Article on collusion lawsuit

[Superman]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11124038/nflowners-acted-collusion-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-did-wrong-uncapped-2010-season

 

So this story is in the news again. Remember the one about how the league docked theDallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins salary-cap money in the 2012 and 2013 offseasons because the other owners didn't like the way Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder structured contracts during the supposedly uncapped 2010 season?

 

 

And on and on like that...

 

What this story misses is that Dallas and Washington weren't penalized because they spent over the so-called cap that the owners supposedly agreed to. They were penalized because they manipulated contracts to load cap hits into the uncapped year. There were specific rules against this that they agreed to, and they basically ignored them. 

 

This has NOTHING to do with the NFLPA's claim of collusion among the owners. 

[Nadine]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11124038/nflowners-acted-collusion-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-did-wrong-uncapped-2010-season

 

 

And on and on like that...

 

What this story misses is that Dallas and Washington weren't penalized because they spent over the so-called cap that the owners supposedly agreed to. They were penalized because they manipulated contracts to load cap hits into the uncapped year. There were specific rules against this that they agreed to, and they basically ignored them. 

 

This has NOTHING to do with the NFLPA's claim of collusion among the owners. 

I am confused

what is the players association saying. I tried reading that article but got brain cloud in the process

[CardiacColts]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11124038/nflowners-acted-collusion-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-did-wrong-uncapped-2010-season

And on and on like that...

What this story misses is that Dallas and Washington weren't penalized because they spent over the so-called cap that the owners supposedly agreed to. They were penalized because they manipulated contracts to load cap hits into the uncapped year. There were specific rules against this that they agreed to, and they basically ignored them.

This has NOTHING to do with the NFLPA's claim of collusion among the owners.

My interpretation seems to align with yours. Seems to be two very separate issues. While shady, I cant help but wonder why the "regulations" during the uncapped year were not made more well known. Not necessarily public, as the NFL doesn't seem very fond of that tact, but at least thoroughly understood by the union in addition to the front offices. I would affirm that a bit more transparency could have led to increased accountability. If there were not in fact rules imposed regarding contract structures being heavily loaded into the uncapped year, then it seems to me that the 'Boys and the team in Washington just took advantage of a loophole. Given the sanctions, I'm confident there probably were undisclosed regulations. If this is the case, then it seems to me that justice was already served with the cap penalties. I really think the union's case is inconsequential; however, I hope they are permitted to pursue it so that we have more information to discuss as it is divulged in a publicly accessable forum. It is the offseason after all .

[Superman]

I am confused

what is the players association saying. I tried reading that article but got brain cloud in the process

 

The NFLPA is saying that the owners agreed to an uncapped year for one season after the expiration of the previous CB. But instead of treating it as a true, uncapped year, and spending money in free agency, the owners secretly agreed to not spend money. They basically set a salary cap, through collusion, even though had agreed with the players to no salary cap.

 

Now this writer, among others, is saying that the league penalized Washington and Dallas for not sticking to that secret cap. His point is that, by penalizing those teams, the owners basically admitted to having a secret cap. But that's not what the league penalized them for.

 

What those two teams did is manipulate contracts to have really heavy salary cap hits in the uncapped year, but lighter hits in other years. There were specific rules against this, having nothing to do with any secret cap the owners may have agreed to.

 

He's combining two related but separate issues.

[Nadine]

Thank you !

[CardiacColts]

The NFLPA is saying that the owners agreed to an uncapped year for one season after the expiration of the previous CB. But instead of treating it as a true, uncapped year, and spending money in free agency, the owners secretly agreed to not spend money. They basically set a salary cap, through collusion, even though had agreed with the players to no salary cap.

Now this writer, among others, is saying that the league penalized Washington and Dallas for not sticking to that secret cap. His point is that, by penalizing those teams, the owners basically admitted to having a secret cap. But that's not what the league penalized them for.

What those two teams did is manipulate contracts to have really heavy salary cap hits in the uncapped year, but lighter hits in other years. There were specific rules against this, having nothing to do with any secret cap the owners may have agreed to.

He's combining two related but separate issues.

Great job clarifying Superman!

