NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

[mitch e]

Originally Posted by Jontrem

I cant imagine that they are taking 36 million from our cap space. We might have violated the spirit of the rule, but not the rule. If this is true this is going to hurt us pretty badly.

what makes it worse is that the money goes to th rest of the teams in the nfl.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

If the league once competitive balance, they should stop teams from dealing picks to the f'ing Patriots. Every year teams seem to give away picks to them.

Also, I would expect Goodell to veto any attempts by the Bears to sign Mario Williams.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

Agreed.

Seinfeld - Jackie Chiles - YouTube

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

If it had been me my thought process would have been that the entire point of the uncapped year was to create an environment that owners and maybe even the players wouldn't want. One where teams were allowed to spend as little or as much as they could. The owners little behind doors agreement wasn't legal and was contradictory to the spirit of the clause in the CBA. The Redskins had every right on earth to do exactly what they did. Teams with better cash flow were supposed to be able to do this whether all the jealous and, cheap and/or poor owners liked it. If they didn't want such a situation they shouldn't have voted to terminate the CBA.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The punishment was overboard, especially considering many other teams did the same thing, just not to the same extent.

Competitive balance my ass, it's called other owners having a problem with big market cash happy teams that have the money and are willing to spend it.

This is what it comes down to. There are too many owners who buy into this "We're all in this together! All the rich teams should keep propping the poor teams up up even when they have a crappy market and don't engage in business practices to maximize profit."

I can't believe that there aren't more than a few other owners or the higher revenue teams that see this as a direct shot across their own bow. Owners fights are brewing. I've got news for Ralph Wilson and his crew...you're going to lose.

[MTK]

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

[Monkeydad]

Haynesworth stay here was punishment enough for the bonus we paid him.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Haynesworth stay here was punishment enough for the bonus we paid him.

The Vinny Cerrato era was a worst punishment.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

I was thinking about that. I have a couple questions about that.
1. Is that even possible? I've never heard of an owner suing the nfl (then again I've only followed football since 2004).
2. If it were possible, would snyder even do it? My dad was in a similar situation at his lawfirm a couple of years ago when he got screwed out of thousands of dollars. He easily could have won if he took his lawfirm to court, but said it would be ridiculous to sue his partners because he needs to work with them for the next decade or so. Is this a big enough issue for snyder to sue over?
3. If he were to sue, what would he get out of it? Would the Redskins get anything, or just Snyder?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by irish

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

you completely miss the purpose of the uncapped year. the uncapped year was specifically put into the previous CBA because for the sole purpose of putting fear that the NFL would morph into MLB if a new CBA was not reached.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'd really be interested to see how the NFL's argument would hold up in court.

The more and more I think about this the more irate I get. Take the opposite end of the spectrum with Tampa, they are signing all the big free agents right now because they violated the rules in 2010. They spent as little money as possible, knowing it would get rolled into the next years cap. The new agreement requires teams spend a certain high percentage of the cap. They violated that by not reaching the min requirement. And they are being rewarded for it by having a greater cap this year. How is that any different?

Its not like the Skins went out and signed every free agent to a ton of money, ala the yankess. They simply cut players. They could have easily gone out and had a payroll of 300 million in one year deals to make a title run, and it be allowed, if they wanted too

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm sure the Skins were concerned about the ethics of collusion for their reasoning to dump salary. lol

I agree. However, that doesn't make the point irrelevant.

When you do the right/legal thing, you should not get punished even if you do it for the wrong reasons. You may not get an "Atta Boy", but you certainly shouldn't be singled out sanction either.

You can't legislate morality, intention or beliefs. You can regulate actions.

Ultimately, as someone said, this is a cat fight amongst a bunch of owners. GGiven that the NFLPA has signed off on the collusive behavior and the private nature of the owner's agreement (i.e. - not an action by the govt.). Not sure what Snyder's legal grounds would be. I wonder if could file a complaint with the NLRB essentially alleging that the owners colluded and should be sanctioned regardless of the players subsequent approval of the collusion. If that were possible, that would really make it a pissing match.

Again, I think the whole D.Smith backroom deals thing CRed described probably has merit along with the whole "F you Danny Boy. Play by our rules or we will get you!" aspect.

All in all, a bunch of very rich guys pissed about how one or two of them don't play nice with the other little rich boys and didn't share his toys after nap time.

[irish]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

you completely miss the purpose of the uncapped year. the uncapped year was specifically put into the previous CBA because for the sole purpose of putting fear that the NFL would morph into MLB if a new CBA was not reached.

I understand why the uncapped year was in the previous CBA and it worked, they got a new CBA without turning the NFL into MLB.