FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Thu 12.18.2014, 13:21

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 16:36 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Tue 06.12.2007, 20:49
Posts: 8420
Sand$: 38489
Donate
jamcutpost wrote:
Id agree it couldve been handled better, but probably best to wait for the why first for two reasons.

Itd be difficult for the penalty to look like a penalty if the owners had voted to have another uncapped year, or if there was still a lockout, or if theyd agreed to increase it by $25mill this year. All of which would be unknown at this point last year and only finalised today..

Other thing is that this EXACT time last year there was alot of other things going on that had just happened (Lockout started yesterday, 2011).

Im no apologist though as its a question that really begs to be answered & if they duck im fairly confident JJ will get some sort of answer in court for us :)


I agree the league had its hands full last year, but they could have addressed it after the CBA agreement last year, or even during the off-season in Feb. The league delayed announcing the 2012 cap due to this issue. But letting teams know of the ramifications one day before start of FA is not the best timing. :F Even if the team offices were aware of the issue, the average sports fan is not going to be happy knowing one day before start of FA that his/her team is short 36M of cap space over the next 2 years.

BTW, not trying to make this an argument especially with you, but just trying to figure out the logic behind the NFL decision.


Last edited by R2000 on Mon 03.12.2012, 16:38, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 16:38 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 30659
Sand$: 48174
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
R2000 wrote:
But letting teams know of the ramifications one day before start of FA is not the best timing. :F Even if the team offices were aware of the issue, the average sports fan is not going to be happy knowing one day before start of FA that his/her team is short 36M of cap space over the next 2 years.


Agree with this.

Just a reminder, we still haven't heard officially from the NFL yet on the specifics of the infractions. Just a lot of guessing so far.

_________________
Outkicking the Coverage- Week 16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 16:48 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Tue 06.12.2007, 20:49
Posts: 8420
Sand$: 38489
Donate
endzoneview wrote:
R2000 wrote:
But letting teams know of the ramifications one day before start of FA is not the best timing. :F Even if the team offices were aware of the issue, the average sports fan is not going to be happy knowing one day before start of FA that his/her team is short 36M of cap space over the next 2 years.


Agree with this.

Just a reminder, we still haven't heard officially from the NFL yet on the specifics of the infractions. Just a lot of guessing so far.


Agree with this. Not much guessing BTW, since we have received bits and pieces of the news (all except NFL reasoning for the decisions taken).

But, what are we supposed to do while waiting for the formal NFL news release? I'm tired of checking up on the Manning/Griffin threads, and know it's way too early to start on the
"Luck @ Indy vs Griffin @ Was" debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 16:50 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09.13.2007, 14:42
Posts: 3117
Sand$: 10612
Donate
Location: Boston
phi.gif
The fact that it's a cap hit instead of docking draft picks is interesting to me.

Teams have been making moves based on a specific cap number, tough to readjust right before FA to a new cap number, even if they do get to decide how it's split up.

Docking a draft pick gives the teams a little more time to plan ahead.

Of course, since we're talking about the Skins, maybe the reason it was a cap hit is they were worried there wouldn't be any picks left to dock.

_________________
ImageSig by NikeJohn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 17:58 
Offline
Blue Shark

Joined: Tue 03.17.2009, 15:00
Posts: 448
Sand$: 914
Donate
no.gif
I guess I don`t understand what an uncapped year is. :-k


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 18:00 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon

Joined: Tue 08.18.2009, 16:31
Posts: 10849
Sand$: 16121
Donate
Before we start lynching Goodell or make effigies of him:

Albert Breer wrote:
Quote:
"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years," the NFL said in a statement.

"To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."


The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.


