Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[JoeRedskin]

Playing Devil's Advocate, the best argument I can make for the NFL at this point is this - The contract dumping had one and only one goal in mind - to circumvent a reinstated cap. If no cap were reinstated, the move would have no effect whatsoever b/c the monies would have already been paid out and the effect was purely a bookkeepping measure that mattered only in the determination of a team's cap expense. Thus, the move was aimed at gaining a competitive advantage if a cap was reinstated. Had no cap been reinstated, no penalty would have been forthcoming. B/c a cap was reinstated, and b/c the moves were intended to have an effect on the reinstated cap, it was appropriate to levy the penalties now as opposed to the time the actions were taken.

I still don't think that flies for all the reasons stated previously. Particularly for the reasons set out in FRPLG ealier posts about the intended effects of an uncapped year. Essentially, even if what you say is true NFL- so what? Wasn't that a negotiated risk you chose to accept when you terminated the 2006 CBA (i.e. that some owners might take actions that would have effects well beyond the initial uncapped year)? In effect, the Skins & Cowboys bet that the cap would be reinstated and performed the contract dumping during a period when they were legally allowed to do so. As I said - so what?

As the media has noted, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. DS & JJ may not be angels, but, right now, Mara is sounding like a poor little rich boy who didn't get his way.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Playing Devil's Advocate, the best argument I can make for the NFL at this point is this - The contract dumping had one and only one goal in mind - to circumvent a reinstated cap. If no cap were reinstated, the move would have no effect whatsoever b/c the monies would have already been paid out and the effect was purely a bookkeepping measure that mattered only in the determination of a team's cap expense. Thus, the move was aimed at gaining a competitive advantage if a cap was reinstated. Had no cap been reinstated, no penalty would have been forthcoming. B/c a cap was reinstated, and b/c the moves were intended to have an effect on the reinstated cap, it was appropriate to levy the penalties now as opposed to the time the actions were taken.

I still don't think that flies for all the reasons stated previously. Particularly for the reasons set out in FRPLG ealier posts about the intended effects of an uncapped year. Essentially, even if what you say is true NFL- so what? Wasn't that a negotiated risk you chose to accept when you terminated the 2006 CBA (i.e. that some owners might take actions that would have effects well beyond the initial uncapped year)? In effect, the Skins & Cowboys bet that the cap would be reinstated and performed the contract dumping during a period when they were legally allowed to do so. As I said - so what?

As the media has noted, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. DS & JJ may not be angels, but, right now, Mara is sounding like a poor little rich boy who didn't get his way.

I have been sort of a Goodell apologist but as I stated above I think this really makes him look bad because the one thing a good commissioner is supposed to be able to do is help the owners work TOGETHER from a business standpoint while maintaining a positive competitive environment from a product standpoint. That's hard but he really needed to back the other owners off the ledge on this. It's baffling how these guys are apparently oblivious to the ramifications of these actions. If they forced Goodell to do it then he is weak and if he wholeheartedly agrees with them then he is an idiot.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Playing Devil's Advocate, the best argument I can make for the NFL at this point is this - The contract dumping had one and only one goal in mind - to circumvent a reinstated cap. If no cap were reinstated, the move would have no effect whatsoever b/c the monies would have already been paid out and the effect was purely a bookkeepping measure that mattered only in the determination of a team's cap expense. Thus, the move was aimed at gaining a competitive advantage if a cap was reinstated. Had no cap been reinstated, no penalty would have been forthcoming. B/c a cap was reinstated, and b/c the moves were intended to have an effect on the reinstated cap, it was appropriate to levy the penalties now as opposed to the time the actions were taken.

I still don't think that flies for all the reasons stated previously. Particularly for the reasons set out in FRPLG ealier posts about the intended effects of an uncapped year. Essentially, even if what you say is true NFL- so what? Wasn't that a negotiated risk you chose to accept when you terminated the 2006 CBA (i.e. that some owners might take actions that would have effects well beyond the initial uncapped year)? In effect, the Skins & Cowboys bet that the cap would be reinstated and performed the contract dumping during a period when they were legally allowed to do so. As I said - so what?

As the media has noted, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. DS & JJ may not be angels, but, right now, Mara is sounding like a poor little rich boy who didn't get his way.

At this point I'm probably a couple pages behind but ..... to play off your "devils advocate" then why not just deny the contracts? Why not deny them and tell both teams that until the new CBA was agreed upon then all contracts would essentially continue as they are in place until an agreement is reached. Then new contracts could be signed.

They couldn't. Why? because had the league came out and said "no we are not approving these deals" the NFLPA would have had thier proof that there was collusion. So the league approves the deals to protect their arses, then later gets the NFLPA to agree not to file a law suit against them or they will lose money (bribery, or strong arming), then proceeds to punish whom they wanted to figuring there would be no reprercussions. How they didn't think the two teams would not fight this is beyond me. But their essential goal was accomplished and that was to hinder both teams this year from purchasing up everything.

So, now they should give us our money back (which I'm betting they won't have a problem with since they already hindered us in FA) and should give both teams no less then 1st or 2nd round compensatory picks for their actions. Their failing to notify the owners, their failing to bring it to an owners meeting, their failing to allow the two teams to defend why they did what they did, and for not letting all the other owners hear this info and vote on how the situation should be handled. Part of the biggest issue is there is a conflict of interest with Mara over seeing the whole punishment. He should have stepped aside and let someone else hear it and it should have been sent to the owners meeting to be heard and voted on. Not last minute deals and stealing from two owners who chose not to break the law.