![]() |
|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#676 |
Hug Anne Spyder
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,577
|
I'm not a legal expert but I would think just because the owners colluded and then blackmailed the union into agreeing on it doesn't mean they would get off scot free in the eyes of a court.
__________________
Hail to the Football Team |
![]() |
![]() |
Advertisements |
![]() |
#677 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Who exactly would testify for DS in this case? The NFL, NFLPA, the 28 other owners he made an agreement with then backstabbed.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#678 |
\m/
![]() Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,839
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#679 |
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 754
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#680 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#681 |
Puppy Kicker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 8,341
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#682 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#683 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#684 | |
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
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:
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.]
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#685 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
Last edited by irish; 03-14-2012 at 04:59 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#686 |
MVP
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 10,164
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#687 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,575
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#688 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Age: 43
Posts: 2,762
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#689 | |
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
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.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. Last edited by JoeRedskin; 03-14-2012 at 05:44 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#690 | |
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: NFL taking away Redskins cap space
Quote:
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"?
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|