Not to mention, the league office has to approve all contracts and team transactions. If the Cowboys and Redskins were breaking these unwritten rules, the league could have made them explicit by denying the transaction.
Not to mention, the league office has to approve all contracts and team transactions. If the Cowboys and Redskins were breaking these unwritten rules, the league could have made them explicit by denying the transaction.
It's going to be fun watching all the face palming going on among Redskins fans.
I wonder if the players union is going to say something about this? It's basically a cut in salaries. Or maybe both teams will still be above the 'floor.'
They're responsible for reviewing on an individual basis but are they also responsible for completely understanding how each team's transaction is going to affect that team in terms of the big picture for the current and future years? Doubtful.
The Cowboys and Redskins decided to try to skirt these unwritten rules, probably assuming that since they're the Cowboys/Redskins they would be able to get away with it. Too bad.
But maybe you're a free agent (or will be next year) and now there are two fewer teams to bid competitively for your services.I imagine the Cowboys and Redskins reps will not be happy - but the others will, because that salary cap penalty is being distributed to the other teams (other than Oakland and New Orleans). So I doubt the union will be all that unified...
I believe it was Mike Florio (who I normally don't like very much) that pointed out that the owners having backdoor agreements not to break the non-existent salary cap essentially amounts to collusion - which is not allowed.
But maybe you're a free agent (or will be next year) and now there are two fewer teams to bid competitively for your services.
In this case, while there may not have been cap rules, it's not much different than me deciding to speed because the speed limit sign has been knocked down. "Gee officer, I didn't see a sign, so I just assumed it was 80." They were warned, and they deliberately tried to abuse the capless year to give themselves a way to circumvent the cap. As what they did now affects their cap going forward, I can see how punishment is justified.
In this case, while there may not have been cap rules, it's not much different than me deciding to speed because the speed limit sign has been knocked down. "Gee officer, I didn't see a sign, so I just assumed it was 80." They were warned, and they deliberately tried to abuse the capless year to give themselves a way to circumvent the cap. As what they did now affects their cap going forward, I can see how punishment is justified.
Actually, there are laws about speed if the speed limit is not marked. In residential areas, it is 25 MPH. On state roads and interstates, it's 50MPH (New Jersey State law).
An analogous situation is if the speed limit laws expired on Jan 1, 2011, and the governor said "even though there are no laws, if you drive too fase, we will give you a ticket"
Total bullshit.
And there are 28 teams with a little more money to spend on your services.
Meh, I don't see what the big deal is. I am perfectly fine with what they are doing to them, as it is merely making the cap effectively what it should have been.
They're keeping the league, from a monetary standpoint, competitive. That won't necessarily mean that all teams are equal in talent. But no team shall have a financial benefit over another. IE - You don't have the Yankees with a 200 million dollar payroll, and the Athletics with a 25 million dollar pay roll.
In this case, while there may not have been cap rules, it's not much different than me deciding to speed because the speed limit sign has been knocked down. "Gee officer, I didn't see a sign, so I just assumed it was 80." They were warned, and they deliberately tried to abuse the capless year to give themselves a way to circumvent the cap. As what they did now affects their cap going forward, I can see how punishment is justified.
Basically, you have a Miles Austin contract:
9/9/2010: Signed a seven-year, $57.168 million contract. The cap-conscious deal contains $18 million guaranteed -- no signing bonus but all of Austin's whopping $17.078 million first-year base salary. 2012: $1.15 million, 2013: $6.732 million, 2014: $5.5 million, 2015: $6.888 million, 2016: $11.38 million, 2017: Free Agent
A 57 million dollar deal, and 17.078 of it was paid in salary in the uncapped year. No signing bonus means that the guaranteed 18 million does not affect the cap in the later years. So instead of a 9 million or so cap hit for 2013, they'd have whatever number is listed above.
In any case, they're trying to abuse the situation which they were told not to do. Now that the commissioner is back in control, he can remedy the problem to ensure that the cap is properly accounted for, and the competitive balance remains.
The Redskins won't win another Superbowl until after they change the name of the stadium back to Jack Kent Cooke Stadium (named after the guy who PAID for it, rather than a company giving the greedy Snyder money for the naming rights.)
Still... it was an UNCAPPED YEAR. Goodell had no right to make such threats. Again, this is Goodell arbitrarily and unilaterally making rash decisions.
Never formally warned, as there was no contract nor no written mandate agreed to by the owners that teams could not go over cap. Re: Goodell is a power-hungry idiot.
Austin is a good example, and so is Haynesworth. However, if the NFL is mad then why not just have a cap all of the time? What purpose does a capless year serve?