NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I hope you're right but with the antitrust exemption the NFL enjoys a lot of rules go out the window.

Yeah absolutely, but Redskins have logic on their side.

This is unjustifiable.

[Hog1]

Be interesting to see what the Skins official response will be....
A little bit of a downer to be sure on the eve of Free Agency. But as has been stated, I do not believe for a moment that this has taken anybody at Redskin Park by surprise and I fully expect the team to acquire what they need in FA in a plan B mode.
If nothing else, over the years Dan and the team have proven to be salary Cap masters....always doing what the rest of the league said could not get done without ever falling into the always predicted salary cap....Hell.
No doubt contributing to the jealousy we see and the subsequent piling on of the other owners at this time?

[steveo395]

This is such bullshit. We are getting punished for spending money in an uncapped year. We did not break any rules. Everything about how unfair this is has already been said.

Having said that, this will probably end up being a good thing because now we won't be stupid and sign all the big name free agents and get overhyped again. We just need to hit the draft picks we do have and sign a few good free agents who aren't going to want a ton of money.

[12thMan]

My uninformed legal gut tells me the Redskins may be able to tie this up in an appeals court -- at least until after season. I would expect paperwork to filed with the quickness.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

My uninformed legal gut tells me the Redskins may be able to tie this up in an appeals court -- at least until after season. I would expect paperwork to filed with the quickness.

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

That is true. A lawsuit would be unlikely anyway, given that the owners are their own "old boys club," however dysfunctional.

Owners don't sue the NFL unless their name is Al Davis.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.


there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.


there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

the chris paul trade wasn't rejected after he had already been on the team for 2 years. this is penalizing them for something the nfl approved of at the time (the contracts), and the NFL is also being very selective on the teams (2 of MANY) it's choosing to hit... I still find it hard to prove they violated contract terms that didn't actually exist.

maybe we should get 30 teams together to say that the giants no longer exist. I'm sure they wouldn't fight that...

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

This at least seems to be the opening gambit. Either the league has the power to do this or it does not. If it does, then it has to produce the documents and follow the correct procedures. And when that happens, it's going to look pretty bad, or so it seems. So maybe the league backs down. But man, then they look like putzes. Still, they haven't endorsed the numbers or even said the skins are implicated. So maybe they can blame it on a false media leak!

Whatever. This is going to be interesting.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.

The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.

By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.

[CapitalDefense]

Why can't this be discussed on the main board? It is relevant to football talk because our FA season for the next 2 seasons just went out the window.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by CapitalDefense

Why can't this be discussed on the main board? It is relevant to football talk because our FA season for the next 2 seasons just went out the window.

Huh? It's in the salary cap forum and is currently the top thread on the main page. Not sure what you're seeing.

[IrMitchell]

“@ZacBoyer: ESPN's Adam Schefter just said on SportsCenter the #Redskins found out about the salary cap ramifications this afternoon.”

Unbelievable.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

The timing of this HAD to be have been intentional too.

It just wasn't a giant coincidence. I never was a giant fan of Goodell, but he is officially on the shit list for me now.