Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

The facts:

[QUOTE]The warnings

I remember the NFL Management Council starting to advise clubs as far back as 2007 that, in the event of an uncapped year, they could not press “File Delete” in 2010.

These warnings continued with more urgency in 2009, that it would be “taking unfair advantage” of the uncapped year in gaining a competitive edge by Cap-dumping into a year without a Cap.

Let’s look at the arguments from each side.

Warnings

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that there were no written warnings against what they did.
◦The NFL will argue that there were repeated and strident verbal warnings as far back as three years prior to the uncapped year.
Approvals

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the front loaded negotiations and Cap restructures were approved by the NFL -- as all contracts must be -- which represented a tacit approval of their structure.
◦The NFL will argue that it is irrelevant that the contracts were approved. There was no Salary Cap and thus no Salary Cap rules to manage.
Competitive edge

◦The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the league should look into teams like the Buccaneers and Chiefs, teams that underspent in 2010, and their competitive edge gained by under spending.
◦The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.
[/QUOTE]

What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;915694]The Skins DID do something wrong - they apparently ignored the explicit advance warnings of a guy that has the power to punish them at his sole discretion.



A) Please show ONE bit of credible evidence this happened. The league has explicitly said they are punishing the Skins for something else.

B) The NFLPA has agreed to the sanctions - even if the players ever had a legitimate complaint, they have agreed with the action the league is taking afterwards.[/quote]

"Wrong" is also a vague term, and IMO the redskins did nothing "wrong." Just "scummy." . The commish doesn't have the power to punish them, as I pointed out in my last post. The Redskins did pull a douchebag move in doing what they did, but any move made in the nfl cannot be punnished if it is brought to the attention of the nfl, and approved by the nfl. Period.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915719]Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.[/quote]

The players aren't going to cry collusion. The owners would unleash hell on the players. As much as these two organizations are on opposite sides, they are also partners. There just really aren't that many benefits in the long run from the perspective of the NFLPA to try the NFL for collusion.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915704]One could say the same thing in regards to the warning....

The "PUNISHMENT" gives credence to the fact that there was some agreement between the owners to not "over spend". By the way the warning was in regards to teams over spending it was not specific to what the Skins did which was rework contracts pushing Bonus money into one uncapped year.

You and the league can argue there was a warning all you want but the warning was not specific to what the Skins did and they thought they found a loophole. Because the other owners complained Goodell and the Exec Committee had to look into it and decide if the two teams (Skins and Boys) got an unfair advantage out of it. The key though is ....

There was no CAP

There was nothing in writing saying they could do what they did

The warning was not specific... Goodell can't think of everything and every loophole that might come up and in this situation they didn't think of this situation but are trying to pull into and under their ..."warning" that was issued.

However I'll do you one better.... No I don't know what exactly the specific warning was no different then you don't know what exactly the spicific warning was. You can go off what Goodell says he told the league but even he's been vague about the specific wording of his warning because I think he knows it was not exactly what the Skins and Boys did.

But that is for the Arbitrator to decide.[/quote]

There is so much wrong in this post.

1) The league has said exactly what they are punishing the Skins for. It is not spending too much in an uncapped year.

2) It is in writing that the Commissioner has the power to punish teams for any conduct he believes is detrimental to the league. It doesn't matter what it is and it doesn't matter if he gave the Skins the courtesy of a warning beforehand or not. The league has made multiple statements saying the Skins were warned multiple times not to do exactly what they did, and 29 other owners apparently agreed with the Commissioner after the fact.

3) The arbitrator doesn't have authority to say whether the league can punish teams. He has the authority to enforce the CBA.

If you don't get these points, or just want to continue to ignore them, just tell me and I'll quit arguing with you. They are all clearly laid out in the league's statements, the NFL Bylaws, and the CBA.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinster;915722]"Wrong" is also a vague term, and IMO the redskins did nothing "wrong." Just "scummy." . The commish doesn't have the power to punish them, as I pointed out in my last post. The Redskins did pull a douchebag move in doing what they did, but any move made in the nfl cannot be punnished if it is brought to the attention of the nfl, and approved by the nfl. Period.[/quote]

I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915718]The facts:



What the league was afraid of was teams paying a player completely off in the uncapped year and cutting them to get them off their salary and not have to worry about them ever again.... like hitting file delete. The Skins simply reworked already existing contracts. Not exactly the same warning. Although one could argue the outcome was similar and that is why the punishment.[/quote]

