Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[mooby]

Maybe this should go in the Grind Your Gears thread, but can we come up with something more clever than Modgate and Dirtgate? I'm not saying I'm the man for the job, but I think collectively we can do better.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by mooby

maybe this should go in the grind your gears thread, but can we come up with something more clever than modgate and dirtgate? I'm not saying i'm the man for the job, but i think collectively we can do better.

Plagiarismgate!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Plagiarismgate!

Youhavenoproofgate?

[Ruhskins]

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.

But that vote doesn't really mean much, right? Won't it be up to the arbitrator?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.

I wonder who that team was. Maybe it's the Raiders, just to be defiant. No shocker there though, seeing as how every team except the Saints and Raiders gains something as a result of the penalty.

[CRedskinsRule]

Squawkgate - mods applying parrots haphazardly
Rewalsrgtae - rndaom misspellngi of fruom wrdws
RGIIIgate - other teams investigating Griffin's SB win with the Skins
ReplyGate -- did I really need to hit the Post Reply button???

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Squawkgate - mods applying parrots haphazardly
Rewalsrgtae - rndaom misspellngi of fruom wrdws
RGIIIgate - other teams investigating Griffin's SB win with the Skins
ReplyGate -- did I really need to hit the Post Reply button???

Alternative name: Firstdowngate.

[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.

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Gotcha. If those are the actual numbers then I take back what I said in regards to the Bears.

Why? if you look at each year individually the Bears helped themselves to more CAP space then the Cowboys did each year. $12mill one year $14 mill another. They paid him off so his CAP hit wouldn't be there in the future or as big each year. Again Dallas had less of a gain for their one year yet they got hammered.

They may have only had millions in the teens each yr but overall from 2010 on they gained that CAP space each yr by paying him a bigger bonus.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

It's going to be interesting to see what they do if the special master rules in our favor. $36 million in cap space next year does us no good this year. I'd love for the ruling to include a pick this year to account for our inability to approach free agency at full capacity but I know that's not gonna happen.

Maybe already mentioned.... the league only took 18mill for right now. I think we spent the other 18 mill this year. So we either will have to find away to give it back next year by reworking contracts or hopefully we get the remaining 18 mill.

[GMScud]

Buncha horsesh*t.

Owners vote to impose cap penalties on Cowboys, Redskins | ProFootballTalk

[KI Skins Fan]

I have a couple of questions for those of you who keep track of and understand the workings of the NFL salary cap.

I have read specualtion that the Skins haven't been able to re-sign London Fletcher because they lack the cap space to do so. Is that true?

If the Skins lose in arbitration or if the arbitration drags out would the Skins be put in a position to cut players or could they realistically make cap space for Fletcher and other players by restructuring contracts?

Would it be necessary for the Skins to trade or cut D. Hall, whose contract counts by far the most against the cap, in order to sign Fletcher?

Any knowledgable answers would be appreciated.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Buncha horsesh*t.

Owners vote to impose cap penalties on Cowboys, Redskins | ProFootballTalk

silly vote.

All those who want to give your team a 1.6m cap bump say AYE
All those who want to lose 1.6m in cap room say NAY.
Those who have to lose cap room to pay for it... oops you can't vote.

The AYEs have it.