Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This whole issue aside should we be getting any extra picks for anyone we lost?

I would love some, but I doubt we'll get any. On a slightly related note, I think the NFL will be distributing compensatory picks at this meeting (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). So maybe, you can pretend that the second to last pick in the seventh round that we receive this year is compensation for the league taking away our $36 million...

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Dammit. I mean the fact other teams were rewarded for this BS means we deserve something for our troubles too.

[SBXVII]

This may have been already provided but I love the comments after the article.....

Cowboys and Redskins Knew They Would Be Punished...So Why the Fuss? | Bleacher Report

When did uncapped means spend only as much money as everyone else is spending and don't use any business sense.

You didn't mention 3 things.

First. John Mara is the owner of the Giants, but you forget to mention that he also happens to be the chairman of the Management Council Executive Committee/Labor for the NFL. John became chairman on October 20th 2011. This department was the one that imposed the fines on two NFC East teams.

In 2011 the redskins where 15.7 million under the cap according to thehogs.net. The redskins salary was only 11.7 million more dollars in 2010 then the cowboys, except the redskins where then fined 26 million more then the Cowboys.

Their was never an agreement not to front load salaries. You can't go back and change the rules, and it seems wickedly suspicious that the owner of the Giants got to fine 2 of the teams in his division and no one else in the NFL. The contracts were approved my the NFLs front office during 2010 and they had a chance to say no then.

This is truly one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen written. The author (or NFL) can't point to any rule that was violated, but concludes that the NFL has some authority to mete out punishment anyway?

A simple example will clearly expose the folly of this all: What if you're submitting a permit to your City to perform renovation work and the City states that there'll be "consequences" for performing those renovations, despite the fact that they can't point to any law you're breaking? You then submit the permit anyways, the City approves it, and you perform the work. Later, the City then cites you for the renovations you performed and assesses punishment on grounds that "we gave your fair warning."

Huh? Unless the City or the NFL had some basis to issue the warning in the first place, the fact that they "warned" the Redskins is garbage. Even if they did have the authority to issue the warning, the fact that NFL (or City in the example) APPROVED the contracts / permit gives rise to what lawyers call estoppel and/or waiver.

What's at issue here is something pretty basic: it's called the "rule of law." If you're not violating something when performing a particular act, you can't be prosecuted for the act itself. How this author concludes an differently is absolutely mind-boggling.

And, as for full disclosure, I'm a die-hard Redskins fan. I'm (understandably) pissed to no end, and am frankly disappointed that the Redskins have resorted to some vanilla means (i.e., arbitration) to strike back at the NFL and people like Mara. Perhaps there are some issues with league politics and such, but if I were them, I'd be in federal court, seeking a TRO/preliminary injunction, and suing for a number of things, including antitrust liability. (Also for full disclosure, I'm a labor lawyer that deals a lot with labor-antitrust issues like these, and would love to help out the Redskins if they pursue this course of action.)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This may have been already provided but I love the comments after the article.....

Cowboys and Redskins Knew They Would Be Punished...So Why the Fuss? | Bleacher Report

I like the poll on that page, out of about 900 respondents, it's running 85% against the league. I know it's unscientific, and probably most reading the article are Skins/cowboys fans(my assumption), but still 85%...

[SmootSmack]

Aaron Nagler recently joined BR. How anyone employs him is beyond me. His opinions are so devoid of reason it's sad. He and I have had a few online encounters

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

They hammered Dallas for $10 mill.

Point? We both got hammered because we're both division rivals. I was just focusing on the Redskins.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by mooby

Point? We both got hammered because we're both division rivals. I was just focusing on the Redskins.

You pointed out the $15 mill from one team and $20 mill from another team. All I was pointing out was Dallas only gained $10 mill and that the punishments are not making sense. Kinda what you were saying or so I thought.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

You pointed out the $15 mill from one team and $20 mill from another team. All I was pointing out was Dallas only gained $10 mill and that the punishments are not making sense. Kinda what you were saying or so I thought.

Oh, ok. It's all good then.

[SkinzWin]

Has anyone heard of a timeline of if/when something will come of this issue? Or is it all just hearsay at this point that anything is going to happen?

[DFlo]

If the NFL approved these contract, how can they come back 2 years later and say they were illegal?

[Ruhskins]

There seems to be no timeline...

NFL: No date set for Redskins, Cowboys arbitration hearing - Washington Times

Also, no compensatory picks for us...looks like Mara is at it again (I'm halfway kidding).

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

There seems to be no timeline...

NFL: No date set for Redskins, Cowboys arbitration hearing - Washington Times

Also, no compensatory picks for us...looks like Mara is at it again (I'm halfway kidding).

I thought some compensatory picks were based on pure suckage? And not just the number of FAs that left your team the previous season...

[Swarley]

daniel kaplan ‏
Told NFL owners by hand vote this morning affirmed salary cap sanctions on redskins and cowboys, who were not in room.

and as Rich Campbell correctly points out

Rich Campbell ‏
The owner's have a competitive incentive to approve any cap sanction against the Redskins and Cowboys. Why wouldn't they affirm it?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

daniel kaplan ‏
Told NFL owners by hand vote this morning affirmed salary cap sanctions on redskins and cowboys, who were not in room.

and as Rich Campbell correctly points out

Rich Campbell ‏
The owner's have a competitive incentive to approve any cap sanction against the Redskins and Cowboys. Why wouldn't they affirm it?

Rich Campbell ‏ @Rich_Campbell
Ha. Well put. RT @PSUScott: @Rich_Campbell 30 Wolves and 2 Sheep arguing over whats for dinner

[redskinsman18]

Just because the Cowboys and Redskins start firing bullets at the NFL doesn't neccessarily mean they will win or even get the sactions reduced because the NFL has bigger guns and more ammo.