NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

ChucK † ‏ @Chuck_Wade Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
LMAO RT @AdamSchefter: Calvin Watkins reporting that CB Terrence Newman to visit The Redskins

Where's that Darth Vader noooooo video when you need it?

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by mooby

Where's that Darth Vader noooooo video when you need it?

Instant No Button! Star Wars funnies FTW!

[Mechanix544]

No to Terrance Newman. This would be such a horrid signing.

[Jamaican'Skin]

Lombardi reporting that we still want Royal too

[skinsfaninok]

Newman is old but a solid 3 I guess

[SBXVII]

So I wonder what the outcome was or will be in regards to the Skins conversation with the League....

League, Redskins talked about salary cap controversy on Tuesday | ProFootballTalk

As the Redskins were rounding up a bunch of receivers on Tuesday (they landed Pierre Garçon and Josh Morgan, and they’re working on Eddie Royal), the team also was trying to plead its case with the league office regarding Monday’s decision to strip $36 million in cap space from the team for treating the “uncapped year” of 2010 too literally.

Per a league source, the Redskins engaged in a conference call with the league office regarding the situation.

And the conversation, we’re told, included the league conceding to G.M. Bruce Allen that the Redskins violated no rules and did nothing wrong. The league explained that the Redskins’ actions (and the Cowboys’) “affected competitive balance.”

As we’ve previously mentioned, both in print and during Tuesday’s PFT Live, what about the teams that opted to underspend in the year with no salary cap or salary floor? Those teams also necessarily affected competitive balance by choosing to be uncompetitive.

The bottom line is that every team could have done what the Cowboys and Redskins did. The notion that not every team had the cash flow to do it, which was advanced on Tuesday’s NFL Live by former Colts Vice Chairman Bill Polian, is more than a little misleading. The Cowboys, for example, opted to give receiver Miles Austin $17 million in 2010. The Cowboys characterized it as base salary and not as a signing bonus to limit the impact in future years under the cap. That’s not an issue of cash flow. And any team giving a player a signing bonus in 2010 could have used this tactic instead.

Besides, without a salary cap, teams with greater cash flow have the right to try to disrupt competitive balance by spending more money, even if it usually doesn’t work. (Indeed, the Cowboys and Redskins failed to get to the postseason in 2010 or 2011.) A cap is put in place to prevent the spend-to-win arms race, and the cap was removed in 2010 to give the owners an incentive to replace the CBA before risking that teams would try to buy a championship in the uncapped year.

What many in the media are missing is that this entire controversy proves the league engaged in collusion in 2010, and that the Redskins and Cowboys are suffering the consequences now for refusing two years ago to participate in a violation of the labor laws.

I love the last paragraph. So the League of owners agreed to collude which is against National Labor Laws and two owners refused to break the law and now they are getting punished for not breaking the law.

This has got to get the ACLU or other Unions or whoever over sees National Labor Laws attention. Maybe one phone call or a couple of phone calls and guarenteed the League folds on this issue for fear they will be investigated in regards to collusion.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

So I wonder what the outcome was or will be in regards to the Skins conversation with the League....

League, Redskins talked about salary cap controversy on Tuesday | ProFootballTalk



I love the last paragraph. So the League of owners agreed to collude which is against National Labor Laws and two owners refused to break the law and now they are getting punished for not breaking the law.

This has got to get the ACLU or other Unions or whoever over sees National Labor Laws attention. Maybe one phone call or a couple of phone calls and guarenteed the League folds on this issue for fear they will be investigated in regards to collusion.

Nice info but nothing is said of the outcome...if the league admitted that the Redskins and Cowgirls committed no violation, does it mean we get to keep our 36 mil?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Nice info but nothing is said of the outcome...if the league admitted that the Redskins and Cowgirls committed no violation, does it mean we get to keep our 36 mil?

I doubt it but I was wondering the same thing. Is this maybe how we are able to spend so much right now? Maybe Goodell said he'd give the team its money back and let the Skins voice their complaint to the Execs next month or to the rest of the owners next month and push the punishment to next yr and beyond.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

obviously it was the skins who leaked this to the media. I imagine if there was a favorable outcome, they would have leaked that as well. Given there's no mention of any reversals, and the only thing leaked was that the NFL admitted the skins did nothing wrong, i would imagine we're still being assessed the 36MM.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

obviously it was the skins who leaked this to the media. I imagine if there was a favorable outcome, they would have leaked that as well. Given there's no mention of any reversals, and the only thing leaked was that the NFL admitted the skins did nothing wrong, i would imagine we're still being assessed the 36MM.

I'm still baffled as to how they can say there was no rule or law broken, but we want to punish you because other owners who spend their money elsewhere instead of on their teams didn't get a chance to do what you did. So we are going to give your gained CAP money to some less fortunate team. "F" them. If their city does not want to support them in purchasing tickets then move the F-ing team to a more lucrative city who does want a team. I'll admit I was mad when the Colts just up and moved. I felt sorry for the Browns when the team left for Baltimore. But no different then any other business if it's not making money you either move or fold. Their already getting a portion of our gross income % wise to help them monitarily do exactly what the Skins did and they chose not to do it. now they want more? WTF.

[Monkeydad]

Any updates on this? CSN Washington was still reporting the cap loss last evening.

It seems like we're ignoring it but since we didn't even make an offer to Jackson or any CBs, I'm not sure if it's affecting our moves or not. I love the WR pickups we've made though.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Any updates on this? CSN Washington was still reporting the cap loss last evening.

It seems like we're ignoring it but since we didn't even make an offer to Jackson or any CBs, I'm not sure if it's affecting our moves or not. I love the WR pickups we've made though.

Since this is essentially a cat fight among owners, my guess is that we won't have any real updates on the issue until after the owners' meeting at the end of the month.

[CultBrennan59]

I read that PFT article about us having no violations but we were at an 'uncompetitive advantage'. That tells me that what we did was legal but frowned upon. So they didn't say (or at least from what we've heard from the skins perspective) we have a violation or salary cap reduction so I would keep spending. Also how can the bucs afford these guys? How are they not at an 'uncompetitive advantage'?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I read that PFT article about us having no violations but we were at an 'uncompetitive advantage'. That tells me that what we did was legal but frowned upon. So they didn't say (or at least from what we've heard from the skins perspective) we have a violation or salary cap reduction so I would keep spending. Also how can the bucs afford these guys? How are they not at an 'uncompetitive advantage'?

They can afford players because they like a lot of teams never spend up to the salary ceiling. In fact I believe they were one of several teams that similarly affected competitive balance in 2010 by NOT spending to the previous spending floor.

[irish]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I read that PFT article about us having no violations but we were at an 'uncompetitive advantage'. That tells me that what we did was legal but frowned upon. So they didn't say (or at least from what we've heard from the skins perspective) we have a violation or salary cap reduction so I would keep spending. Also how can the bucs afford these guys? How are they not at an 'uncompetitive advantage'?

It sounds like from Maske's article in today's Wash Post that there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement not to go overboard with player spending in the uncapped year and the Skins & Cowboys, and to a lesser extent Oak & NO, ignored the agreement. It seems like the Skins really went over the top. I'm not at all surprised those who feel they got F'd over would be upset. Who wouldnt be upset to have someone screw you after you made an agreement? It also sounds like the owners wanted the Skins to lose draft picks but the NFL said no. All in all, it could have been a lot worse.

It seems the NFL feels that the Skins didnt get an advantage in the uncapped year but put themself in a position to gain an advantage when the cap resumed.