.”
Smokey (13h) : 49ers / Bye Week / Rams
Zero2Cool (14h) : Brian Gutekunst: “Draft was way better when it was Saturday and Sunday.”
Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : With pick #14, @CFD22 has the @Packers selecting UTSA DE Marcus Davenport.
Porforis (23-Apr) : He'll probably resort to buying and using Chicago Bears tickets.
Smokey (22-Apr) : Restrict Zero's toilet paper !
buckeyepackfan (22-Apr) : You gonna withhold your monthly dues until Zero gets the schedule posted Smokey? Lol
Smokey (22-Apr) : Zero, please post the new 2018 Packers Schedule. Thank You
Smokey (22-Apr) : DRAFT "CHAT" this Thursday night !
gbguy20 (20-Apr) : you're probably right
TheKanataThrilla (19-Apr) : I was thinking Dez gbguy20
gbguy20 (19-Apr) : Bmarsh cut. preparing for obj extension?
Zero2Cool (19-Apr) : Week 1: at Packers — Sept. 9 (SNF)
Cheesey (19-Apr) : I don't know. I don't have HBO. I only have regular BO.
Smokey (19-Apr) : Who is HBO's 2018 "Hard Knocks" team ?
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Jimmy Graham on choosing Packers -- Why Green Bay instead of New Orleans? "#12 is hungry
DarkaneRules (17-Apr) : When he talked about missing guys he didn't mentioned Greg Jennings :)
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : it won't though. thus, off-season = hate season
gbguy20 (17-Apr) : these quotes from arod should shut people up
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Jimmy Graham on whether he's still the same Jimmy Graham: "I'm still 6-foot-7 and still run a 4.55 (40)."
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : TE Jimmy Graham said he turned down a lot of money to sign with a team he said he feels can win it all. “12 is hungry,” he said.
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : Aaron Rodgers on potential extension with Packers: "There's interest on both sides in getting something done"
Zero2Cool (17-Apr) : "You have to trust the process. And the process works." Aaron Rodgers
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : I think Barkley would be crazy good with Aaron Rodgers.
porky88 (15-Apr) : If the Packers trade into the top 10, I think it's for Saquan Barkley.
buckeyepackfan (15-Apr) : Lololol
buckeyepackfan (15-Apr) : Need to use this statement "The Packers have wasted enough years of AR's career"
TheKanataThrilla (14-Apr) : New GM with a new qb. History repeats.
TheKanataThrilla (14-Apr) : I had that fuck that idea about Rodgers..turns out I was wrong.
gbguy20 (14-Apr) : fuck that idea.
TheKanataThrilla (14-Apr) : Rosen?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 12:00 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

20-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

20-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

20-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

15-Apr / Around The NFL / Cheesey

Headlines