NFL Management Council Executive Committee (2010 when it happened): Richardson (Panthers), Bowlen (Broncos), Jones (Cowboys), Kraft (Patriots), Clark Hunt (Chiefs), Mike Brown (Bengals), Bill Ford Jr. (Lions), John Mara (Giants), Art Rooney II (Steelers), Mark Murphy (Packers), Michael Bidwell (Cardinals)

NFL Competition Commitee: Rich McKay (Chair, Falcons), John Mara (Giants), Ozzie Newsome (Ravens), Stephen Jones (Cowboys), Rick Smith (Texans), Marvin Lewis (Bengals), Mark Murphy (Packers), Ken Whisenhunt (Cardinals)

Theres been a few changes and a few seats swapped over in both commitees between 2010 and 2011 - but sounds like its the owners and the NFLPA (or whatever they want to call it) that have decided this

_________________
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
G.Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 18:16 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 30659
Sand$: 48174
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
Full article here:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... line_stack
Quote:

Prior to the uncapped year, the competition committee warned teams that punishment would be levied for taking advantage of the circumstances. The Redskins and Cowboys were the most egregious offenders, as they dumped huge base salaries to players such as DeAngelo Hall, Albert Haynesworth and Miles Austin into the 2010 season in order to get the big numbers in those deals off the books while there was no cap.

The Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints took advantage on a more marginal level, in terms of front-loading contracts.

The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.

_________________
Outkicking the Coverage- Week 16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 18:18 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 30659
Sand$: 48174
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
And Florio's take from PFT in regards to the NFL approving the contracts in the first place

Quote:
Finally, as to the notion that the NFL approved the various contracts that took excessive advantage of the uncapped year in 2010, it’s critical to consider the broader context. The union already was prepared to pounce on any possible evidence of collusion. If the NFL had decided to reject contracts because teams were taking advantage of rules that the teams had every right to take advantage of, the NFLPA would have sued — and the case would have been bolstered by the fact that, on at least six occasions, the NFL had told the teams not to treat the uncapped year as a salary dump. So the NFL approved the contracts and delayed punishment until a point where the league had leverage to persuade the union to agree to an effort to take action after the fact against teams that refused to collude.

_________________
Outkicking the Coverage- Week 16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 18:41 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Tue 10.19.2004, 19:33
Posts: 24302
Sand$: 79241
Donate
Location: New York City
This is ridiculous. These teams are getting punished for following the cap rules of 2010 and retroactively being punished for doing nothing wrong.

I hope Roger Goodell dies a painful agonizing death. Seriously. I hate him and hope he dies.

The Redskins and Cowboys did NOTHING WRONG. 2010 was an uncapped year. So the teams set it up so they spent money as if it was an uncapped year - which is perfectly logical. Now the NFL is aiming to punish them for not colluding with the rest to keep salaries down. COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 18:59 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 30659
Sand$: 48174
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
Boogs34 wrote:
This is ridiculous. These teams are getting punished for following the cap rules of 2010 and retroactively being punished for doing nothing wrong.



Umm, guess you didn't read anything above :-k

_________________
Outkicking the Coverage- Week 16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 19:44 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon

Joined: Tue 08.18.2009, 16:31
Posts: 10849
Sand$: 16121
Donate
jamcutpost wrote:
Before we start lynching Goodell or make effigies of him:

Albert Breer wrote:
Quote:
"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years," the NFL said in a statement.

"To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."


The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.


NFL Management Council Executive Committee (2010 when it happened): Richardson (Panthers), Bowlen (Broncos), Jones (Cowboys), Kraft (Patriots), Clark Hunt (Chiefs), Mike Brown (Bengals), Bill Ford Jr. (Lions), John Mara (Giants), Art Rooney II (Steelers), Mark Murphy (Packers), Michael Bidwell (Cardinals)

NFL Competition Commitee: Rich McKay (Chair, Falcons), John Mara (Giants), Ozzie Newsome (Ravens), Stephen Jones (Cowboys), Rick Smith (Texans), Marvin Lewis (Bengals), Mark Murphy (Packers), Ken Whisenhunt (Cardinals)

Theres been a few changes and a few seats swapped over in both commitees between 2010 and 2011 - but sounds like its the owners and the NFLPA (or whatever they want to call it) that have decided this

endzoneview wrote:
Full article here:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... line_stack
Quote:

Prior to the uncapped year, the competition committee warned teams that punishment would be levied for taking advantage of the circumstances. The Redskins and Cowboys were the most egregious offenders, as they dumped huge base salaries to players such as DeAngelo Hall, Albert Haynesworth and Miles Austin into the 2010 season in order to get the big numbers in those deals off the books while there was no cap.

The Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints took advantage on a more marginal level, in terms of front-loading contracts.

The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.


Thanks - in actually looking up what the heck the Management Executive Commitee Council (& the Competition Committee) was and - more importantly - who was on it, forgot to link the article!

