NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[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.

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

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.

It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.

He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?

In addition, not all agreements and contracts have to be in writing to be valid. If all parties agree to whatever has been decided and there is whats called a meeting of the minds then its a vaild contract.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by irish

It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.

It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now that was shady.

Originally Posted by irish

He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?

How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them for failing to collude with the other owners.

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]