Redskins/Cowboys file grievance against NFL

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:10 pm

The Hogster wrote:In a perfect world, this is a game you want to end in a tie, with multiple injuries to both teams, and with them both missing the playoffs by 1 win.

In a perfect world, both would miss the playoffs by 16 wins. :twisted:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:16 pm

The 3 franchises that did not 'support' the decision were the pukes and the Redskins for obvious reasons and the Bucaneers who were probably embarrassed about being such cheap ba$tards

The arbitrator should throw the book at all of them anyway - just for being stoopid

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:21 pm

Funny the saints and raiders didn't vote no when they did the same thing and their punishment being not getting the fruits of ours...
Not to mention every other team that front loaded contracts that got away with it.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:14 pm

The Saints are prostituting themselves to get their coach back.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:01 pm

emoses14 wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
SouthLondonRedskin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:The NFL announced today that the Cowboys vs Giants game will open the 2012 season.

For the first time, ever, deep down in my gut, I saw a matchup that I wouldn't mind the Cowboys winning. This crap that Mara pulled on the Skins & Cowboys is something that needs to be addressed. I think the Giants have jumped the Eagles as the 2nd most hated rival for me.

Slow down, wait a minute!

Mara needs a serious slap, that's without question, but rooting for the forces of darkness...?!?! That's a step too far my friend!!!

I know we're all angry but let's keep things in perspective here, is all I'm saying.

Whatever dude. If a man steals $36M from you and you cheer him on, well.....that's not the kind of man I am. In a perfect world, this is a game you want to end in a tie, with multiple injuries to both teams, and with them both missing the playoffs by 1 win. But I can't see a man wanting the Giants to win that game in particular.

I hope the Giants get swept by the entire NFC East this year just for spitting in our faces like Mara did.

Meteor strike. This is a game you want to end in a meteor strike.

That works too.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:08 pm

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Funny the saints and raiders didn't vote no when they did the same thing and their punishment being not getting the fruits of ours...
Not to mention every other team that front loaded contracts that got away with it.

The Buccaneers abstained. Probably because they did he exact same thing. It in reverse. They know this can't hold up against just the Skins and Cowgals

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:46 pm

I'm guessing the other owners voted for the measure as a show of unity, to weaken the Skins and Cowpies' case. Like, Yes we all understood that in the interest of competitive balance we would not overspend in the uncapped year. It will do them no good, though. Not if Burbank executes his task faithfully.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:39 am

Deadskins wrote:I'm guessing the other owners voted for the measure as a show of unity, to weaken the Skins and Cowpies' case. Like, Yes we all understood that in the interest of competitive balance we would not overspend in the uncapped year. It will do them no good, though. Not if Burbank executes his task faithfully.

If they voted for overturning Goodell's decision, they gained nothing because it's going to arbitration and they'd pretty much have had to fire Goodell because they would have undercut him and publicly destroyed his credibility. We may want to fire him, but they don't. They also are either voting to give back the 1.5 cap or to increase it. They also are creating a greater rift in the ownership structure. It's a huge can of worms.

By voting to stay with the punishment, they dump all that on the arbitrator. It's a pretty easy decision.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:38 am

This case has simply highlighted that the NFL, much like most big businesses, are nothing more than supremely wealthy Fraternities.

Networks of rich guys who like one another. That's why you see so many retreads at all of the power positions like Head Coach, General Manager, etc. It's a relationship business more than anything else. (Much like the rest of corporate America).

The NFL is basically waving a big rich middle finger at the rule of law in America. Why? Because they can.

It's that simple. The thing here is that this violation goes against the normal philosophy of capitalism. It's penalizing owners who took advantage of a free market system. It's taking wealth from the wealthy who used their ingenuity to make good business moves, and it's rewarding the laggards who sat the bench waiting for a handout see (Bucs, Bengals et al)

What part of the game is that? Overturn this BS ASAP. And, give the Skins the Compensatory Pick they deserve. 33rd overall.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:00 am

The Hogster wrote:This case has simply highlighted that the NFL, much like most big businesses, are nothing more than supremely wealthy Fraternities.

Networks of rich guys who like one another. That's why you see so many retreads at all of the power positions like Head Coach, General Manager, etc. It's a relationship business more than anything else. (Much like the rest of corporate America).

