PFT: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Yeah, this was small market teams taking a whack at the big spenders - nothing more, nothing less. They couldn't WAIT to get a crack at the Skins! Jerrah is a little more well-liked than Snyder, so they really wanted to punish theDanny. Now they will feel the wrath.
 
TomE said:
The ol' haves vs the have-nots comes into play, Skins could payout cash to satisfy the front loaded contracts wheareas some teams could not. That's the crux of the argument, the sense of unfair play that the NFL is whining about to justify the penalties.
Click to expand...

See that just annoys the heck out of me.

We could afford it so we did.

But teams like tampa went the total opposite they simply refused to spend, to a level way beyond what we over spent.

Are the league trying to tell me if Tampa had spent even 50% extra (which would still not have taken them to the average) they would this off season have been able to sign to Nicks and Jackson? seriously? I am all for Parity and Equality but it works two ways. It is called being fair.

If we are to be punished for over spending, then punish the penny pinshers equaly.
 
Last edited:
The NFL interviewed a former Redskin for 5 hours on Sunday about bounties. I see Goodell using this as leverage against us. Looks like the divide and conquer move.

It may be a desperation move if feels he will lose the appeal.
 
drumlinboy said:
See that just annoys the heck out of me.

We could afford it so we did.

But teams like tampa went the total opposite they simply refused to spend, to a level way beyond what we over spent.

Are the league trying to tell me if Tampa had spent even 50% extra (which would still not have taken them to the average) they would this off season have been able to sign to Nicks and Jackson? seriously? I am all for Parity and Equality but it works two ways. It is called being fair.

If we are to be punished for over spending, then punish the penny pinshers equaly.
Click to expand...

That last part is what seems to be getting lost in the noise....that fact that certain teams underspent every bit as "aggressively" as the the Skins and Cowboys are being accused of overspending on the contract pay-downs to AH and Hall. Where is the hue and cry over "gentlemen's agreements" and "competitive balance" issues on that angle?
 
So, it seems to me that now they've agreed to arbitration, the outcome depends solely on either a settlement during the process, or the ruling of the arbiter. Since arbitration is binding, no lawsuits can be forth coming. Am I correct in my understanding? Seems like this was the only way to try to recoup the cap space without going Nuclear and putting the collusion at the center, which would have been far costlier to Dan and Jerry's pockets and the leagues.
 
drumlinboy said:
Are the league trying to tell me if Tampa had spent even 50% extra (which would still not have taken them to the average) they would this off season have been able to sign to Nicks and Jackson? seriously? I am all for Parity and Equality but it works two ways. It is called being fair.

If we are to be punished for over spending, then punish the penny pinshers equaly.
Click to expand...

This. Is. Right.

Had Tampa spent the league average, how would that have affected their plans this year, and moving forward? Yet we're the ones ruining the competitive balance? Absurd.
 
stevenaa said:
So, it seems to me that now they've agreed to arbitration, the outcome depends solely on either a settlement during the process, or the ruling of the arbiter. Since arbitration is binding, no lawsuits can be forth coming. Am I correct in my understanding? Seems like this was the only way to try to recoup the cap space without going Nuclear and putting the collusion at the center, which would have been far costlier to Dan and Jerry's pockets and the leagues.
Click to expand...

I hear this is same Arbiter who said the owners did nothing wrong in getting the TV companies to front up their money if no football on TV only for the union to go running to the courts so while you would think this is the end.









do not bet on it
 
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV deal ruling went against the owners.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the TV deal ruling went against the owners.
Click to expand...
well, you're right and you're wrong :)

at the end of the dispute, it did indeed go against the owners:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/01/union.owners.tv.revenue/index.html

However... that ruling was done by a district court judge hearing the case on appeal.

In the context of what we're talking about, the arbitrator (same guy hearing the redskins/cowboys v NFL) ruled for the owners. It was the judge who ruled against them.

Thats what the concern is, the guy hearing our case is the guy who previously ruled with the NFL owners as arbitrator of the TV money case. The general consensus is that the skins/boys wont take it past the arbitrator because then it goes into court; and none of the NFL owners want their business practices revealed on the record in public court. So the arbitrator is likely going to have last word on the case.
 
Goaldeje said:
This. Is. Right.

