Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=Skinzman;995534]You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.[/quote]

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=RedskinsInNYC;995542]I would think he brings federal antitrust claims along with state law tortious interference claims. If I were him/on his legal team, I would want to bring the case in a DMV area court (preferably VA). Never underestimate the impact a fan on the bench can have on a case; see Judge Berrigan (EDLA) in the Vilma v. Goodell litigation...[/quote]

Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SBXVII;995543]Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly.[/quote]

In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=Skinzman;995568]The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.[/quote]

Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;995579]If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.[/quote]

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=FRPLG;995582]In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.[/quote]

Already been addressed. Thank You for the help.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;995579]If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.[/quote]

Folks, the collusion ship has sailed, and the NFLPA "waived" it good-bye.

@FRLPG as to the waiver being a termination offense - Waivers like the one in this settlement are pretty standard in any settlement. Had their been no omnibus waiver, there would not have been a settlement. I would never let a client settle a suit without a general waiver. If the other side wants to change that, it would have to be a very specific, very limited exception and you would need to give up a lot to get it as a settlement term. Think about it - would you settle a huge lawsuit against you, with terms you didn't like but accepted so the suit would be over, if the someone could reopen the whole can of worms, again, six months after the ink was dry? I don't fault the waiver. I fault the pre-settlement investigation.

If I'm a player, my reaction is - "What the hell? Why didn't this come out? Somebody was not asking the right questions. Was this something we knew about? What did we get for waiving this?"

The owners played their cards very well. They knew exactly when to hold'em and when to fold'em.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=FRPLG;995586]Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.[/quote]

They did have a choice. They could have taken the lower cap.

Or better yet, they could have actually saved up some money so they didnt have to take a horrible deal just to get a paycheck to keep their houses from being foreclosed on because 100k gaudy looking diamond encrusted necklaces are the norm instead of a savings account.

Everyone associated with the NFLPA, from the lawyers to the negotiators to the players themselves knew the cap was going to go down if they accepted a deal that had the players taking a lower percentage of the revenues than they received in the previous CBA. Not only did they take a decrease, they took a huge decrease.

If the union was any good, they would make the players start a fund for these exact things. Maybe 5% of their salaries go in there and it gets saved for paychecks when there are negotiations on a new CBA. If you cannot threaten the owners with lost games (meaning lost revenue), you cant get the owners to offer a fair contract.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=FRPLG;995581]Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.[/quote]

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Would it hurt the Skins? sure in the long run with possibly the NFL losing their exemptions but how much and what exactly would change about how they are doing business is the question. I presume it would only stick another entity in the middle of any and all negotiations in the future. Something every business owner has to worry about now, no reason the NFL should be exempt.

I think the big issue is simply holding up FA. Lets say the Skins file their injuction and its granted FA is held up until the CAP and 18 mill is resolved and if that 18 mill is tied into a law suit which most likely won't be heard until June, July, Aug. or later, then there is the issue of sides post poning court dates for whatever reason..... FA could be tied up into the start of next season which the owners don't want, and players will want to be on a team getting paid learning their offensive or defensive schemes. Players will just be sitting out there without jobs waiting for this to be resolved.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.

You want shorter practices? No 18 game schedules? Okay. We scrap the old anti-trust settlment entirely (i.e. no more Dotty), get Commissioner discipline and a 10 year deal.

All the while, NFL teams were spending less than their mandated floors and colluding not to start bidding wars in the "uncapped" year. AND, their bad faith collusion was so well hidden, that it was never (regardless of the BS Goodell is peddling now) discovered.

I admit I was not a fan of some of the player issues at the time (can't even remember all the issues now), but, damn, the owners played the whole thing to a tee. The only real issue they had a set back on was the treble damages relating to TV money rights - but ... oh wait! ... the NFLPA waived those also in order to get limited two-a-days.

Really, in retrospect, other than easier practices and a slightly more substantial offseason, what did the players gain out of this CBA?

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=FRPLG;995587]It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.[/quote]

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion). then there is the fact:

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SBXVII;995598]But.... [B]if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved.[/B] The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.[/quote]

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

and... to finish my point..... the NFL almost has a duty to deny a contract that is not with in its guidlines. So had there been an agreement (unofficially) between the owners the NFL still had a duty to deny the contracts based off of the unofficial agreement. Instead they approved them which would indicate the contracts were ok and legal. If anyone should be punished it's whoever agreed to let the Skins make those deals.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;995603]Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).[/quote]

I'm not 100% sure the Labor Department would disolve the whole CBA, what I am saying though is I could see the Labor Department saying clearly you (the NFL) engaged in unfair labor practices and from now on you'll lose your exemptions. If I remember correctly the government allowed the NFL to keep their exemptions.... the government does not have to allow them to though. So going nuclear could open a whole can of worms the owners don't want opened.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;995599]The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.
[/quote]

Thats what I've been saying, and DeMaurice Smith trashed Gene Upshaw. The first CBA he negotiates is terrible.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

I looked up the NFL's "Anti-Trust Exemptions" and basically there was the time when both leagues (NFC/AFC) were joining together to become one league and the Feds "gave" the league the exemptions in order to be able to come together as one league. If the feds took away the "exemptions" then basically the two leagues would be broken up again into to seperate entities. How that would affect the CBA, contracts, CAP, and future deals would be interesting.

Another time was when the NFL got sued by CBS for the NFL trying to sell package deals to the network instead of allowing each individual market to negotiate their own deals.

Then there was some hat company that had several teams contracted and the NFL decided to package a deal with Reebok so the small company sued the NFL for damages and the NFL won based on again the same reason that allowed them to package a deal to the networks.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

[url=http://sportsfans.org/2012/03/why-is-the-national-football-league-given-tax-exempt-status/]Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status? | Sports Fans Coalition[/url]

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SBXVII;995602]depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.[/quote]

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).


[quote=SBXVII;995602]More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion).[/quote]

Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it [I]when it was in force[/I].

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.

[quote=SBXVII;995602]4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.[/quote]

The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - [I]unless the NFL brings it up[/I] (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SBXVII;995613]Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

[url=http://sportsfans.org/2012/03/why-is-the-national-football-league-given-tax-exempt-status/]Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status?*|*Sports Fans Coalition[/url][/quote]

That is shocking.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

Sure, the Federal government could take away the various anti-trust and tax exemptions. However, both are legislative actions that would require an act of Congress to change. I suggest, despite the groundswell in the Washington area and in the media, this is not likely to occur. Lots of sound and fury, but if I'm advising the other owners its "lay low, say nice things, soft peddle the collusion as sharp negotiating tactics to preserve the intergrity of the game, etc.", nothing will come of this.

There may be an existing law that allows the Feds to punish parties who conduct bad faith negotiations in labor disputes. I said this in one of my early posts in the original thread - the NFLPA's suit exposed the conflict between to competing philosophical legal concepts: (1) A settlement is a settlement is a settlement; v. (2) Parties should not benefit from bad faith. B/c so much of labor negotiations requires good faith and b/c bad faith can be disguised and only exposed well after settlements have been reached, I would not be surprised if a Federal anti-trust statute existed to punish such behavior independent of any settlement agreements. Again, it may exist - it may not. If it does, I would not be surprised. I am just unaware of it.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;995614]He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).




Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it [I]when it was in force[/I].

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.



The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

[B]The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - [I]unless the NFL brings it up[/I] (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance[/B].[/quote]

It didn't take us long to come up with that. ;) more then likely they already have.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;995599]The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.

You want shorter practices? No 18 game schedules? Okay. We scrap the old anti-trust settlment entirely (i.e. no more Dotty), get Commissioner discipline and a 10 year deal.

All the while, NFL teams were spending less than their mandated floors and colluding not to start bidding wars in the "uncapped" year. AND, their bad faith collusion was so well hidden, that it was never (regardless of the BS Goodell is peddling now) discovered.

I admit I was not a fan of some of the player issues at the time (can't even remember all the issues now), but, damn, the owners played the whole thing to a tee. The only real issue they had a set back on was the treble damages relating to TV money rights - but ... oh wait! ... the NFLPA waived those also in order to get limited two-a-days.

Really, in retrospect, other than easier practices and a slightly more substantial offseason, what did the players gain out of this CBA?[/quote]

Nothing...nothing at all. It was a decisive win for the owners at the time and like you said the smart people in the room (the owners) knew just how big a win it was. But lots of football players had car payments to make on their Bentley's so there you go.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

Well one thing they did gain was lifetime healthcare through the NFL, Ross Tucker has said often that that was an important get from the negotiations.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/02/26/mixed-views-on-strength-of-redskins-legal-position-in-salary-cap-case/]Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case[/url]

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;995634][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/02/26/mixed-views-on-strength-of-redskins-legal-position-in-salary-cap-case/]Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case[/url][/quote]

Well that's a step up from the purely negative views from a few weeks ago...

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

Wow. Things are starting to get fishy. And very interesting. Shocker, someone in a high end organization is lying.
[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/football-washington-redskins/talk/nflpa-we-did-not-agree-collusion-advance]NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington[/url]

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

It's looks bad when you cover yourself with lies.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;995634][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/02/26/mixed-views-on-strength-of-redskins-legal-position-in-salary-cap-case/]Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case[/url][/quote]

What I think is interesting is that those saying the Skins will lose are basically saying they will lose b/c everyone has lost on the previous claims/lawsuits. They don't really cite any legal basis for the loss. On the other hand, those saying they may have an argument cite to a specific legal theory for how they may recover.