The NFL is basically waving a big rich middle finger at the rule of law in America. Why? Because they can.

It's that simple. The thing here is that this violation goes against the normal philosophy of capitalism. It's penalizing owners who took advantage of a free market system. It's taking wealth from the wealthy who used their ingenuity to make good business moves, and it's rewarding the laggards who sat the bench waiting for a handout see (Bucs, Bengals et al)

What part of the game is that? Overturn this BS ASAP. And, give the Skins the Compensatory Pick they deserve. 33rd overall.

32nd. The Giants get 33. The Cowboys then get the 65th... the Giants the 66th Hopefully, we both conveniently want the player the Giants wanted. :twisted:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:11 am

The Redskins were officially notified about cap penalties "in writing" one hour before Free Agency started...

THAT AIN"T RIGHT

emoses14 · Post by **emoses14** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:11 am

Countertrey wrote:
The Hogster wrote:This case has simply highlighted that the NFL, much like most big businesses, are nothing more than supremely wealthy Fraternities.

Networks of rich guys who like one another. That's why you see so many retreads at all of the power positions like Head Coach, General Manager, etc. It's a relationship business more than anything else. (Much like the rest of corporate America).

The NFL is basically waving a big rich middle finger at the rule of law in America. Why? Because they can.

It's that simple. The thing here is that this violation goes against the normal philosophy of capitalism. It's penalizing owners who took advantage of a free market system. It's taking wealth from the wealthy who used their ingenuity to make good business moves, and it's rewarding the laggards who sat the bench waiting for a handout see (Bucs, Bengals et al)

What part of the game is that? Overturn this BS ASAP. And, give the Skins the Compensatory Pick they deserve. 33rd overall.

32nd. The Giants get 33.

Well, didn't every team other than the Bucs vote in agreement with this crap? And didn't every team other than the Raiders and Saints get part of our money? So, since both Oakland and NO traded away their draft picks to teams (Cincinnati and New England, respectively) that voted to uphold this penalty, WHEN it is found to be violative of the CBA, I SAY the compensatory pick should be between #5 (tampa bay's pick) and 17 (Cincinnati's from Oakland).

Punish everyone who had a hand in this, not just the Giants. I want 3 pounds of flesh, not just 1! Others have already addressed this, but what we've lost was not just money (going after certain free agents, resigning London already, signing the FA we did get to better deals for the club, etc.), so just getting the money back isn't going to cut it, nor is bumping only the Giants back one spot in the first round.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:13 am

1niksder wrote:The Redskins were officially notified about cap penalties "in writing" one hour before Free Agency started...

THAT AIN"T RIGHT

Clearly intended to inflict maximum injury. That should raise quite a welt when it swings back and smacks the league in the butt...

SouthLondonRedskin · Post by **SouthLondonRedskin** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:14 am

The Hogster wrote:This case has simply highlighted that the NFL, much like most big businesses, are nothing more than supremely wealthy Fraternities.

Networks of rich guys who like one another. That's why you see so many retreads at all of the power positions like Head Coach, General Manager, etc. It's a relationship business more than anything else. (Much like the rest of corporate America).

The NFL is basically waving a big rich middle finger at the rule of law in America. Why? Because they can.

It's that simple. The thing here is that this violation goes against the normal philosophy of capitalism. It's penalizing owners who took advantage of a free market system. It's taking wealth from the wealthy who used their ingenuity to make good business moves, and it's rewarding the laggards who sat the bench waiting for a handout see (Bucs, Bengals et al)

What part of the game is that? Overturn this BS ASAP. And, give the Skins the Compensatory Pick they deserve. 33rd overall.

That's all true, but if you factor in the redistribution of wealth that the NFL subscribes to, with TV money etc being shared equally amongst the clubs then the whole capitalist principle goes out of the window.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:16 am

emoses, everyone does get punished. From the 33rd pick back, everyone is pushed back one pick. From the 66th on, they are pushed back one more. The Giants are singled out for special treatment due to the malice demonstrated by their team president.

But, I wouldn't have any problem with your remedy... :wink:

emoses14 · Post by **emoses14** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:20 am

Countertrey wrote:emoses, everyone does get punished. From the 33rd pick back, everyone is pushed back one pick. From the 66th on, they are pushed back one more. The Giants are singled out for special treatment due to the malice demonstrated by their team president.

