Skip to content

Goodell: No issue with teams spending too little in 2010

138147922_crop_650x440 Getty Images

We found out on Wednesday that the Buccaneers abstained from the vote to impose cap penalties on the Cowboys and Redskins as well as their rationale behind it.

As Florio reported, the team didn’t like the unequal distribution of penalties to those two teams while the Saints and Raiders were simply excluded from sharing the bonus cap space the rest of the teams will enjoy as a result of the penalties. Their abstention also calls attention to the fact that the team spent well below the cap floor in 2010 without getting any reprimand from the league. Commissioner Roger Goodell explained why during his press conference at the owners meeting.

“No there was no issue there,” Goodell said, via Stephen Holder of the Tampa Bay Times. “[The question was] did any teams gain a competitive advantage. That was the focus that we and the [players' union] had moving forward. That’s why we reached an agreement . . . so no one had a long-term competitive advantage. That’s what the NFLPA and we agreed on.”

It’s hard to understand how teams spending less than the cap doesn’t have an adverse effect on competitive balance. If the argument is that spending too much creates an advantage for the teams that did the spending, then it stands to reason that spending less gives the same advantage to all of the teams that spent the amount agreed upon by the league.

The argument about long-term competitive advantages is sounder as the moves by the Cowboys and Redskins were designed to disproportionately take advantage of the uncapped year. That said, it still feels off that penalties for violating the “spirit” of the cap in an uncapped year, to use the words of NFL Management Council Executive Committee chairman John Mara, only applies to teams who spent more than the league might have liked.

Permalink 89 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Top Stories
89 Responses to “Goodell: No issue with teams spending too little in 2010”
  1. mfancy says: Mar 28, 2012 4:50 PM

    Yeah that makes no sense. You don’t think the Bucs spending well below the cap floor in 2010 helped them sign all those guys this season?

  2. spungy says: Mar 28, 2012 4:51 PM

    Mike Brown must have a lot of pull with the commish.

  3. andrejohnsonforpresident says: Mar 28, 2012 4:51 PM

    This is all so stupid. Neither team even made the playoffs! Who cares how much they spent in some loop hole year!!

  4. vawoody15 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:51 PM

    I’ve never heard a weaker argument than the “Spirit of the cap”!

  5. daysend564 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:53 PM

    I don’t care about their low spending in 2010. I care about their spending in 2011 that is allowing them to carry over space that allowed them to have $50M of cap space to spend this year.

    The league is telling teams it is ok to eat it one year in order to get a huge advantage the following year. With their carryover, if they spend all that they are allocated, where would they be relative to other teams?

  6. pooflingingmonkey says: Mar 28, 2012 4:53 PM

    “The Bengals are now as financially aggressive as the other 31 teams, and we expect to reach the playoffs agin this year,” said Mike Brown at a press conference this afternoon. “We’ve been accused of being out-of-touch and antiquated,” Brown added, speaking into his tin can/string contraption to a mostly empty room.

  7. jdandcoke says: Mar 28, 2012 4:53 PM

    this will be a moot point soon, as teams are forced to spend. as for the boys and skins i think you should give it up already….as it seems they have done. the lost the cap money…they arent going to fight the league, the NFLPA, AND their fellow owners on it….lets move on.

  8. jayevanoff says: Mar 28, 2012 4:54 PM

    You guys are wrong on this. They knew what they were doing. The league told them if you do this, there will probably be repercussions later. They did it, don’t like the repercussions and are whining about it. Why do you think the rest of the league didn’t jam tons of cap cost into the uncapped year? They know how to follow basic instructions and understand the action consequence relationship.

    Jerry and Dan, the two big shot owners got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And now they want to publicize the “travesty”.

    Is it lame of the NFL? Who knows, maybe, but they aren’t wrong. Is it surprising the two biggest spenders/flashiest owners were the only 2 to try to take advantage of it?

  9. cooklynn17 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:55 PM

    Rodger That…

  10. unitedstateoftexas says: Mar 28, 2012 4:55 PM

    I wish the arbitration process was a live televised event. Seeing the emasculation of Goodell is at the top of my wish list this year.

  11. bigjd says: Mar 28, 2012 4:55 PM

    Roger Goodell is the worst thing that ever happened to the NFL.

  12. omegalh says: Mar 28, 2012 4:56 PM

    This issue has made me hate Goodell as a Commissioner. The final straw.

    I don’t care for any of the teams that were nailed but when it makes no sense, it is just wrong.

  13. wwwfella says: Mar 28, 2012 4:57 PM

    i seriously cannot fathom what the goodell was thinking with this punishment.

  14. dolphinatic says: Mar 28, 2012 4:58 PM

    It was only a matter of time. Might makes right here these days. Fair? Not one F*ck was given too fair and/or right. And I hate the Skins/Boys almost as much as I hate the Jets.

  15. jwreck says: Mar 28, 2012 4:58 PM

    jwreck says: Mar 28, 2012 3:28 PM

    As a DMV resident and an intelligent person, I’ve been completely opposed to the League on this issue from the get-go, but seeing the Buccaneers and Albert Haynesworth in the same paragraph just made me think of a new aspect of this discussion. So just follow my train of thought here, if you would.

    So Goodell’s argument is that he warned teams not to overspend in the uncapped year, but there was no actual rule about it, so he had to approve contracts sent in by Dallas and Washington. In Goodell’s view, his warnings gave him the right to retroactively punish the Boys and Skins for actions that were not illegal at the time, that he had approved.

    However, the restructuring of Albert Haynesworth’s contract allowed Washington to trade him to New England the following season. The Patriots would not have even considered trading for fat Al at his original price. If the Redskins price dumping was illegal and Haynesworth’s contract ex post facto invalid, shouldn’t the Patriots and subsequently the Buccaneers also lose cap space because of Haynesworth’s original contract?