[Superman]

My interpretation seems to align with yours. Seems to be two very separate issues. While shady, I cant help but wonder why the "regulations" during the uncapped year were not made more well known. Not necessarily public, as the NFL doesn't seem very fond of that tact, but at least thoroughly understood by the union in addition to the front offices. I would affirm that a bit more transparency could have led to increased accountability. If there were not in fact rules imposed regarding contract structures being heavily loaded into the uncapped year, then it seems to me that the 'Boys and the team in Washington just took advantage of a loophole. Given the sanctions, I'm confident there probably were undisclosed regulations. If this is the case, then it seems to me that justice was already served with the cap penalties. I really think the union's case is inconsequential; however, I hope they are permitted to pursue it so that we have more information to discuss as it is divulged in a publicly accessable forum. It is the offseason after all .

 

I think the rules were pretty obvious all along. There was some ambiguity, but I think it was pretty clear that front-loading contracts in the uncapped year was prohibited.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/21/30-percent-rule-still-looms-over-uncapped-year/

 

The Cowboys signed Miles Austin to a $57m contract, but instead of giving him a signing bonus, they gave him a $17m base salary in 2010. It was an obvious effort to circumvent the rules, knowing that there would be a salary cap in the future. The league couldn't stipulate anything about contracts beyond 2010 because the CBA didn't exist after that, but the 30% rule applied to 2010, and Austin's contract was a clear violation of that rule.

 

Washington restructured Haynesworth and Hall in 2010, also dumping salary into the uncapped year, in violation of the 30% rule, and in violation of the spirit of the uncapped year. 

 

Neither of these teams went out and spent like crazy in free agency (the Cowboys were a final eight team in 2009, and were prohibited from loose spending in 2010 anyways). That's not what they were penalized for.

 

Now I think those two teams have a legitimate gripe with the league, since those contracts were approved by the league office, just like every other contract. If they were going to lead to penalties, they shouldn't have been approved. But again, that's separate from what the NFLPA is claiming. They aren't arguing in behalf of Washington and Dallas. They're saying the owners agreed to an uncapped year, but then set a secret cap to limit spending. Completely separate.

[Superman]

I know a lot of people don't care about stuff like this. It was just bothering me that some writers keep bringing this up, because it's inaccurate.

[CardiacColts]

I think the rules were pretty obvious all along. There was some ambiguity, but I think it was pretty clear that front-loading contracts in the uncapped year was prohibited.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/21/30-percent-rule-still-looms-over-uncapped-year/

The Cowboys signed Miles Austin to a $57m contract, but instead of giving him a signing bonus, they gave him a $17m base salary in 2010. It was an obvious effort to circumvent the rules, knowing that there would be a salary cap in the future. The league couldn't stipulate anything about contracts beyond 2010 because the CBA didn't exist after that, but the 30% rule applied to 2010, and Austin's contract was a clear violation of that rule.

Washington restructured Haynesworth and Hall in 2010, also dumping salary into the uncapped year, in violation of the 30% rule, and in violation of the spirit of the uncapped year.

Neither of these teams went out and spent like crazy in free agency (the Cowboys were a final eight team in 2009, and were prohibited from loose spending in 2010 anyways). That's not what they were penalized for.

Now I think those two teams have a legitimate gripe with the league, since those contracts were approved by the league office, just like every other contract. If they were going to lead to penalties, they shouldn't have been approved. But again, that's separate from what the NFLPA is claiming. They aren't arguing in behalf of Washington and Dallas. They're saying the owners agreed to an uncapped year, but then set a secret cap to limit spending. Completely separate.

Thanks for sharing the links. I hadn't seen the protocols articulated before. You present a very compelling point for those 2 teams. It hadn't even occurred to me while reflecting on the article that the league in fact had approved those contracts. That is a ridiculously well stated point. At that point, they should have been in the clear, otherwise they never should have been approved. Sounds like sour grapes on the owners' parts.

[Superman]

Thanks for sharing the links. I hadn't seen the protocols articulated before. You present a very compelling point for those 2 teams. It hadn't even occurred to me while reflecting on the article that the league in fact had approved those contracts. That is a ridiculously well stated point. At that point, they should have been in the clear, otherwise they never should have been approved. Sounds like sour grapes on the owners' parts.

