NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

At the time, I think it was understood by teams that even though there was no cap in 2010, there would be a good chance that teams would not know the full extent of how deals signed in 2010 would be treated by the new CBA; that those effects would need to be collectively bargained.

What is unclear is whether these penalties are a result of something the NFL and NFLPA agreed to in writing, or whether they just agreed to it within the last week. And, per the language of the CBA (which I have not read), maybe they can actually do this at any time. But the role of the NFLPA in this disaster sure makes it look like that these sanctions have been collectively bargained.

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.

I do think the Redskins have a number of viable defenses here, not the least of which is simply pointing out: "who are you guys to do this? Mind your own business!" I just don't see the litigation route as one of those viable options. Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.

Ultimately though, this seems like it will come down to how hard each side is willing to fight for/against the sanctions and what was previously in writing. The Redskins certainly didn't break any rules -- at least not any rules that would void the 2010 contract restructurings -- but they are still responsible for those deals if the NFL is going to decide that all contracts that broke the Rule of 30 (or whatever) in 2010 have to be paid back on the back end.

But like I said, if the NFL is going to fight hard enough, they'll find that as soon as they set an actual standard, there will be members on the NFL side who will be liable for penalty. The unfairness of the decision is the biggest issue that could keep the Redskins fighting a decision that ultimately isn't going to hurt them that much in the long run.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.

Problem with that analogy is that the Tuck Rule was, you know, the rule. What we did was also the rule and they're trying to retroactively punish us for following the rules. Again, the analogy would be punishing the Pats for benifitting from the rule that was in place at the time.

If this goes to court, the NFL would have to get on the stand and admit that they are punishing us for not going along with collusion. I don't know how they think they can get away with that.

I also don't know how they think they can punish us the full amount of the Haynesworth and Hall bonuses, but the Bears are in fact rewarded with extra cap space in spite of the way they did the Peppers contract.

This whole thing is outright lunacy.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

I also don't know how they think they can punish us the full amount of the Haynesworth and Hall bonuses, but the Bears are in fact rewarded with extra cap space in spite of the way they did the Peppers contract.

This whole thing is outright lunacy.

It's been ridiculously inconsistent, which is why I expect that if the Redskins push hard enough, the league will give it up.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's been ridiculously inconsistent, which is why I expect that if the Redskins push hard enough, the league will give it up.

Yeah, my guess would be that we agree to some some minor, token penalty so the league can save face and we can stay on everyone's good side.

But then I can't figure what the league was doing. They basically gave away 160 mil in cap to the union to get this, plus I assume they're going to have to continue to give those teams the 1.6 mil. That's a lot to give up not knowing if this punishment was going to stand. And they must have seen the Redskin reaction and the enforcement problems coming. Or one would think.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by biffle

Problem with that analogy is that the Tuck Rule was, you know, the rule. What we did was also the rule and they're trying to retroactively punish us for following the rules. Again, the analogy would be punishing the Pats for benifitting from the rule that was in place at the time.

If this goes to court, the NFL would have to get on the stand and admit that they are punishing us for not going along with collusion. I don't know how they think they can get away with that.

I also don't know how they think they can punish us the full amount of the Haynesworth and Hall bonuses, but the Bears are in fact rewarded with extra cap space in spite of the way they did the Peppers contract.

This whole thing is outright lunacy.

That's one reason why this will likely never go to court. Another is that owners (excepting Al Davis, once) don't bite the hand that feeds them by suing the NFL.

There are owners meetings at the end of March. Danny and Jerry will moan and perhaps threaten a lawsuit. People will get upset. But then calmer heads will prevail and the penalties will be reduced. At least, IMO, that's how this will shake out.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Lotus

That's one reason why this will likely never go to court. Another is that owners (excepting Al Davis, once) don't bite the hand that feeds them by suing the NFL.

There are owners meetings at the end of March. Danny and Jerry will moan and perhaps threaten a lawsuit. People will get upset. But then calmer heads will prevail and the penalties will be reduced. At least, IMO, that's how this will shake out.

That's entirely useless to use given that free agency starts tomorrow...

[biffle]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

That's entirely useless to use given that free agency starts tomorrow...

I was gonna say that.

And I think they're really testing the "owners don't sue the league" line by selectively punishing teams that followed a rule and effectively kneecapping Snyder's chances to build a team right when he finally had his coach, QB, other pieces and big cap room aligned. I don't see him taking that lying down, and will be mad if he does.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

That's entirely useless to use given that free agency starts tomorrow...

No it is not useless. We can act in free agency as if there will be little to no penalty on the premise that things will change. Besides, we have two years to meet the penalty in the worst case.

If I'm Bruce Allen I'm approaching FA as if nothing has changed.