Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

I've been hoping we were using the Saber rattling as a bargaining chip to get our stuff (or at least some) back.
The Dan and JJ have the two most valuable franchises in the NFL. They are....shrewd self made Billionaire guys. Very accustomed to difficult problems and negotiations. I do not see them letting this slide........

Each side has some strong negotiating chips.

- The DS & JJ's position is, essentially, we did nothing wrong and your punishment violates the rules of our business agreeement. Ultimately, in any legal battle we will win and we have the money and the will to take you to the mat.

- The other 30 owner's & the NFL's position: Maybe so, but until a court tells us to do otherwise, we are disapproving any contracts over the penalized amount. Further, we will take away draft choices, look for other infractions, etc. By the way, we have 400 lawyers who can make sure this doesn't see the inside of a court room for several years ... and then let's talk us some appellate review.

Ultimately, arbitration is the best course. I am pretty sure we will end up with a "time served" sanction (i.e. - acceptance of what's been done with a removal of the rest. Possibly a small credit to allow us to go forward w/out needing to push this years money into future caps). I can't see an arbitrated settlement that nets us draft picks. It would be nice, but I wouldn't bank on it. Even if it does, I doubt it would be anything more than a 6th or 7th round pick, maybe two (pure speculation on my part).

Just to clarify...

32 teams agreed to break the LAW (Collusion against the players).
2 or 4 teams changed their minds and decided not to break the LAW.
and now only 2 teams are getting punished for not doing something wrong, immoral, and illegal?

^that is the message your trying to get across right?


There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

Galvanize aka "My finger is on the button." *push the button*
Xu3FTEmN-eg

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

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

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?


see post #94

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?

The NFL hasn't even been willing to go on record as saying the names of the 4 teams that were fined. All we have is people speaking off the record to insiders and beat reporters.

It's not like the NFL has been hesitant to release information about fines and suspensions in the past. Why the vague official statements citing "a small number of teams"?

Maybe I'm wrong but I've yet to see one report where an actual NFL rep came out and named the Redskins and Cowboys specifically in this scandal. In every official press release the most specific mention I've seen is "a small number of teams."

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?Haynesworth was signed in 2009, but yes, he did restructure in 2010.

Clearly more than 4 teams pull this kind of thing. Others have pointed out Chicago's deal with Peppers. (http://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/8/1363230/julius-peppers-bears-contract-details-20-million) I'm sure the giants were completely above the board with everything they did that year.

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?