NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

This is the Bears plan as I alluded to earlier in the day. Last time we tried to acquire a weapon in the passing game the Bears outbid us. This time they knew they wouldn't be able to outbid us again for VJax so they did the next best thing.

Anyway new plan. Draft Vontaze Burfict, put him on Redskins One and have him pay a visit to every owner except ironically.....Dallas.

I guess I'm not getting your last part about Dallas, they are getting screwed also. We'd be better served having them on our side :vomit: for the moment because aparently they did the same thing and the NFL approved their contracts also. Shouldn't the NFL be punished for passing the contracts to the sum of $36 mill dollars and tell them they can spread it over 2 yrs if they'd like?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Admittedly, I had to look up collusion. This is the 100% definition. JoeRedskin will be able to tell us for sure. It's the combination of reward to other teams, disregard for what the numbers MIGHT have been and the timing of this.

I just can't imagine this was a perfect storm. SUCH BULLSHIT.

Im thinking the way the NFL sees it is that the Redskins didnt necessarily sign a new player during 2010 to a massive FA contract. Rather they just "dumped" money of existing contracts of players that were already under contract, in order to free up money in future years and to get in good fiscal shape.

Still collusion. Still ridiculous. But i can see why other owners, even though acting cullusive, would be upset. But complete bs

[CapitalDefense]

TOS says our FO was blindsided by this

TOS = The Other Site

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I guess I'm not getting your last part about Dallas, they are getting screwed also. We'd be better served having them on our side :vomit: for the moment because aparently they did the same thing and the NFL approved their contracts also. Shouldn't the NFL be punished for passing the contracts to the sum of $36 mill dollars and tell them they can spread it over 2 yrs if they'd like?

No I'm sending Vontaze to meet with the 30 other owners who are reaping the benefits of Cap Gate. One of which WILL NOT be Jerry Jones. He gets a pass this time.

Maybe I'll send him to meet DeMaurice Smith. All that crap during the lockout about leverage and making things difficult and for this he just bends over.

[biffle]

The union signed off on punishing the teams that didn't illegally conspire to hold their compensation down in 2010?

Classy, real classy.

[mredskins]

Seriously some of you guys need to chill this is not the end of the franchise.
I hate to see what you guys do when something bad happens on your real life.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im thinking the way the NFL sees it is that the Redskins didnt necessarily sign a new player during 2010 to a massive FA contract. Rather they just "dumped" money of existing contracts of players that were already under contract, in order to free up money in future years and to get in good fiscal shape.

Still collusion. Still ridiculous. But i can see why other owners, even though acting cullusive, would be upset. But complete bs

I will feel about 20% less pissed off if they decide we still get the penalty, but the rest of the teams don't get the money. It was basically a bunch of cry-babying over a couple of teams who had the nuts to do something that might have been immoral, but not against the written rules. Then they all get together and say, "Well, if anything shouldn't WE get a piece of that pie?"

In addition to that, if the Skins were blindsided by this news, that means it's possible they weren't included in any talks or votes.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by biffle

The union signed off on punishing the teams that didn't illegally conspire to hold their compensation down in 2010?

Classy, real classy.

YES, and you would think with ALL THE GRANDSTANDING De Smith did during the lockout that he would at least have the guts to do something about this but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Seriously some of you guys need to chill this is not the end of the franchise.
I hate to see what you guys do when something bad happens on your real life.

LOL. Honestly, it feels good to care about this team for the first time in a while. If this happened sans the RGIII trade, I'd probably consider this "Redskins-as-usual" and continue on with my evening. Not going to ruin the franchise, but this is just something that until more details come out, stinks to high heaven with BS.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im thinking the way the NFL sees it is that the Redskins didnt necessarily sign a new player during 2010 to a massive FA contract. Rather they just "dumped" money of existing contracts of players that were already under contract, in order to free up money in future years and to get in good fiscal shape.

Still collusion. Still ridiculous. But i can see why other owners, even though acting cullusive, would be upset. But complete bs

Um, collusion or not the NFL had to sign off on the contracts. Someone at the NFL level needs to be fired for not performing their job in denying the contracts or failing to catch this last year when the deals were sent to the NFL for approval.

I really don't care how they got to free up the money.... there was no CBA. With out a CBA all the rules were not in play. Collusion would be when all the owners agree to something that basically corners the market and the players, fans, and other owners are being hurt in some manner.

#1- who's getting hurt?
#2- not all the owners did it
#3- the owners didn't corner the market

Am I wrong?

[Dirtbag59]

Where is the video of the pissed off Browns fan? That always cheers me up.

[CultBrennan59]

Eric Winston being cut cheers me up. But then I get angry again when I realize that we have barely any money to get him..

[Paintrain]

This could be a way for Snyder to get on the right side of the fans by going back at the league with both barrels. This is the one time we could all sign off and get behind the little bastard.

[Mayor]

I think the Redskins and Cowboys have a real case.

Julius Peppers was signed by the Bears in 2010 with a "roster bonus" of $12.5 million that was counted IN IT'S ENTIRETY in 2010, it was not carried forward to 2011 where his caphit was $13 million which was $900k base + 1/6th of the $6.5 million signing bonus + $10.5 million roster bonus + easy incentives.

The $12.5 million is nowhere to be seen... it was dumped in 2010.

So where is the biggest "competitive advantage": Dumping Fat Albert or signing Julius Peppers?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I will feel about 20% less pissed off if they decide we still get the penalty, but the rest of the teams don't get the money. It was basically a bunch of cry-babying over a couple of teams who had the nuts to do something that might have been immoral, but not against the written rules. Then they all get together and say, "Well, if anything shouldn't WE get a piece of that pie?"

In addition to that, if the Skins were blindsided by this news, that means it's possible they weren't included in any talks or votes.

Again I thought Collusion had to do with say all the owners or all the players agreeing to do something. That something has to corner the market and bring them $$$. and whatever it is has to cause damage to someone.

Not all the owners did the same thing so it was not a group agreeing to do this. By doing this the two teams being punished (Skins and Cowboys) didn't corner the market since other teams had the availability to do the same. and who was damaged? The players received their money that was contracted to them. The Skins still gave the NFL a % of their total earnings.

To top it off there was no CBA. There were no rules other then Federal rules governing Unions if there was collusion then the Gov would be simply penalizing the two teams monitarily not the NFL. Also with out the Union how did the owners collude against the players? How can simply 2 owner collude against the 30 other owners? When there were no rules in place in regards to contracts because the CBA was disolved? Which means the CAP rules were not in place.