Mods, please merge if you deem it appropriate. It's slow, and I think this is worthy of a new thread.
Rich Tandler, a great Skins writer, mentioned a few risks of suing the league yesterday:
http://www.realredskins.com/rich-ta...02/are-the-redskins-about-to-go-nuclear-.html
There are pitfalls in suing a league of which you are a member. In 1980 Al Davis sued the NFL to move his Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. He won the antitrust suit and moved the team to the LA Coliseum in 1982. He spent the rest of his years as an outcast among NFL owners. When he wanted improvements to the LA Coliseum and, after he moved the team back to Oakland in 1995, the Oakland Coliseum, he got precious little support from the league.
The possibility of strained relations with the other owners would be the risk the Redskins would be taking by going to court against the league. Even if they win there could be ramifications that last for decades and end up being more costly than what might be gained by winning the ability to spend an additional $18 million in player salary.
I believe there are many more:
1. Say goodbye to hosting the SB anytime soon, and to all of the money it could bring.
2. Support with the team name? You'd like to have the league supporting that decision, whatever it may be.
3. Bountygate. This was the first thing that came to my mind a year ago. I believe the fear of that investigation spreading to DC made it impossible to even consider suing last season. A year later, that worry is probably much less.
4. Player suspensions. Will the league treat any currently suspended Skins, or future problems kindly?
Can anyone think of any other risks in suing the league for $18 million this season? Dan certainly seems hesitant to do so.
Rich Tandler, a great Skins writer, mentioned a few risks of suing the league yesterday:
http://www.realredskins.com/rich-ta...02/are-the-redskins-about-to-go-nuclear-.html
There are pitfalls in suing a league of which you are a member. In 1980 Al Davis sued the NFL to move his Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. He won the antitrust suit and moved the team to the LA Coliseum in 1982. He spent the rest of his years as an outcast among NFL owners. When he wanted improvements to the LA Coliseum and, after he moved the team back to Oakland in 1995, the Oakland Coliseum, he got precious little support from the league.
The possibility of strained relations with the other owners would be the risk the Redskins would be taking by going to court against the league. Even if they win there could be ramifications that last for decades and end up being more costly than what might be gained by winning the ability to spend an additional $18 million in player salary.
I believe there are many more:
1. Say goodbye to hosting the SB anytime soon, and to all of the money it could bring.
2. Support with the team name? You'd like to have the league supporting that decision, whatever it may be.
3. Bountygate. This was the first thing that came to my mind a year ago. I believe the fear of that investigation spreading to DC made it impossible to even consider suing last season. A year later, that worry is probably much less.
4. Player suspensions. Will the league treat any currently suspended Skins, or future problems kindly?
Can anyone think of any other risks in suing the league for $18 million this season? Dan certainly seems hesitant to do so.
Last edited: