Impact of the Cap Case Dismissal

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:12 pm

SkinsJock wrote:thankfully we have a great FO that not only found a way to get RGIII, they also are digging us out of the mess we were in

The FO reworking contracts is what got them into this mess, if you discount Mara's jealousy and GoDaHell's urge to play God. In the end I call it a wash although the Redskins took a cap hit on Fat Albert last year but that dead money wasn't accounted for in the penalty.

But why not play with a few contracts now to undo the $18M they know they won't have next year?

The Redskins have about $3.5M in space now with a unused "Veterans Allowance" that won't have to be paid back until 2014, which makes the current space available to about $5M.

Restructure T. Williams now and save $5M+ in cap space for 2012 and another $2M next year by converting this years base and $4M of next year's to a signing bonus. This would increase this years space to over $10M with some of it likely to be carry over money. Williams base salaries are already guaranteed through 2013 so the team isn't taking any risk.

The same type of deals can be done with players like Cofield, Bowen, Chester, and Orakpo next year, but Williams has money due this year on his deal that won't be there next year.

andyjens89 · Post by **andyjens89** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:22 pm

I have to ask - how do you know all of this? It's very intriguing. Are you an insider?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:51 pm

andyjens89 wrote:Are you an insider?

No, he's a 1niksder.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:41 pm

Listening to this press conference with Shanahan, and several times he says he can't talk about the case right now, but he will when he can. When pressed about how the Skins and Pies have put out releases saying it's over, he still says he can't talk about it right now. It seems as though he saying the case is not really over for the Skins. Could be they're just waiting for the outcome of the NFLPA's suit, but I got the impression that the team is not quite finished fighting to get the money back.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:31 am

Deadskins wrote:Listening to this press conference with Shanahan, and several times he says he can't talk about the case right now, but he will when he can. When pressed about how the Skins and Pies have put out releases saying it's over, he still says he can't talk about it right now. It seems as though he saying the case is not really over for the Skins. Could be they're just waiting for the outcome of the NFLPA's suit, but I got the impression that the team is not quite finished fighting to get the money back.

That's about Brian Banks getting a try out...

Did you mean the 7:50 mark of this press conference

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:37 am

I have not posted in this thread because I do not have insight be on what went on in the mind of the arbitrator (or evidence of outside influence).

I am NOT surprised about the outcome. I pretty much predicted this possible outcome BUT I expected a more elaborate and sophisticated ruling.

NOW the NFL has a collusion charge from the NFLPA. That is not going to be easy to handle politically as this ruling was. There will REAL legal and economic consequences.

The Skins and Pukes FOs now have to consider their options being in between a rock (ruling) and a hard place (the case brought against the NFL).

THAT is why Shanahan is not commenting YET. Not easy, folks. Not easy.

Give me a bit of time.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:54 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:I have not posted in this thread because I do not have insight be on what went on in the mind of the arbitrator (or evidence of outside influence).

I am NOT surprised about the outcome. I pretty much predicted this possible outcome BUT I expected a more elaborate and sophisticated ruling.

NOW the NFL has a collusion charge from the NFLPA. That is not going to be easy to handle politically as this ruling was. There will REAL legal and economic consequences.

The Skins and Pukes FOs now have to consider their options being in between a rock (ruling) and a hard place (the case brought against the NFL).

THAT is why Shanahan is not commenting YET. Not easy, folks. Not easy.

Give me a bit of time.

Check this out!

I found this interesting...

The Clubs have sought discovery in this proceeding, which the League has refused to provide

when combined with this...

Finally, the Clubs suggest that enforcement of the Reallocation Letter as ratified by the March 27 Resolution might (depending on facts as to which they seek discovery) condone violation of the 2006 CBA and perhaps the federal antitrust laws. But, as the League argues, the remedy for any breach of the 2006 CBA is to be found in that agreement, which is not a source of public policy for this purpose. Moreover, anticompetitive behavior in 2012 of the sort the Clubs imagine is similarly shielded from
antitrust inquiry, and any remedy must be found in the anti-collusion provisions of Article 17 of the CBA. The Clubs lack standing to enforce those provisions. See id., § 5.

Speaking of the 2006 CBA, a chance remains that the Cowboys and Redskins will next turn to the expired labor deal, since that’s the labor deal under which the disputed player contracts were negotiated and approved. That avenue has merit, and risk, because the appeal process eventually could land on the desk of Judge David Doty, who likely wouldn’t hesitate to call collusion if he sees it.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:32 pm

1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Listening to this press conference with Shanahan, and several times he says he can't talk about the case right now, but he will when he can. When pressed about how the Skins and Pies have put out releases saying it's over, he still says he can't talk about it right now. It seems as though he saying the case is not really over for the Skins. Could be they're just waiting for the outcome of the NFLPA's suit, but I got the impression that the team is not quite finished fighting to get the money back.
That's about Brian Banks getting a try out...

