Salary Cap Hearing Set For May

Lanky Livingston said:
Horse ****. So basically, this clown is saying the NFL can do whatever the hell it wants, in the name of competitive balance.

Bull crap!
Click to expand...

The irony here is that, in the name of "competitive balance" they are penalizing and screwing 2 of the worst performing teams (especially us) over the past couple decades.

The Giants have beaten the Pats in the Super Bowl twice in just a few years. THEY'RE the team that needs to be "adjusted" to ensure competitive balance.
But of course that won't happen since Mara and Goodell are sleeping together.
 
ok forgive me for rambling here or for even repeating stuff gone over previously but here is how I see it.

people said they do not see why the Cowboys and Redskins would "go Nuclear" on this, I think they might.



Here's why



here are two of your most profitable franchises, they put money in almost every other teams pockets, yet again they see themselves getting shafted. Teams like the Ravens are annoyed by us paying Haynesworth off it upped how much they had to pay Nagta. You know what tough ****.



Teams have consistently and continue too under spend despite us putting money in their pockets.



If your talking about parity it starts and stops at spending money on player salaries.



If Jones and Snyder were to give notice to withdraw from several lucrative league marketing ventures it could hurt the revenues to the core.



Right now the non profitable teams are never punished but they should be held to account

I love how the NFL has parity and how parity is at it's core but you can only use it for so long before you have to say enough is enough.

so to me the "go Nuclear" option is those two teams opting out of revenue sharing



If people say thats not fair



look around the world every major sporting league outside North America is operated like this



It is a big thing over here with e Glasgow Rangers Administration, if they go Scottish Soccer will suffer and we do not even pretend to have parity or revenue sharing.



Take out the Redskins and the Cowboys and other teams would have to work for their money
 
Not sure I understand the air of finality here with regard to this arbitration hearing. All I see so far is the argument that the NFL presented. That argument from their side was expected. What is different now than prior to the hearing? If it were that convincing an argument, that the decision is somehow now considered a foregone conclusion, why was it not considered a foregone conclusion prior to the hearing?
 
My question would be this....Was the old CBA agreement still in effect when we signed AH? If it was, then it expired when AH was a redskin, then i can see a problem.

But if it wasn't, that would be like your town changing the speed limit to 50 mph from 55 mph and going back and fining everyone who went 55 mph before the new law.
 
I think some of you guys are being overly biased because it involves your favorite team and aren't looking at this objectively, which is why you're having hard a time understanding certain aspects of it.

That said, the reports I've heard are that this thing is just getting started. I'm not sure what has caused everyone to think it's over already.
 
SNF said:
Not sure I understand the air of finality here with regard to this arbitration hearing. All I see so far is the argument that the NFL presented. That argument from their side was expected. What is different now than prior to the hearing? If it were that convincing an argument, that the decision is somehow now considered a foregone conclusion, why was it not considered a foregone conclusion prior to the hearing?
Click to expand...

I don't see it as final at all. For me, it's more about the arrogance of the NFL and Goodell seemingly having God powers. The fact that the league would allow that and the fact that Goodell would even accept that kind of power is just insane. It almost seems like the ONLY way to set things straight would be to go nuclear. Things need to change and Goodell needs to be fired.
 
The air of finality comes from the implications of a post from someone who has a source, though the someone is wisely being quite discreet and close-lipped. Maybe that someone misinterpreted "the motion to dismiss is going forward," thinking it meant that the arbitrator had suggested that the NFL's motion to dismiss would be granted, with a written decision to follow, when that language more naturally means that the arbitrator had not yet rejected (or accepted) the NFL's motion to dismiss, which was being taken under advisement/would go forward. Or maybe in fact we have heard from the arbitrator, at least informally, that we will lose. It would be a little odd for that to be true but for there to be no leak whatsoever, e.g., to Florio, whom someone obviously has on speed dial. And I would be suprised (but not shocked) if the NFL's motion to dismiss were granted.

So, who knows.

If we survive this motion, I'm optimistic about a settlement and or decision in which we'd get at least a fair amount of our cap space back. (Maybe I am wearing burgundy-colored glasses, but I try hard to be objective about this. E.g., as I've explained before, I don't think the fact that the NFL approved the contracts is a particularly strong argument in our favor.)
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Horse ****. So basically, this clown is saying the NFL can do whatever the hell it wants, in the name of competitive balance.

Bull crap!
Click to expand...

fansince62 said:
my take as well.
Click to expand...

Possibly-but my take is more along the lines of Goodell being the perfect egotistical power-hungry a$$hat for the other NFL owners to use in their petulant wish to punish the Redskins and Cowboys.
 
There may be folks here with legitimate sources, but I don't believe anyone knows what the arbitrator will do. Stay tuned. This is far from over in my opinion.
 
That's the key point - no one knows what the arbitrator will do.
 
JI Hassal said he expects it to go until next march before it us resolved.

Just adding it. No idea how accurate that guess is. He is an agent in thee ague and a cap specialist
 
J.I. Halsell is a lawyer, also. And he really knows his salary cap stuff. (And used to do salary cap stuff for the Skins, before becoming an agent.)

That said, when he talks about legal isues like the salary cap arbitration, he really doesn't know what he's talking about, either in terms of the specific issues in this dispute, or about how the grievance procedure works in general.

And as to the timing of when this will be resolved--everyone, including but not limited to Halsell, seems to endorse the received wisdom that this dispute will go on for a very long time. Who knows, but (setting aside an antitrust claim in court, which would take a very long time, years) I see no particular reason to believe that's true.

My vague guess is that it might be reasonable to expect Burbank's decision on this motion to dismiss within a couple of weeks. (That's not based on any knowledge of how long Burbank has taken in the past; it's about how long you could expect him to take to really dig deeply into the issues.) So, if we lose this motion, I'd think we'd know within a couple of weeks, then we could appeal to the Appeals Panel. The issues would be developed by that point, and I'd think the whole appeals process would take at most a couple-few months.

If we win the motion to dismiss, then I'd guess it might take another month for briefing and to hold the hearing on the merits of our challenge, then another couple of weeks for the decision. If we survive the motion to dismiss, I'd be fairly optimistic that we'd settle, which would mean a quick and final end to the dispute. Or if it does go to a decision, I'd think it relatively likely we'd at least get a fair amount of the cap space back--e.g., putting us back in the place where we would have been if we weren't permitted to wipe the cap clean in 2010, which would be something like $28 million over four years, not $36 million over two.) Then, there would be the Appeals Panel, if the parties decided to appeal, which again I'd think would be at most another couple-few months.

All that is moderately well-informed speculation. But I'm not aware of anything that would take appreciably longer than that time frame.
 
Romberjo,

All in all, sounds like we're not going to have an answer for a while.

Sucks.
 
Well, we lost:

Jeff Darlington‏@JeffDarlington
News from Pash: Court has rejected challenge filed by Redskins & Cowboys on salary cap situation, granting NFL's motion to dismiss claim.
Click to expand...
 
The "experts" on twitter are shocked, FWIW. King, Brandt, Graziano, etc are all expressing amazement at the ruling. The prevailing theory seems to be that because the NFLPA signed off on it, it should stand, according to the arbitrator.
 
Heir Goodell must have pictures of Burbank with a young boy, or something.

If Dan and Jerrah don't fight this, I will be very disappointed.
 
The rumor going around on Twitter is that by agreeing to arbitration, there can not be anymore legal options for either team. Not sure of the veracity of that, but that there's the rumor.
 
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