 

I wouldn't call it sour grapes. I think it's kind of hypocritical for the league, but I'm sure the two teams argued that very point in their appeals.

 

They were still wrong, though. Very wrong, and not even in a way that's hard to prove. The 30% rule was very obvious, and their restructures were very obviously in violation. It doesn't take an approved contract for the league to penalize a team. For example, they can levy fines or take draft picks for tampering, whether there's a contract or not.

[twfish]

Money+rules+large words+things I dont know about= making my brain hurt lol

[lollygagger8]

[Luck2Wayne12]

At the end of the day, the NFL is not going to win this battle. 

 

The NFL punished two franchises for dumping salary (Redskins with Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall, Cowboys with Miles Austin) during an uncapped year. There were no rules in place to prevent them from doing this. The Redskins basically just restructured the deals of Hall and Haynesworth in order to pay them large signing bonuses up front in effort to clear cap for future years. Since there was no CBA and no salary cap, there was no league literature that prohibited them from doing this.

 

This clearly screams collusion, league owners having a secret pact to prevent their employees (NFL players) from benefiting in the form of higher wages during a labor lockout. 

 

The basis of the article is basically saying that the NFL can't win both of these wars. Either they need to admit that collusion occurred and face the legal ramifications, or say "sorry" to the Cowboys and Redskins organizations and try to make up for their unfounded penalties. You can't penalize teams for doing nothing that was illegal, yet at the same time say that you didn't have some sort of under the table agreement internally among the rest of the NFL owners. 

 

Also the fact that Dallas and Washington are two of the marquee franchises (in terms of money, power, and marketing... not wins and losses obviously) that this league has to offer I think hurts the NFL. This case won't go away... not with strong willed owners like Jerruh and Moneybags Snyder fighting this. 

[Superman]

At the end of the day, the NFL is not going to win this battle. 

 

The NFL punished two franchises for dumping salary (Redskins with Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall, Cowboys with Miles Austin) during an uncapped year. There were no rules in place to prevent them from doing this. The Redskins basically just restructured the deals of Hall and Haynesworth in order to pay them large signing bonuses up front in effort to clear cap for future years. Since there was no CBA and no salary cap, there was no league literature that prohibited them from doing this.

 

This clearly screams collusion, league owners having a secret pact to prevent their employees (NFL players) from benefiting in the form of higher wages during a labor lockout. 

 

The basis of the article is basically saying that the NFL can't win both of these wars. Either they need to admit that collusion occurred and face the legal ramifications, or say "sorry" to the Cowboys and Redskins organizations and try to make up for their unfounded penalties. You can't penalize teams for doing nothing that was illegal, yet at the same time say that you didn't have some sort of under the table agreement internally among the rest of the NFL owners. 

 

Also the fact that Dallas and Washington are two of the marquee franchises (in terms of money, power, and marketing... not wins and losses obviously) that this league has to offer I think hurts the NFL. This case won't go away... not with strong willed owners like Jerruh and Moneybags Snyder fighting this. 

 

Yes, there were rules against dumping salary in the uncapped year. They were clearly stated. I posted links about the 30% rule up above. What they did with Haynesworth and Hall, and Miles, is exactly what the rules were prohibiting.

 

There was a CBA; it was extended for one, uncapped year. The CBA didn't cease to exist just because there was no salary cap.

 

The penalties levied against those two teams were not because they went over an artificial cap. Washington wasn't even over what the so-called secret cap was. The Raiders had the highest payroll in the league that year, at $152m, but they weren't penalized.

 

It's two separate issues. There may have been a secret cap, but the rules about salary dumping contracts weren't secret. 

[Luck2Wayne12]

Yes, there were rules against dumping salary in the uncapped year. They were clearly stated. I posted links about the 30% rule up above. What they did with Haynesworth and Hall, and Miles, is exactly what the rules were prohibiting.

 

There was a CBA; it was extended for one, uncapped year. The CBA didn't cease to exist just because there was no salary cap.

