NFL taking away Redskins cap space

I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones.

I'd be interested how you cam to this conclusion.

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

I cannot, for the life of me, understand the value system that some people have.

The league essentially admitted that they colluded. It is laughable to contend otherwise. If you cannot understand how the owners colluded or somehow think that the Skins should have just listened and not gained the competitive advantage that they HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE then you should bow out of the conversation because you're plain wrong.

I'd even go as far to say this. We got hammered the most but Dallas should be simply livid to point of murder. This jealously-driven act of revenge put them into a much tighter spot than us. Count this as the only time I will probably ever cheer for any of those donkeys in Dallas on anything.

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.

What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured anda majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .

Oddly, not "agreed upon" in writing. And, why, pray tell, was it "agreed upon" that contracts couldn't be structured in a certain way? So cap couldn't be dumped (as we, admittedly, did). Now, what's wrong with that--why couldn't we structure our contracts this way? Answer: we'd have MORE MONEY TO PAY THE PLAYERS. The NFL effectively blocked that, with an unwritten "agreement." That, I believe, is collusion.

I would have thought that the collusion is pretty obvious to everyone--the NFL owners are a private club of super rich folk who make their own rules (and Danny and Jerry are admittedly among the worst of them!). You sound like Claude Raines in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling in this casino!"

The other 28 "innocents" with their "business ethics" have their own shenanigans going on--don't be naive. I think all that ticker tape and Eli-love has clouded your judgment.

As for Graziano and "check mate" or whatever: when everyone from King to Clayton think the league has gone too far--and these are not people who love the skins, to say the least--that should tell you something.

Danny and Jerry may be asses, but this punishment is out of line.

Oddly, not "agreed upon" in writing. And, why, pray tell, was it "agreed upon" that contracts couldn't be structured in a certain way? So cap couldn't be dumped (as we, admittedly, did). Now, what's wrong with that--why couldn't we structure our contracts this way? Answer: we'd have MORE MONEY TO PAY THE PLAYERS. The NFL effectively blocked that, with an unwritten "agreement." That, I believe, is collusion.

I would have thought that the collusion is pretty obvious to everyone--the NFL owners are a private club of super rich folk who make their own rules (and Danny and Jerry are admittedly among the worst of them!). You sound like Claude Raines in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling in this casino!"

The other 28 "innocents" with their "business ethics" have their own shenanigans going on--don't be naive. I think all that ticker tape and Eli-love has clouded your judgment.

As for Graziano and "check mate" or whatever: when everyone from King to Clayton think the league has gone too far--and these are not people who love the skins, to say the least--that should tell you something.

Danny and Jerry may be asses, but this punishment is out of line.

:laughing2 Sig worthy material right there.

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.

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.

Good post but I want to clarify one thing. The NFLPA agreed to the punishment of the skins/cowboys now that the deal is done and the effect of the new CBA would have pushed this years cap well below last year's. There is NO WAY the NFLPA accepts this punishment while the CBA was being negotiated.

I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones. Look you can't find one post of mine saying anything bad about Dan Snyder as a villian,I find a whole lot of his business ethics questionable I believe he plays fantasy football with a real team(yeah he is the majority owner) and the same with Jerry Jones....the fact that he hook up with him amazes me. What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured and a majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .

Wow Giantone, please, punctuation next time.

It's quite obvious you're going to say "what collusion" since it's your owner who spear-headed this attack. Quite convenient that it would be an owner of a franchise within the same division. You're talking about competitive advantage? Neither did the Redskins nor the Cowboys make the playoffs in the last two years. Tell me what advantage did those teams have over the other teams in the league?

The biggest point is that there were no rules broken. It was an uncapped year. Plain and simple. Telling the owners that they should not spend money in the uncapped year is worthless. There was no CBA in place. Any team with the means to do so could have done exactly what the 'skins and 'boys did. Except, they colluded with the league to not spend money, and then agreed that these two teams should be punished for following the rules. So, talk about unfair competitive advantage. The other 28 teams get rewarded extra cap space while strictly penalizing those two teams (and doing nothing to the other two teams not mentioned.) And again, how convenient that it was the Giants' owner who spear-headed this move to punish two teams within his same division, but doing nothing to the other teams.

If you don't get that then there's no hope for you.

Good post but I want to clarify one thing. The NFLPA agreed to the punishment of the skins/cowboys now that the deal is done and the effect of the new CBA would have pushed this years cap well below last year's. There is NO WAY the NFLPA accepts this punishment while the CBA was being negotiated.

This is true. Unfortunately, the NFLPA had no choice but to agree to a dirty deal by the NFL. Plain and simple. Still though, I don't see if stopping those teams from suing the NFL.