    Honestly, I don’t think they can, which just further invalidates the punishments against the Skins and Boys and shows the whole situation as the clusterF it really is.

    Not a point of view, a statement, or an indictment, just a thought. if anyone has an answer or any thoughts on other undiscussed ramifications of Goodell and Mara’s cap sanction on Dallas and Washington, post it below.

  16. finsfrontofficeisajoke says: Mar 28, 2012 4:59 PM

    Unbelievable. This man is living proof that ANYONE can BS his way to a corner office.

  17. geniusesq says: Mar 28, 2012 5:00 PM

    And in this episode of B.S.

  18. marvsleezy says: Mar 28, 2012 5:01 PM

    For once Im with the commissioner on this one – PFT needs to take its rabble rousing onto the next subject.

  19. feck12a says: Mar 28, 2012 5:02 PM

    Its looking more and more like a John (silver spoon) Mara witch hunt. The giants were up against the cap wall, two division rivals had plenty of space…of coure under spending has an effect. T.B. now has even more $ to spend now because they were under the cap floor. If the cap floor was 110 million and they spend 100 million in an uncapped yr now they have an extra 10 million to spend when the cap returns.

  20. maggas99 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:02 PM

    Interesting how the Commish is choosing to define “competitve advantage” in the manner that he suggests – i.e. spending too much is bad and spending not enough is ok.

    2010 Team W-L Records:

    Redskins 6-10
    Cowboys 6-10
    Bucs 10-6

    Synder and Jones should argue that the Bucs should be the ones fined.

  21. gbey500 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:02 PM

    Roger is an a..hole.

  22. izzylangfan says: Mar 28, 2012 5:03 PM

    The problem is not that they spent too much but that they rigged their contracts to pull in expenses to the uncapped year when they were really salary expenses of future years. Normally this is fair since ultimately you pay the piper. But pulling in expenses that were really future year expenses into the uncapped year when they do not count against the cap is cheating in spirit. There was no limit on real spending but there was a limit on manipulation.

  23. nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 5:04 PM

    Glad to see that the league is not relenting at all. Stick to it to those under-performing cheaters. Vote them out of the league and revoke their ownership rights if they try to challenge their punishment. They were all supposed to stick together for the league and these 2 cheaters tried to get ahead and coverup their all of their crappy signings. You reap what you sew. Enjoy. Those bloated FA contracts are going nowhere as they should be. Pay up, no easy way out.

    Anyone who supported the league during the lockout has to support this punishment. I was neutral during that deal, but I support the league on this. Either it was collusion and they all go down or it was something else and the ‘Skins and ‘Boys hang like they should. George Preston Marshall would like that analogy.

  24. mybrunoblog says: Mar 28, 2012 5:04 PM

    I can almost picture Goodell at a podium in front of 32 cheering owners telling them “we will make $10 billion in revenue boys don’t be afraid to nickel and dime those payrolls”

  25. musicman495 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:06 PM

    Once again for those with special needs – which apparently includes the NFL commissioner. It DOES create an unfair competitive advantage for those who horded their cash in 2010 and underpaid players via collusion and restraint of trade so they could spent it in later years like 2012. Has anyone heard of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Where does Goodell think their millions to outspend others for the services of Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks came from?

  26. jgedgar70 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:15 PM

    This is fascinating stuff, especially to us Panthers fans as we watched our team spend about $1,000 for en entire 53-man roster and go 2-14 in 2010. Of course we have the advantage of Jerry Richardson as an owner, and the man-crush that he and Goodell have on each other means our team can get away with most anything.

  27. freedomispopular says: Mar 28, 2012 5:17 PM

    The Redskins ad Cowboys have been blowing money on people for years, and it has yet to be competitive, so I fail to see how the competitive balance was disrupted.

  28. whatnojets says: Mar 28, 2012 5:19 PM

    Upon arriving in New York this week, Tim Tebow subtly paid tribute to a crippled war hero — a salute that left the Marine stunned.

    “Oh, wow! Really?” Cpl. Michael Nicholson said after learning that Tebow was wearing a wristband bearing his name when the newest member of the Jets came to town.

    Tebow was photographed sporting the red wristband with Nicholson’s name emblazoned in yellow lettering after landing aboard a private jet Thursday in New Jersey and then en route to Gang Green’s Florham Park training headquarters.

    Nicholson said he was incredibly moved by the gesture from the star, who last week stopped by Nicholson’s home in Tampa for a visit. “The best word to describe Tim Tebow is he is humble,” Nicholson said.

    The 22-year-old former Marine, who lost both legs and part of his arm while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan last year, praised Tebow with preacher-like passion for raising the soldier’s spirits during the visit.

    Tebow visited with the corporal for about an hour after attending the opening of a Tampa sports complex in which the Bible-quoting quarterback has invested.

    “It was great that he came out and spent some time with me,” Nicholson said. “It meant so much.”

  29. rhosmersr says: Mar 28, 2012 5:19 PM

    River Goodell and John Mara are a couple of low life scumbags who like to shoe each other up the skunk hole. I am so freaking close to never watching another NFL game ever again. It has already been starting to feel like the WWF – fake as hell and rigged. How else would the giants with the worst rushing O and worst Passing D be able to win the superbowl, unless it’s all rigged …. I hate u goodell and Mara!!!!! I hope you both get what’s coming to you!

  30. gman1956 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:20 PM

    In all of the coverage I have read of this issue, I have not seen an explanation of how the “penalties” were calculated – or a truly reasoned analysis.

