The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:21 pm

are you trying to imply that the redskins and pukes could get this changed?

that's really a stretch :roll:

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:37 pm

SkinsJock wrote:are you trying to imply that the redskins and pukes could get this changed?

that's really a stretch

He wants to sue people who have an anti-trust exemption as violating anti-trust. You doubt that would work?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:58 pm

Hmm. Stephen Burbank, the arbitrator in the initial dispute said they could go that route, but I guess Kazoo and SkinsJock, the experts, know better. :roll:

What I'm saying is, now that the NFL has filed legal briefs saying we did nothing wrong, if we took them to court, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:27 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
kaz wrote:If someone accepts the settlement offer and cashes the check, they can't turn around and sue you anyway. I blasted the players for this exact reason at the time and I got a bunch of flack that the players had "no choice." Well, now the NFL is safe, they can admit to whatever they want. There is no mess at all for them. The NFLPA sold us out, with friends like that....

True for the NFLPA, not true for the Skins and Pies.

Not sure what that means exactly. If you mean it's not "fair" then I agree. If you mean it's not "legal" then you're going to have to be more specific. I doubt Danny and Jerry would have dropped this if they saw a legal remedy.

+0.87

It is still a mess... although you are correct that it's not the NFL's mess. That's only because the Redskins and ttiT put this in their rear view mirrors a long time ago. They made their challenge and Mara and his boys technically change the reason for penalties. It went from spending beyond the unspoken cap number (which they did if there was a unspoken cap number) to moving spent money (pro-rated cap money from future years into the un-capped year... which they did on a number of contracts)). They took their punishment and moved on. Both teams did better than expected with what they had, which is better than what a lot of teams did with some of what was taken from them. The Redskins were the first to get out and Jerrah and ttiT followed. Should have ended there. The players got a higher salary cap number for 2012 and the NFL didn't have to actually increase the cap, everybody was happy. The Skins and ttiT got less then 24 hours notice of the penalties and spent about that long fighting it.

However in that limited time they let it be known that the NFLPA not only knew about it in advance but had to sign off on it. That's when the players found out what they had agreed to. It really has nothing to do with the un-capped year at this point but more about the NFLPA not going to the rank and file on some they may turn out to be a flat cap for years to come.

The NFL will always point to the 2011 and 2012 seasons where the Salary cap went virtually unchanged while player's salaries pretty much increased across the boards, with the teams that gave up space still out spending other teams the NFL can say the "competitive balance" wasn't effected by Mara's thievery.

This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent. Let's not forget, right after this agreement between the NFLEC and the NFLPA to punish the Redskins and ttiT D Smith and his gang were up for re-election :shock:

OK +0.92

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:39 pm

1niksder wrote:This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent

That is the only way it makes sense. Either that or the lawyers just wanted more fees suing for a case that was already settled anyway.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:49 pm

Technically, that wouldn’t be inconsistent with Burbank’s decision, because he plainly stated at the end of his 12-page ruling that the teams “retain whatever remedies they may have against [the NFL] under contract and agency law.”
So until the Redskins or Cowboys say it’s completely over, it’s not completely over. And until it’s completely over, there’s a chance one or both teams will sue the NFL under theories like breach of contract and/or breach of fiduciary duty.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... t-be-over/
As far as I know the Redskins have never officially stated it's over. And I remember Shanahan refused to comment on it, because he said he couldn't until it was over. I think they are waiting until the NFLPA's suit is over before making their next move. I just know that if this had ever happened to the Raiders while Al Davis was alive, he would have sued the NFL the day the cap decision came down.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:59 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
1niksder wrote:This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent

That is the only way it makes sense. Either that or the lawyers just wanted more fees suing for a case that was already settled anyway.