You're right, of course. I was (inarticulately, obviously) trying to say I want everyone punished more than just getting bumped back one spot from the 32nd pick on, I want the push back to start earlier. I.e in the first round from say, I don't know, the 6th pick on! :twisted:

IMHO, I don't see any draft pick(s) being awarded to us as part of the ruling, but so long as we're talking about what we want out of a ruling that will send a message (in much the same way that the league saw itself sending us and the boys a message with this 11th hour penalty (in writing)) to the league that their action was ridiculous, I want it to be loud and clear.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:25 am

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:This case has simply highlighted that the NFL, much like most big businesses, are nothing more than supremely wealthy Fraternities.

Networks of rich guys who like one another. That's why you see so many retreads at all of the power positions like Head Coach, General Manager, etc. It's a relationship business more than anything else. (Much like the rest of corporate America).

The NFL is basically waving a big rich middle finger at the rule of law in America. Why? Because they can.

It's that simple. The thing here is that this violation goes against the normal philosophy of capitalism. It's penalizing owners who took advantage of a free market system. It's taking wealth from the wealthy who used their ingenuity to make good business moves, and it's rewarding the laggards who sat the bench waiting for a handout see (Bucs, Bengals et al)

What part of the game is that? Overturn this BS ASAP. And, give the Skins the Compensatory Pick they deserve. 33rd overall.

That's all true, but if you factor in the redistribution of wealth that the NFL subscribes to, with TV money etc being shared equally amongst the clubs then the whole capitalist principle goes out of the window.

They collectively bargain for that revenue sharing as a way to increase the profitability of the league as a whole. This was done outside of the collective bargaining agreement--a side deal aimed to injure only 2 of the 32 teams.

This is more similar to a committee within the league (that is chaired by say Jerry Jones) surreptitiously agreeing not to share any of the TV revenue with the Skins, Eagles & Giants without any provision of the CBA allowing for such a penalty.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:36 pm

Goodell unable to define "uncapped"

In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?

Goodell is right, the rules were quite clear. To save the commish the trouble of needing to go and look up the rules, here they are--uncapped means uncapped. Meaning that there is no limit on team spending. None.

That last part is classic mumbo jumbo. What he really was trying to say is that all 32 teams followed the rules at the time. The only violations that were committed were the ones made up after the fact.

by Rich Tandler

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:49 pm

1niksder... looks like you linked to the wrong article...

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:51 pm

Countertrey wrote:1niksder... looks like you linked to the wrong article...

Yeah, I got the Garcon/Morgan perfect fit article.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:53 pm

Fixed it.... I had posted the whole piece anyway :shock:

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:53 pm

Finally a good question from a reporter. What is an uncapped year Mr. God--dell??

If anyone should have been penalized, it should have been the teams who treated the uncapped year, as an unfloored year and didn't spend a dime.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:59 pm

The Hogster wrote:Finally a good question from a reporter. What is an uncapped year Mr. God--dell??

If anyone should have been penalized, it should have been the teams who treated the uncapped year, as an unfloored year and didn't spend a dime.

How stupid are the players for agreeing to punish the teams that spend and yet to your point not the teams that didn't? I mean...duh...

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:59 pm

The Hogster wrote:Finally a good question from a reporter. What is an uncapped year Mr. God--dell??

If anyone should have been penalized, it should have been the teams who treated the uncapped year, as an unfloored year and didn't spend a dime.

That's really the home run argument. The league clearly cherry picked their targets. IF there was a discussion of a "gentlemen's agreement" to collude, and "not" gain a competitive advantage... going "beneath" the non-existant salary floor would have had to be part of the discussion as well as "over" the non-existant salary cap...

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:02 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
The Hogster wrote:Finally a good question from a reporter. What is an uncapped year Mr. God--dell??

If anyone should have been penalized, it should have been the teams who treated the uncapped year, as an unfloored year and didn't spend a dime.

How stupid are the players for agreeing to punish the teams that spend and yet to your point not the teams that didn't? I mean...duh...

Players had no say in it, it was on D Smith.

If Smith had opposed this the 2012 cap would have been around $114M for each team. So although I say it was on Smith he real had no choice.