I don't think you understand exactly how the salary cap works, what benefit there is to be gained from shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year, and what the league warned the teams not to do.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915719]Also remember that Goodell has admitted there was an agreement between the owners and a warning. If I could find it I'll repost it.[/quote]

But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;915728]I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.[/quote]

No, I read what you wrote. The clauses that your referring to are extremely vague. They can be used to justify literally anything. No arbitrator on this planet will let the nfl have free reign to do whatever it wants. Vague phrases like that have to be interpreted a little deeper. I'm fairly confident it will be concluded that those clauses can only be applied to actions that have recently been brought to the nfl's attention...not actions that were approved by the nfl 2 years ago.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;915730]But that agreement wasn't to limit cash spending in an uncapped year. It was not to unfairly create future cap room by dumping cap hit into the uncapped year.

These are two different things.[/quote]

are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;915728]I suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. They are available on nfl.com, and I believe I gave a link earlier in this thread.

They disagree with you. Period.[/quote]




[URL]http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf[/URL]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinster;915731]No, I read what you wrote. The clauses that your referring to are extremely vague. They can be used to justify literally anything. No arbitrator on this planet will let the nfl have free reign to do whatever it wants. Vague phrases like that have to be interpreted a little deeper. I'm fairly confident it will be concluded that those clauses can only be applied to actions that have recently been brought to the nfl's attention...not actions that were approved by the nfl 2 years ago.[/quote]

So your argument is:

1) The NFL bylaws are illegal, and

2) An arbitrator appointed under the CBA with only the power to enforce the CBA is going to overturn the NFL Bylaws?

That's what you're saying?

No matter how much you wish it didn't mean what it means, and no matter how much power you wish the arbitrator had, doesn't make it true.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinster;915732]are they? think about it. if the owners know that there will be a cap in the future, it is literally impossible for them to sign long term deals without being limited. They can't front load new contracts as that is the same concept as restructuring exiting contracts to dump a cap hit. The only loophole that differentiates limiting from dumping is signing a massive one year deal.[/quote]

The concepts are different because they could have paid a player as much as they wanted in a one-year deal in the uncapped year. There was no restriction on how much they could spend in the uncapped year.

There was a restriction on how cheaply they could get players in future years by overspending in an uncapped year.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;915793]Regardless of any valid points brought up here there is going to be a mediation process that will take place and there is a chance that we will be recouped some cap credit.[/quote]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA]Dumb and Dumber 'There's a Chance' - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[QUOTE]Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to [B]dump salaries[/B].
[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/"]NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk[/URL]

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

If I remember correctly many here were lauding the fact that when the uncapped year came about the Skins should be able to cut/fire Haynesworth and any other big contracts and pay them off and be done with the player and his contract so as not to have to worry about them in the future. We still have Hall on the books and Haynesworth would still be there but he "purchased" his contract back.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/]McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk[/url]

[QUOTE]Included in Daniel Kaplan’s item on the salary cap totals from Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal was an intriguing assertion from Texans owner Bob McNair.

As to the widely-reported notion that the 2012 salary cap was bumped to $120.6 million per team in exchange for the NFLPA’s agreement to permit a total of $46 million to be stripped from the Cowboys and Redskins in 2012 and 2013 cap space, McNair contends there was no “quid pro quo.” Instead, McNair claims that the union was guaranteed to receive $142.4 million per team in salary and benefits, and that the union adjusted 2012 benefits in order to nudge the per-team spending limit to $120.6 million.

If that’s true, then why did the NFLPA agree to the cap penalties? If the union got nothing in return for agreeing to permit $46 million to be taken from teams that tend to spend all of it and redistributed to teams that may not even spend all the space space they already have for 2012, then why did the union agree to it?

Surely, the union got something. Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return.
[/QUOTE]

The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.

[QUOTE]Here’s the latest. As we already know, the agreement regarding the imposition of the penalties was struck between the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and the NFLPA, making it a revision of the CBA without a vote of the league’s owners or union leadership. That deal happened even though Cowboys owner [B]Jerry Jones was and still is a member of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee[/B].

It’s one thing for the so-called CEC to use its delegation of authority to work out side agreements with the union. [B] It’s quite another for the CEC to do so without knowledge of one of the men who has secured membership on the CEC[/B].

