NFL taking away Redskins cap space

SBXVII · 03-13-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewsky27

We are still in top half of league with our cap reduced. I can see why some see this as better.. It means more underrated free agent signings like last year that were good pickups... Nobiggy

People. It's not a matter of "oh now we are screwed and can't get the FA's we want." It's about principal. Both teams reworked contracts to help themselves out. Both teams submitted the deals to the NFL. The NFL agreed to the deals and signed off on them (to benifit themselves or the new CBA would not have been signed and they would have gone to court over the owners colluding). Now after the months of opportunities to work this out they decide to have a meeting and decide to punish only two of the many teams that benifited and with in 24 hrs of FA. This smacks of jealousy and anger that the other teams don't have the CAP room to work with.

Lotus · 03-13-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

People. It's not a matter of "oh now we are screwed and can't get the FA's we want." It's about principal. Both teams reworked contracts to help themselves out. Both teams submitted the deals to the NFL. The NFL agreed to the deals and signed off on them (to benifit themselves or the new CBA would not have been signed and they would have gone to court over the owners colluding). Now after the months of opportunities to work this out they decide to have a meeting and decide to punish only two of the many teams that benifited and with in 24 hrs of FA. This smacks of jealousy and anger that the other teams don't have the CAP room to work with.

Bingo.

mooby · 03-13-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

People. It's not a matter of "oh now we are screwed and can't get the FA's we want." It's about principal. Both teams reworked contracts to help themselves out. Both teams submitted the deals to the NFL. The NFL agreed to the deals and signed off on them (to benifit themselves or the new CBA would not have been signed and they would have gone to court over the owners colluding). Now after the months of opportunities to work this out they decide to have a meeting and decide to punish only two of the many teams that benifited and with in 24 hrs of FA. This smacks of jealousy and anger that the other teams don't have the CAP room to work with.

Bingo.

SouperMeister · 03-13-2012, 01:33 PM

I'm really hoping that Snyder challenges this in the courts or whatever forum is appropriate. Turning this into a collusion case against the 28 owners and Goodell would get the attention of the league office. Roger Goodell is a complete lackey/shill for the owners.

Lotus · 03-13-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooby

Bingo.

lmao

SBXVII · 03-13-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

Cap controversy shows NFL at its worst - NFC East Blog - ESPN

Graziano FTW once again.

Ok so the League basically paid off the NFLPA to keep their mouths shut and look the other way while punishing 2 owners that didn't follow breaking the rules.

Would it be funny if whoever over see's Collusion in big business decided to contact the League now and inform them that they are investigating whether the owners colluded or not to an extent that it gave the other 30 owners and advantage over the players in the lockout.

Lotus · 03-13-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooby

Well we know the NFLPA won't take the NFL to court over the alleged collusion because the NFL blackmailed them into agreeing on the punishment for the Skins and Cowboys. So if this does go to court (which I believe it won't) it will be the Skins and Cowboys against the NFL. At which point we can pretty much lose all hope that the NFL will cut us any slack for anything over the next 20 years, because that's the standard MO after a team (80's Raiders) sues the league and wins.

I find it odd that the NFLPA agreed to the deal, even with the stipulation that total player monies remain the same. But maybe they are geniuses. If we appeal our penalty and win even $1 back, yet the other teams still have their raised salary caps, then there is more total money in the pool for players. In other words, maybe the NFLPA is banking on a successful appeal by us.

mooby · 03-13-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

I find it odd that the NFLPA agreed to the deal, even with the stipulation that total player monies remain the same. But maybe they are geniuses. If we appeal our penalty and win even $1 back, yet the other teams still have their raised salary caps, then there is more total money in the pool for players. In other words, maybe the NFLPA is banking on a successful appeal by us.

Good call. I didn't think about that but it is an interesting point. If that turns out to be the case, it's a win for the NFLPA, especially because they know the Redskins will spend that money that becomes available.

FRPLG · 03-13-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

I agree with this. It's not like we used the money to bring in a bunch of free agents in 2010. We just pushed future money to the present on the garbage we had already signed previously.

The Bears on the other hand used 2010 to bring in a brand new FA Peppers. They dumped $35M of his money into the uncapped year. Would they have been able to bring in Peppers without the uncapped year? Maybe but definitely not as easily.

Our "competitive advantage" is realized now in that we SHOULD have a massive amount of cap space since we were able to accelerate cap monies into 2010 with no consequence. Hence the league's belief (mistaken as it may be) that the removal of said cap space now is a proper rectification of our "infractions". How what the Bears did was any different I am curious to understand the logic. We blatantly moved owed cap space eating monies into 2010. The Bears did not though. They incurred new cap space eating monies in 2010. The distinction is minor and logically I see no difference. The "competitive advantage" is the same.

SBXVII · 03-13-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Everything you say is reasonable in theory, but not applicable when you're dealing with a bully.

Which is even more reason for whoever oversees business owners to step in. In reality the NFLPA should be ashamed for agreeing to this. They had so much leverage in this. If you want to punish your two favorite owners then your admitting to the fact the other 30 teams colluded and the NFLPA should be up in arms about this.

The Skins should lower their ticket prices, way low, since the money sent back to the League to help indigent teams is based off of the % of total revenue. They want to screw around then lets lower the ticket price because you know the market is so bad for DS also.

FRPLG · 03-13-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

Cap controversy shows NFL at its worst - NFC East Blog - ESPN

Graziano FTW once again.

BOOM! Roasted

Monkeydad · 03-13-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by los panda

spreading that extra cap room out among 28 other teams?

Yep, this right here makes the strongest case that the league and the other owners were colluding on this. They're being rewarded. Normally when one team gets punished, they have a penalty and that's it. Since when does the rest of the league get REWARDED for another team's rule-breaking? That smells.

SBXVII · 03-13-2012, 01:49 PM

Stop making the fans pay for parking because thats also an income. Lower the food prices. No one purchase any merchandise.

FRPLG · 03-13-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

I find it odd that the NFLPA agreed to the deal, even with the stipulation that total player monies remain the same. But maybe they are geniuses. If we appeal our penalty and win even $1 back, yet the other teams still have their raised salary caps, then there is more total money in the pool for players. In other words, maybe the NFLPA is banking on a successful appeal by us.

The players were faced with losing 128 million in cap money for players or going along with an unethical and patently unfair scheme to stick it to rich owners spear-headed by a committee whose chair is a direct division rival. If that isn't the epitome of morally bankrupt then I don't what is. It is a monumental day when you can take the road BELOW Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. It says a lot about the character of some of these owners. They're bad people.

SBXVII · 03-13-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Yep, this right here makes the strongest case that the league and the other owners were colluding on this. They're being rewarded. Normally when one team gets punished, they have a penalty and that's it. Since when does the rest of the league get REWARDED for another team's rule-breaking? That smells.

Whats really funny is it wasn't the Skins or Boys that broke the rule, it was the other owners that did but because these two owners refused to break the law or rule they are getting punished. How the "F" does that equal out? I'm telling you the Feds should get involved with whether the other owners colluded against the players at the time.

03-13-2012, 01:33 PM	#574
SouperMeister Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 48 Posts: 2,917	Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space I'm really hoping that Snyder challenges this in the courts or whatever forum is appropriate. Turning this into a collusion case against the 28 owners and Goodell would get the attention of the league office. Roger Goodell is a complete lackey/shill for the owners.

03-13-2012, 01:49 PM	#583
SBXVII Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 7,498	Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space Stop making the fans pay for parking because thats also an income. Lower the food prices. No one purchase any merchandise.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Salary Cap Central