Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

NFL Refuse Redskins' Cap Relief
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 30077
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Define "EQUALLY fishy" please. Confused

And, as has been mentioned, they werent the only teams punished.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Runaway Jim


Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 4880
Location: By This River
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Runaway Jim wrote:
Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.


They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.


The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.


I was referring to the owners colluding to set a secret salary cap, not to the two owners who then exceeded that cap.
_________________

The_Slamman wrote:
RJ is officially the Champion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10541
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Runaway Jim wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Runaway Jim wrote:
Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.


They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.


The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.


I was referring to the owners colluding to set a secret salary cap, not to the two owners who then exceeded that cap.


It had nothing to do with the amount spent. I has to do with trying to dump a ton of money into an uncapped year to gain an advantage.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Keleth


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2879
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

plan9misfit wrote:
Grachuus wrote:
plan9misfit wrote:
RuskieTitan wrote:
Justice has been upheld. Hopefully this deters teams in the future from trying to pull the same trick.


Collusion isn't justice.


The more you know: NFL and other professional sports are legal monopolies. Either deal with it or find a new sport. Crying won't change it.


Not crying. And they are not "legal monopolies" because a CBA is in place. However, once a CBA expires, having a "gentleman's agreement" to not do business a certain way is a violation of antiturst laws, i.e., collusion. Part of the settlement the NFL reached with the NFLPA was that the Union had to drop the antitrust suit and not be able to sue the league for collusion again.


The problem is is that when you get 1 owner trying to screw over the other owners (which is what occurs when you break a gentlemans agreement) is that the NFL starts not to trust itself.
It makes enough of a mess with the owners fighting the players but to have the owners fighting amongst themselves is not a good thing for a multi billion $ industry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 47813
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Runaway Jim wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Runaway Jim wrote:
Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.


They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.


The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.


I was referring to the owners colluding to set a secret salary cap, not to the two owners who then exceeded that cap.


That would be the point. The two owners exceeded the cap not because they were spending on a lot of unnecessary players but because they were using the year as a cash dump.

You can spare us the hero complex. Your team didn't try to "honor" the uncapped year, they tried to abuse it to gain an upper-hand...and Washington was even worse and more blatant about it.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19319
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Runaway Jim wrote:
It was agreed in the previous CBA that 2010 was going to be an uncapped year. This was a major point of leverage for the players. The owners were wrong to set and enforce a salary cap outside that CBA. Just because they got away with it doesn't make it right. I don't think the Cowboys or Redskins did anything wrong.

I've long since given up hope that the cap space would be returned, though.
They didn't set an arbitrary cap during the uncapped year. That's a widely held misunderstanding.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19319
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.
Eh, if the collusion was improper, it doesn't matter in the slightest if their intentions were noble.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19319
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
MaddHatter wrote:
Actually 5 teams got caught

So they could then spend MORE money later which is what the NFLPA wants.
And only two got punished. DARN YOU MARAAAA!!!!

The owners had an agreement (collusion, call it whatever you wish) that they would not dump salary or front load contracts for that year. Reports are that the Snider and Jones were warned about, and they still did it. They were trying to gain an unfair salary cap advantage down the road, which is not good for the league. This isn't baseball where the owners willing to spend the most money can buy up the best talent.

It's not surprising that the two more arrogant owners in the league tried to pull this off. What, did they think the other 30 billionaires don't have a backbone and won't do anything about it? The penalty levied against them simply took away the salary cap advantage they tried to gain. Personally, I say consider yourselves lucky they didn't take away draft picks as well.
Four got punished, if I remember correctly. Just two of the punishments were drastically less severe.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MaddHatter


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 45147
Location: ROH Class of 14
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
MaddHatter wrote:
Actually 5 teams got caught

And only two got punished. DARN YOU MARAAAA!!!!


So not getting the extra cap space that the other 27-28 teams received wasn't punishment?
_________________


Sig courtesy of mack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15743
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaddHatter wrote:
Gmen wrote:
MaddHatter wrote:
Actually 5 teams got caught

And only two got punished. DARN YOU MARAAAA!!!!


So not getting the extra cap space that the other 27-28 teams received wasn't punishment?