[/QUOTE]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you Hoop, everytime I say "the league approved" the contracts you say "the league doesn't approve contacts." Funny that Jerry Jones seems to side with my opinion;

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/jerry-jones-on-cowboys-cap-penalty-nfl-approved-our-contracts/]Jerry Jones on Cowboys’ cap penalty: NFL approved our contracts | ProFootballTalk[/url]

[QUOTE]“I don’t want to make our case here,” Jones added. “But all of our contracts were approved by the league and you can’t approve a contract that is in violation of league rules. You can’t even get it on the books if it isn’t in sync with league rules. So you start there.”
[/QUOTE]

So for someone who is so smart and business savy it's weird that he has no clue about what the NFL does either.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Another good write up;

[url=http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/salary-cap-penalty]salary cap penalty | Tumblr[/url]

[QUOTE]OK. Now the original CBA (Set of agreed rules by which the NFL and NFLPA govern) which was constructed in the 90s was intended to expire in 2010. The makers of this old CBA put in an uncapped 2010 year in place in order to almost scare the two sides into an agreement for a new CBA prior to entering into that unwelcoming uncapped year. But that didn’t happen. Enter 2010. No CBA regulation on spending, teams are allowed to spend as they please. No cap, no floor.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Now here’s what irks me about this whole thing.

1.The teams broke no rules- Imagine driving on the German autobahns and someone warns you that you shouldn’t drive so fast because in two years there is going to be a speed limit and you could get punished for what you did. Rules are time specific and in instances like this retrospective punishment is uncalled for. Evidence that no rule was broken is the fact that the LEAGUE APPROVED ALL THE CONTRACT CHANGES WHEN THEY HAPPENED.

2.It is collusion and conspiracy- The timing stinks of collusion. Why not bring out this issue last year? Well because the NFLPA would have no choice but to call foul at that time because players would realize the proof that there were some “UNWRITTEN rules” the owners colluded by. This would enrage the players because you are penalizing “big spenders” like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and thus taking away money that could be going to the players. Well this begs to ask the question: “Why did the NFLPA agree to these penalties now?” ENTER CONSPIRACY. NFLPA Director DeMaurice Smith’s contract is set to expire this month. Many believe that if he did not continue to elevate the salary cap from years past, his job would be lost. The penalties issued to Dallas and Washington and subsequently redistributed to the other 28 teams puts the cap just above last years. Job secured De! Well done.

3.New Rule inclusion- First off, the New CBA did not even have any punishment for teams that took advantage of the uncapped year. This was a revision to the CBA that was not even taken to vote by the owners but rather changes were made by “side letter agreements.” Something this important should not have been left up to “after the fact” revisions constructed without votes. Additionally, if spending so much more gives you an unfair shot at winning and thus upsetting the “competitive balance” then why doesn’t spending significantly less upset this balance in the opposite direction. The Bucs, Chiefs, and Jags all spent absurdly low amounts of the “floor-less” cap in 2010. People questioned the Malcolm Glazer (Bucs Owner) of using that year to pay off the debts he owed to the Manchester United soccer club he also owned. The New CBA has included a Salary Cap minimum or floor that every team must adhere to. So why weren’t those cheap teams warned of possible penalties for their cheap spending?
[/QUOTE]

A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915849][URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/"]NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk[/URL]

Um, maybe I'm reading this wrong but ... thats not what the Skins did. I take that to mean paying the whole contract off in order to "dump" the salary. No different then at the time prior to the "uncapped" year many thought the teams could cut all those high priced contracts and be done with them in an uncapped year so as not to have them on the books anymore. Personally the rule covers these issues.

I don't see the "reworking" of a contract, and paying the players bonus in one year as "dumping" a players contract/Salary.[/quote]

They "dumped" $21m of Haynesworth signing bonus and $15m of Hall roster bonus into 2010 instead of spreading them over the life of the contract.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915909]As far as the arguement that the NFLPA didn't have to agree to anything because it didn't effect them....

