NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[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.]

[irish]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.



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.]

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by irish

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

How is that relevant?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by irish

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

Which piece of paper is this? I have heard that the NFLPA agreed to the sanction and the salary cap. I have also heard that, as part of the settlement, the NFLPA agreed to drop its allegations of collusion. Neither of these, however, is determinative of whether collusion existed.

To a certain extent it is ridiculous to assert that what the NFLPA says is in any way relevant to the proof of collusion. They weren't a party to the illegal collusive conspiracy. Rather, as I pointed out before, they were the victim.

It would be for an independent fact finder to determine if the owners' secret agreement to not take full advantage of the uncapped year was an attempt by the owners to circumvent the CBA's intended and negotiated terms. Geee, I wonder if it was ...

Are you really arguing that the agreement didn't exist? Or are you asserting that, while labor negotiations were proceeding, a secret agreement between the owners to limit competition in contravention of an existing collective bargaining agreement term is not "collusion"?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by irish

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

woah, do you have a copy of this? in the new CBA, the NFLPA agreed to drop all pending legal cases, NOT to recant their merits. there's a HUGE difference between the two.