Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Where is the birth certificate!

Whoops, sorry wrong thread...

That's awesome. Well done

Where is the birth certificate!

Whoops, sorry wrong thread...
Hey, I think it was reasonable question. The story sounds credible, but the picture makes it a fact.

The other side of the coin here and, as NCSkins referenced, the Skins are not exactly a naive victim. No, you can't enforce illegal agreements but it's not like the Skins didn't realize the "warnings" were part of a collusive agreement. I don't recall, however, DS or Bruce Allen coming forward and telling any one in the public - "Hey, the owners are secretly trying to influence how player contracts are being negotiated."

Essentially, the Skins gave a giant middle finger to their fellow owners. It appears the Skins basically told the league "We know you don't like our contract dumping but what are you going to do about it? Call the cops? Take your pick, either approve the contracts or provide the players with hard evidence of the collusion."

Legally, how does that affect the League's substantive ability to sanction the Skins for their conduct (the contract dumping) by restructuring the salary cap? Not sure exactly. It may not have any effect - again, illegal contracts cannot be enforced. Period. As a practical matter, and in an open court trial, however, it would certainly make all the owners look bad, possibly open the owners (including DS) up to "bad faith claims", may even allow the players to reopen their collusion suit, and certainly would piss off the players (who would probably remember it 10 years from now when the CBA comes up).

Are the Skins legally correct in asserting that there is no substantive basis for sanctioning them? Based on the facts that have come out and the language cited from the 2006 & 2012 CBA's and NFL Charter/By-laws (thanks Hoophead!), I am about as certain of that as a I can be. There may be language in the documents that provides the authority, but it isn't in any of the places one would expect to find such language and there is plenty of language indicating that there was no authority for the salary cap adjustment.

Is it in their best interests to pursue a remedy through a lawsuit or other formal action? Given the nasty consequences that could occur even if they prevail, I am pretty sure that I would advise them to use that as an absolute last resort.

First off, imagine the implications for the league if one of it's owners had stood up and started screaming "collusion" in the middle of the labor battle. The union would practically own the league at that point, and I can't even imagine the kind of repercussions for us if that had happened. You could forget anything like the Griffin trade ever happening, for starters.

More to the point, whatever warnings were given were verbal and likely vague (they would have to be for legal reasons, I would think). The Redskins would likely say that they interpreted the warnings as telling them not to do anything improper, which they didn't. And, given the way other contracts were being handled, they didn't see anything untoward going on throughout the NFL.

So, the Redskins would probably say that the first indication they had that any kind of collusion was going on was the punishment being handed down. And I suspect that that is pretty close to being the absolute truth.

NFLPA re-appoints DeMaurice Smith | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/nflpa-re-appoints-demaurice-smith/)

Redskins hope to rally support at league meetings | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/redskins-hope-to-rally-support-at-league-meetings/)

Redskins hope to rally support at league meetings | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/redskins-hope-to-rally-support-at-league-meetings/)

Why would any one of the 28 teams not penalized go along with this? Owners: 'OK Bruce, you can have the money back, we'll forfeit the $2million you essentially just gave us and the higher cap ceiling we enjoyed as a result of your penalty.'

I don't see that happening...

we'll forfeit the $2million you essentially just gave us and the higher cap ceiling we enjoyed as a result of your penalty.'


They HAVE to spend whatever percentage of that 2million that they otherwise would not have too. The whole fight between the players and owners is the owners want to spend less money. I'll leave the rest unsaid.

NM I'll say it. 2mil in cap space isn't enough to help most teams out, its dead money that gets wasted in the owners eyes having to pay out the 90% (or whatever it is) to the same player base they would have had without the 2 mil. IMO of course.

That's not including the difference in salary cap space the MCEC (or whatever it is) used as a BRIBE for the NFLPA. Even with that additional money they get to spend the player base is still the same players really.

If I'm the owner of a small market team or not 1 player away from being a SuperBowl contender I am pissed about the dick move pulled by the few in the name of the many. But I could be wrong.

Why would any one of the 28 teams not penalized go along with this? Owners: 'OK Bruce, you can have the money back, we'll forfeit the $2million you essentially just gave us and the higher cap ceiling we enjoyed as a result of your penalty.'

I don't see that happening...

Well it would be 30 teams, and I think there's a good chance a few owners didn't agree with the decision.

Well it would be 30 teams, and I think there's a good chance a few owners didn't agree with the decision.

Wouldnt it be 28 other teams because the redskins, cowboys, saints, and raiders were all found guilty of dropping the money on the cap

Wouldnt it be 28 other teams because the redskins, cowboys, saints, and raiders were all found guilty of dropping the money on the cap

That's what I was going off of.