Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > Salary Cap Central


NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Salary Cap Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2012, 02:30 PM   #676
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster View Post
Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.
Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-14-2012, 02:40 PM   #677
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,545
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.

If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 03:33 PM   #678
Impact Rookie
 
skinster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 754
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.
Who would need to testify? there's no documentation of any agreement, so he doesn't need anyone to testify considering there are no rules he broke. The facts are pretty straight forward. And on a side note; nobody said he made an agreement with anyone; he was told that collusion was happening and decided not to participate. A shady move? maybe, but that's up for debate.
skinster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:16 PM   #679
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster View Post
Who would need to testify? there's no documentation of any agreement, so he doesn't need anyone to testify considering there are no rules he broke. The facts are pretty straight forward. And on a side note; nobody said he made an agreement with anyone; he was told that collusion was happening and decided not to participate. A shady move? maybe, but that's up for debate.
It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.

He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?

In addition, not all agreements and contracts have to be in writing to be valid. If all parties agree to whatever has been decided and there is whats called a meeting of the minds then its a vaild contract.

Last edited by irish; 03-14-2012 at 04:38 PM.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:36 PM   #680
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 8,270
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:41 PM   #681
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.
The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:44 PM   #682
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.
The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being able to do that.

Obvioulsly what happened is some teams gassed the car a bit while the Skins floored it. Its like driving on the beltway, everyone is doing 70 and breaking the law but the nit wit who does 90 gets pulled over. All the Skins had to do was go 70 with the rest of traffic but they werent smart enough to do that.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:49 PM   #683
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,261
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.
It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now that was shady.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?
How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them for failing to collude with the other owners.

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:54 PM   #684
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now that was shady.



How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them for failing to collude with the other owners.

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]
But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

Last edited by irish; 03-14-2012 at 04:59 PM.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:00 PM   #685
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,053
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.
How is that relevant?
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:04 PM   #686
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
How is that relevant?
Everyone's arguement is that the Skins didnt want to be part of a collusion agreement (which is BS) and according to the NFL and the NFLPA there was no intent to collude.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:10 PM   #687
Playmaker
 
GhettoDogAllStars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Age: 33
Posts: 2,761
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired new players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.
__________________
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
GhettoDogAllStars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:24 PM   #688
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,261
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.
DAN SNYDER's LAWYER: Your honor, the case is quite simple. In violation of the relevant CBA, Mr. Snyder's business partners attempted to create an agreement to limit Mr. Snyder's ability to gain a competitive advantage during the uncapped year. Mr. Snyder refused to cooperate in the secret and illegal agreement. As a result, Mr. Snyder's business partners have now imposed a penalty upon him that restricts his ability to improve his product through the use of the contractually permitted and bargained for free agency process.

At its heart, the "Agreement" was a collusive attempt by Mr. Snyder's partners to lessen the negative consequences of Mr. Snyder and his business partners' decision to terminate the prior CBA. The evidence of the Agreement is contained in the reason given for the recently imposed sanction - Mr. Snyder is being punished for attempting to gain a "competitive advantage" during the uncapped year. The illegality of the Agreement is self evident and, further, the fact that Mr. Snyder's business partners knew of its illegality is the demonstrated by the fact that they hid the Agreement's existence from the NFLPA during the labor negotiation process.

If permitted to stand, the sanction imposed will restrict Mr. Snyder's ability to improve his product. As a result, Mr. Snyder will suffer lost revenues and, at a minimum, be placed in a position of relative contractual inequality with his business partners.

Simply put, your Honor, if permitted to stand, this sanction allows Mr. Snyder's business partners to benefit from their illegal, secret, collusive agreement by gaining a competitive advantage over Mr. Snyder. Thus, in an attempt to enforce their illegal backroom deal, Mr. Snyder's business partners seek to gain the very advantage that they would deny Mr. Snyder despite the fact that Mr. Snyder violated no rules and, in fact, was acting fully within the letter and spirit of the governing CBA.

Mr. Snyder seeks damages by way of specific performance in the removal of the sanction and the award of additional draft choices to compensate for the lost competitive equality. Further, he seeks a bazillion, gazillion dollars from his business partners just to rub some salt in it.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 03-14-2012 at 05:44 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:37 PM   #689
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,261
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.
Which piece of paper is this? I have heard that the NFLPA agreed to the sanction and the salary cap. I have also heard that, as part of the settlement, the NFLPA agreed to drop its allegations of collusion. Neither of these, however, is determinative of whether collusion existed.

To a certain extent it is ridiculous to assert that what the NFLPA says is in any way relevant to the proof of collusion. They weren't a party to the illegal collusive conspiracy. Rather, as I pointed out before, they were the victim.

It would be for an independent fact finder to determine if the owners' secret agreement to not take full advantage of the uncapped year was an attempt by the owners to circumvent the CBA's intended and negotiated terms. Geee, I wonder if it was ...

Are you really arguing that the agreement didn't exist? Or are you asserting that, while labor negotiations were proceeding, a secret agreement between the owners to limit competition in contravention of an existing collective bargaining agreement term is not "collusion"?
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 05:38 PM   #690
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,750
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars View Post
As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired new players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.
I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

Last edited by irish; 03-14-2012 at 05:44 PM.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.46002 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

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