    Did the league (and NFLPA) “penalize” these teams for money spent for players to play in the uncapped year? Or were they “penalized” because they spent money in 2010 (such as unusally large salaries payable in 2010 instead of big bonuses) that wouldn’t count against the anticipated future cap to effectively obtain services from players in 2012 & 2013 and beyond? If it was the former the “penalties” make no sense. If it was the latter the “penalties” make sense since, in effect, the Redskins and Cowboys (and some other teams) were trying to buy extra cap space in 2012 & 2013 and beyond by strategically spending money in 2010 – thereby upsetting the competitive balance in the latter, capped years. Under such an analysis, the Bucs spending less in 2012 is of no consequence – it gained them no advantage in the future capped years.

  31. all4patriots says: Mar 28, 2012 5:23 PM

    I think the issue is this:

    Teams were free to spend whatever they wanted to in 2010 FOR THE PRODUCT THAT WAS ON THE FIELD IN 2010.

    Two teams chose to spend quite a bit extra, not for the team on the field in 2010, but to lighten their cap loads for future years, i.e., to theoretically put a better team on the field in 2011 because so many salaries were “pre-paid” and cap hit would be lessened.

    The Cowboys and Redskins jobbed the system for future gain, and that is an issue of fairness. They could have spent 200 million dollars for the players on the field in 2010, for all anybody cared, so long as that 200 million was not an advance payment for future services that was way out of line with the normal signing bonuses traditionally seen in capped years.

  32. theytukrjobs says: Mar 28, 2012 5:24 PM

    Skins and Cowboys took advantage of the situation. They front loaded contracts in the uncapped year so that they’d have lower cap hits in the capped season. This is after Goodell specifically instructed them that doing this would result in consequences. They were aware of this and it sounds like the consequences won’t even be punitive, they will just be measured out to cancel out the cap advantage that the two teams gained by front loading contracts into that season.

  33. charlutes says: Mar 28, 2012 5:25 PM

    Goodell is just another a-moral millionaire, leeching off athletes and throwing his weight around, much like the rest of the obscenely over payed league commishoners. He should give 99% of his contract to Matt Forte. North American sports are being destroyed by greedy, fat, predominantly white millionaire’s who don’t give a damn about anything except lining their pockets.

  34. gweez76 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:25 PM

    when asked why he said “because Kraft and Mara told me I didn’t.”

  35. rubbernilly says: Mar 28, 2012 5:26 PM

    @jayevanoff:
    You guys are wrong on this. They knew what they were doing. The league told them if you do this, there will probably be repercussions later.

    OK, stop there. With what authority did the NFL make this statement?

    …Still thinking?

    The answer is the NFL did not have the authority to make the statement, because the statement itself constitutes an attempt at collusion.

    Why do you think the rest of the league didn’t jam tons of cap cost into the uncapped year?

    Two answers to that: 1) they didn’t think about it, or 2) they decided to collude with the other owners and league office

    They know how to follow basic instructions and understand the action consequence relationship.

    Again… instructions regarding salaries/cap during an uncapped year = collusion. There is a bigger action/consequence relationship coming that the NFL should have paid attention to.

    Jerry and Dan, the two big shot owners got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

    If there is a hand and a cookie jar metaphor here, the hand belongs to the NFL and the cookie jar is the cap space of the Cowboys and Redskins.

  36. LoCoSu@%s says: Mar 28, 2012 5:27 PM

    Wow. Goodell has shown not only he is autocratic and arbitrary, he’s also added stupid to the list of his attributes.
    Either that or he thinks the fans are morons.

  37. kokomike says: Mar 28, 2012 5:28 PM

    Reality is that a Redskins and Cowboys Spring is here now. The other owners are afraid of these two franchises, have been happy they have been down, and want to keep them down.

    Even so, the two franchises are still the most valuable in the NFL, and will be more valuable after 2012.

  38. yamchargers says: Mar 28, 2012 5:29 PM

    The difference is that no one cheats to be bad, except maybe the Bucs.

    BTW good luck VJ.

  39. dallas001 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:29 PM

    The season opener is gonna be a DOOZY.!!!!!!!

  40. kindasporty says: Mar 28, 2012 5:31 PM

    I think the Giants should face penalties for Victor Cruz last year. He clearly played better than the money he was paid and therefore the Giants had a competitive advantage by signing him in the first place. This makes about as much sense as punishing the Cowboys and Redskins.

  41. blackqbwhiterb says: Mar 28, 2012 5:33 PM

    the whole thing is a scam whereby the large majority of teams are taking advantage of the largess of the 2 rich guys. A total farce and a disgrace

  42. jason49er says: Mar 28, 2012 5:35 PM

    Aren’t the 49ers dumping salary into the 2012 cap with Patrick Willis’s contract? They knew last fall that they’d have over $12M carrying over into 2012 from last year so they renegotiated his contract to move all his roster bonuses and junk into this year and blew his cap number up to $17.7M, next year it’s like $3.5M.

    I have no idea how that’s any different except they didn’t do it to the tune of $170+M. I doubt it isn’t just my team who’s used this maneuver.

  43. eaglebobby says: Mar 28, 2012 5:37 PM

    Again, MOST–IF NOT ALL OF YOU don’t get it. The reason why the Skins and Cowboys were stripped of their cap room was because they dumped their cap hits all into ONE YEAR!!! Instead of spreading it over the life of the entire contracts, like the other 30 teams do, the Cowboys and Skins dumped big heaps of cap hits into one year to give them a competitive advantage over the teams in coming years.

  44. ffwoodycooks says: Mar 28, 2012 5:41 PM

    What’s that smell? God, it stinks like a mixture of raw sewage and decomposing bodies! Oh, God-dell is making a statement, his words wafting over the fans like the BS that it is.

