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

[Giantone]

To clear up some questions...


Revenue Sharing in the NFL


The NFL's revenue-sharing model is universally lauded as the reason pro football continues to thrive in tiny markets like Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly.
Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of "the gate" for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.Other sources of revenue - things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like - are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams' investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional "luxury tax

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Don't mistake the value of the franchise with revenue sharing,a very good portion of the Redskins value is tied up in real estate,same with the Cowboys.

Lets see. If the owners agree that each "profitable" team must put forth a certain % of their profits towards the big kitty, I would presume the Redskins would be pretty close to the top 3 teams making the most and pretty sure if you take a % of that profit it's going to be more then the majority of the other teams % they have to put in.

In other words if the Skins are one of the top 3 teams as far as making the most money and all owners have to put in 10% of their profits, I'm pretty sure the Redskins 10% would be more then the majority of the other teams %'s.

[Meks]

the whole thing is a joke and goodell is a crook.

[Gtothearry]

I'm hoping the Skins take legal action before they're forced to release important players.

@HTTR24_7: #Redskins could be forced to release LB-London Fletcher without salary cap relief from the NFL.

[HailGreen28]

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

We have no new information so there's no telling

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

Chances? My opinion? Zippie.

My reasoning:

Snyder will not follow through and will not file the law suit. I figure he is trying to scare the league which will only piss off the powers that be and they will not back down. I doubt Snyder will want to piss off the other owners.

In other words I don't think DS has the balls to do it.

However, should he supprise me and file the injuction to hold off FA and files a law suit against the other owners.... I think DS has a pretty good chance of just getting a % of the CAP back. I could see the owners saying .."look just give him 8 mill back, call it a day, and lets move on." I think it also depends on if DS really cares if he pisses the rest of the league off or not. Is DS trying to get into a leadership role in the NFL? if so he would kiss that bye bye. If he's just trying to be another owner and doesn't care what the other members think then he should take it to court or atleast file the paperwork and let this play out all the way up until court day then drop the issue if he has to. That alone would hold off FA possibly atleast until the summer months.

I also think if he took it to court he would have a good chance to win. His premis is the same premis the NFL used against the NFLPA. The major reason the NFLPA lost though is because they signed away their rights to suit for collusion. DS is not fighting the collusion battle, he's fighting the fact the punishement came after the new CBA was signed when the NFL should have lost their rights to punish like the NFLPA lost their rights to claim collusion.

All in all, what idiot judge agree's to allow the punishement to remain when the NFL signed off on the contracts? This was not something done behind the NFL's back and they learned about it later and felt they needed to punish the owner, no, this was two contracts reworked, sent to the league for approval, and the NFL signed off on them. The NFL easily could have denied the contracts and told the Skins "no you can't do this."

[SBXVII]

I like this guy, or atleast his way of thinking.

Redskins should employ a full-court press - The Washington Post

Some people tell Post reporters that the Redskins have compelling arguments to convince a judge that they would suffer irreparable harm if they are not granted an injunction. Others say they don’t believe the Redskins have a legal leg to stand on considering their arguments already have been rejected by an arbiter. Apparently the landmark case to-may-to v. to-mah-to will be cited as precedent.

So what does Snyder have to lose? Legal fees and goodwill in the league. What does he have to gain? Millions to spend on free agents and goodwill among Redskins fans. He needs the latter far more than he needs the former. So file already.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I like this guy, or atleast his way of thinking.

Redskins should employ a full-court press - The Washington Post

That guy is a woman

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

That guy is a woman

Are you sure? She looks like that head mask Arnold Schwarzenegger was wearing when going through Mars customers in Total Recall. It could be a dude in a mask.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

That guy is a woman

I believe, in my non-professional opinion, that it was an attempt at satyr. But I digress...

[SBXVII]

Collusion Missile Crisis: Redskins Wage War on NFL « CBS DC

In this article Florio points out that the Redskins arleady filed a suit for collusion and lost. (that suit was basically saying hey they should not punish us, it was not over collusion).