_________________
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
G.Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 19:46 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Tue 06.12.2007, 20:49
Posts: 8420
Sand$: 38489
Donate
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... sanctions/

Seems like the league office did what they had to do at the time, in order to keep the owners together and avoid charges of collusion. However, now that they reached an agreement with the NFLPA and had a chance to arm-twist the NFLPA into agreeing to mete out cap punishments for the erring teams, they utilized the opportunity.

The NFLPA did not have a choice: lower cap numbers for all vs higher cap + re-distributing cap fines to other teams. And Maurcie Smith up for re-election. No brainer. Classic carrot and stick approach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 19:50 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Tue 06.12.2007, 20:49
Posts: 8420
Sand$: 38489
Donate
And so it begins:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... p-in-2010/

Quote:
Before the uncapped year of 2010, the NFL told the teams “at least six times” not to dump salaries into the uncapped year. But any agreement among the teams aimed at limiting spending in the uncapped year constitutes clear and obvious collusion.

The league approved the contracts when submitted because the union would have cried foul if the NFL had tried to apply limits to the uncapped year that didn’t exist in the CBA. All along, the league planned to serve up a cold plate of salary-cap revenge against the Cowboys and Redskins at a later date, at a time when the union would be inclined to agree to an after-the-fact effort to punish anyone who opted not to limit the players’ supply of cash in the months before the lockout.

In hindsight, the league’s effort to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints) proves that the NFL indeed had a plan in place to keep spending low, either by not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets or by hiding behind internal budgets to justify a failure to aggressively spend in unrestricted free agency.

The union has opted not to pick at old scars, in large part because the league’s willingness to bump up the 2012 salary cap from $116 million to $120.6 million likely averted a mutiny against NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, whose contract expires this month.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 19:58 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon

Joined: Tue 08.18.2009, 16:31
Posts: 10849
Sand$: 16121
Donate
R2000 wrote:
And so it begins:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... p-in-2010/

Quote:
Before the uncapped year of 2010, the NFL told the teams “at least six times” not to dump salaries into the uncapped year. But any agreement among the teams aimed at limiting spending in the uncapped year constitutes clear and obvious collusion.

The league approved the contracts when submitted because the union would have cried foul if the NFL had tried to apply limits to the uncapped year that didn’t exist in the CBA. All along, the league planned to serve up a cold plate of salary-cap revenge against the Cowboys and Redskins at a later date, at a time when the union would be inclined to agree to an after-the-fact effort to punish anyone who opted not to limit the players’ supply of cash in the months before the lockout.

In hindsight, the league’s effort to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints) proves that the NFL indeed had a plan in place to keep spending low, either by not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets or by hiding behind internal budgets to justify a failure to aggressively spend in unrestricted free agency.

The union has opted not to pick at old scars, in large part because the league’s willingness to bump up the 2012 salary cap from $116 million to $120.6 million likely averted a mutiny against NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, whose contract expires this month.



Gotta love office politics #-o Love to have been a fly-on-the wall in either of those commitee meetings as Stephen Jones is on both of 'em, so like i said earlier no way they didnt know something was coming.

I think the DAL one was a bit harsh truth be told as they do have something of a track record in front loading deals.

That washington one tho :eusa_naughty: That was so brazen as to be unbelievable. Guess Synder needed to be told 7 times?

So Fat Albert has cost the skins what? About $50million so far? :F

_________________
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
G.Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 03.12.2012, 20:04 
Online
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 39994
Sand$: 38818
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Boogs34 wrote:
This is ridiculous. These teams are getting punished for following the cap rules of 2010 and retroactively being punished for doing nothing wrong.

I hope Roger Goodell dies a painful agonizing death. Seriously. I hate him and hope he dies.

The Redskins and Cowboys did NOTHING WRONG. 2010 was an uncapped year. So the teams set it up so they spent money as if it was an uncapped year - which is perfectly logical. Now the NFL is aiming to punish them for not colluding with the rest to keep salaries down. COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.


Yep, Danny should be allowed to do anything he wants, regardless of beinqbr warned many, many times. I hope he never sells the team and takes over GM duties and starts calling plays too.

May Jerruh and Danny own for a hundred years.

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ATL Souljah Boy, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], NautArch, pwbowen, spc and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group