NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol

I think I understand what your trying to say, but I think you used a bad example. Not that I have a better one.

In your scenario if you were apart of the planning then yes you could be punished also even if you decided to back out at the last minute. But I'll go a step further and say that what your not eluding to and that is that even though you were not there commiting the heist because you knew about it and failed to notify law enforcement then you could be charged with the same crime as the ones who did commit the crime.

Unless I'm wrong and you were eluding to the fact the Skins could get into the same trouble as the other owners in the long run because they knew all the owners were colluding and didn't tell anyone?

[Swarley]

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think JoeRedskin laid it out there pretty eloquently.

I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones. Look you can't find one post of mine saying anything bad about Dan Snyder as a villian,I find a whole lot of his business ethics questionable I believe he plays fantasy football with a real team(yeah he is the majority owner) and the same with Jerry Jones....the fact that he hook up with him amazes me. What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured and a majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

How do you know they did anything at all?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Lol. My feelings about the Giants in this case are based on Graziano


(PS I lived in NYC for 20 years. The only time I root for the Vagiants is when they play the cowboys. Then I root for a tie and lots of injuries.)

...Check ...and mate!!!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I'm sure you do,there could be made a case for collusion on the part of Snyder and Jones. Look you can't find one post of mine saying anything bad about Dan Snyder as a villian,I find a whole lot of his business ethics questionable I believe he plays fantasy football with a real team(yeah he is the majority owner) and the same with Jerry Jones....the fact that he hook up with him amazes me. What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured and a majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .

if you can't see how the owners colluded to keep costs down, then that's probably on you at this point. it's pretty clear.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

You're taking it a little far there lol

What I'm saying is can the person that actually committed the crime accuse you of doing something wrong while they sit nice and pretty?

And that's what I assumed you meant, but I was just adding the last part thinking maybe I should not be assuming.

[SBXVII]

Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.

[irish]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Giantone,

I might agree with you that Snyder used to play fantasy football in the past when Cerrato was here but since Shanahan/Allen not so much.

But your ethics arguement makes me worry. Overall yes DS has had bad business but he's gotten better over the yrs with the Skins. But thats not what this thread is about is it, it's about collusion as you say. I think your explanation is a bit skewed especially when you leave out the part where your owner was a player in the collusion and broke the law.

What this is about is a two or more owners agreeing to keep the cost down. Those 30 owners to include your owner colluded against the players. They broke the law. I hate to say I hope whoever over sees the National Labor Laws does not jump on this. But as you said there was an agreement amongst owners and two decided to not break the law and now they are getting spanked for not keeping with the agreement. Could there be a trust issue amongst owners? Yes, but atleast our owner is not a criminal.

Why did the League approve the deals of they were wrong? Be abuse had they denied them the players would have had clear evidence the owners were colluding. Now some 10 + months later the owner want to spank us and the Boys owners so they work out an agreement with the NFPLA to no have a suit filed against them for collusion (because they know they broke the law) and then spank the Skine and Boys.

I'm supprised the players union agreed but if I was a player I'd say screw it and file a suit against the othe 30 teams to include yours for colluding which might make the whole new CBA void.

I'm not at all surprised the NFLPA agreed. While the players may or may not have made less in the uncapped year (I suspect they didnt make less) that was only one year. The NFLPA agreed to the deal so that their players could make more every year after that because part of the deal was keeping the cap from going down. The NFLPA too the long term view of keeping salaries up for their members.

Also, for the fans this cap reduction news came out of the blue, but it didnt for the Skins. They were continually warned by the NFL to cool it yet for some reason they ignored the warnings. The sad part is that the Skins could have avoided this mess if they'd have just heeded the warnings and backed off a little. The NFL tried to save the Skins from themselves but the Skins were too arrogant to listen.

[MTK]

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options | ProFootballTalk

If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If that's the case then the NFL should never of gave the penalty in the first place they opened themselves up for this.

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

[Dirtbag59]

Please tell me they're doing something. This penalty is just so asinine especially considering the teams that spent well below the cap floor as well as the teams like the Bears among others that frontloaded the hell out of contracts.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

I agree. I think we'll eventually get a substantial portion of our money back, but it won't matter. The NFL will have already gotten what it wanted: the Redskins and Cowboys to miss out on the major FA this off-season.

How have we missed out on anything? We've behaved as if the penalty never happened. Please don't cite VJax - there are reasons to think that we weren't interested in him anyway.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Please tell me they're doing something. This penalty is just so asinine especially considering the teams that spent well below the cap floor as well as the teams like the Bears among others that frontloaded the hell out of contracts.

I don't think what the Bears did is anywhere near on the same level as what we did (specifically because the Bears signed Peppers in 2010 whereas we restructured contracts of players we signed in previous seasons), but I still don't think what we did justified the actions that resulted in any way. The penalty that we incurred is patently absurd and arbitrarily handed down. Like I said, I don't think it will stand, but the damage is already done.