Had Tampa spent the league average, how would that have affected their plans this year, and moving forward? Yet we're the ones ruining the competitive balance? Absurd.
Click to expand...
according to JI Hasel, this is kind of a bad argument.

any deals the bucs made that year would only have an impact that year. they'd still have to meet the floor this year, and it doesn't provide a competitive advantage that the NFL is talking about.

thats not to say that, given the way the NFL is presenting it's case, tampa bay didn't do anything wrong; they did, they didn't comply with the previous floor, which is really what the NFL wanted. So, in that sense they did do something 'wrong'. It's just not the competitive advantage that the skins got by restructuring currently existing contracts to dump 'bad money' in an uncapped year.

note: i'm not agreeing with the NFL that the skins deserved to be punished this way, i'm simply explaining what the contract/CBA expert for ESPN 980 said when he was presented with the same argument about the buc's yesterday on The Sports Reporters. it sounds legit to me, regardless of how much i hate it.
 
Realizing the math side of my brain retired years ago, I still think they get a competitive advantage, either way you look at it. If the Bucs had signed enough players to be at the league average for salaries in 2010, unless they had structured the contracts to do exactly what we got in trouble for doing, their cap hits would have been strung out over multiple years, including 2012. Unless, they signed a whole bunch of one year contracts, which, again, would seem to violate the spirit of this emphemeral non-law people keep referencing. So assuming they signed some players for 3-5 years, the cap hits would have hit their cap this year (as well as the previous two years), which may have impacted their ability to go out and sign all the big names they signed two weeks ago.

Kind of a silly exercise really, given that we aren't dealing in any reality at all; to my mind, it simply shows (yet again) another flaw in the league "logic" that dealt us this penalty.
 
tshile said:
Thats what the concern is, the guy hearing our case is the guy who previously ruled with the NFL owners as arbitrator of the TV money case. The general consensus is that the skins/boys wont take it past the arbitrator because then it goes into court; and none of the NFL owners want their business practices revealed on the record in public court. So the arbitrator is likely going to have last word on the case.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Well, from pretty much all accounts except for Mara and Goodell's, the Redskins & Cowboys have an open and shut case. The NFL engaged in what is quite literally collusion, which is very illegal. If this arbiter rules any way except in our favor, it will be the biggest pile of BS ever.
 
Agreed.

The problem is Jones and Snyder stand more to lose by winning in court than they do currently.

So it'll likely end in arbitration. The NFL standing there knowing Snyder/Jones wont go to court, and Snyder/Jones is standing there knowing the NFL won't go to court. They're both trying to call each other's bluffs while bluffing themselves.

So, i think there will be some sort of compromise by both parties. We may not even know what the compromise is. It'll also be interested to see how they are compensated for being shorted at the start of free agency, if at all. Also, what changes it makes to the salary cap.

I stand by the idea that this was all started because the league realized they'd have to lower the salary cap, and if they were lucky they may be able to swing keeping it the same, for the first time in history. That's bad PR that says the NFL didn't make enough money last year. This was a quick and dirty way to raise the cap and force the two richest franchises to shoulder the load to do it, it also jives with the idea the other owners aren't exactly happy with the way Jones/Snyder conduct business now or in the past.

You can already see the shots over the bow from Mara claiming he thinks draft picks should be taken away as punishment. Clearly a 'Hey, you want RG3? Then be quiet and sit down' message to Snyder and Allen.
 
Just heard the other NFL owners voted 29-0 to uphold the cap penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins. One team or owner abstained.
 
riggins44 said:
Just heard the other NFL owners voted 29-0 to uphold the cap penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins. One team or owner abstained.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that one team would be the Raiders. In memory of Al.

I find it odd that they would even have taken a vote since the vote itself totally implicates the owners of collusion. Check out this very well written article from the Boston Herald which puts several things into light and brings up treble damages via the "nuclear option".
 
I am not surprised that the vote was 29-0 the best thing is that we now have clear evidence of collusion.

the league has made a massive mistake, I do not think that this 30 million dollar penalty is remotely legal let alone fair. The fact that teams way underspent during the same time period, should make the NFLPA get involved, but they are cowards and made a backdoor deal already, Smith should be fired immediately after a vote of non confidence.

we tend to look at this strictly from a Cap POV lets look at it from a business POV, a team underspending massively is saving money for later use THATS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, cap be damned , the reason we have a cap and a floor is to prevent over and under spending otherwise whats to prevent a team from cutting vested vets and only playing rookies and udfas every year, STOCKPILING MONEY AND THEN GOING ALL OUT FOR ONE YEAR THEN DOING IT ALL AGAIN? the league has a revenue share plan that enables teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay to remain competitive despite the fact that their teams are worth nowhere near the skins or cowpies.

I play semi pro, our league is governed by a council made up of team owners, and its the exact same, whenever my team (the flagship team of canadian amateur ball) is involved in any dispute, we lose, its simply the other teams way of being passive aggressive. the NFL is no different.
 
f7c7ac72abbc.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top