http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/
Answered my own question. The Bears were 10th in spending in 2010, and hardly broke the bank.

That said, I agree it's BS to have a cap be enforced after the fact, and also not to punish the Jags, Chiefs, and Bucs for essentially mailing it in.

Ben beat me to it

[This message has been edited by PooDoo (edited 3/13/2012 12:18p).]

**** Goodell

[This message has been edited by Sea Bass (edited 3/13/2012 1:56p).]

I've been thinking about this, and it struck me. The league had to approve the deals that Wash and Dal are being punished for. So it was ok a year ago but not now? And when you throw in this collusion between the league and the NFLPA, and the fact that several teams did this but only two of the wealthier franchises were punished...something doesn't add up.

Seems like NFL changed the rules somewhere along the way. I don't like that. Goddell is over extending.

That said. The Pokes are fined $10M. How much did they save by bending the rules? So did the fine really cost them?

I also wouldn't be surprised to see these fines get reduced.

Technically, it probably doesn't really cost them in the big picture because it's just forcing them to charge money against the next two cap years that probably would have gone against these cap years anyway in a normal cba world.

That said, I still think this is bullsh and the NFL should have been handling these issues at the time of these deals. At a minimum, they could have said "we'll approve this, but once we have a new CBA, plan on charging __ amounts against the upcoming cap years even though you're paying it now". Maybe they did, but the delay as to why it took this long to surface is strange if that was te case.

Heard a different take on this on the radio. The NFL sent memos to teams about not "taking advantage of the uncapped year", but still approved the contracts. They had to approve the contracts, because failing to do so would have brought collusion charges by the NFLPA for trying to hold down wages in a negotiated uncapped year. So the front office really had no choice.

Now they are trying to penalize the Cowboys and Redskins for breaking that unwritten rule. So, in effect, this is a punishment for the Cowboys and Redskins for not cooperating with an illegal collusion scheme to hold down payroll in an uncapped year.

So either there was no cap and all bets are off, and therefore the Cowboys and Skins did nothing wrong or the NFL is admitting that there was illegal collusion among teams to limit spending in the uncapped year. Either way, if the Cowboys or Redskins fight this it will go badly for the NFL

The fact that two of the most vocal and powerful owners in the NFL are taking this without fuss makes me think they're getting compensated in some other way.

This will not "go badly for the NFL"

quote:

---

A: While this behavior seems to fit the very dictionary definition of collusion, as multiple teams were engaged in discussions to limit the earning potential of their employees and prospective employees, do not expect it to be challenged in court. The decision today, in which the Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space and the Cowboys $10 million, is the result of a settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. One reason the union has no problem with it is that the money lost to the Cowboys and Redskins is not taken out of the overall 2012 spending pool — each of 28 other teams gets $1.6 million extra in cap room, so there's no net loss league-wide. Another reason the union won't push on it is because they agreed, as part of the settlement of last year's Brady vs. NFL federal lawsuit, to drop all pending legal action against the league. That included their claims that the league engaged in collusion in 2010.

---

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4690689/qa-on-the-cowboys-redskins-cap-mess

[This message has been edited by Im Gipper (edited 3/14/2012 11:36a).]

Gipper,

Notice I said things would go bad if the Skins or Cowboys challenge. I also agree that those teams seem to be rolling over, and there is probably some under the table deal making that happen.

Any antitrust attorneys in the house?

My rudimentary understanding from long ago that if there is no harm or potential harm to consumers, there is no collusion claim. So if Players are not harmed, not sure cowboys & redskins have any standing.

My guess is they knew this was a possibility with the Austin signing

It's incredible that Washington had nearly a $180M payroll and ended up with the 4th overall pick after the season. Could they be more mis-managed?

Grievances filed

The question I have is how were players not harmed if teams were repeatedly reminded to act as if a salary cap was in place? Now they aren't taking this oarticular money away from them with these penalties, but teams following the league mandate would naturally depress the market and keep cash out of players pockets overall.

I think they were clearly harmed. But they agreed not to sue NFL over it.

We'll see how ugly Jerry and Danny want to make this. I'm guessing it could get very ugly if they want it to be. The players may be satisfied to hold tight, but the airing of dirty laundry can have unpredictable results and sometimes minds change when laundry they didn't know about hits the air.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 3/25/2012 8:33p).]

Appeal denied.

Going badly for NFL or Goodell swan song yet?

as a Cowboys fan and knowing that the Skins were hit way worse (and they are in the same division) a part of me didn't even care if the appeal was won or not. a part of me didn't want the Skins getting all that cap room back.

Next step would be a lawsuit

My money is on that not happening

[This message has been edited by BMX Bandit (edited 5/22/2012 1:30p).]

Of course the appeal was denied. It was upheld by the vote of the benefiting franchises. The real test has always been whether Snyder or Jerry is willing to take it to court.

quote:

---

Of course the appeal was denied. It was upheld by the vote of the benefiting franchises

---

it was upheld by an independent arbitrator.

Rambling Ag: keep trying. Eventually you will get it right

I'm going to bump this thread when Goddell retires in 20 years.

Yeah, my guess is that this is as far as it goes for Jerry. The cap hit is substantial, but nothing compared to the Redskins.

I still completely disagree with the whole thing though.

1. The league approved all contracts that were signed in the uncapped year, so why come back years later with an issue?

2. Other teams took advantage of it too. Maybe to a lesser extent, but in a right or wrong situation who gets to draw the imaginary line and say, "these teams crossed the line and these did not".

It is crappy they were "approved" but NFL would have been slammed for collusion if they did not approve. And the teams were warned about doing it

quote:

---

And the teams were warned about doing it

---

But this is the elephant in the room, IMO. This proves that there was collusion.

^^^ Yep!!! But for Jerry it's a business decision at this point. Is the cost really worth the damage done by fighting for it? Probably not. $5 mil this year and next is not that big of a deal and many teams opperate $5 mil + under the cap. So we'll just look at it that way... the Cowboys aren't penalized, they are choosing to stay $5 mil under the cap and perhaps they will use that saved cap space in a 2 years.

It's Washington that really took the lumps here. They got a big time cap hit here and have no 1st round picks to bring in top talent. But they got RGIII, right!!! Ugh, I would not want to trade places with them!!!

There is no question that there was collusion.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7963260/nfl-players-association-files-suit-vs-nfl-alleges-collusion-2010
Players filing suit. Can't blame them really, uncapped should be uncapped.

Yeah, given the players didn't raise a ****storm earlier about it, I was assuming that maybe there was some behind-the-scenes understanding they'd reached with the owners. Not so much. Seems that the league has potentially exposed itself big-time with these penalties. What a foolish move.

quote:

---

DannyDuberstein
posted 4:56p, 03/25/12



The question I have is how were players not harmed if teams were repeatedly reminded to act as if a salary cap was in place? Now they aren't taking this oarticular money away from them with these penalties, but teams following the league mandate would naturally depress the market and keep cash out of players pockets overall.


BMX Bandit
posted 6:29p, 03/25/12



I think they were clearly harmed. But they agreed not to sue NFL over it.

---

Or not, apparently.





[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 5/23/2012 1:14p).]

No kidding.

Graziano (Gipper link) either had a bad source or talking out his ash

More bull**** from the NFL. Not really a fan of any team in the NFC East, but this is ridiculous.

LOL... yeah, I hadn't really considered how the NFLPA would feel about this. Its members definitely served to benefit from an uncapped year (and Miles Austin did just that!).

NFL: "well, yeah, it's an uncapped year but don't you teams go out and spend a bunch of money this year on players!"

NFLPA: "Oh no you didn't!!!!!!"

gotta side with the owners on this one. here is the release language:

quote:

---

“The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (‘TR’) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.”

---

NFLPA is saying the claim could not have been brought because they did not know about it. Thats pretty weak IMO

[This message has been edited by BMX Bandit (edited 5/23/2012 5:31p).]