  45. rickvaldez says: Mar 28, 2012 5:42 PM

    When will people have enough common sense to stop saying they cheated? And why are the other teams crying foul… They would’ve done the same thing if they had the cash Jones and Snyder have. If there was a rule then punish them I’d there was no rule don’t complain now

  46. ajpurp says: Mar 28, 2012 5:42 PM

    So many people are missing the point that collusion is what makes professional leagues work. Scheduling, orderly player acquisition, free agency rules, broadcast contracts give us the NFL we have today. All of those things are against the law, especially when it comes to the career movement and pay of employees, aka players.
    Players used to identify with their teams and towns and would hate seeing rivals win. Teams even used to have fight songs, and players knew them!

    Everyone arguing the OMG collusion point does not understand the concept of a professional sports league, it would not exist with collusion and it certainly would not be anywhere near where it is today.

    Secondly, Roger Goodell has done a ton of great things for this league, he might F up hard sometimes but what person in a position of leadership isn’t criticized by some faction of people. It is the nature of the position, not everyone is going to like him and some will despise him; you cannot please everyone. BUT in case anyone forgot, the dude has helped pro football thrive, television stations use to cut off certain games if they went over their scheduled time limit. He has continued to push the NFL to new heights, even if some of his decisions have been questionable at best.

    While this punishment is a bit, well retarded, people still need to realize it isn’t all Goodell, or Mara for that matter. It is a collection of owners who do not like what went down, nothing happens without other owners approving it. Unless, it’s a situation like the Saints where there is a full scale investigation. He is a puppet master for the owners, plain and simple.

  47. epicurean56 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:42 PM

    So, there was a “Spirit of the Cap” (wink, wink, nudge) but there was no “Spirit of the Floor”? So the players get screwed while the NFL colludes against them. Try and sell that to a judge.

  48. bhester1906 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:43 PM

    It honestly looks like this is something personal against two of the most profitable franchises… And the NFLPA is just bending over and taking it…

  49. nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 5:44 PM

    @rubbernilly

    But it doesn’t matter, because in order for boy wonder and Jerrah to win their case, if you will, they will have to prove that the league colluded to keep salaries down. If they do that, they open the league and therefore themselves up to legal action by the Union which in turn could get that CBA modified and/or nullified.

    They aren’t going to strangle the golden goose for one egg! They are going to talk tough for their fans just to give them a few bones and then they are going to forget about it. Watch and learn.

    @kokomike – They league has to try? Those teams do a great job of keeping themselves down, year after year…

    If you pull yourself out of your feeble mind frame and pretend you are a neutral fan of the league, it is easy to see why the league did this. Next time the league colludes to keep salaries down they better make sure that “all their ducks are in a row” as Peyton would say. It can get a little messy when 2 greedy owners try to take advantage of 30.

  50. khuxford says: Mar 28, 2012 5:44 PM

    Violated the “spirit of the cap” in an uncapped year…the two teams weren’t the only ones that front-loaded contracts but were the only ones punished…and it is all proof of collusion among the owners…but NOTHING will happen, it seems.

    You know what should happen?

    Shockey should sue over the collusion. He already got screwed by the NFL when they let Sapp call him the whistleblower. Sue about this.

  51. tpa43 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:45 PM

    There should be a vote to take the Bucs away from the Glazer children.

  52. tedmurph says: Mar 28, 2012 5:50 PM

    I don’t know if this is the twilight zone or what, but all the posts that got mostly thumbs down understand what the problem was with what the ‘Skins and Cowboys did, and why teams like TB weren’t a problem. The posts that got all the thumbs up are either fans of those teams or don’t understand how the cap, with bonuses and rollovers etc, works. I’m not even gonna try, but trust me, you guys need to do some homework.

  53. thraiderskin says: Mar 28, 2012 5:50 PM

    No rule was broken, no harm was caused. It is that simply… Ask yourselves this simple question, did the Cowboys and the Redskins actually break a written (agreed upon) rule? If your answer is “no” then you probably should be against the punishment, if your answer is “yes” then continue on in your delusion… We have heard countless argument for or against, but in the end, it really is black and white.

  54. nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 5:52 PM

    jason49er says: Mar 28, 2012 5:35 PM

    Aren’t the 49ers dumping salary into the 2012 cap with Patrick Willis’s contract? They knew last fall that they’d have over $12M carrying over into 2012 from last year so they renegotiated his contract to move all his roster bonuses and junk into this year and blew his cap number up to $17.7M, next year it’s like $3.5M.

    I have no idea how that’s any different except they didn’t do it to the tune of $170+M. I doubt it isn’t just my team who’s used this maneuver.
    ———————————————————-
    This year isn’t an uncapped year, the 9ers can do it no problem as long as they still stay under the cap. The Redskins and Boys were dumping salaries in a year that wasn’t capped so that they would have an advantage, or catch up some would argue, in the capped years…which is almost every year. Can you see how that works? Does it make sense to you?

    If the 9ers dumped $17.7 in 2010 the league would have had a problem with it if they went over $120 in total salaries that year. As long as they are under the cap, they can structure salaries anyway they want. The teams were supposed to treat 2010 as a capped year, when in fact it wasn’t. The Redskins and Cowboys dumped money into that year and went way over the cap…especially the Skins.

  55. skin94249 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:53 PM

    The Redskins are still going to have a competitive advantage because we will have the best player EVER to be drafted since Sammy Baugh. Super Bowl Title first two years…… did I mention RG3 not only threws great passes but is fast enough to catch them too! He plays d-line to force the QB into bad threws and is fast enough to intersept them from his d-back position. Least I forget he kicks field goals and punts. HTTR !!!!

  56. fordman84 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:54 PM

    Goodell announced there was an agreement. Open and shut collusion case. They target those that spend too much, but no cares for those that spend too little.

    Where is the hold up? Sue them for collusion and be done with this Jerry and Danny.

