Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[Dirtbag59]

Goodell: Yep
Mara: Yup

[PWNED]

i bet mara has his hand on goodells ass...

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by ethat001

Since this is a Skins message board and we're all skins fans, we're pretty upset about the cap penalty. I think the penalty was vindictive, poorly timed and doesn't make any sense with the uncapped year. Hope the arbitration rules in our favor.

BUT - I want to make sure we all realize that we actually cheated, and Gooddell is technically right.

They apparently had a gentleman's agreement between owners (even if it was illegal) -- and we pulled a NY Yankees move and just outspent the other teams in the uncapped year. We bought up Haynesworth/Hall's contract so we could GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. I mean, I'm happy if it works because I'd be glad we're a better team -- but frankly speaking, any free agents we obtain would be because we outspent every other team in an era where you're not supposed to do that. We had to spend more to compete, to make up for front office ineptitude and crazy ownership.


Don't get me wrong -- I love it, want to be a good team. But at the same time, cheating to get there.. well, I'll let this one slide.

?????????
I think there is at least one thing that EVERYONE, even the NFL, agrees with. We broke no rules. You have a skewed view of the world if you think failing to engage in collusion constitutes cheating. That is some craziness.

[ethat001]

Haha. I knew the post would generate discussion. I should clarify with a more careful choice of words - what I meant was: again I don't believe we broke any rules. I don't think we should lose any cap money.


BUT we did to spend more than others in the league (within the rules) to get rid of a bad contract we signed (Haynesworth). We normally would not have been allowed to do this, and this gave us a competitive advantage -- which to my knowledge was completely within the rules.

Just saying, it is odd that others did not restructure their contracts and create tons of cap room.. Although we stayed within the rules, we did do more than most other clubs, and certainly gained an advantage which we did not have before doing so.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by ethat001

Haha. I knew the post would generate discussion. I should clarify with a more careful choice of words - what I meant was: again I don't believe we broke any rules. I don't think we should lose any cap money.


BUT we did to spend more than others in the league (within the rules) to get rid of a bad contract we signed (Haynesworth). We normally would not have been allowed to do this, and this gave us a competitive advantage -- which to my knowledge was completely within the rules.

Just saying, it is odd that others did not restructure their contracts and create tons of cap room.. Although we stayed within the rules, we did do more than most other clubs, and certainly gained an advantage which we did not have before doing so.

I think it's more like this:

- CBA is negotiated in 2006 with potential uncapped year at end

- Uncapped year means teams can spend whatever they want that year

- NFL and NFLPA agree in principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit from previous or later capped years

- Several specific rules are written into 2006 CBA to prevent this

- League exercises early termination option and 2010 becomes uncapped year

- League reminds clubs of agreed principle that uncapped year can't be used to dump salary cap hit. Apparently multiple times.

- Skins find way to dump future salary cap hit into uncapped 2010 in new way not previously considered.

- Multiple other owners complain to Commissioner

- Commissioner leaves it for later because he's more concerned with getting new CBA done

- Commissioner eventually takes action. Since the action the owners want him to take is outside his direct authority, he gets MCEC to agree it with the NFLPA and let an owner be the face of it.

- Chaos ensues

Frankly, I hope enough chaos ensues that they will reduce the penalties to put an end to it. I think that's our best case scenario (other than this escalting to the point where Snyder is forced to sell the Skins).

However, they are not punishing the Skins for spending too much in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for violating a principle apparently agreed with the NFLPA and apparently agreed amongst the owners.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Frankly, I hope enough chaos ensues that they will reduce the penalties to put an end to it. I think that's our best case scenario (other than this escalting to the point where Snyder is forced to sell the Skins)

You have made some good points regarding this cap mess; however, would you please come to your senses and drop your ridiculous assertions that the other NFL owners might force Dan Snyder out as an owner or take away the draft pick that would enable the Skins to acquire either RGIII or Luck if Snyder doesn't take his medicine like a good boy. The sky is not falling. Neither of those things will ever happen.

I could give you many reasons why those things won't happen but I'll just give you a few.

One: No NFL owner in his right mind would want to set the precedent of voting out another owner because to do so opens the door to his possibly being voted out in the future.

Two: Just because most of the owners are lined up against the Skins and Cowboys on this particular issue doesn't mean that they are all enemies of Dan Snyder and/or Jerry Jones. They both, no doubt, have friends among the other owners.

Three: If the NFL ever contemplated the things you keep bringing up, then they would be in for the legal fight of their lives - and they know it. Any extreme action against Dan Snyder brought on by the cap dispute would necessarily bring Jerry Jones into the fight on Snyder's side because he would perceive that as a threat to himself.

Four: If this cap issue were to escalate into full-scale war, both Snyder and Jones have friends in Congress who they could get involved, if necessary, to give the NFL a huge headache, if not worse.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Dan Snyder's ownership of the Redskins or this year's second overall draft pick is at stake here, so just drop it.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by PWNED

a loophole is a loophole whether its morally right or wrong.

people can look sideways at you for morals, but no one can put you in jail for it.

