Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Daseal;898810]The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.[/quote]

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Daseal;898810]The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.[/quote]

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being able to do that.

Obvioulsly what happened is some teams gassed the car a bit while the Skins floored it. Its like driving on the beltway, everyone is doing 70 and breaking the law but the nit wit who does 90 gets pulled over. All the Skins had to do was go 70 with the rest of traffic but they werent smart enough to do that.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898800]It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.[/quote]

It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now [I]that[/I] was shady.

[quote=irish;898800]He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?[/quote]

How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them [I]for failing to collude with the other owners[/I].

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;898820]It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now [I]that[/I] was shady.



How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them [I]for failing to collude with the other owners[/I].

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.][/quote]

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898823]But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.[/quote]

How is that relevant?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=FRPLG;898826]How is that relevant?[/quote]

Everyone's arguement is that the Skins didnt want to be part of a collusion agreement (which is BS) and according to the NFL and the NFLPA there was no intent to collude.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired [B]new[/B] players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898813]The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.[/quote]

DAN SNYDER's LAWYER: Your honor, the case is quite simple. In violation of the relevant CBA, Mr. Snyder's business partners attempted to create an agreement to limit Mr. Snyder's ability to gain a competitive advantage during the uncapped year. Mr. Snyder refused to cooperate in the secret and illegal agreement. As a result, Mr. Snyder's business partners have now imposed a penalty upon him that restricts his ability to improve his product through the use of the contractually permitted and bargained for free agency process.

At its heart, the "Agreement" was a collusive attempt by Mr. Snyder's partners to lessen the negative consequences of Mr. Snyder and his business partners' decision to terminate the prior CBA. The evidence of the Agreement is contained in the reason given for the recently imposed sanction - Mr. Snyder is being punished for attempting to gain a "competitive advantage" during the uncapped year. The illegality of the Agreement is self evident and, further, the fact that Mr. Snyder's business partners [I]knew[/I] of its illegality is the demonstrated by the fact that they hid the Agreement's existence from the NFLPA during the labor negotiation process.

If permitted to stand, the sanction imposed will restrict Mr. Snyder's ability to improve his product. As a result, Mr. Snyder will suffer lost revenues and, at a minimum, be placed in a position of relative contractual inequality with his business partners.

Simply put, your Honor, if permitted to stand, this sanction allows Mr. Snyder's business partners to benefit from their illegal, secret, collusive agreement by gaining a competitive advantage over Mr. Snyder. Thus, in an attempt to enforce their illegal backroom deal, Mr. Snyder's business partners seek to gain the very advantage that they would deny Mr. Snyder despite the fact that Mr. Snyder violated no rules and, in fact, was acting fully within the letter and spirit of the governing CBA.

Mr. Snyder seeks damages by way of specific performance in the removal of the sanction and the award of additional draft choices to compensate for the lost competitive equality. Further, he seeks a bazillion, gazillion dollars from his business partners just to rub some salt in it.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898823]But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.[/quote]

Which piece of paper is this? I have heard that the NFLPA agreed to the sanction and the salary cap. I have also heard that, as part of the settlement, the NFLPA agreed to drop its allegations of collusion. Neither of these, however, is determinative of whether collusion existed.

To a certain extent it is ridiculous to assert that what the NFLPA says is in any way relevant to the proof of collusion. They weren't a party to the illegal collusive conspiracy. Rather, as I pointed out before, they were the victim.

It would be for an independent fact finder to determine if the owners' secret agreement to not take full advantage of the uncapped year was an attempt by the owners to circumvent the CBA's intended and negotiated terms. Geee, I wonder if it was ...

Are you really arguing that the agreement didn't exist? Or are you asserting that, while labor negotiations were proceeding, a secret agreement between the owners to limit competition in contravention of an existing collective bargaining agreement term is not "collusion"?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;898833]As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired [B]new[/B] players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.[/quote]

I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;898841]DAN SNYDER's LAWYER: Your honor, the case is quite simple. In violation of the relevant CBA, Mr. Snyder's business partners attempted to create an agreement to limit Mr. Snyder's ability to gain a competitive advantage during the uncapped year. Mr. Snyder refused to cooperate in the secret and illegal agreement. As a result, Mr. Snyder's business partners have now imposed a penalty upon him that restricts his ability to improve his product through the use of the contractually permitted and bargained for free agency process.

At its heart, the "Agreement" was a collusive attempt by Mr. Snyder's partners to lessen the negative consequences of Mr. Snyder and his business partners' decision to terminate the prior CBA. The evidence of the Agreement is contained in the reason given for the recently imposed sanction - Mr. Snyder is being punished for attempting to gain a "competitive advantage" during the uncapped year. The illegality of the Agreement is self evident and, further, the fact that Mr. Snyder's business partners [I]knew[/I] of its illegality is the demonstrated by the fact that they hid the Agreement's existence from the NFLPA during the labor negotiation process.