  57. jason49er says: Mar 28, 2012 5:58 PM

    I remember there was some absurd theories around that if the NFL went to an uncapped year that they’d never be able to collectively bargain the cap back into the league.

    Can there really be a “spirit of the cap” rule when there isn’t any cap and there might not be one down the road?

    Collusion. Because afterall I just pointed to 1 other team that used the salary dump move and if I looked at others it’s probably being done in other cities too. I hope Jones and Synder point that out in court too.

  58. sadskinsfan89 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:00 PM

    its like having a credit card with no limit then if you put 50 grand on it you get penalized for going over the limit. They did nothing wrong.

  59. smssr68 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:05 PM

    http://www.csnwashington.com/football-washington-redskins/redskins-talk/Goodell-unable-to-define-uncapped?blockID=678568&feedID=10316

    check out goodall’s explenation of uncapped

  60. nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 6:05 PM

    skin94249 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:53 PM

    The Redskins are still going to have a competitive advantage because we will have the best player EVER to be drafted since Sammy Baugh. Super Bowl Title first two years…… did I mention RG3 not only threws great passes but is fast enough to catch them too! He plays d-line to force the QB into bad threws and is fast enough to intersept them from his d-back position. Least I forget he kicks field goals and punts. HTTR !!!!
    ———————————————————-
    Or the biggest bust ever! Tick, tick, tick…

    PS – Good God, you are practically illiterate! Our nation’s capital…such poor school systems. Another fine job by Congress.

  61. daysend564 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:05 PM

    eaglebobby says:
    Mar 28, 2012 5:37 PM
    ==============================
    So, you mean the Cowboys and Redskins did the same thing that 8 other teams did but the only two teams to get the punishment? The two teams coincidentally in the same division as the Giants, who with out the Cowboys/Redskins $1.6M bump would have been right at the cap for 2012 and not allowed them to sign anybody this season instead need to cut several players in order to sign their draft picks (they’ll still have to cut/restructure some – not as much).

    Julius Peppers, making $35M in 2010 and then making less than $1M in 2011 is not an example of this because they are not in your division? http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/julius-peppers/

    The fact is that Miles Austin – the one the Cowboys are getting dinged – was about the 4th most egregious cap dump that occurred that year.

  62. jason49er says: Mar 28, 2012 6:12 PM

    This year isn’t an uncapped year, the 9ers can do it no problem as long as they still stay under the cap. The Redskins and Boys were dumping salaries in a year that wasn’t capped so that they would have an advantage, or catch up some would argue, in the capped years…which is almost every year. Can you see how that works? Does it make sense to you?

    If the 9ers dumped $17.7 in 2010 the league would have had a problem with it if they went over $120 in total salaries that year. As long as they are under the cap, they can structure salaries anyway they want. The teams were supposed to treat 2010 as a capped year, when in fact it wasn’t. The Redskins and Cowboys dumped money into that year and went way over the cap…especially the Skins.
    ———————————————-

    How can they go way over the cap when there wasn’t a cap? Is there a rule written that teams were supposed to treat the year like a capped year? And it’s all up to interpretation anyway since there wasn’t a cap total assigned to the Uncapped year, because that’d just be retarded. I don’t really see how the NFL has a legal leg to stand on, but I’m no lawyer I’m just using common sense.

    And since the main argument isn’t an actual rule on the books but simply the 2 teams breaking the “spirit of the cap” then how can you say dragging like an extra $12M from future years into this one isn’t “breaking the spirit of the cap” too? It’s the same thing Dallas and Washington did, just on a smaller scale and in a different year.

  63. tonyromoisterrible says: Mar 28, 2012 6:12 PM

    So it is ok to not spend enough money to set yourself up for more draft room, but it is against the “rules” to pay out bonuses for cap room? makes zero sense. If you are following the “spirit of the salary cap then you don’t follow one of the guidelines and not the other even if it is only in the spirit. I hope the NFL gets blown up altogether. No football since this dolt Roger Gooddell wants to be such a buffoon.

    DOWN WITH THE NFL! HAIL!

  64. tonyromoisterrible says: Mar 28, 2012 6:16 PM

    In a capped year you have to follow the ceiling and the floor? SO why is it ok to only punish teams for spending over? Weren’t teams who didn’t spend the minimum in violation of the “spirit” of the uncapped year? I hope Mara gets hit by a truck tomorrow.

  65. pesh00 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:19 PM

    Wow makes no sense…..Thanks for writing the Boys and Skins case for them. You and Mara should keep talking publicly about this…

  66. jwreck says: Mar 28, 2012 6:21 PM

    nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 5:04 PM

    Glad to see that the league is not relenting at all. Stick to it to those under-performing cheaters. Vote them out of the league and revoke their ownership rights if they try to challenge their punishment. They were all supposed to stick together for the league and these 2 cheaters tried to get ahead and coverup their all of their crappy signings. You reap what you sew. Enjoy. Those bloated FA contracts are going nowhere as they should be. Pay up, no easy way out.

    _____________
    Really? Really? That’s the answer? To kick the two most profitable franchises in the NFL out of the league? For complaining? How about every time someone defends themselves in court, we have the government strip them of their citizenship? That’s a great way to run things.

    I saw you had some posts later that seemed to be logical, rational arguments about the 49ers salary cap. Why would you destroy all your future credibility by entering the discussion with a statement that shows you have a very feeble grasp on the subject matter, and no understanding about how the situation is likely to actually resolve itself.

    In the future, the order of things is 1. read the information, 2. understand the material, 3. think about your reaction and how it gels with the known facts, 4. write things, 5. look at what you wrote, and see if you come off looking like an idiot.