Then he states it opened the door for the NFLPA to file a suit for collusion. (which it did, and he's right that the judge ruled against them because the suit should have been brought before the new CBA was signed).

Then he states the Skins are possibly filing suit for collusion.... no Florio the suit would be in regards to the punishment should have come before the new CBA was signed not after basically being the same as the NFLPA not being able to sue for collusion.

but besides that THE NFL SIGNED OFF ON THOSE CONTRACTS WHEN THEY COULD HAVE DENIED THEM, BUT THEY DIDN'T.... THEY APPROVED THEM. So no punishement should have been given.

[HailGreen28]

Typed up this to a Steeler friend. A summary of some of the stuff here.


Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube (Huly and Pez's vid)

Goodell tells fans that the NFL owners and players union agreed in advance to collusion on salaries in 2010.

“When we went into the uncapped year we told everybody including the union that we were going to make sure that competitive issues were going to be considered when we came out of it. That if people got competitive advantage in some fashion, by doing certain things in an uncapped year, that would be considered with the labor agreement. That's exactly what we did."

"Teams took advantage and dumped contracts into an uncapped year, and got an advantage going forward. That was a competitive advantage. Those are the kinds of things that need to be balanced in and the players association and us agreed to that. That’s what we agreed to and every club was told that in advance and the players association was told that that would be an issue when we negotiated.”

NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington

When asked for a response, NFLPA Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs George Atallah said in an email that he thought that Goodell must have gotten his words mixed up because the union was not told about possible penalties for spending prior to the 2010 uncapped year.

"I'm sure Roger didn't mean to say that we agreed to collusion, because we didn't,” Atallah said via email. “I'm also sure he didn't mean to say that we agreed to penalize teams for their failure to participate in collusion in advance of the uncapped year, because we didn't.”

Redskins still upset about cap penalties, but what can they do? | ProFootballTalk

"As one league source explained it, the Redskins remain extremely upset about the situation, strongly believing they did nothing wrong. In our view, they’re right. Each and every player contract that supposedly violated the “spirit of the salary cap” was approved by the league in 2010 and complied with the rules that were on the books.

Of course, the contracts were approved because failure to do so would have flagged for the NFLPA the fact that collusion was occurring.

That continues to be the bottom line. The teams were colluding in the uncapped year, and the Cowboys and Redskins were punished for refusing to go along with the plan. The league wisely kept the situation under wraps until the ink was dry on the new labor deal, which prevented the players from suing for collusion."

Redskins put contract talks on hold as they work to recoup salary cap space

The league ruled that the Redskins and Cowboys sought to gain an improper competitive advantage by loading extra salary into the uncapped year. The teams denied wrongdoing. Arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled last year that the teams could not bring a case because the league and union agreed to the cap reductions, which amounted to a rightful amendment of the CBA. U.S. District Court Judge David Doty has ruled twice that the union waived its right to bring a collusion complaint against the league and teams.

But......

Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case

The person with knowledge of the salary cap case said the Redskins could argue that if the union had waived its right to bring a complaint based on conduct that occurred before pro football’s 2011 labor agreement, the league and union also should be prohibited from taking action against a team for conduct prior to the labor deal.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gb...g/original.png

Other teams "took advantage" of the uncapped year. What's the difference? Mainly dollar amounts. In an uncapped year where dollar amounts don't apply.

[SBXVII]

Good job Hail.

I like how it is addressing all the issues. I still think the team should file and should wait until FA eve to screw over the other owners like they did the Skins last year. I think they have a good arguement. But I would throw in that teams just can't make their own contracts, all contracts are either approved or denied by the NFL who is responsible for looking the contracts over and making sure they fall with in rules and regulations. In this case the NFL did look over the contracts and approved them when they had an opportunity to deny them. On top of that any punishment should have come prior to the new CBA since the contracts were made and approved during the old CBA. The contracts were not constructed and turned in under the new CBA.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Bruce Allen just finishing putting the nail on the coffin to the cap situation in the presser today. He basically said "we got screwed and so we're not able to do sh!t in free agency" so we should not expect any top or 2nd tier players.