Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by 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.

I beg to differ on that. Snyder and Jones combined could probably sue the NFL until they were like, "No mas!"

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by 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.

We shall see. This is all a game of cat and mouse. Their betting the two owners will flinch first and buckle because all the other owners agreed with the punishment. So let's let it go to arbitration. Almost every other person can see that the AGREEMENT was technically illegal or against the law. It's just a shame 30 owners. Ant get off their high horse long enough to see or admit they broke the law. They think because they have have an agreement with the NFPLA they are safe. Well wake up owners cause you might get a rude awakening when it's pointed out no matter what the agreement you broke the law and might void the whole new CBA and be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars like another league was forced to do.

[Dirtbag59]

1st amendment Rights
John Mara uses well

I hope the owners
All burn in cap hell.

[SkinItup]

this isn't going to end well for the nfl.

[CRedskinsRule]

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

I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices.

Well, yeah. Okay. I still say "So what"? Anti-competitive practices? Define please - and in your definition you are prohibited from using the words "salary cap" as there was no such thing in existence in 2010 nor was there any guarrantee that it would ever again exist.

blah blah blah ... NFL is simply trying to throw crap against the wall hoping something, anything will stick.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices.

There were two they took issue with: haynesworth and hall. Either one of the transactions was substantial enough to throw off red flags to the NFL. I'm sorry, but if that's the NFL's defense, they are ****ed.

[Player_HTTR]

So two rights do make a wrong???? That would make the opposite true by that reasoning and boy do my parents have some explaining to do now.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices.

...but Julius Pepper's 30+ million salary for 2010 was completely legit?...lol



No.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

...but Julius Pepper's 30+ million salary for 2010 was completely legit?...lol



No.

My understanding is that the figures being put out on Peppers is wrong, and that ultimately, his cap hit was like 20M each year including the uncapped year.


Regardless, the NFL is arguing pattern of behavior, not individual contract status. It's still a bogus claim, but it may be harder to disprove than simply saying well you approved them and that's that.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My understanding is that the figures being put out on Peppers is wrong, and that ultimately, his cap hit was like 20M each year including the uncapped year.


Regardless, the NFL is arguing pattern of behavior, not individual contract status. It's still a bogus claim, but it may be harder to disprove than simply saying well you approved them and that's that.

His cap year was at 19 million the year before with the Panthers, and only because it was a one year "Franchise" deal. Wasn't like it's been 19 mil per year for years. His 30+ million dollar cap figure for 2010 was definitely them dumping it into the uncapped year.

There were many teams that did this. It's hypocrisy to say the least.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

His cap year was at 19 million the year before with the Panthers, and only because it was a one year "Franchise" deal. Wasn't like it's been 19 mil per year for years. His 30+ million dollar cap figure for 2010 was definitely them dumping it into the uncapped year.

There were many teams that did this. It's hypocrisy to say the least.

It is hypocrisy, I agree. But Peppers numbers don't prove it:

Originally Posted by AdamJT13-cowboyszone

It was not. Some reports about Peppers' contract structure were completely wrong.

These were Peppers' cap numbers when he signed --

2010 = $14,783,333
2011 = $12,783,333
2012 = $10,283,333
2013 = $14,283,333
2014 = $15,283,333
2015 = $17,583,335

that guy is their equivalent of our Schneed/CC and is very solid on his numbers.

I am not arguing the cap hit is bogus, anyone with half a wit can figure that out (except G1, who does have half a wit, just chooses not to use it on this issue), simply that Peppers contract numbers from Sporttrac were just wrong.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My understanding is that the figures being put out on Peppers is wrong, and that ultimately, his cap hit was like 20M each year including the uncapped year.


Regardless, the NFL is arguing pattern of behavior, not individual contract status. It's still a bogus claim, but it may be harder to disprove than simply saying well you approved them and that's that.

So in reality it's $40 mill total?

Even if I stayed with your $20 mill thats more then Dallas gained.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, yeah. Okay. I still say "So what"? Anti-competitive practices? Define please - and in your definition you are prohibited from using the words "salary cap" as there was no such thing in existence in 2010 nor was there any guarrantee that it would ever again exist.

blah blah blah ... NFL is simply trying to throw crap against the wall hoping something, anything will stick.

Anti competitve- incurring "those charges" in a current year when"those charges" are not accounted for in order to avoid "those charges" in a future year when they may be applied to "that thing".

Hey I didn't use the words salary cap or cap hit.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Anti competitve- incurring "those charges" in a current year when"those charges" are not accounted for in order to avoid "those charges" in a future year when they may be applied to "that thing".

Hey I didn't use the words salary cap or cap hit.

Understood. And the purpose of sending all contracts to the league for review and or approval?

If the league is not going to review the contracts and only rubber stamp them as OK then someone should be fired at the league office.

1-there is a reason all teams have to send contracts to the league.
2-the league reviewed the contracts and agreed to them and approved them.

If anything it's the league who should be paying a penalty or fine. The person who reviewed them and approved them should be fired and the league itself can give the other teams more CAP space, but taking away from a team who in reality has done nothing wrong, broken no laws, broken no contractual rules is obsurd.

Yet the bigger picture here is not "the Skins and Boys failed to keep to an agreement" as most owners would like you to believe, it's the fact that the agreement was meant to keep costs down so the players wouldn't have an arguement that there was more money out there and they should be privy to it. The agreement itself is a violation of the labor relations laws. This would be like the courts skipping past whether an officer had the right to stop you and the court hearing the evidence of the found marijuana in your car. but in this case the Skins did not break a law and they are getting punished for it.

Ok little kiddies here's the explaination.... see 32 teams were supposed to break the law with an agreement. Then 2 teams decided to do the right thing and not break the law. NOW those two teams are going to be punished for not breaking the law.