NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[Swarley]

Collision is not the same thing as collusion. Are you sure you know what it is?

[Swarley]

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

How do you know they did anything at all?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

And that's what I assumed you meant, but I was just adding the last part thinking maybe I should not be assuming.

[SBXVII]

Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.

[irish]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

What I don't see in your response, is an answer to why any team should have had to "cool it" during the uncapped year. That is really the crux of the issue. If the league wanted that to be abided by, they should have put it in writing and have the owners vote on it. They didn't do that, because had they the NFLPA would have used it to show collusion during one of the most heated part of the new CBA negotiations.

I doubt that the Skins/Cowboys take outright legal action, simply because they don't want to harm the league's antitrust exemption, or negotiating stance with the NFLPA at some later date, but I am positive that they will put heavy pressure on the league to reduce or dismiss the penalties before this whole saga is said and done. My guess is that within a month of DSmith's re-election (or at this month's owners meetings whichever comes later), the penalties will be reduced to an amount which allows the salary cap upward adjustments for this year, and negates any penalty which would have been moved forward into next year

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

Their warnging amounts to a bully telling you you better go along with him stealing candy from his teacher and if don't he will punish you. So you don't and now he's punishing you.

Everyone wants to sit on the owners having and agreement. and we ignored it. How about sitting on the fact the agreement was against the law and the Skins chose not to break the law? What weird mind allows fans to believe it's ok to go along with the whole or group even if it's against the law?

Thats like getting pulled over for speeding and your excuse is "I was going the speed of the rest of the traffic." No, you were breaking the law and he stopped you. The NFLPA should never have agreed to whatever the Exec commity requested. I doubt the CAP would have gone down but had it there might have been another collusion issue. How is it not if the owners threaten to lower the CAP unles the NFLPA agrees to not file suit? That practically strong arming the players union. Just to spank two teams who chose not to break the law and follow the crowd in collusion.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by irish

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

Word is that these "warnings" never actually came from the NFL and never in writing and you don't heed warnings when you aren't doing anything wrong...

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

How can the NFL warn the Redskins, approve the contracts the Redskins sent them, and then reprimand them? The NFL league office approved the contracts! How do you back off a little? How is the Redskins organization arrogant?

[MTK]

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk

If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

How have we missed out on anything? We've behaved as if the penalty never happened. Please don't cite VJax - there are reasons to think that we weren't interested in him anyway.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

That's not what this is about, neither the Skins, who signed multiple targeted players, or the Cowboys, who signed their sought after CB, were overly hampered by the penalty. What it was about, and the NFL basically said this in their statement from Sunday, was making sure that the salary cap number did not drop below last year's cap. I tend to think that the Skins/Cowboys took the hit because the 2 owners both are very strong League supporters in Big Markets, and therefore have the ability to overcome the penalty. Other places that were not singled out, like GB, who is a small market and thus the hit would be more unbearable, or Chicago, whose owner is a tightwad, were not good candidates for taking on a revenue sharing conundrum.