Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[CultBrennan59]

Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube

This is starting to snow ball around the Internet.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube

This is starting to snow ball around the Internet.

You beat me to it. @HTTR24-7 has been blowing his twitter up with this link and convo. My feeling is its too little too late with Judge Doty turning down our appeal twice. But if Goodell is saying that the league and teams agreed to "punish teams" that took advantage of the uncapped year through certain contract avenues that created an advantage for them, that seems like a problem to me. If you are going to say that they it can't be an uncapped year. And regardless if the teams were made aware of this ahead of time, if they league signed off on the contract/renegotiation, how can they go back and penalize the team?

[JoeRedskin]

I'd be interested to know what their legal theory is.

Yes, they would be irreparably harmed. As best as I can tell, it would have to be a breach of contract against the other owners or a tortuous interference with contract.

[InsaneBoost]

Free Agency should get REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL fun.

[FRPLG]

Now Goodell is either flat out lying or the NFLPA's life is going to get real bad. If they in fact agree to keep salaries lower, as RG asserts, then Jesus that is some serious crap. I mean that has to be some kind of legal breach of contract correct? The fact that RG is starting to mount some kid of counter attack makes me think they're starting to realize Danny isn't inclined to just are ths bs. My vote is that RG is a lying sack of crap and that the conspiracy in this case leads me to thinking that the nuclear option doesnt have quite the down side that I had originally thought.

[FRPLG]

Well getting an injunction is quite different than running this thing all the way to a trial.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well getting an injunction is quite different than running this thing all the way to a trial.

Correct. The injuction is just to stop FA. Maybe even to have it put on hold until after a trial if the Redskins are actually filing. But the Skins can file and threaten to go through with a long trial with out an injuction or holding up FA.

The NFL does not want to hold up anything, FA, draft, etc. etc. Although the other owners probably are not scared.... I bet they also dont' want to have the FA period held up either. I'd file the injuction and file the law suit. As it gets closer to FA time I'd play chicken and see if the NFL caves. If they do good for the Skins, if they don't then you still have all the way up until court date of your law suit.... which could be set for June or August, or Sept. and even then you can always post pone the court case a couple of times which would further delay FA.

I'm hoping Snyder has his minions all over these boards listening to his fan base basically wanting him to get some balls against the other owners and pull the pin on the hand grenade and go nuclear.

If he does not think he has enough later to win he can always drop the issue and move on, but the thought of all the other owners pissed that he held up FA makes me happy.

[Evilgrin]

I dunno, Snyder's ego gets in the way of smart decision making.

[JoeRedskin]

I am not an anti-trust lawyer and that is one of those arcane areas that requires expertise in areas I just don't have to evaluate. I would agree, of course, getting a home Court judge is a big thing. Hell, not sure of the make-up of the VA Bench, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that one or two judges appointed by Bruce's brother are still sitting.

[RedskinsInNYC]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am not an anti-trust lawyer and that is one of those arcane areas that requires expertise in areas I just don't have to evaluate. I would agree, of course, getting a home Court judge is a big thing. Hell, not sure of the make-up of the VA Bench, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that one or two judges appointed by Bruce's brother are still sitting.

Redskins outside counsel: Fred "Flagellant" Davis

[Evilgrin]

Does Goodell's response expose them to anything? I would just think in the interest of seeming to be ethical, they wouldn't give that type of response? Irregardless of any threat of legal action.

Anyone ever watch the "don't talk to the police" videos? You'd think that people like Goodell would practice that kind of discretion all the time.

[JoeRedskin]

I am sure the owners don't want that happening either. Further, I am pretty certain I can predict how a jury would rule if any one ever finds a legal issue that actually states a claim upon which a recovery could be based.

That, however, is the crux of it right now - Crafting a legal argument that sets forth the breach of a contract or duty that will withstand a motion to dismiss. If the Skins have one, it is not jumping out at me - they, however, are convinced they do.

[RedskinsInNYC]

Snakes.

Dallas Cowboys won't join prospective Washington Redskins suit -- source - ESPN Dallas

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RedskinsInNYC

Snakes.

Dallas Cowboys won't join prospective Washington Redskins suit -- source - ESPN Dallas

Not surprising. Carrying a $5M penalty just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme. The risk reward ratio isn't there for the Cowboys.

Carrying $18M though is very significant, so clearly we're in a different position, one where at least threatening action makes some sense.

[JoeRedskin]

The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.

You want shorter practices? No 18 game schedules? Okay. We scrap the old anti-trust settlment entirely (i.e. no more Dotty), get Commissioner discipline and a 10 year deal.

All the while, NFL teams were spending less than their mandated floors and colluding not to start bidding wars in the "uncapped" year. AND, their bad faith collusion was so well hidden, that it was never (regardless of the BS Goodell is peddling now) discovered.

I admit I was not a fan of some of the player issues at the time (can't even remember all the issues now), but, damn, the owners played the whole thing to a tee. The only real issue they had a set back on was the treble damages relating to TV money rights - but ... oh wait! ... the NFLPA waived those also in order to get limited two-a-days.

Really, in retrospect, other than easier practices and a slightly more substantial offseason, what did the players gain out of this CBA?