  67. mrpowers88 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:24 PM

    Whats sad is that Goodell is actually the best commissioner in professional sports (The only guy that can make a case otherwise is Bud Selig, which is just sad). The fact that he is dealing with De Smith just shows how much the players are screwed, and want to continually screw themselves by renewing him.

    If the NFLPA had any better of a leader, they’d be right in line fighting this. De Smith is a spineless idiot for agreeing with Goodell about the cap penalties. You decertify so you cant get locked out, but you sit like a good boy when the league threatens to shrink the cap?

    How does anyone who is/used to call themself a labor lawyer not pull out a lawsuit once Goodell admits to collusion?

  68. tonyromoisterrible says: Mar 28, 2012 6:25 PM

    @ajpurp
    The NFL could be run by any person. Gooddell is not some gifted individual who is doing such a great job that no one else could possibly perform his duties. TV contracts and revenue are easily negotiable facets of running the NFL that anyone could very easily negotiate with the leverage that the NFL has as the most popular sport in America. Don’t paint Gooddell as some savant who is the sole person who could perform this job. he is simply not that intelligent and has done more wrong than he has gotten things right on. I say get him out of here as fast as possible.

  69. jackers252 says: Mar 28, 2012 6:52 PM

    NFL = Hypocrites

    Go figure.

  70. stricknineskinz says: Mar 28, 2012 7:16 PM

    I was gonna make an argument against (eroutsider, but then I realised that if anyone is an expert on cheating its a 9ers fan. Their owner Eddie DeBartolo and GM Carmen Policy won Super Bowls by hiding salaries and paying players under the table. Spare me the holier than thou act 9eroutsider. Your team broke actual rules(written ones) and never had their championships vacated…Skins and Cowboys got screwed so the Cap could be higher than it was last year, even if it was only by $600,000. If their cap space hadnt been stolen, the cap wouldve been $113M and y’all probably wouldnt have Moss, Manningham, or Jacobs. And you wouldnt even be able to think about throwing a deal at RFA Mike wallace.

  71. nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 7:20 PM

    @jwreck – Sometimes it is fun to express your opinion while tweaking other fans, life does have its little pleasures; next time I will be sure to consider my “blog credibility” beforehand. Also, my understanding of this issue is far more developed and sophisticated than your understanding of it.

    Consider that business is sometimes nasty and that not everything is as simple as writing down a rule, black and white so to speak. Sometimes, often times, it’s very political. The league and its owners decided to artificially keep the uncapped year capped in anticipation of the upcoming CBA showdown with the players. It was unwritten, but it was understood…they were doing it for the betterment of the league, to force a friendlier CBA for the league. A few teams, perhaps one of your teams, decided they would gamble and use the uncapped year as a way to alleviate cap problems they would have in future years. They bet that the league wouldn’t punish them for violating the unwritten rule lest it want to expose itself to charges of collusion. The league called their bluff and punished them. The league is betting, and more than likely rightfully so, that they won’t push contention of this punishment too far lest they want to kill the golden goose for one egg. If the Redskins and Cowboys aggressively fight this punishment, they risk hurting themselves by potentially causing the league to lose its antitrust exemption. No team wants that for lost cap space. They took a gamble and they lost; they won’t challenge this very aggressively…just enough to make their fans think they did.

    Find me again in a year and let’s review our outcome predictions.

  72. pigskin28 says: Mar 28, 2012 7:54 PM

    There’s a reason it’s called a Cap. So that the rich teams and owners can’t simply outspend the not as rich. All those whining about the spirit of the cap forget why the cap is there. The owners decided a long time ago that this is how they want their business run. The NFLPA in order to gain leverage tried to play this game and drug the issue outpast the old CBA. So why should certain teams take advantage of a loophole created by the NFLPA in an attempt to gain leverage on the League?

    If the League never wanted an uncapped year and the Owners claim they need a cap to remain strong then why are two owners going against that edict?

    The Redskins and cowboys deliberately did exactly what they were fighting against as a League. They weakened the hand of the league and broke solidarity the owners were trying to convey while trying to gain an advantage.
    Which is exactly what the Redskins would have ended up with. selling their draft picks and using money to build their team because of the advantage they gained.

  73. bozosforall says: Mar 28, 2012 8:07 PM

    jwreck says:
    Mar 28, 2012 6:21 PM
    nineroutsider says: Mar 28, 2012 5:04 PM

    Glad to see that the league is not relenting at all. Stick to it to those under-performing cheaters. Vote them out of the league and revoke their ownership rights if they try to challenge their punishment. They were all supposed to stick together for the league and these 2 cheaters tried to get ahead and coverup their all of their crappy signings. You reap what you sew. Enjoy. Those bloated FA contracts are going nowhere as they should be. Pay up, no easy way out.

    _____________
    Really? Really? That’s the answer? To kick the two most profitable franchises in the NFL out of the league? For complaining? How about every time someone defends themselves in court, we have the government strip them of their citizenship? That’s a great way to run things.

    I saw you had some posts later that seemed to be logical, rational arguments about the 49ers salary cap. Why would you destroy all your future credibility by entering the discussion with a statement that shows you have a very feeble grasp on the subject matter, and no understanding about how the situation is likely to actually resolve itself.

    In the future, the order of things is 1. read the information, 2. understand the material, 3. think about your reaction and how it gels with the known facts, 4. write things, 5. look at what you wrote, and see if you come off looking like an idiot
    __
    If you are going to throw any team out, make it the cheating Patriots.

    Thumbs down if you are a crybaby loser Pats fan.

  74. khuxford says: Mar 28, 2012 8:08 PM

    pigskin28: FFS, there’s a reason why it’s called UNCAPPED, too. And owner solidarity? That’s called collusion…which is illegal.

    There was no rule to break, meaning they broke no rules. This is not a matter of opinion.

