NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[irish]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree. However, that doesn't make the point irrelevant.

When you do the right/legal thing, you should not get punished even if you do it for the wrong reasons. You may not get an "Atta Boy", but you certainly shouldn't be singled out sanction either.

You can't legislate morality, intention or beliefs. You can regulate actions.

Ultimately, as someone said, this is a cat fight amongst a bunch of owners. GGiven that the NFLPA has signed off on the collusive behavior and the private nature of the owner's agreement (i.e. - not an action by the govt.). Not sure what Snyder's legal grounds would be. I wonder if could file a complaint with the NLRB essentially alleging that the owners colluded and should be sanctioned regardless of the players subsequent approval of the collusion. If that were possible, that would really make it a pissing match.

Again, I think the whole D.Smith backroom deals thing CRed described probably has merit along with the whole "F you Danny Boy. Play by our rules or we will get you!" aspect.

All in all, a bunch of very rich guys pissed about how one or two of them don't play nice with the other little rich boys and didn't share his toys after nap time.

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

No idea why the NFLPA would ever sign off on this. It sets a precedent for future years where the owners work against the players in collusion. I guess they are trying to score brownie points/build a good relationship. Politics.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by skinster

No idea why the NFLPA would ever sign off on this. It sets a precedent for future years where the owners work against the players in collusion. I guess they are trying to score brownie points/build a good relationship. Politics.

D Smith's contract is up for renewel, i think this month. Goodell was threatening to reduce the cap amount for the first time ever. If that had happened right before Smith's election.... he would lose.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

Just because the NFL blackmailed the NFLPA into agreeing on the punishment doesn't mean they'll get away with it. Lotus was the first to mention this, but since this is just an owners' pissing match I expect DS and JJ to go into the owners meetings threatening to raise hell until the punishment is reduced. And the other owners definitely have stuff to lose if this goes to the courts so I expect them to comply.

[irish]

Originally Posted by mooby

Just because the NFL blackmailed the NFLPA into agreeing on the punishment doesn't mean they'll get away with it. Lotus was the first to mention this, but since this is just an owners' pissing match I expect DS and JJ to go into the owners meetings threatening to raise hell until the punishment is reduced. And the other owners definitely have stuff to lose if this goes to the courts so I expect them to comply.

What stuff do the other owners have to lose?

[Player_HTTR]

Originally Posted by irish

What stuff do the other owners have to lose?

Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Player_HTTR

Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.

Huh?