What are we arguing here? Cowboys and Redskins fans believe they were unfairly treated because owner heading this up was the owner of a division rival, and you bring up that 2 or 3 other teams got punished as well. I'm not seeing how this helps your argument. Laughing
_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eddie mac


Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 6179
Location: Ireland
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
Gmen wrote:
MaddHatter wrote:
Actually 5 teams got caught

So they could then spend MORE money later which is what the NFLPA wants.
And only two got punished. DARN YOU MARAAAA!!!!

The owners had an agreement (collusion, call it whatever you wish) that they would not dump salary or front load contracts for that year. Reports are that the Snider and Jones were warned about, and they still did it. They were trying to gain an unfair salary cap advantage down the road, which is not good for the league. This isn't baseball where the owners willing to spend the most money can buy up the best talent.

It's not surprising that the two more arrogant owners in the league tried to pull this off. What, did they think the other 30 billionaires don't have a backbone and won't do anything about it? The penalty levied against them simply took away the salary cap advantage they tried to gain. Personally, I say consider yourselves lucky they didn't take away draft picks as well.
Four got punished, if I remember correctly. Just two of the punishments were drastically less severe.


Saints and Raiders punishment was not to get a slice of the cap pie from Dallas/Washington as the other 28 teams received.
_________________


Sig by Lil Uno thanks bro.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15144
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MaddHatter wrote:
I'm torn on the issue - if the case went to a Judge, the NFL would be destroyed for collusion. Honestly it's not worth the $10m the Cowboys lost but I'm surprised the NFL did it and the NFLPA agreed to it.


This^^
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15144
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.


Except they needed to include the NFLPA in that equation. They did not. The NFLPA did not know that the owners were abiding by an "agreement" just between the owners to keep salaries and payments to the players down.

I'll continue to maintain that the Cowboys, Redskins and other teams (yes, other teams dumped salary in 2010) did nothing wrong. They used the uncapped year as it was intended to be used according to the understanding of the NFL and NFLPA during the previous CBA agreement which stipulated that if the new CBA wasn't completed by 2010, the year would be uncapped. Meaning, there would be ZERO restrictions on how much teams could spend and in what manner they spent it. The players pushed for it as a means to be a "hammer" to get the owners to get to the table and bargain with them. The owners agreed to the uncapped year, knowing that it meant that cash-rich teams could use their cash to dump salary into that year and not have it affect them once the new CBA was signed. The Redskins contracts with Hall and Haynesworth were not novel inventions. Other teams had used them before as well. All the Redskins did was resturcture the contracts in which a large portion of the money was moved into 2010. Hall still remained a Redskin right up until this offseason. Haynesworth was still on the team the next year. So the Redskins weren't doing it so they could "cut" anyone (lest someone start THAT falsehood again).

But it is what it is. The NFL owners decided on an amorphous "violating the spirit of the ssalary cap" (per John Mara's statement and others' statements this was the reason for the penalty). They got away with it by strong-arming the NFLPA once the first season of the new CBA was finished and the NFL was in the clear. I will say it again, the Redskins and Cowboys (and other teams) didn't do anything wrong. They used the year for what it was meant to be used for (and which was the understanding of the owners AND players this is what would happen) consistent with the previous CBA which laid out that uncapped year. The owners, tried to then agree not to act like the year was uncapped and to conduct business like there was stil la cap in place. Can't do that and leave out the NFLPA.

But they get away with it because the NFLPA decided to look after themselves for one year and agree to help the other owners screw over the Cowboys and Redskins.
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15144
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Runaway Jim wrote:
Gmen wrote:
People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.


They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.


The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.


Whcih players were cut?
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15144
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grachuus wrote:
eagles101 wrote:


Isnt that specifically just for tv broadcasting or something of that nature


There's quite a bit more too it. Take the NFL draft for example. It's very nature is collusion. The interaction of the 32 teams who are independently owned is at it's very heart collusion. 100's if not 1000's of actions could be legally challenged for the way the rules are set up. A CBA does not at it's very heart allow or disallow.

Take LCD price fixing recently. Several companies banded together in secret to fix the price of monitors. Them writing an agreement down doesn't stop it from being collusion. Neither does the CBA stop the NFL's basic practices from being collusion. Congress does.


The reason they can do this is because the players, aka the NFLPA, agrees to allow it. Given that they agree to it via the CBA, they can flout anti-trust laws through exemptions that would normally prohibit them from doing so.

You guys keep forgetting that they need the players to agree to such "collusion" otherwise its improper.
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group