NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

So (and this is a hypothical because I saw this and am not positive if this is why we got to 36 million)... if the reason this is happening is because we paid bonuses to Haynesworth (21 million) and Hall (15 million) in one lump sum?

So they're just assuming they would have gotten bonuses of $0 that year? Like this whole thing is fishy, it stinks, and I just don't like it.

Thats a very good point, if true. Haynesworth would probably have gotten atleast 10 million that year, hall, maybe around 5. I definetely think that, if we're penalized, it should be based on how much the NFL thinks we should have paid out in later years as opposed to just the uncapped year.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thats a very good point, if true. Haynesworth would probably have gotten atleast 10 million that year, hall, maybe around 5. I definetely think that, if we're penalized, it should be based on how much the NFL thinks we should have paid out in later years as opposed to just the uncapped year.

So this is the case on how we got to that... if I'm the Redskins, I'm at least contesting that this should be shaved by a minimum of 10 million dollars. They would have gotten some type of a bonus that year... this is such a joke.



ESPN 980 ‏ @ESPNRadio980

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite
* · Close Open Details

Andrew Brandt NFP it was the contracts of Al & D-Hall that caused NFL 2 punish Skins.Al got $21m, while Hall got $15m in 2010

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

So this is the case on how we got to that... if I'm the Redskins, I'm at least contesting that this should be shaved by a minimum of 10 million dollars. They would have gotten some type of a bonus that year... this is such a joke.



ESPN 980 ‏ @ESPNRadio980

* Reply
* RetweetedRetweet
* Delete
* FavoritedFavorite
* · Close Open Details

Andrew Brandt NFP it was the contracts of Al & D-Hall that caused NFL 2 punish Skins.Al got $21m, while Hall got $15m in 2010

I don't like either guys, one of them was a FA bust. We get penalized for two players, one who is gone, the other looks like he'll be gone. We look poised for a great offseason of getting more FAs. We then find out that we go from having a huge cap to barely any cap at all. This is sign of not going out signing more FA's because in some way were getting screwed. I'm joking, because we have had a few successes from FA, but still why is it we're getting screwed by FA's all the time?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Thats a very good point, if true. Haynesworth would probably have gotten atleast 10 million that year, hall, maybe around 5. I definetely think that, if we're penalized, it should be based on how much the NFL thinks we should have paid out in later years as opposed to just the uncapped year.

Yeah but if we are breaking the rules then Goodell and other teams probably feel that we need to be punished too. Still seems pretty excessive.

That second round pick to the Rams stings even more now. No ability to trade down... well, unless.....

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Yeah but if we are breaking the rules then Goodell and other teams probably feel that we need to be punished too. Still seems pretty excessive.

That second round pick to the Rams stings even more now. No ability to trade down... well, unless.....

If we were breaking the rules, all Goodell had to do is not approve the restructured contracts. Unless restructured contracts don't get approved by the league.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

If we were breaking the rules, all Goodell had to do is not approve the restructured contracts. Unless restructured contracts don't get approved by the league.

There was no "rule". Or at least based on current reporting all it was was an "agreement". And yes the proper and fair solution was to disallow the restructurings. But no they couldn't do that at the time because the "agreement" is blatant collusion. Sorta would have been bad in the middle of a labor negotiation to deny a contract and say it was based on an "agreement" (euphemism for collusion) amongst the owners.