The stuff that has gone before really is tangential to the current potential claim. One involved the claims for redress by an entirely different party - the NFLPA. The other involved, essentially, a procedural administrative claim by the Skins that the NFL had not followed its own internal rules when levying the penalties. Neither dealt with the substantive claim for unfair dealing that Snyder is now contemplating against his business partners. ([I]i.e.[/I] - you filled out the proper forms to levy the fines, but the underlying basis for the fines is invalid).

Also, the article says that the League and NFLPA must agree to restore the cap space. While that may be true, the Skins could seek and the judge could order equitable relief of another kind (extra draft picks for example) or levy such a monstrous fine on the NFL that would vanish if the cap space were restored. Alternatively, the Skins could seek assistance/testimony from the NFLPA saying, "yup, we agree to the restoration of the cap space if you order it judge." There's lots of creative ways to redress the wrong.

The more I think about it. The more I think that Snyder has a legit claim. It would air a LOT of dirty laundry and he may or may not succeed, but I am betting there is something actionable.

Even if he couldn't get an injuction, all it would have to do is survive a motion to dismiss and Mara, Goodell and others would be subject to depositions. Given the timing, those would likely be happening right around the opening of the new season.

I bet if they can put together a Complaint that appears to have some legal weight to it and shows they are willing to go the distance, owners will accomodate them. None of them will want to be deposed about their discussions and agreements during the lockout.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

Joe - I really appreciate your insight and expertise in the letter of the law in this thread and others.

I find this all very disgusting, and unfortunately keeping this 18mil penalty is really going to hurt us this year. Last year we got by, but this may really crush our roster and chance to repeat as Champs.

I have looked around and I am a pretty avid listener to national sports talk radio and I have yet to hear anyone who agrees with the way that the league has handled this situation or the penalties levied against either team.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;995643]Wow. Things are starting to get fishy. And very interesting. Shocker, someone in a high end organization is lying.
[URL="http://www.csnwashington.com/football-washington-redskins/talk/nflpa-we-did-not-agree-collusion-advance"]NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington[/URL][/quote]

Ha ha, yeah Goodell, thats why the NFLPA filed a law suit against the NFL cause they agreed to collude with the owners and allow the NFL to punish anyone who failed to go along with the program. lol.

Goodell you kill me. It would have been funnier had it been said on April 1st.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

this cap penalty does hurt for this year, but we are not the worst off team when it comes to being over the cap. it might affect how many people we sign in FA this year and may be stuck with some of the same average players on our roster. but if we can restructure some contracts we will be fine, we get Orakpo and Carricker back on D, and if RG3 is healthy i wouldnt count us out of anything.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=SBXVII;995480]The way I look at it Goodell and Mara started the BS, and decided to try and play tough. Through all of this the Redskins have tried to play nice, filed a grievance, waited while the NFLPA file their complaint, waited while the NFLPA appealed the case, and no give on the NFL's side.

It's definitely time to go nuclear, file whatever they need to file to screw over Free Agency, then file whatever they need to file that keeps it out of the NFL's friendly court system and puts in possibly in the bulls eye of the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice. Maybe then if all the owners have to worry about their sacred business being watched by big government maybe then they will cave and give the penalty back in order to keep their business out of big governments reach.[/quote]Yeah, kudos to the Skins for taking the High Road up to this point.

Really wish someone could have followed up Huly's question with something Goodell glossed over: "Mr. Goodell, in 2010, when the Redskins and Cowboys submitted the contracts in question for NFL front office approval: Why did the NFL management approve those contracts at that time?"

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=HailGreen28;995666]Yeah, kudos to the Skins for taking the High Road up to this point.

Really wish someone could have followed up Huly's question with something Goodell glossed over: "Mr. Goodell, in 2010, when the Redskins and Cowboys submitted the contracts in question for NFL front office approval: Why did the NFL management approve those contracts at that time?"[/quote]

and this is the question I'd love for Goodell or Mara to answer. In a public setting. I mean everyone already knows the answer. What I hate is the NFL playing the "30" owners were duped by two and those two should be punished. No Goodell, two owners restructured contracts knowing the leauge would be forced to go along with them or get into trouble. Someone at the NFL agreed to the contracts when they had every opportunity to deny them but didn't. Why? and because of your mistake you wanted to punish the two teams? That screams of unfair business between owners.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;995651]The more I think about it. The more I think that Snyder has a legit claim. It would air a LOT of dirty laundry and he may or may not succeed, but I am betting there is something actionable.
[/quote]

Great analysis Joe.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ebBg9OZ.jpg[/img]

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;995700]i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

[B]Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.[/B]

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.[/quote]

Given recent events, I was wondering about that. Yes, that is illegal to do, NFL or not.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=artmonkforhallofamein07;995704]That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101[/quote]

Apparently the government doesn't care when your business is for entertainment and brings in billions of dollars in revenue streams for cities all around the U.S.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;995700]i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. [B]This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.[/B]

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.[/quote]

To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.

Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away
 

[quote=Skinzman;995708]To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.[/quote]

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.