Friends can count on your word. Colleagues should count on written contracts. If they didnt write it down, there was a reason(illegal).

We're being punished for not doing something illegal.

[CRedskinsRule]

one thing that is not going to happen is DS is not going to sell the Skins over this, it's a ridiculous notion to even put it into this type of discussion. For comparison purposes, Benson ain't selling the saints, and Kraft didn't chafe at the cheating. Makes the rest of a post look less informed when that is put in as even a remote consequence.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

You have made some good points regarding this cap mess; however, would you please come to your senses and drop your ridiculous assertions that the other NFL owners might force Dan Snyder out as an owner or take away the draft pick that would enable the Skins to acquire either RGIII or Luck if Snyder doesn't take his medicine like a good boy. The sky is not falling. Neither of those things will ever happen.

I could give you many reasons why those things won't happen but I'll just give you a few.

One: No NFL owner in his right mind would want to set the precedent of voting out another owner because to do so opens the door to his possibly being voted out in the future.

Two: Just because most of the owners are lined up against the Skins and Cowboys on this particular issue doesn't mean that they are all enemies of Dan Snyder and/or Jerry Jones. They both, no doubt, have friends among the other owners.

Three: If the NFL ever contemplated the things you keep bringing up, then they would be in for the legal fight of their lives - and they know it. Any extreme action against Dan Snyder brought on by the cap dispute would necessarily bring Jerry Jones into the fight on Snyder's side because he would perceive that as a threat to himself.

Four: If this cap issue were to escalate into full-scale war, both Snyder and Jones have friends in Congress who they could get involved, if necessary, to give the NFL a huge headache, if not worse.

There is no evidence to suggest that either Dan Snyder's ownership of the Redskins or this year's second overall draft pick is at stake here, so just drop it.

The removing Dan Snyder as owner is a joke - I'm stuck hoping for either that or him being forced to sell as part of a divorce settlement a la the Dodgers.

As for the #2 pick, no way they take that. They could take other picks, and the point is that the League has Snyder by the balls in this situation.

And the real point is that the League doesn't live by normal rules. In joining the club, they have granted significant power to a Commissioner and are ultimately subject to a 3/4 majority.

[Ruhskins]

People still have a problem with Snyder?

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

People still have a problem with Snyder?

Well it's not like he's a saint. Just not nearly as bad as he was before. His two frivolous lawsuits with the season ticket holder and the small newspaper are still relatively recent.

And then there were those two years where he gave Vinny full reign of the front office which I count as wholesale abuse.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The removing Dan Snyder as owner is a joke - I'm stuck hoping for either that or him being forced to sell as part of a divorce settlement a la the Dodgers.

As for the #2 pick, no way they take that. They could take other picks, and the point is that the League has Snyder by the balls in this situation.

And the real point is that the League doesn't live by normal rules. In joining the club, they have granted significant power to a Commissioner and are ultimately subject to a 3/4 majority.

So you agree,
1) there is no way that Snyder is gone (not really even a funny joke, just a lame old rehash)

2) we aren't losing the #2 pick

So really it's just bickering about the fact that the league has a strong oversight mechanism.

In most cases that mechanism works fine, simply because it is a small group and everyone needs to parlay support at one point in time. No big deal, and the 3/4's is a super majority needed to sustain any type of decision. If something else were to come before them in that circle, that didn't have an already filed arbitration brief, I am certain that the vote would be much less unanimous. I think the fact that even the Saints and Raiders approved it, when they were somewhat punished, shows that there was more at play than just the merits of the case.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you agree,
1) there is no way that Snyder is gone (not really even a funny joke, just a lame old rehash)

2) we aren't losing the #2 pick

So really it's just bickering about the fact that the league has a strong oversight mechanism.

In most cases that mechanism works fine, simply because it is a small group and everyone needs to parlay support at one point in time. No big deal, and the 3/4's is a super majority needed to sustain any type of decision. If something else were to come before them in that circle, that didn't have an already filed arbitration brief, I am certain that the vote would be much less unanimous. I think the fact that even the Saints and Raiders approved it, when they were somewhat punished, shows that there was more at play than just the merits of the case.

I think we are all conditioned to assume either the Redskins will screw this up somehow, or the NFL will bring the hammer down as has been the case recently. I think you are right and we select RG3 2nd overall with zero issues, but there is always going to be that lingering doubt up until the second after we draft our player at number 2.

[MTK]

The Saints didn't even lose a first rounder so why would we?

Peeps need to put away the tinfoil hats.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The Saints didn't even lose a first rounder so why would we?

Peeps need to put away the tinfoil hats.

but they did lose a 2nd. and we used a 2nd to move forward in the draft.