    The owners trying to agree to adhere to a spending limit that isn’t agreed upon in their CBA? That’s called collusion. This is not a matter for debate.

    How is it that so many of you are blindly siding with the NFL when the facts and the law clearly show they are in the wrong?

  75. hrudey says: Mar 28, 2012 8:31 PM

    First of all, to the people that keep bringing up the Peppers deal, the deal he signed had $11.5M in guaranteed salary in the second year and $9M guaranteed in the third. Austin’s contract went from $17.078M to $8.5+M in the second and $1.15M in the third, and then they redid the deal to spread out the $8.5M once they were able to. Austin had more salary in the first year of his deal than the next three combined, while Peppers had as much in years 2 and 3 combined as he did in the first.

    As far as everyone who is going on about “uncapped” years being carte blanche, it’s not. Why did the Titans have such a hard time with trying to extend CJ2K, in an “uncapped” year? Because although it was an uncapped year (and actually, because it was one), they had to comply with the 30% rule — they couldn’t just spend whatever they wanted. Likewise, relying blindly on definitions is faulty — a contract with a $17M salary in year 1 and a 7 million of salary in year 2 with zero “signing bonus” is accounted as having $10M in signing bonus. Any time the second year base salary is less than half of the first, the difference is counted for cap purposes as signing bonus, even if it’s not technically one – and this is true in both the expired and current CBA.

    Everyone can go around herping ‘collusion’ and derping ‘uncapped’ and herpderp whatever else they like. But the actual truth is in the details and they’re a lot less straightforward than the shallow analysis here indicates.

  76. tezz123 says: Mar 28, 2012 8:45 PM

    Look at it this way if Jones/Snyder didn’t agree to any form of “collusion” why didn’t they just restructure and resign their whole roster? Their teams cap should be close to non-existent if they just dumped every player on the uncapped year. There is no downside to this strategy. Jones and Snyder didn’t do such a thing because they too participated in the gentleman’s agreement, but they obviously thought that the contracts they made weren’t egregious and valid.

    The only argument I see Jones/Snyder have is that the NFL approved the contracts. We shall see if that will work…

    Julius Peppers’ contract has guaranteed money not all tied into the uncapped year like Miles Austin.

    Using the Bucs as an argument point is not going to work since all teams have the ability to save for next season where a salary floor will be implemented.

  77. bleedsoe9mm says: Mar 28, 2012 9:06 PM

    the league gave every team fair warning to to dump cap in 2010 just like the league warned the patriots not to video tape in a memo , the cowboys and redskins got just what they deserved just like the patriots .

  78. ajpurp says: Mar 28, 2012 9:10 PM

    I never said Goodell was a savant or even talented. Nice putting words in my mouth. I’m simply making the point that these “egregious” things he’s doing are not solely on his shoulders. The teams as a whole ultimately make up the NFL and they also have most of the say with major decisions. Also, if the NFL could be run by anyone, how is it that up until the last 15 years it was not even close to what it is today, TV contracts used to be nothing and they would cut off regular season games way back in the day before they were even over (see the game in which a, the jets I believe, were down 20 points, TV shut it off with 4 minutes left and they came back and won), and striking a balance between the owners (who he ultimately works for) and the NFLPA/players interests is not as easy as you would make it out to be. By no means am I saying he is amazing, talented or a “savant” I was simply stating all these poor decisions are not all him and that he has done some good for this league. Contrary to what most people espouse, but as is always the case, people remember the bad more than the good. I don’t think the penalties are right at all, but I also don’t think it’s all Goodell.

  79. rubbernilly says: Mar 28, 2012 9:18 PM

    @nineroutsider says:
    …it doesn’t matter, because in order for boy wonder and Jerrah to win their case, if you will, they will have to prove that the league colluded to keep salaries down. If they do that, they open the league and therefore themselves up to legal action by the Union which in turn could get that CBA modified and/or nullified.

    They aren’t going to strangle the golden goose for one egg!

    Ever hear of a nuclear option? They don’t have to push the button, they just have to make the NFL offices *think* they are going to push the button.

    By the way, you know who has to address this issue is DeMaurice Smith. He was the one who agreed to this penalty (ostensibly to get something the NFLPA wanted, but also demonstrably for his own elect-ability)… but if this was a back-scratching affair (NFL->NFLPA and NFLPA->NFL), then why didn’t Smith argue for the lower spending teams to be penalized? His job is to pursue the interests of the players, and it would have certainly been in the players interests if the Bucs had been spending more money.

    I think he is hoping that no one will call until this whole thing blows over, but I think he has a lot of explaining to do… not just in how it was handled and who was punished, but also just in how the NFLPA could agree to this when it legitimizes the collusion that was going on.

    Sick Costas on him. Or Dan Patrick. Make him squirm and get some answers.

  80. chawk12thman says: Mar 28, 2012 9:30 PM

    This really isn’t a big deal as this is only a Salary Cap adjustment for the two teams and not a penalty. Good Try; worth trying, but didn’t work.

  81. bigbadal21 says: Mar 28, 2012 9:51 PM

    Jwreck, This post is for you since you asked. Washington and Dallas were not punished for spending over the cap in the uncapped year. Washington and Dallas were punished for taking existing contracts and reworking them so the majority of the cap hit would be counted in the uncapped year. What does an uncapped year mean? This is the crucial question. The NFL said that in an uncapped year you could spend as much money or as little money as you saw fit. Many teams spent more than what the cap was the previos year and many teams spent less. What you could not do according to the league is take existing contracts and rework them so that the majority of the money fell into the uncapped year thereby giving you an unfair advantage in future years. The league makes the rules that the teams must abide by. Goodell does not make rules or set policy. He is merely the mouthpiece of the league. It amuses me how uninformed fans,not necessarily you, scream for Goodell to be fired. It does not matter who holds Goodells position the same words would come out of their mouths and the same actions would be taken.

