NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[MTK]

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

I was thinking about that. I have a couple questions about that.
1. Is that even possible? I've never heard of an owner suing the nfl (then again I've only followed football since 2004).
2. If it were possible, would snyder even do it? My dad was in a similar situation at his lawfirm a couple of years ago when he got screwed out of thousands of dollars. He easily could have won if he took his lawfirm to court, but said it would be ridiculous to sue his partners because he needs to work with them for the next decade or so. Is this a big enough issue for snyder to sue over?
3. If he were to sue, what would he get out of it? Would the Redskins get anything, or just Snyder?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by irish

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

you completely miss the purpose of the uncapped year. the uncapped year was specifically put into the previous CBA because for the sole purpose of putting fear that the NFL would morph into MLB if a new CBA was not reached.

[irish]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

you completely miss the purpose of the uncapped year. the uncapped year was specifically put into the previous CBA because for the sole purpose of putting fear that the NFL would morph into MLB if a new CBA was not reached.

I understand why the uncapped year was in the previous CBA and it worked, they got a new CBA without turning the NFL into MLB.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

It would not hold up well. In the society we live in EVERYTHING needs to be documented. There is no rule that we broke, and no documentation of any warning. In court (if it were brought to court) the only argument that the NFL could have is that it is their league and they can do whatever they want (but I doubt that would hold up).

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

It would not hold up well. In the society we live in EVERYTHING needs to be documented. There is no rule that we broke, and no documentation of any warning. In court (if it were brought to court) the only argument that the NFL could have is that it is their league and they can do whatever they want (but I doubt that would hold up).

You are right it should have been documented but I suspect the owners decided as a group they they could trust each other which in retrospect was a mistake with Snyder in the group. Now that the other owners know DS's word is no good it will be interesting to see how they handle any future agreements either as a group or one on one with DS.

Be honest, if you made a gents agreement with me and we shook on it and gave our word and I f'd you over you'd be as mad as these guys are.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

You are right it should have been documented but I suspect the owners decided as a group they they could trust each other which in retrospect was a mistake with Snyder in the group. Now that the other owners know DS's word is no good it will be interesting to see how they handle any future agreements either as a group or one on one with DS.

Be honest, if you made a gents agreement with me and we shook on it and gave our word and I f'd you over you'd be as mad as these guys are.

Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.

Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.

Who would need to testify? there's no documentation of any agreement, so he doesn't need anyone to testify considering there are no rules he broke. The facts are pretty straight forward. And on a side note; nobody said he made an agreement with anyone; he was told that collusion was happening and decided not to participate. A shady move? maybe, but that's up for debate.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

The more and more I think about this the more irate I get. Take the opposite end of the spectrum with Tampa, they are signing all the big free agents right now because they violated the rules in 2010. They spent as little money as possible, knowing it would get rolled into the next years cap. The new agreement requires teams spend a certain high percentage of the cap. They violated that by not reaching the min requirement. And they are being rewarded for it by having a greater cap this year. How is that any different?

Its not like the Skins went out and signed every free agent to a ton of money, ala the yankess. They simply cut players. They could have easily gone out and had a payroll of 300 million in one year deals to make a title run, and it be allowed, if they wanted too