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/]McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties | ProFootballTalk[/url]



The last 2 paragraphs speak volumes.[/quote]

Of course the union got something - DeMaurice Smith got to keep his job. The league twisted the NFLPA's arm and used up goodwill they should be putting to better future use than punishing their own teams.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915926]I really love how the whole conspiracy to punish the two teams was handled in such the super secret way.[/quote]

Agree this was ludicrous.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915930]Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you Hoop, everytime I say "the league approved" the contracts you say "the league doesn't approve contacts." Funny that Jerry Jones seems to side with my opinion;

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/jerry-jones-on-cowboys-cap-penalty-nfl-approved-our-contracts/]Jerry Jones on Cowboys’ cap penalty: NFL approved our contracts | ProFootballTalk[/url]



So for someone who is so smart and business savy it's weird that he has no clue about what the NFL does either.[/quote]

Meh, it's easier to say approve than didn't disapprove. All I know is what the NFL Bylaws say. It's a minor point - and I only made it to explain why the League didn't take action at the time.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;915938]Another good write up;

[url=http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/salary-cap-penalty]salary cap penalty | Tumblr[/url]





A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.[/quote]

Her arguments don't hold up. She is laboring under the assumption that the two teams were punished for spending too much cash in the uncapped year - which is not what the league has said they punished the teams for.

It's also pretty clear she hasn't read the CBA.

FWIW, I believe the 29-2-1 vote at the owners meeting was whether to ratify the side letter modification to the CBA to include the penalties.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

I will be so glad when this mess is over with. I'm tired of the arguing.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

A comment from the "Sports Law Blog"

[QUOTE]Thomas Grove said...
A clause in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws allows the Commissioner to take away draft picks and/or fine a team whenever he deems a competitive aspect of the game has been violated "at any time". Clause in conjunction with that allows Commissioner to refer the matter to the NFL Management Committee to impose any such other recommendations it deems appropriate. A final clause allows the Commissioner to disapprove of contracts within 10 days after such contracts are filed with the Commissioner.

Redskins and Cowboys will argue that by not disapproving the contracts within 10 days means the NFL accepted them, and they cannot now retroactively go back and punish them. NFL will argue that "at any time" language means they can go back and punish. The problem I see with NFL's argument is that the clause that the Commissioner can disapprove of contracts is directly on point in this situation.

Further, why are only the Redskins and Cowboys punished when other teams gained the same competitive advantage by (1) front-loading contracts (Julius Peppers, Kyle Vanden Bosch) and (2) going under the salary floor (8 teams did so in 2010). The teams that went under the floor also had the most cap room in 2012 and were able to sign the best players (Vincent Jackson, Carl Nicks for the Bucs, Mario Williams for the Bills, Laurent Robinson for the Jags). Those teams sacrificed 2010 to save money and rid themselves of bad contracts to gain cap space in future years, like 2012.

The only logical explanation for why the NFL did this is that the Redskins and Cowboys grossly outspent every other team in 2010, and that made certain NFL owners look bad in the CBA negotiations for wanting to lower player salaries.
[/QUOTE]

He makes a arguement.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;915951]Her arguments don't hold up. She is laboring under the assumption that the two teams were punished for spending too much cash in the uncapped year - which is not what the league has said they punished the teams for.

It's also pretty clear she hasn't read the CBA.

FWIW, I believe the 29-2-1 vote at the owners meeting was whether to ratify the side letter modification to the CBA to include the penalties.[/quote]

Although the vote is what it was for mine and several others here I think feel that procedure is or was screwed up and the punishment should have been shelved until after that meeting. I don't have a problem with them deciding to come up with a new policy, I don't have a problem with them taking it to an owners meeting to be voted on and approved, and then the punishment given. My complaint is the order in which they handled their business and the fact the owners would have punished for something that happened prior to the policy, prior to the vote, and prior to approval of said punishment.

That's not how business works, not how the law works. How about now they go back and punish all the teams that engaged in a bounty program since the inception of the league?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinsguy;915953]I will be so glad when this mess is over with. I'm tired of the arguing.[/quote]

I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;916033]I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.[/quote]

i agree.. i keep thinking there's an update, but no... it's just SB and hop again.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=That Guy;916037]i agree.. i keep thinking there's an update, but no... it's just SB and hop again.[/quote]
Same here! I am just waiting for the arbitrator to award us two number ones and a number 2 for all our troubles. Plus give us our cap money back.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider"]The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post[/URL]

Here is the update we are all looking for.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=T.O.Killa;916053][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider"]The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post[/URL]

Here is the update we are all looking for.[/quote]

Maske used a lot of words to basically tell us there's a hearing and no one knows how it will go.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;916033]I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.[/quote]


I 100% am the same way. I'll agree with other we just don't agree. Our society is based off the "rule of law". Either society/gov is making a law or someone gets into trouble and is brought before a judge or arbitrator to have the issue heard and sometimes based off the issue's in the case the law changes, rules get changed, policy gets changed, and proceedure gets changed.

