NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And what's weird is that several teams are reported to have done this, but only Dallas and Redskins are getting punished.

Ah well...

Well, at least it is fair and not arbitrary.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Q&A on the Cowboys-Redskins cap mess - NFC East Blog - ESPN

This smells like the Chris Paul trade veto all over again. A few cry-baby owners screwing things up. Ugh.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Q&A on the Cowboys-Redskins cap mess - NFC East Blog - ESPN

Q: Why isn't the union challenging this?

A: While this behavior seems to fit the very dictionary definition of collusion, as multiple teams were engaged in discussions to limit the earning potential of their employees and prospective employees, do not expect it to be challenged in court. The decision today, in which the Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space and the Cowboys $10 million, is the result of a settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. One reason the union has no problem with it is that the money lost to the Cowboys and Redskins is not taken out of the overall 2012 spending pool — each of 28 other teams gets $1.6 million extra in cap room, so there's no net loss league-wide. Another reason the union won't push on it is because they agreed, as part of the settlement of last year's Brady vs. NFL federal lawsuit, to drop all pending legal action against the league. That included their claims that the league engaged in collusion in 2010.

This whole thing disgusts me. Would not surprise me one bit if the most vocal of the teams demanding punishment were teams targeting VJ and wanted to limit the skins as competitors.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Q&A on the Cowboys-Redskins cap mess - NFC East Blog - ESPN

He said
"The Cowboys and the Redskins, to a greater extent than the league's other 30 teams, ignored these warnings and engaged in such behavior anyway."

Is the NFL kidding?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Glad a lawyer (you are a lawyer right?) agreed on this. It HAS to be collusion. It is almost textbook from my half-assed understanding of it.

No. I just play one on TV.

Yes. I am lawyer, but labor law is a world unto itself in many ways and not my area of expertise. At the same time, for all the reasons stated in this thread, it seems to me to be a clear violation of the prior CBA and collusion among the owners to avoid the ramifications of their prior agreement.

Further, has a negative impact on the current players. As someone else already stated, the Skins had money in hand and were ready to spend. I think the current NFLPA should be pretty upset about this as it is harmful to the current UFA's out there.

Not sure what, if any, the legal recourse is for the Skins. Maybe an injunctive action alleging that the NFL is punishing them for not acting illegally.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Rules or not, if the league is telling you to not do something, and you do it anyway, what do you expect?

understood, but this song and dance is getting very old very quick

Cowboys, Redskins punished ... but why? - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

And again, while they don't appear to have broken any actual league rule that's on the books, they do appear to have been warned. So, they're being punished. In the NFL's world, you pretty much have to do what the NFL tells you to do.

all of these unspoken rules, unclairified rules, bs fines, and crazy suspensions are adding up really fast. i really hope goodell knows what the f he is doing, he is definitely taking the nfl in a new direction. i just hope it's the right way. he really needs to have some clarity with the owners and player on what any and all new rules are. i look at this as the way players are getting fined for "illegal" hits. the nfl gives some vague guidelines and then starts fining some players for certain hits and not fining other players for very similiar hits. there just seems to be entirely too much gray area in the nfl these days.

[Ruhskins]

Some good points on twitter...

Rick Snider ‏ @Snide_Remarks Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
Essentially, jealous owners ganged up on Redskins. Violated verbal warnings? Verbal? Means nothing unless written down.
Retweeted by Chris Russell

Rick Snider ‏ @Snide_Remarks Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
Not sure why NFLPA would go against Redskins and Cowboys. Those two teams spend more money on players than anyone.

[CrazyCanuck]

Ya this sounds like complete BS to me. $36 friggin mill????

Ok so how much could we have paid AH and Hall in 2010? $15M and $10M? $10M and $5M? $5M and $2M???? What's too much?

We finally start making cap-friendly deals and it costs us $36M.... :frusty:

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Some good points on twitter...

Rick Snider ‏ @Snide_Remarks Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
Essentially, jealous owners ganged up on Redskins. Violated verbal warnings? Verbal? Means nothing unless written down.
Retweeted by Chris Russell

Rick Snider ‏ @Snide_Remarks Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
Not sure why NFLPA would go against Redskins and Cowboys. Those two teams spend more money on players than anyone.

Maybe they'll reverse it

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This whole thing disgusts me. Would not surprise me one bit if the most vocal of the teams demanding punishment were teams targeting VJ and wanted to limit the skins as competitors.

Yeah defintely pretty sick:

Q: Why is this happening now, the day before free agency?

A: The answer to that lies in the reason it took so long for the league to establish and announce this year's salary cap. The union must sign off on the cap before it is approved, and it obviously took issue initially with the idea of punishing teams for spending money in an uncapped year. But the league was toying with the idea of lowering this year's salary cap, and used this issue as a bargaining chip with the union. Basically, if the union agreed to the punishment for the Redskins and Cowboys, the cap would be $120.6 million, as it is now. But if they refused, the league was prepared to make the cap lower. I don't know by how much, but say for the sake of argument they wanted to drop it to $116 million per team. That'd have been a total of $128 million when spread across 32 teams — a significant loss to the players if they agreed to it.

The FO had to know about this to some extant prior to the trade with St. Louis.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Maybe they'll reverse it

I swear, this is the Chris Paul trade veto all over again!

[SirClintonPortis]

Luckily, our QBs are not devouring our cap space. :FIREdevil

[That Guy]

well, when you make $20mill/year you sh#$ no longer stinks, apparently.

the nflpa agreed under threat of a reduced salary cap (potentially 100mill+ less for players this year) and they already agreed not to pursue 2010 collusion per the new cba agreement, so i'd say recourse is almost nil, though potentially they could argue for a reduction i guess.

[12thMan]

Hatters gone hat. Plane and simpal.

[SirClintonPortis]

I see. The owners are just seeing all the poor players on the Redskins suffering from losing and wanted to help them out by forcing them to go to brighter pastures. Such benevolence.

/sarcasm