redskinsman18
03-26-2012, 05:07 PM
Just because the Cowboys and Redskins start firing bullets at the NFL doesn't neccessarily mean they will win or even get the sactions reduced because the NFL has bigger guns and more ammo.
Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap messPages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
[39]
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
redskinsman18 03-26-2012, 05:07 PM Just because the Cowboys and Redskins start firing bullets at the NFL doesn't neccessarily mean they will win or even get the sactions reduced because the NFL has bigger guns and more ammo. TheMalcolmConnection 03-26-2012, 05:16 PM Just because the Cowboys and Redskins start firing bullets at the NFL doesn't neccessarily mean they will win or even get the sactions reduced because the NFL has bigger guns and more ammo. I beg to differ on that. Snyder and Jones combined could probably sue the NFL until they were like, "No mas!" Dirtbag59 03-26-2012, 06:27 PM 1st amendment Rights John Mara uses well I hope the owners All burn in cap hell. SkinItup 03-26-2012, 06:47 PM this isn't going to end well for the nfl. DFlo 03-26-2012, 07:00 PM If the NFL approved these contract, how can they come back 2 years later and say they were illegal? CRedskinsRule 03-26-2012, 07:20 PM If the NFL approved these contract, how can they come back 2 years later and say they were illegal? I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices. JoeRedskin 03-26-2012, 07:34 PM I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices. Well, yeah. Okay. I still say "So what"? Anti-competitive practices? Define please - and in your definition you are prohibited from using the words "salary cap" as there was no such thing in existence in 2010 nor was there any guarrantee that it would ever again exist. blah blah blah ... NFL is simply trying to throw crap against the wall hoping something, anything will stick. mbedner3420 03-26-2012, 07:52 PM I don't agree but it sounds like the nfl's argument is that any one contract was not illegal, BUT when taken in the totality of transactions by the team it showed an intent to engage in anticompetitve practices. There were two they took issue with: haynesworth and hall. Either one of the transactions was substantial enough to throw off red flags to the NFL. I'm sorry, but if that's the NFL's defense, they are ****ed. Player_HTTR 03-26-2012, 08:06 PM So two rights do make a wrong???? That would make the opposite true by that reasoning and boy do my parents have some explaining to do now. SBXVII 03-26-2012, 08:32 PM Point? We both got hammered because we're both division rivals. I was just focusing on the Redskins. You pointed out the $15 mill from one team and $20 mill from another team. All I was pointing out was Dallas only gained $10 mill and that the punishments are not making sense. Kinda what you were saying or so I thought. |
|
EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum