Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

JoeRedskin could go "nuclear" over cap mess.

Yeah, can there be a Fans Union? and can the fans file a law suit against the other 30 teams for collusion? Maybe the only fans who can file are the ones who have paid for their seating vs. someone who purchases tickets here and there.

I seriously would love to see some players start filing their law suits against the 30 clubs who colluded. Basically usurping the NFLPA that they didn't represent them in the Exec Commity. lol.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

OK, that part I wasn't quite sure on. I was assuming the owners had let the CBA expire making 2010 an uncapped year without a CBA, but you're probably right.

Probably saying the same thing but wasn't 2009 the last yr of the CBA (through extentions)? and due to a rule in the last CBA that kept the rules in place for 1 yr after the CBA then tech. clubs and players were to follow the old CBA rules. (I kept thinking it was done but wasn't). 2011 was tech. a yr with out a CBA and because the player and owners could not come to an agreement the owners locked out the players to force an agreement which really didn't work, but in the end an the new CBA was formed.

[Player_HTTR]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yeah, can there be a Fans Union? and can the fans file a law suit against the other 30 teams for collusion? Maybe the only fans who can file are the ones who have paid for their seating vs. someone who purchases tickets here and there.

I seriously would love to see some players start filing their law suits against the 30 clubs who colluded. Basically usurping the NFLPA that they didn't represent them in the Exec Commity. lol.

I thought about this yesterday and gave up. The only people I could see suing are Season Ticket Holders for the devaluing of the their ticket's face value, by the team not being able to field as competitive a team. But I am not familiar with the T&As of being a Season Ticket Holder and had to worry about real life for a bit.

[NC_Skins]

Giantone, your ride is here.




I think JR is driving it.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Probably saying the same thing but wasn't 2009 the last yr of the CBA (through extentions)? and due to a rule in the last CBA that kept the rules in place for 1 yr after the CBA then tech. clubs and players were to follow the old CBA rules. (I kept thinking it was done but wasn't). 2011 was tech. a yr with out a CBA and because the player and owners could not come to an agreement the owners locked out the players to force an agreement which really didn't work, but in the end an the new CBA was formed.

No, the uncapped year was part of the CBA. The last year in all recent CBAs have always been uncapped as an incentive to get a deal done before an uncapped year happened.

Not much of an incentive, since apparently Goodell has the power to implement a de facto cap anyway.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

If it goes to arbitration, I hope the Redskins ask for removal of the balance of the $18 million for next year and a compensatory pick at the end of the 2nd round this year to compensate for our inability to utilize the cap space we were entitled to.

I'd take that.


I still hate that the other teams involved in the collusion still end up with a $1.6 million REWARD for their illegal activity, or at least going along with the league's crimes.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

... I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are because nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

G1, to give JR some credit, as most know on here, he did not sleep at a holiday inn express last night (unless his lady made him) and his theories are based on legal insight, not just a schmuck like me throwing out big words. Maybe you have legal insight through honest education, I dunno, but discounting JR's because you don't like his well thought out/well expressed clarifications makes your argument seem pretty shallow.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

G1, to give JR some credit, as most know on here, he did not sleep at a holiday inn express last night (unless his lady made him) and his theories are based on legal insight, not just a schmuck like me throwing out big words. Maybe you have legal insight through honest education, I dunno, but discounting JR's because you don't like his well thought out/well expressed clarifications makes your argument seem pretty shallow.

Just how painful was it to type those words bro?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Giantone

We actually agree on the NFLPA,now where we disagree is
your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "comittee" overides the action of the 2(or 4)you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them.Look you sayng the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.
This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant.You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

Is this like, Giant...eze?
Time for a move to the drunk thread?.......?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Just how painful was it to type those words bro?

let's just say this weekend was a trip to disneyland in comparison!

[NC_Skins]

Here is the problem with all this. (even though JR is right with the legal part of this)


You now have two owners that are being punished for collusion that happened back 2 years ago. That said, these same owners have been apart of collusion themselves in other dealings in the NFL (and NFLPA/CBA).


It's much like a drug dealer calling the cops on a fellow drug dealer for stealing his stash. As much as you are being wronged, you really can't expose yourself to the illegal acts you are doing as well.

Now granted waivers were signed to "forgive" the previous collusion, but think about any upcoming negotiations.

[mitch e]

What would Al Davis do??? Sue, SUe,SUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Here is the problem with all this. (even though JR is right with the legal part of this)


You now have two owners that are being punished for collusion that happened back 2 years ago. That said, these same owners have been apart of collusion themselves in other dealings in the NFL (and NFLPA/CBA).


It's much like a drug dealer calling the cops on a fellow drug dealer for stealing his stash. As much as you are being wronged, you really can't expose yourself to the illegal acts you are doing as well.

Now granted waivers were signed to "forgive" the previous collusion, but think about any upcoming negotiations.

This is why an arbitration hearing, or simply settling it at the owner's meetings makes the most sense. I would think though that any owner's meeting agreement again would need the NFLPA agreement while an arbitrator could make his/her ruling independently.

[NYCskinfan82]

If we do NOTHING that means they have something on us. Maybe we spoke to St. Lou before time I don't know something like that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If we do NOTHING that means they have something on us. Maybe we spoke to St. Lou before time I don't know something like that.

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.