Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Maybe this should go in the Grind Your Gears thread, but can we come up with something more clever than Modgate and Dirtgate? I'm not saying I'm the man for the job, but I think collectively we can do better.

maybe this should go in the grind your gears thread, but can we come up with something more clever than modgate and dirtgate? I'm not saying i'm the man for the job, but i think collectively we can do better.Plagiarismgate!

Plagiarismgate!

Youhavenoproofgate?

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.But that vote doesn't really mean much, right? Won't it be up to the arbitrator?

So back to....um...Capgate. :smashfrea

Apparently the teams voted on the Skins/Cowboys penalties this morning. Everyone voted yes, with one team abstaining from voting (I'd be curious to see who) and of course the Skins/Cowboys did not participate in the voting.

I wonder who that team was. Maybe it's the Raiders, just to be defiant. No shocker there though, seeing as how every team except the Saints and Raiders gains something as a result of the penalty.

Squawkgate - mods applying parrots haphazardly
Rewalsrgtae - rndaom misspellngi of fruom wrdws
RGIIIgate - other teams investigating Griffin's SB win with the Skins
ReplyGate -- did I really need to hit the Post Reply button???

Squawkgate - mods applying parrots haphazardly
Rewalsrgtae - rndaom misspellngi of fruom wrdws
RGIIIgate - other teams investigating Griffin's SB win with the Skins
ReplyGate -- did I really need to hit the Post Reply button???

Alternative name: Firstdowngate.

:lol:

Anti competitve- incurring "those charges" in a current year when"those charges" are not accounted for in order to avoid "those charges" in a future year when they may be applied to "that thing".

Hey I didn't use the words salary cap or cap hit.

Understood. And the purpose of sending all contracts to the league for review and or approval?

If the league is not going to review the contracts and only rubber stamp them as OK then someone should be fired at the league office.

1-there is a reason all teams have to send contracts to the league.
2-the league reviewed the contracts and agreed to them and approved them.

If anything it's the league who should be paying a penalty or fine. The person who reviewed them and approved them should be fired and the league itself can give the other teams more CAP space, but taking away from a team who in reality has done nothing wrong, broken no laws, broken no contractual rules is obsurd.

Yet the bigger picture here is not "the Skins and Boys failed to keep to an agreement" as most owners would like you to believe, it's the fact that the agreement was meant to keep costs down so the players wouldn't have an arguement that there was more money out there and they should be privy to it. The agreement itself is a violation of the labor relations laws. This would be like the courts skipping past whether an officer had the right to stop you and the court hearing the evidence of the found marijuana in your car. but in this case the Skins did not break a law and they are getting punished for it.

Ok little kiddies here's the explaination.... see 32 teams were supposed to break the law with an agreement. Then 2 teams decided to do the right thing and not break the law. NOW those two teams are going to be punished for not breaking the law.

My understanding is that the figures being put out on Peppers is wrong, and that ultimately, his cap hit was like 20M each year including the uncapped year.


Regardless, the NFL is arguing pattern of behavior, not individual contract status. It's still a bogus claim, but it may be harder to disprove than simply saying well you approved them and that's that.

So in reality it's $40 mill total?

Even if I stayed with your $20 mill thats more then Dallas gained.