If permitted to stand, the sanction imposed will restrict Mr. Snyder's ability to improve his product. As a result, Mr. Snyder will suffer lost revenues and, at a minimum, be placed in a position of relative contractual inequality with his business partners.

Simply put, your Honor, if permitted to stand, this sanction allows Mr. Snyder's business partners to benefit from their illegal, secret, collusive agreement by gaining a competitive advantage over Mr. Snyder. Thus, in an attempt to enforce their illegal backroom deal, Mr. Snyder's business partners seek to gain the very advantage that they would deny Mr. Snyder despite the fact that Mr. Snyder violated no rules and, in fact, was acting fully within the letter and spirit of the governing CBA.

Mr. Snyder seeks damages by way of specific performance in the removal of the sanction and the award of additional draft choices to compensate for the lost competitive equality. Further, he seeks a bazillion, gazillion dollars from his business partners just to rub some salt in it.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying that a case could be made

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Mattyk;898728]Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.

If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.[/quote]


Don't know, Mark Maske lays out some very interesting stuff in todays Washington Post.


[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-salary-cap-actions-angered-nfl/2012/03/13/gIQA86CaAS_story.html]Redskins salary cap actions angered NFL - The Washington Post[/url]

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898850]I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, [B]the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.[/B][/quote]

So, you and your friends agree to do a job for another group. After the other group leaves, your friends secretly agree to try and cheat on the agreement. Even though you know it's wrong, and may even be illegal, because the "the group reache[d] consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do"? Sorry, illegal agreements cannot be enforced.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;898855]So you are saying that a case could be made[/quote]

Perhaps. ;)

Really, I am sure one could be made and probably a pretty damn good one. I just don't know if it would be for breach of contract, tort or breach of a statutorially imposed duty.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

Bottom line is the first secret agreement was totally illegal, and Snyder is very shady and probably only cares about himself and getting ahead anyway he can.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=irish;898823]But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.[/quote]

woah, do you have a copy of this? in the new CBA, the NFLPA agreed to drop all pending legal cases, NOT to recant their merits. there's a HUGE difference between the two.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

My thinking on this is that there's not going to be a lawsuit. Sure, there was clearly collusion, but Jerry and Danny are up to their asses in that kind of shit with the league. And probably worse--do you really think Jerry and Danny are MORE upstanding than Mara or Rooney or whomever? It would be like the Corleone's going to the cops when Tataglia hit them.

No, it will be done "in house." So, what leverage do Danny and Jerry have here? The answer is monies paid to the league and re-distributed to the "poorer" teams. I don't know how all this works, but my impression is that the league gets a cut of the kitty Dan and Jerry build up with their aggressive marketing, including very local stuff like shirts and whatnot. (Am I wrong about this?) If there is money like this out there, then I'd freeze, oh, 36 million dollars worth of it. Or slow it down. Or **** with it in some way.

Now, I figure that agreement about redistribution IS in writing, so that's an issue. But maybe they can escrow it while the "case" is debated. That alone might squeeze some teams and make Mara sweat.

Here's another idea: London Fletcher, Laron Landry, and any unsigned Cowboy FAs should sue. They are directly harmed here: the team HAD money and wanted to spend it, but collusion kept it from them and their fair-market value. Now, this, of course, goes against the NFLPA union, but at this point, how happy can London be with the union? He was deep in negotiations with his team for his contract, and the union PULLS MONEY RIGHT OFF THE TABLE. And now he's without a contract. Quit the union and sue. BUt I'm not sure he has standing--that may be an issue given the union "signing off" on the "deal."

Finally, and this is going to happen no matter what else does, Danny and Jerry should spend the rest of their working lives taking EVERY opportunity, no matter how small, to **** with Mara and the Giants. Revenge is a dish best served slow. As I said, no way Danny and Jerry are more upstanding than the other owners. I'd be a little worried if I were in the Giants organization. It will come. Believe me.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Evilgrin;898868]Bottom line is the first secret agreement was totally illegal, and[B] Snyder is very shady and probably only cares about himself and getting ahead anyway he can[/B].[/quote]
Based on?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=JWsleep;898881]My thinking on this is that there's not going to be a lawsuit. Sure, there was clearly collusion,.[/quote]

We will deal with your Giant envy later but do you even know what collusion is?From these posts not a whole lot of you do.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

Collision is not the same thing as collusion. Are you sure you know what it is?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Giantone;898917]We will deal with your Giant envy later but do you even know what collusion is?From these posts not a whole lot of you do.[/quote]

I think JoeRedskin laid it out there pretty eloquently.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Giantone;898917]We will deal with your Giant envy later but do you even know what collusion is?From these posts not a whole lot of you do.[/quote]

Lol. My feelings about the Giants in this case are based on Graziano and others reporting about where this stuff is coming from. And I'm sure I'd hate Danny and Jerry too, if I were the owner of a different team. But whatever--the Meadowlands is an awful place and I don't envy anyone who must go there more than once a year.

Anywho, my impression is that the owners of the teams in the NFL (ie management) acted behind the scenes in concert to agree to keep labor costs down. Call that what you will. For what it's worth, I have no doubt that Danny gave his word and agreed at the time. He then reneged on his promise and now, 2 years later and a day before free agency, he's getting his payback from the fellas he crossed. Is that not what happened here?

I'm pissed because I am a skins fan also because of the hypocrisy of the league claiming some nonsense about "competitiveness". We were 5-11 last year and have been to the playoffs only 3 times since Danny bought the team. Yeah, the league is really scared that we're going to become the 27 Yankees. BS. It's about money and the egos of billionaires.

Whatever. To be honest, it's a kind of fun distraction in the offseason, except that it cost us 36 mil in cap space. But the cap has never stopped us before, so I'm not that worried.

(PS I lived in NYC for 20 years. The only time I root for the Vagiants is when they play the cowboys. Then I root for a tie and lots of injuries.)

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[COLOR=White][IMG]http://www.picshag.com/pics/052011/they-dont-think-it-be-like-it-is-but-it-do.jpg[/IMG]...[/COLOR]

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=GreekSkin;898854]and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol[/quote]

I think I understand what your trying to say, but I think you used a bad example. Not that I have a better one.

In your scenario if you were apart of the planning then yes you could be punished also even if you decided to back out at the last minute. But I'll go a step further and say that what your not eluding to and that is that even though you were not there commiting the heist because you knew about it and failed to notify law enforcement then you could be charged with the same crime as the ones who did commit the crime.

Unless I'm wrong and you were eluding to the fact the Skins could get into the same trouble as the other owners in the long run because they knew all the owners were colluding and didn't tell anyone?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;898923]I think JoeRedskin laid it out there pretty eloquently.[/quote]


I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones. Look you can't find one post of mine saying anything bad about Dan Snyder as a villian,I find a whole lot of his business ethics questionable I believe he plays fantasy football with a real team(yeah he is the majority owner) and the same with Jerry Jones....the fact that he hook up with him amazes me. What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured and a majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=GreekSkin;899085]You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?[/quote]

How do you know they did anything at all?

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=JWsleep;898949]Lol. My feelings about the Giants in this case are based on Graziano


(PS I lived in NYC for 20 years. The only time I root for the Vagiants is when they play the cowboys. Then I root for a tie and lots of injuries.)[/quote]


...Check ...and mate!!!

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Giantone;899086]I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones. Look you can't find one post of mine saying anything bad about Dan Snyder as a villian,I find a whole lot of his business ethics questionable I believe he plays fantasy football with a real team(yeah he is the majority owner) and the same with Jerry Jones....the fact that he hook up with him amazes me. What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured and a majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .[/quote]

if you can't see how the owners colluded to keep costs down, then that's probably on you at this point. it's pretty clear.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=GreekSkin;899085]You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?[/quote]


And that's what I assumed you meant, but I was just adding the last part thinking maybe I should not be assuming.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=SBXVII;899095]Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.[/quote]

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/15/cowboys-redskins-exploring-all-options/]Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Mattyk;899153][url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/15/cowboys-redskins-exploring-all-options/]Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]

If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;899165]If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.[/quote]

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

Please tell me they're doing something. This penalty is just so asinine especially considering the teams that spent well below the cap floor as well as the teams like the Bears among others that frontloaded the hell out of contracts.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=mbedner3420;899166]I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.[/quote]

How have we missed out on anything? We've behaved as if the penalty never happened. Please don't cite VJax - there are reasons to think that we weren't interested in him anyway.

Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;899176]Please tell me they're doing something. This penalty is just so asinine especially considering the teams that spent well below the cap floor as well as the teams like the Bears among others that frontloaded the hell out of contracts.[/quote]

I don't think what the Bears did is anywhere near on the same level as what we did (specifically because the Bears signed Peppers in 2010 whereas we restructured contracts of players we signed in previous seasons), but I still don't think what we did justified the actions that resulted in any way. The penalty that we incurred is patently absurd and arbitrarily handed down. Like I said, I don't think it will stand, but the damage is already done.