Did you mean the 7:50 mark of this press conference

The link is to the Brian Banks article but the video it contains is of the entire press conference, of which the Brian Banks comment is just a small piece. Shanahan is asked about the cap theft twice. After the first time he says he can't speak about it right now, but he would address it when he was able to. Then, in a follow-up question later in the video, the reporter asks why he can't speak about it now, because the case appears to be over and the Skins have issued a statement. He repeats that he can't discuss it at this time, making it clear that there is still something going on with the case preventing him from commenting.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:34 pm

1niksder wrote:[Check this out!

Interesting that this analysis COINCIDES with mine. I swear, I had not read it.

Rock and a hard place IT IS.

If the Mara groupd and Goodhale were smart and not proud and arrogant and stupid, they would settle in negotiations.

It is in nobody's self-interest among the owners to have done what they did.

The NFLPA though are paying for their stupidity to have come along with the penalties. Somebody gave them BAD LEGAL ADVICE.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:41 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:The NFLPA though are paying for their stupidity to have come along with the penalties. Somebody gave them BAD LEGAL ADVICE.

That, and they have incompetent leadership.

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:51 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:The NFLPA though are paying for their stupidity to have come along with the penalties. Somebody gave them BAD LEGAL ADVICE.
That, and they have incompetent leadership.

Isn't their leader a lawyer

the poster · Post by **the poster** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:35 am

can you imagine where we'd be if we still had dumb and dumber running things here

um, I dunno, 11-21 in the last two years? (fact)

thankfully we have a great FO

I'm sure you're actually referring to two guys. both of whom were fired from their last job for poor mgmt of those teams' front offices (fact)

that not only found a way to get RGIII,

found a way? found a WAY??!! they had a couple of desperate conversations with the st Louis rams and gave them more by way of draft pick value that any team has ever given another team to move up in a draft. all told, it took 3 #1s (including the 2nd overall and 6th overall) and a high second round pick to eventually acquire the skinny, injury-prone rg3. here's hoping he's Steve young and Joe Montana, rolled into one.

yeah, they found a way. they bent over and told the rams first and rg3 second that they are desperate, please save them.

you better hope that this pays off immediately (winning season right away) and he becomes a star by year two because the bill will come due soon enough on this. next offseason, when they are sitting there with no first round pick, what their record is THIS year is going to have a whole lot to do if any buyers remorse exists. I know YOU don't have any NOW. I don't care. I care about this time NEXT year.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:42 am

yupchagee wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:The NFLPA though are paying for their stupidity to have come along with the penalties. Somebody gave them BAD LEGAL ADVICE.
That, and they have incompetent leadership.
Isn't their leader a lawyer?

^^^ agree with you all - I mean, you just can't make this stuff up - STUPID

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:42 am

yupchagee wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:The NFLPA though are paying for their stupidity to have come along with the penalties. Somebody gave them BAD LEGAL ADVICE.
That, and they have incompetent leadership.
Isn't their leader a lawyer

Well, yes... in fact the leaders of BOTH sides are lawyers... this photo should instill tremendous confidence for both ownership, and the NFLPA members...

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:55 pm

Latest DEVELOPMENT of the "BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE" soap opera.

If the NFL wins, things go as planned: "no collusion"

BUT if the NFLPA wins, Skins and Pukes owners lose a lot of alleged money (a billion???) with all other owners BUT we get our cap money back if it went to Court.

The options are there on the table AFTER the ruling takes place on this NFL v. NFLPA case.

It gets more interesting by the week. Not on most people's radars but definitely in MINE.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:25 pm

Ahhh, justice... the Redskins either get fined by the League for refusing to collude... or fined by the Government for colluding...

Only in America... is this a great country, or what?

So, who thinks "the 29" are still patting Mara on the back? As that great American philosopher, Bugs Bunny, would say... "What a maroon..."

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:48 pm

If we didn't collude w the other teams, hence our hefty cap space pillaging, why would we have to pay the government? Just because its from the pot every team is sharing?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:12 pm

cowboykillerzRED wrote:If we didn't collude w the other teams, hence our hefty cap space pillaging, why would we have to pay the government? Just because its from the pot every team is sharing?

READ the article.

The Skins are CO-DEFENDANTS with all other 31 teams.

They are part of the NFL in case you had not noticed.

NOW, they (and the Pukes) must side with the people who screw them up in the first place. Problem is, once the NFLPA wins, the NFL pays the NFLPA but they might get their cap money back.

Interestingly, how messy is the situation getting for Mara and his gang???

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:45 pm

cowboykillerzRED wrote:If we didn't collude w the other teams, hence our hefty cap space pillaging, why would we have to pay the government? Just because its from the pot every team is sharing?

I don't care how much Dan has to pay. I just want our cap back.

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:14 am

And I agree to the fullest.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:48 pm

yupchagee wrote:
cowboykillerzRED wrote:If we didn't collude w the other teams, hence our hefty cap space pillaging, why would we have to pay the government? Just because its from the pot every team is sharing?
I don't care how much Dan has to pay. I just want our cap back.

Good point! +1