 

The penalties levied against those two teams were not because they went over an artificial cap. Washington wasn't even over what the so-called secret cap was. The Raiders had the highest payroll in the league that year, at $152m, but they weren't penalized.

 

It's two separate issues. There may have been a secret cap, but the rules about salary dumping contracts weren't secret. 

The 30% rule had nothing to do with what the Redskins did. The Redskins took large amounts of money from the contracts of DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth that was set to be due in future years, and converted them to immediately payable signing bonuses... thus lowering their annual salaries that year and the upcoming years. The 30% rule does not prohibit this.

 

What written rule, please clarify, did Washington or Dallas break during the uncapped season of 2010?

[Superman]

The 30% rule had nothing to do with what the Redskins did. The Redskins took large amounts of money from the contracts of DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth that was set to be due in future years, and converted them to immediately payable signing bonuses... thus lowering their annual salaries that year and the upcoming years. The 30% rule does not prohibit this.

 

What written rule, please clarify, did Washington or Dallas break during the uncapped season of 2010?

 

I don't think you understand the 30% rule, or you don't understand what Washington and Dallas did with those contracts.

 

The 30% rule prohibited anything more than a 30% increase in salary (which includes base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus, and incentives) from 2009 to 2010. What Washington did with Hall and Haynesworth was converting bonus, which would have been amortized evenly over the remainder of the contract, into salary, all of which was accounted for in 2010. What Dallas did with Miles Austin is extend his contract, which increased his salary from less than $2m in 2009 to over $17m in 2010.

 

That's the opposite of what you're saying they did, which is just a standard restructure like teams do all the time.

[Luck2Wayne12]

I don't think you understand the 30% rule, or you don't understand what Washington and Dallas did with those contracts.

 

The 30% rule prohibited anything more than a 30% increase in salary (which includes base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus, and incentives) from 2009 to 2010. What Washington did with Hall and Haynesworth was converting bonus, which would have been amortized evenly over the remainder of the contract, into salary, all of which was accounted for in 2010. What Dallas did with Miles Austin is extend his contract, which increased his salary from less than $2m in 2009 to over $17m in 2010.

 

That's the opposite of what you're saying they did, which is just a standard restructure like teams do all the time.

The 30% rule stated that a players salary could not be more than 30% higher in 2010 than it was in 2009. This deals with actual annual salaries, not signing bonuses, the link you previously provided confirms this. The Redskins converted previously existing option bonuses into signing bonuses.

 

The Redskins took already existing option bonuses in both players original contracts and turned them into sigining bonuses.  Based on the link you posted referencing the 30% rule, there is no foul there:

 

But there’s a loophole.  NFL director of corporate communications Dan Masonson has confirmed for us that signing bonuses won’t count toward the 30 percent rule.  Still, it means that the bulk of a player’s compensation would have to be funneled to him via a signing bonus, with limited base salaries in future years.  While the player might be fine with that in 2010, the player might feel a lot differently in the out years of the deal.

 

Furthermore, every move or restructuring in the NFL must be approved by the NFL's league office before it goes into effect. So essentially, the Redskins made a legal restructuring maneuver which was subsequently approved by the NFL. Only for the NFL to come back a year later and accuse them of breaking rules. Interesting?

[Superman]

The 30% rule stated that a players salary could not be more than 30% higher in 2010 than it was in 2009. This deals with actual annual salaries, not signing bonuses, the link you previously provided confirms this. The Redskins converted previously existing option bonuses into signing bonuses.

 

The Redskins took already existing option bonuses in both players original contracts and turned them into sigining bonuses.  Based on the link you posted referencing the 30% rule, there is no foul there:

 

Nope. An option bonus and a signing bonus are treated the same for salary cap purposes. Converting an option bonus into a signing bonus would be of no benefit to either side.

 

What they did is take bonuses and future salary and convert them into roster bonuses. The difference is that roster bonus only applies to the cap in the year in which it is paid, unlike signing/option bonuses, which are applied evenly over the remaining years on the contract. Roster bonus is considered Paragraph 5 Salary, and it is specifically what the 30% rule applied to.