Here's how I'm looking at it; Goodell tells the teams don't over turn the apple cart. If you turn over the apple cart your going to be severely punished. The Skins and Boys go to the apple cart and pull several apples from the cart and half the apples in the cart spill out onto the ground. Now Goodell says look we warned you. Now your getting punished for over turning the apple cart. When in reality the apple cart was not turned over. So then Goodell says "look we warned you about apples spill out onto the ground". But the two teams are argueing that they in fact didn't turn over the apple cart. Was the out come basically the same? yea I guess one can say the two teams gained a competative edge slightly. I say slightly cause most of those teams spend millions anyway so a few more is no big deal. It's not like all the team only spend 1 mill and the Skins went out and captured 36 mill. Most of the bad teams had 30 something mill or close to it that they never spend anyway. Had they spent their CAP space then there would be no worry about competative edge.

I just posted an article in which the person points out how the teams who underspent gave themselves a competative edge for 2012 to pick up high priced free agents. The Bills did it with the DL guy, Tampa did it with the WR, etc. etc.

But this whole case has flaws.

1- there never should have been an agreement with the owners(collusion)

2- you can't punish for an unwritten rule. you can hope everyone stays to the agreement but if they don't tuff luck. there was a reason the uncapped year was in place and all the owners agreed to it back in the 90's which was to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to it becoming an uncapped year. they didn't. both sides wanted the uncapped year. doesn't matter the reason there was no CAP high or low.

3- the league never should have approved the contracts.

4- the league never should have waited 2yrs to punish the teams.

5- the type and amount of punishment should have been taken to an owners meeting first in order for all the owners to vote on and agree on.

6- the punishment should never have be for past (2yrs) issue's, it should only have been used on any team who committed the offense from the time the new rule or punishment or policy was put into place.

So if the Arbitrator doesn't have authority as of right now as some would have you believe then maybe after he see's the information he will make precedence and rule on it anyway and another new rule or policy will be added to what the Arbitrator's job is to do. If not then I hope the two teams file in a court of law, make all the other owners worry about loosing their special media rights and possibly being forced to fall under normal business laws and hopefully prior to court they agree to give back all or the majority of the CAP space as a settlement.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=T.O.Killa;916053][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider"]The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post[/URL]

Here is the update we are all looking for.[/quote]

Thank you , nice updat. But it only hits on what the leagues going to argue. I guess as in any case if there is a request to have the case dropped you have to hear that first prior to hearing any facts about the case. I'd guess the league is going to use up most of the time argueing that it can't be argued. That he has no authority in hearing the case. But one would think if part of the Skins arguement is about proceedure then he should be able to hear it. If its in regards to the reason for the uncapped year and now being punished for not violating the spirit of the uncapped year then he should be able to hear it. Perhaps the fact the league approved the contracts.

The problem is we don't know what the actual arguement the two teams are bringing to the table.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Memory Lane:

During the CBA negotiations and lawsuits, I remember the NFL telling the lower court judge that she didn't have authority to hear the case and how much that ruffled her feathers. At the time, I thought it was quite funny to hear her responses, but ultimately the expedited appellate court found substance in the NFL's claims. We are basically at that same point here. If Burbank says he has authority, then the NFL will appeal it (which is allowed for in the CBA) and the process will continue. Unfortunately, I doubt any resolution to this will be accomplished before the end of this league year, especially since there is no way either side can establish a basis for expedited hearings.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;916033]I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.[/quote]

well said. im very interested in this topic, but everything that could possibly be said about it has been said atleast 10 times. i just want a decision to be reached one way or another so we can move forward.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=T.O.Killa;916053][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider"]The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post[/URL]

Here is the update we are all looking for.[/quote]

Awesome! The penalty that was initiated by the Giants owner against the Redskins and Cowboys will have a hearing to review it in Philadelphia!

Nothing to worry about!

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Monkeydad;916091]Awesome! The penalty that was initiated by the Giants owner against the Redskins and Cowboys will have a hearing to review it in Philadelphia!

Nothing to worry about![/quote]

:eek: lol wtf?? This is worse than King George "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" !!!!!!!!!!