  82. redskinsrt says: Mar 28, 2012 10:34 PM

    So the overspenders or payment accelerators should be punished since they created future cap space. Yet when the underspenders created future cap space THEIR way.. it isn’t an issue because it didn’t gain them advantage of THAT year? Uhhhh… Or at the very least still upset the delicate balance? And 21 mil of it comes from a guy we didn’t even keep? Uhhhh…

  83. blspears says: Mar 28, 2012 10:35 PM

    Hypocrites

  84. redskinsrt says: Mar 28, 2012 10:55 PM

    izzylangfan says: Mar 28, 2012 5:03 PM

    The problem is not that they spent too much but that they rigged their contracts to pull in expenses to the uncapped year when they were really salary expenses of future years. Normally this is fair since ultimately you pay the piper. But pulling in expenses that were really future year expenses into the uncapped year when they do not count against the cap is cheating in spirit. There was no limit on real spending but there was a limit on manipulation.

    ——————–

    Please show the limit of “manipulation” as converting salaries to bonuses is a common practice.

  85. redskinsrt says: Mar 28, 2012 10:57 PM

    gman1956 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:20 PM

    In all of the coverage I have read of this issue, I have not seen an explanation of how the “penalties” were calculated – or a truly reasoned analysis.

    Did the league (and NFLPA) “penalize” these teams for money spent for players to play in the uncapped year? Or were they “penalized” because they spent money in 2010 (such as unusally large salaries payable in 2010 instead of big bonuses) that wouldn’t count against the anticipated future cap to effectively obtain services from players in 2012 & 2013 and beyond? If it was the former the “penalties” make no sense. If it was the latter the “penalties” make sense since, in effect, the Redskins and Cowboys (and some other teams) were trying to buy extra cap space in 2012 & 2013 and beyond by strategically spending money in 2010 – thereby upsetting the competitive balance in the latter, capped years. Under such an analysis, the Bucs spending less in 2012 is of no consequence – it gained them no advantage in the future capped years.

    ————-

    The real question is why did they restrict them by the FULL amount of bonuses given? Is it not unreasonable that even with a cap some of that money would’ve been spent on bonuses.. like it has every other year?

  86. redskinsrt says: Mar 28, 2012 11:01 PM

    eaglebobby says: Mar 28, 2012 5:37 PM

    Again, MOST–IF NOT ALL OF YOU don’t get it. The reason why the Skins and Cowboys were stripped of their cap room was because they dumped their cap hits all into ONE YEAR!!! Instead of spreading it over the life of the entire contracts, like the other 30 teams do, the Cowboys and Skins dumped big heaps of cap hits into one year to give them a competitive advantage over the teams in coming years.

    ————–

    No.. you don’t get it.. neither the previous cba nor the new one prohibited doing such.

  87. skinsgame says: Mar 29, 2012 6:36 AM

    9eroutsider, you made a point about the teams not wanting to kill the “golden goose” for an egg. The problem with that is, the 2 franchises ARE the golden goose. Perhaps 2 or 3 years ago when the league of lesser teams was “warning” them, Snyder & Jobes were saying, “F you! Punish us later and we’ll see how that works out in court”. The league has too many teams. The NFL owners are eschewing their own demise. The REAL reason for the cap sanctions is because the owners colluded to put the players in a pinch for the lockout. THAT’S a competitive imbalance.

  88. jfreeisthebeesknees says: Mar 29, 2012 1:33 PM

    I completely agree with Mr. Goodell. Yeah, call me biased as a Bucs homer but here’s why…

    Josh Alper states: “It’s hard to understand how teams spending less than the cap doesn’t have an adverse effect on competitive balance. If the argument is that spending too much creates an advantage for the teams that did the spending, then it stands to reason that spending less gives the same advantage to all of the teams that spent the amount agreed upon by the league.”

    It specifically states in the new CBA that any unspent cap space may be carried over to the following year. Here is the exact language copied directly from the CBA.

    “A Club may “carry over” Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over.”

    It does not specifically state anything preventing teams from dumping contracts into the un-capped year however Mr. Goodell warned teams on several occasions not to do so. Why should the Bucs be punished for other teams not listening to the commissioner of your own league?

    Front loading the contracts in the un-capped year allows you to sign top free agents in consecutive years. Paying the majority of the contract in the un-capped year allowing the remaining years to be negligible towards the cap. This is also true of restructuring contracts for players on your own team.

    The Bucs signed no one last year (a punter – woohoo). Maybe the Glazers and Dominik felt this years crop of free agents was significantly better than that of last years and decided to wait to spend this year as allowed by the new CBA.

    If the Redskins and Cowboys had heeded Mr. Goodell’s advice all of this would be a moot point.

  89. ratay1 says: Mar 29, 2012 4:22 PM

    what happens if all 32 teams engaged in the activities that the cowboys & redskins did in 2010?

    the answer: ALL the teams would have MORE cap space under the new CBA to spend on FAs.

    if you were the league, why would you want to have less money to spend on players in future years?

    aside from the fact that no one knew what the CBA would look like, it’s reasonable to assume they thought the cap would come back, that there’d be a floor, etc…

    …but basically, if every team entered the 2012 league year with $50 – $75M in cap space, you’d end up in a place where player spending would explode & would likely become a greater % of annual revenues. there would be a disconnect for a few years between actual player spending as a % of total revenue v. the accounting treatment/cap view of player expense as a % of total revenue. eventually it would realign, but for a few years, it could get hairy.

    if you’re an owner looking to put more cash in your pocket, that turn of events is not a good thing.

    ain’t right…probably illegal, but at least you can understand the rationale.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!