 

Furthermore, every move or restructuring in the NFL must be approved by the NFL's league office before it goes into effect. So essentially, the Redskins made a legal restructuring maneuver which was subsequently approved by the NFL. Only for the NFL to come back a year later and accuse them of breaking rules. Interesting?

 

 

I agree with this, and mentioned it earlier. Definitely hypocritical of the league, and I'm sure Washington and Dallas included this when they presented their cases. But it has nothing to do with a secret cap, which is the NFLPA's accusation. Those teams weren't penalized for exceeding a secret cap; if that's the case, it wouldn't have only been Dallas and Washington penalized. They were penalized because they blatantly violated the 30% rule. Yeah, the NFL allowed them to violate it, then came back and penalized them for it, which sucks, but it doesn't change the fact that they violated the rule. As as matter of fact, the NFL could have nullified the contracts in violation, and still penalized the teams for violating them.

 

What the NFL did to the Colts last year is just adjust the violating contract. With Gosder Cherilus, we messed up on the 50% rule (your Year 2 P5 salary can't be less than 50% of your Year 1 P5 salary). They just converted the extra salary in Year 1 to bonus and applied it over the life of the contract. That would have been a better way to handle the offending contracts in 2010.

[Luck2Wayne12]

Everything I've found said that they converted these option bonuses into signing bonuses. Here's a paragraph from a footballoutsiders write-up on the issue:

 

 

In his infamous $100 million contract of 2009, Haynesworth had a $21-million option bonus. As part of the deal, the Redskins reserved the right to convert that option bonus to a signing bonus, and that’s exactly what they did. But they converted it with a slight twist. Not only did they convert the option bonus to a $21-million signing bonus, but they also added a voidable provision. In the provision, if Haynesworth pays back $26 million of his signing bonuses, then the 2011-2014 contract years void away. From a team salary accounting standpoint -- because the voidable is solely in the player’s control -- the proration of the signing bonus does not go into 2011-2014. That means all of the $21 million signing bonus counts in the uncapped year of 2010. As a result, Haynesworth’s team salary number in 2010 went from $8.8 million to a whopping $25.6 million. His subsequent team salary numbers are $6.4 million, $8.2 million, $10 million, $10.8 million, and $12.8 million, respectively.

 

Similarly, Hall had a $15 million option bonus in his contract 2009 contract. The Redskins converted this $15 million to a signing bonus and provided Hall with the voidable clause, whereby the entire $15 million, from a team salary accounting standpoint, stays in 2010. As a result of this maneuver, Hall’s team salary number went from $6.8 million to $18.3 million in 2010. His subsequent manageable team salary numbers are $5.3 million, $6.8 million, $8.3 million, and $9.5 million, respectively.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-redskins-utilizing-uncapped-year

 

To me, it seems like the Cowboys and Redskins found a legal loophole and exploited it. It even seems like they were planning for this legal loophole a year in advance.

[Superman]

Everything I've found said that they converted these option bonuses into signing bonuses. Here's a paragraph from a footballoutsiders write-up on the issue:

 

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-redskins-utilizing-uncapped-year

 

To me, it seems like the Cowboys and Redskins found a legal loophole and exploited it. It even seems like they were planning for this legal loophole a year in advance.

 

It's really simple: FO is wrong, or at least they're using the wrong term. What's important in this case is the way the bonus is amortized. If it all hits in one year, it's treated as P5 salary, not signing bonus.

 

The voidable provisions only apply because the bonus had already been accounted for on the cap, and didn't need to be accelerated in the event the contracts were terminated in the future (the way normal signing/option bonus would).

 

So they can call it whatever they want to call it, but their intention was for it to be treated as P5 salary, all amortized in the uncapped year, not evenly over the remainder of the contract. If it walks like P5 salary and talks like P5 salary, it's P5 salary. And if was far greater than a 30% increase from 2009. 

 

Last thing, this still isn't about going over a secret cap. If they want to split hairs over whether it's salary or bonus, that's one thing (and I think it's clearly salary, as defined by the CBA), but those two teams weren't penalized because they exceeded a secret cap. Again, there would have been more teams penalized, if that were the case.