NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Haynesworth stay here was punishment enough for the bonus we paid him.

The Vinny Cerrato era was a worst punishment.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Haynesworth stay here was punishment enough for the bonus we paid him.

I'm mainly upset at the NFL in this situation because there is no legal reason why the Redskins should be penalized, but I'm also mad at the redskins for such poor management considering they knew it was a possibility that we would be penalized later. Knowing Haynesworth was such a risk, it seems ridiculous to have two risks in him being a poor player, and getting screwed by the NFL by giving him his 21 million roster bonus. I wouldn't be as upset in this situation if we had 21 mil more in cap space over the next two years. 7 mil less a year is a far cry from 18 mil less. 11 mil more a year than we have gets us two quality players without having to restructure. I hate restructuring, it always seems to make us hold on to players longer than we want to which seems to have a ripple effect on our team for many years. Especially when our team will rely on Free agency so heavily with our draft picks gone

[mooby]

Originally Posted by irish

What stuff do the other owners have to lose?

I'm not a legal expert but I would think just because the owners colluded and then blackmailed the union into agreeing on it doesn't mean they would get off scot free in the eyes of a court.

[MTK]

Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.

If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.

If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.

Don't know, Mark Maske lays out some very interesting stuff in todays Washington Post.


Redskins salary cap actions angered NFL - The Washington Post

[Daseal]

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by irish

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.

DAN SNYDER's LAWYER: Your honor, the case is quite simple. In violation of the relevant CBA, Mr. Snyder's business partners attempted to create an agreement to limit Mr. Snyder's ability to gain a competitive advantage during the uncapped year. Mr. Snyder refused to cooperate in the secret and illegal agreement. As a result, Mr. Snyder's business partners have now imposed a penalty upon him that restricts his ability to improve his product through the use of the contractually permitted and bargained for free agency process.

At its heart, the "Agreement" was a collusive attempt by Mr. Snyder's partners to lessen the negative consequences of Mr. Snyder and his business partners' decision to terminate the prior CBA. The evidence of the Agreement is contained in the reason given for the recently imposed sanction - Mr. Snyder is being punished for attempting to gain a "competitive advantage" during the uncapped year. The illegality of the Agreement is self evident and, further, the fact that Mr. Snyder's business partners knew of its illegality is the demonstrated by the fact that they hid the Agreement's existence from the NFLPA during the labor negotiation process.

If permitted to stand, the sanction imposed will restrict Mr. Snyder's ability to improve his product. As a result, Mr. Snyder will suffer lost revenues and, at a minimum, be placed in a position of relative contractual inequality with his business partners.

Simply put, your Honor, if permitted to stand, this sanction allows Mr. Snyder's business partners to benefit from their illegal, secret, collusive agreement by gaining a competitive advantage over Mr. Snyder. Thus, in an attempt to enforce their illegal backroom deal, Mr. Snyder's business partners seek to gain the very advantage that they would deny Mr. Snyder despite the fact that Mr. Snyder violated no rules and, in fact, was acting fully within the letter and spirit of the governing CBA.

Mr. Snyder seeks damages by way of specific performance in the removal of the sanction and the award of additional draft choices to compensate for the lost competitive equality. Further, he seeks a bazillion, gazillion dollars from his business partners just to rub some salt in it.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being able to do that.

Obvioulsly what happened is some teams gassed the car a bit while the Skins floored it. Its like driving on the beltway, everyone is doing 70 and breaking the law but the nit wit who does 90 gets pulled over. All the Skins had to do was go 70 with the rest of traffic but they werent smart enough to do that.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired new players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.

[irish]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired new players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.

I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by irish

I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

So, you and your friends agree to do a job for another group. After the other group leaves, your friends secretly agree to try and cheat on the agreement. Even though you know it's wrong, and may even be illegal, because the "the group reache[d] consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do"? Sorry, illegal agreements cannot be enforced.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, you and your friends agree to do a job for another group. After the other group leaves, your friends secretly agree to try and cheat on the agreement. Even though you know it's wrong, and may even be illegal, because the "the group reache[d] consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do"? Sorry, illegal agreements cannot be enforced.

Agreed. Majority does not equal morality.

However, if the Redskins were part of the consensus and gave their word on a shady deal, then I don't really have a problem with them facing the shady consequences of that deal.

[Swarley]

and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol

I think I understand what your trying to say, but I think you used a bad example. Not that I have a better one.

In your scenario if you were apart of the planning then yes you could be punished also even if you decided to back out at the last minute. But I'll go a step further and say that what your not eluding to and that is that even though you were not there commiting the heist because you knew about it and failed to notify law enforcement then you could be charged with the same crime as the ones who did commit the crime.

Unless I'm wrong and you were eluding to the fact the Skins could get into the same trouble as the other owners in the long run because they knew all the owners were colluding and didn't tell anyone?