NFL taking away Redskins cap space

That Guy · 03-12-2012, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.

there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

Evilgrin · 03-12-2012, 10:26 PM

I'd like to see more info on other teams that also used the uncapped year, and aren't being punished for it.

GTripp0012 · 03-12-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.

there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

That Guy · 03-12-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I just don't see how Collusion applies;
Collusion | Define Collusion at Dictionary.com

In 2010 the NFL OWNERS colluded to artificial hold down player salaries and not dump money in the uncapped year. the redskin and cowboys (among many others) did.

Chico23231 · 03-12-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

As Rich Tandler put it...

Rich Tandler ‏ @Rich_Tandler
So the NFLPA agreed to take $46 million from the #Redskins and #Cowboys, who would spend it, to teams like the Bengals and Bucs who won't.

This is why the players union should be effffffffing livid.

I cant believe the league office is trying to pull this shit 24 hours before free agency.

MonkFan4Life · 03-12-2012, 10:33 PM

This is how Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones probably feel

Pulp Fiction - 07 - Butch & Marsellus (Part 2) - YouTube

FRPLG · 03-12-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

It's Occupy NFL. The 99% are lashing out at the richest teams.

We need to tear gas the league offices.

Now this made me laugh

That Guy · 03-12-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

the chris paul trade wasn't rejected after he had already been on the team for 2 years. this is penalizing them for something the nfl approved of at the time (the contracts), and the NFL is also being very selective on the teams (2 of MANY) it's choosing to hit... I still find it hard to prove they violated contract terms that didn't actually exist.

maybe we should get 30 teams together to say that the giants no longer exist. I'm sure they wouldn't fight that...

GTripp0012 · 03-12-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

I'd like to see more info on other teams that also used the uncapped year, and aren't being punished for it.

Green Bay seems to be getting away with murder here.

The Raiders are being "punished" to the tune of about $2 mil in cap room because they, uh, released JaMarcus Russell. I can see the anti competitive balance argument (with Washington and Dallas), but if you're arguing that releasing Russell when they did was a savvy cap technique instead of a football move, it would seem that you would have to explain why he hasn't been in the league in going on three years.

GTripp0012 · 03-12-2012, 10:37 PM

The more significant argument to me is: what about all the teams that dropped below the salary floor in 2010 because they were no longer obligated to spend? Should the total leaguewide cap NOT be increased because those teams cut salary specific to the uncapped year?

skinsfan69 · 03-12-2012, 10:38 PM