NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[MTK]

I can see both sides, the Skins technically didn't violate any rules, but they did go overboard in dumping $$ into the uncapped year and basically gave the rest of the league the finger on what was supposed to be an unwritten understanding.

Still, not sure I agree with the severity of the punishment though. All around a lose/lose for the league if you ask me. I'm normally not the type to rag on Goodell, but I think he made a bad call here.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I can see both sides, the Skins technically didn't violate any rules, but they did go overboard in dumping $$ into the uncapped year and basically gave the rest of the league the finger on what was supposed to be an unwritten understanding.

Still, not sure I agree with the severity of the punishment though. All around a lose/lose for the league if you ask me. I'm normally not the type to rag on Goodell, but I think he made a bad call here.

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

If the league once competitive balance, they should stop teams from dealing picks to the f'ing Patriots. Every year teams seem to give away picks to them.

Also, I would expect Goodell to veto any attempts by the Bears to sign Mario Williams.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

Agreed.

Seinfeld - Jackie Chiles - YouTube

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

This is what it comes down to. There are too many owners who buy into this "We're all in this together! All the rich teams should keep propping the poor teams up up even when they have a crappy market and don't engage in business practices to maximize profit."

I can't believe that there aren't more than a few other owners or the higher revenue teams that see this as a direct shot across their own bow. Owners fights are brewing. I've got news for Ralph Wilson and his crew...you're going to lose.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

If it had been me my thought process would have been that the entire point of the uncapped year was to create an environment that owners and maybe even the players wouldn't want. One where teams were allowed to spend as little or as much as they could. The owners little behind doors agreement wasn't legal and was contradictory to the spirit of the clause in the CBA. The Redskins had every right on earth to do exactly what they did. Teams with better cash flow were supposed to be able to do this whether all the jealous and, cheap and/or poor owners liked it. If they didn't want such a situation they shouldn't have voted to terminate the CBA.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

This is easy. Imagine you have an HOA in your neighborhood. The main road that goes through the neighborhood has a speed limit of 45MPH. The HOA holds an all hands meeting and they make an agreement all residents go 35MPH. Bill says "Screw that" and drives 45MPH. Then he gets mailed a ticket.

He didn't break ANY rules. When he goes to court, that ticket will be tossed out in a second. Is he an asshole? Maybe. But he's doing everything by the book, and when it comes down to it, the HOA/NFL cannot LEGALLY do what they did.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

This is easy. Imagine you have an HOA in your neighborhood. The main road that goes through the neighborhood has a speed limit of 45MPH. The HOA holds an all hands meeting and they make an agreement all residents go 35MPH. Bill says "Screw that" and drives 45MPH. Then he gets mailed a ticket.

He didn't break ANY rules. When he goes to court, that ticket will be tossed out in a second. Is he an asshole? Maybe. But he's doing everything by the book, and when it comes down to it, the HOA/NFL cannot LEGALLY do what they did.

Would you ever trust or do business with a guy like Bill who makes an agreement with you then essentially says fu? I wouldnt.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by irish

Would you ever trust or do business with a guy like Bill who makes an agreement with you then essentially says fu? I wouldnt.

If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.

Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.

Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

28 other owners understood what "dont go overboard" meant. Obviously DS made the mistake of not having the boundries of "dont go overboard" defined. DS didnt see this loophole but I suspect he will learn from his mistake and fix it next time.