Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[Counter-Tre]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Someone on the radio mentioned Al's case in connection with this, and being in favor of the skins and cowboys. Does anyone understand it enough to explain?

In 1980, Davis attempted to move the Raiders to Los Angeles but was blocked by a court injunction. In response Davis filed an anti-trust suit against the NFL. In June 1982 a federal district court ruled in Davis' favor and the team officially relocated to Los Angeles for the 1982 NFL season. The parallell I would guess is that the Redskins did what they did to better their team and broke no league rules and by tampering with that, the NFL violated anti-trust laws which forbid taking actions that would be inhibit a franchise's ability to remain competitive.

[SBXVII]

The timing was bad. They knew what they were doing because had they done it sooner and the Skins won then the Skins would have bought every really good player up and they needed to prevent that. It worked. They got what they wanted.

I think they know they'll lose this fight but by the time the Skins make a move most of the really good players will be taken up by other teams in the name of "competativeness".

You all are right;

- Timing
- Amount
- Wrongness
- Lack of a Rule
- Collusion by the owners
- The Giants owner being the Cheif Exec on the board

What is the underlying message the NFL is sending?

-It's ok to break the law as long as everyone agrees
-If you don't go along with the majority you'll get bullied
-People who do the right thing get screwed in the end


I hope Snyder files the law suit, he can always drop it if the other owners agree to give back the other 18 mill they took away.

I also wonder what would happen of the players of the two teams filed individual law suits against the owners who colluded? The Union agreed to not file but the individual players did not.

I can only hope JJ does not tuck his tail and run and hope he stands beside DS in the fighting this injustice.

[Monkeydad]

Love the headline, support it completely.

This is the first time I've ever rooted for Jerry Jones' success. Lets embarrass Goodell for this garbage.

[Eknox]

The NFL had to sign off on these deals. So is it ok we agree then punish you for a non rule? The timing and using the salary cap to persuade the Players association to agree shows dishonesty on part of the NFL. And I will always side with my Skins. It's easy not to when you are a fan of another team.

[FRPLG]

And "agreed" is a very loose term here. 32 owners in a room agreeing verbally to conduct illicit business practices is what you're hanging your hat on there Giantone? You have better arguments to make.

To begin with I haven't seen anything that says any of the punished teams agreed to anything. And second...it does not matter either way. A verbal agreement is not binding in any legal way. If you prefer your NFL to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner that could diminish a team's ability to compete then you're getting what you want. I'd say be careful though. Someday Jerry and/or Dan are going to be in a position to retaliate and this situation is proving is that whatever they do will be ok. Bad precedent set here. Very bad.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

And "agreed" is a very loose term here. 32 owners in a room agreeing verbally to conduct illicit business practices is what you're hanging your hat on there Giantone? You have better arguments to make.

To begin with I haven't seen anything that says any of the punished teams agreed to anything. And second...it does not matter either way. A verbal agreement is not binding in any legal way. If you prefer your NFL to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner that could diminish a team's ability to compete then you're getting what you want. I'd say be careful though. Someday Jerry and/or Dan are going to be in a position to retaliate and this situation is proving is that whatever they do will be ok. Bad precedent set here. Very bad.

Not only that, with this punishment, the Redskins and Cowboys obviously were intentionally not included in that vote. They wouldn't be talking how "blindsided" they were if they were in the room when all that BS happened.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Not only that, with this punishment, the Redskins and Cowboys obviously were intentionally not included in that vote. They wouldn't be talking how "blindsided" they were if they were in the room when all that BS happened.

Wow...never heard that before. That's like entrapment or just a straight out intentional targeting of us. Looks even worse now.

How Chicago was not included in this is unthinklable...except for the obvious fact that they went along with the dirty deal. If this was a legitimate attempt at a rule enforcement, there would have to be a lot more punishments and violators cited than Dallas and us.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Not only that, with this punishment, the Redskins and Cowboys obviously were intentionally not included in that vote. They wouldn't be talking how "blindsided" they were if they were in the room when all that BS happened.

I thought that they knew they had done something wrong and knew a penalty was coming,just not the extent of it or the magnitude of it, at least according to the artical by Mark Maske.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I thought that they knew they had done something wrong and knew a penalty was coming,just not the extent of it or the magnitude of it, at least according to the artical by Mark Maske.

What were they warned of? From what I have read the warning was "Don't use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage beyond this year."

Well, that f'ng bs. That is exactly why the uncapped year existed - to permit teams to manipulate contracts, salaries and expenditures in order to gain a competitive advantage over other teams. The CBA contained no clause saying "Oh, by the way, the uncapped year is only meant to create a competive imbalance for one year and one year only" (certainly players thought that, once it was gone, the salary cap was never coming back). Thus, the NFL's warning was - "Don't abide by the CBA." To which Danny and Jerry said, "Watch me abide by the terms of the CBA".

Knew the penalty was coming? People threaten with illegal actions all the time, does that mean they should be obeyed? "I may not have a leg to stand on in court, but I will drag you through the muck anyway". Danny and Jerry essentially said, "Give it your best shot. We are acting within the letter and spirit of the CBA and violating no enforceable league policies."

Further, even if the remaining owners subsequently followed the proper procedural steps to impose the current penalty, it doesn't change the illegality of the substantive fact -- the penalty is being imposed for actions that complied with the governing rules of the joint venture at the time those actions took place (If my homeowners association says that all houses in the neighbor hood must be painted blue, they can't fine me b/c my house was red last year).

You can't make an act that was substantively illegal (the agreemnt to violate the CBA) legal merely by subsequently following certain procedural steps ("All in favor of saying our cheating on the CBA was okay say 'Aye'. All in favor? Good. Our cheating on the CBA was actually an approved business practice. Danny & Jerry, b/c you didn't agree to cheat with us, and we have agreed that our cheating was an approved practice, we are going to punish you.")

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I thought that they knew they had done something wrong and knew a penalty was coming,just not the extent of it or the magnitude of it, at least according to the artical by Mark Maske.

It's one thing to be told hey expect a punishment and .... this IS your punishment. The two owners really couldn't do much until the punishment was handed down. What if there never came a punishment?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Not only that, with this punishment, the Redskins and Cowboys obviously were intentionally not included in that vote. They wouldn't be talking how "blindsided" they were if they were in the room when all that BS happened.

Do you know that as fact?

[CrustyRedskin]

This year will tell a lot about the Skins coaching staff, developing a new QB, limited free agents etc. Although i have been somewhat impressed at the signings so far.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Do you know that as fact?

I would think it was heavily implied. You would have thought that both teams would have been heavily prepared for sanctions had they been involved in the vote.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Do you know that as fact?

Probably just as much as you "know" that all teams "agreed"

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Probably just as much as you "know" that all teams "agreed"

,,,,just going by what has been reported.