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

Burgundy Burner said:
GM Allen has friends. Think about it. I can't say much more than that. Feel free to speculate though.
Click to expand...

I was saying this last week, Allen has a brother who has major political influence. I doubt he would ask George to pull strings, but this avenue should not be over looked. The only problem I see is that any political influence Bruce would be able to muster is likely anti-union. In this case if a politician were to be involved, then it would likely come from a Union friendly character. Bruce have any liberal friends in Congress? More importantly, would Snyder and Jones want to get in bed with someone they might be able to influence enough to say something who is Union friendly? That would be nuclear!
 
Elephant said:
I was saying this last week, Allen has a brother who has major political influence. I doubt he would ask George to pull strings, but this avenue should not be over looked. The only problem I see is that any political influence Bruce would be able to muster is likely anti-union since his brother is a Republican. In this case if a politician were to be involved, then it would likely come from Union friendly character. Bruce have any liberal friends in Congress?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with politicians.

One other thing I have heard in the last hour...
There was more than one vote. Was a second or third vote taken to show some sort of unanimous front? I don't have an answer.
 
Or maybe a bunch of rich men had issues counting to 30...
 
Burgundy Burner said:
It has nothing to do with politicians.

One other thing I have heard in the last hour...
There was more than one vote. Was a second or third vote taken to show some sort of unanimous front? I don't have an answer.
Click to expand...

You will see I edited the original post.

My scenario may not be the avenue taken by the Redskins, but if you think no one on Capitol Hill is watching the collusion aspect of this, you are mistaken. They are threatening to look at the bounty gate, why wouldn't some Union friendly Congressman look into the criminal act of collusion among the owners?

My question then becomes, would Jerry or Dan want to get in bed with a Union friendly politician to resolve this if there is not an agreement reached through arbitration?

And when was any other vote taken? Because in the presser yesterday, Goodell denied the owners had voted. Why would he lie about that when they went ahead and voted today?
 
It probibly took multiple votes to get the wording correct so the other owners were able to vote yes.

Like Ryman i see underspending as bas as over spending

I did hear Halsal say it was a bad comparrison but i think that was down to the fact he simply had never thought of it untill he was asked it.
 
I'm wondering if the legal team was thrilled to see Goodell making this statement and supporting it 100%. Just guessing that they would say "oh, you betcha!".
 
Elephant said:
And they just happen to be the big spenders in this year's free agency.
Click to expand...

THATS TOTALLY A COINCIDENCE, THEY DID NOT SAVE MONEY LAST YEAR BY VASTLY UNDERSPENDING, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS SIGNING SOME FREE AGENTS WITH THE MONEY THEY SAVED, THAT WOULD BE MANIPULATING THE RULES AND AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE CAP AND FLOOR.
 
going to make a comment taht might not make a lot of sense without some background so I'll try to give that first.

My first sporting love is a soccer team called Albion Rovers, they play in the lower divisions of the Scottish football system. We are not a massive club nor have we had much success. 2 promotions in my life time is the limit to what we have achieved. Our averge gate is a paltry 400 souls. But they are my team and I love them.

The SFA (Scottish football association) or the SFL (Scottish football league) do not have revenue sharing, they do not strive for competetive ballance they let you paddle your boat with whatever you raise. One of the things I love about the NFL is the attempts at parity. It is accepted as such by ALL teams the rich ones look after the poorer because they realise that the league is better with parity.

In Scotland our Soccer game is dominated by two clubs Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers, they are known as the Old Firm. They take the lions share of all revenue generated. we are talking 32% of all jointly raise monies goes to each club.

The NFL has to be very careful, if parity is too mean anything then you must be consistent and fair. Deliberately underspending is just as bad as restructuring contracts and overspending. What did Tampa and other franchises do with the rest of the monies given to them under revenue sharing if they did not use it on contracts?

Now I know some experts have said it is a bad comparrision, but i am a simple guy. But I can extrapulate out some things. Jones and Snyder would like nothing better than stop contributing to revenue sharing for the money to go straight to other owners and not to the players. For Rangers and Celtic transpose Cowboys and Redskins. Does the league really want that. the NFL grows because of parity, but if you go for the big contributers you tend to piss them off.

Goodell/Smith and Mara have made an absolute mess of this. There is no easy way out without some one losing face big style. Would I be surprised if we lose arbitration. Not one wee bit, nor would I be surprised if we took it further. One thing I have found through history. If your looking to come up with a plan to get out of a tight spot (.i.e no increase in salary cap) get everyone involved so your plan is right. This whole thing sounds like a botch job done on a nod and a wink.

Hope I did not bore you all
 
nice post there DB.

My gripe is that I don't like the whole notion of parity. I think there have been fewer...if any...great teams since it became the business proposition for the NFL.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Goodell sees nothing wrong with the teams that underspent: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...issue-with-teams-spending-too-little-in-2010/


How can we get in trouble for violating the "spirit of the cap," but they're not in trouble for violating the "spirit of the salary floor?" TOTAL BULL****.
Click to expand...

well, because it helps the owners and hurts the players. remember the 'uncapped year' was supposed to be leverage for the owners - not the players. if players are making less because there is no floor - advantage owners. if the players are making more because there is no cap - advantage players. not saying its right, just saying thats why :)

also because restructuring long term contracts to move large yearly payments (which will occur in seasons with a real cap) into a year with no cap to pay them off, is not at all the same thing as not spending as much as you normally do for one year.

the whole 'the bucs stashed cash for one year' thing is way overblown and not even close to being on the same level as what the redskins/cowboys did.

i still side with the redskins/cowboys on this in that what they did wasn't wrong, and was a possibility for every other team, and that the 'gentlemen's agreement' is nothing short of collusion, and that this punishment has more to do with general dislike of the two owners than it does any real gaining of 'competitive advantage'. i'm just not willing to distort what the bucs did to be of equal impact as what the redskins/cowboys did... just an opinion though.
 
tshile, I would agree with you if the league wasn't standing on the "competitive balance" pedestal while preaching to the Skins and Boys. However, if you going to say those to teams gained an advantage through their actions then you have to admit that low spending teams did the same thing. Not only they, through being cheap they fielded less competitive units at the time which watered down the product for all fans of the game.
 
tshile said:
the whole 'the bucs stashed cash for one year' thing is way overblown and not even close to being on the same level as what the redskins/cowboys did.
Click to expand...

How can you argue this? Of course its the same thing - the goal for BOTH teams was to be able to spend more in future salaries. The only difference is that one team was limited by cash flow, the other team was limited by the salary cap. That's the only difference.
 
Neophyte said:
tshile, I would agree with you if the league wasn't standing on the "competitive balance" pedestal while preaching to the Skins and Boys. However, if you going to say those to teams gained an advantage through their actions then you have to admit that low spending teams did the same thing. Not only they, through being cheap they fielded less competitive units at the time which watered down the product for all fans of the game.
Click to expand...
oh i agree with you completely. the 'competitive balance' bull**** is just that - bull****. they're only using it because the 'we agreed not to' is collusion, and they can't come out and say 'we hate how these teams constantly drive up the prices on players', or 'this was punishment for making terrible decisions on player contracts, and to wipe it away in a loophole is not fair to rest of us for making the 'right' decisions all along'.

but no, i don't have admit the low spending teams did the same thing. they did the same thing in the sense that they didn't abide by the previous cap rules; but i think it's laughable to suggest that what the bucs did helped their organization even close to the same as how what the redskins did helped our situation.

we were going to be haunted by vinny's awful deals for another 4-5 years. we were able to clean that up in one offseason. the bucs simply saved some extra money for one year.
Lanky Livingston said:
How can you argue this? Of course its the same thing - the goal for BOTH teams was to be able to spend more in future salaries. The only difference is that one team was limited by cash flow, the other team was limited by the salary cap. That's the only difference.
Click to expand...
i argue it because i have (in my opinion) a firm grasp of nfl contracts, and how taking money spread out over years in caps season and dropping them into an uncapped year is not in any way the same as not meeting (what would be) the cap floor for one year.

it's my opinion. i'm not claiming to be an expert. i just think you're wrong in saying the bucs did the same thing. they're not even close in my opinion.
 
tshile said:
we were going to be haunted by vinny's awful deals for another 4-5 years. we were able to clean that up in one offseason. the bucs simply saved some extra money for one year.
Click to expand...

How do you figure this? Not saying we didn't have some seriously bad business decisions under Vinny but how do you figure we were going to be haunted for 4-5 years?
 
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