That too

ACW · Post by **ACW** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:24 pm

Mara.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:08 am

g'day JSPB - time to pull your chain a little bit .... again

pointing to the what the Raiders and Al Davis might do is really grasping at straws - although .. this is what you're good at :twisted:

As Kaz and 1niksder are pointing out - the Redskins and pukes are moving on and there is really ZERO possibility of what you're suggesting happening

time to move on - get over it :lol:

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:58 am

SkinsJock wrote:g'day JSPB - time to pull your chain a little bit .... again

pointing to the what the Raiders and Al Davis might do is really grasping at straws - although .. this is what you're good at

As Kaz and 1niksder are pointing out - the Redskins and pukes are moving on and there is really ZERO possibility of what you're suggesting happening

time to move on - get over it

True. Both teams have recourse, but choose not to use it. The reality is, the arbitrator's decision, while not satisfactory, will be the last word. Both teams probably have a good case, were they to take this to court. A trial would be long, public, and ugly... and a victory would provide minimal gains, compared to what would be lost, should the NFL lose it's antitrust exemption... which would also, ultimately, probably bankrupt the league in the long run.

For the Danny and Jerruh, it's really a simple choice... getting screwed by Mara was distasteful... but the risk, no matter how small, of losing the antitrust exemption is, simply, intolerable.

The only realistic chance the teams had was a positive arbitration... that did not happen. It's done.

I think Al Davis would have made the same choice as the Danny and Jerruh, today... The risks are not the same as they were when he had his famous fight with the league.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:17 am

1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
1niksder wrote:This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent

That is the only way it makes sense. Either that or the lawyers just wanted more fees suing for a case that was already settled anyway.

That too

So that gets me at least to a .96 or so, doesn't it???

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:17 am

Countertrey wrote:Both teams have recourse, but choose not to use it. The reality is, the arbitrator's decision, while not satisfactory, will be the last word. Both teams probably have a good case, were they to take this to court. A trial would be long, public, and ugly... and a victory would provide minimal gains, compared to what would be lost, should the NFL lose it's antitrust exemption... which would also, ultimately, probably bankrupt the league in the long run.

Which is why I think the league would cave rather than let it get that far. As for this being truly over, we will have to wait and see. We may still see some action come the off-season. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to do anything while the season is ongoing. That would be pointless.

ACW · Post by **ACW** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:26 am

Okay, pardon my ignorance, but how would losing the exemption hurt the league?

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:42 pm

Was just surfing and bumped into this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TAkRHQLSxE

I bet somebody on this board could do exellent versions of these. I was hoping to find one about the whuppin' we just gave Dallas.

jmooney · Post by **jmooney** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:35 pm

Brilliant! tasteless but, brilliant. I kinda feel dirty after that

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:29 am

I don't know weather to laugh or be repulsed at the thought of Danny Snyder, a Jewis man, being as Hitler.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:54 pm

Here's a pretty clear message:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was paid $29.49 million in 2011, according to figures from the league’s tax return reported Friday by the Sports Business Daily.

Included in that figure was a $22.3 million bonus, according to the report. Goodell is believed to have become the highest paid commissioner in U.S. professional sports.

The league and the NFL Players Association agreed to a 10-year labor deal in 2011. Goodell also has helped the NFL negotiate a lucrative new set of television contracts.

According to the report, Goodell’s pay in 2011 nearly tripled from his 2010 income of $11.6 million.

League counsel Jeff Pash had a 2011 income of $8.8 million, including a $5.9 million bonus, according to the report.

RG3peat · Post by **RG3peat** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:36 am

jmooney wrote:Brilliant! tasteless but, brilliant. I kinda feel dirty after that

NOT ME! That was frickin hillarious

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:25 pm

ACW wrote:Okay, pardon my ignorance, but how would losing the exemption hurt the league?

Without the antitrust exemption, the labor agreement, as it exists... can not exist. There would be NO salary cap, as that requires a conspiracy to set fees, wages, and/or prices. The NFL Draft disappears... players go to the highest bidder, period. The league would have less control over where teams may locate. Attempts to maintain some level of league parity disappear. The league's power over TV contracts is severely degraded.

Teams will disappear. The NFL becomes a 12 team league... if that...

HTTRRG3ALMO · Post by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:02 am

Countertrey wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:g'day JSPB - time to pull your chain a little bit .... again

pointing to the what the Raiders and Al Davis might do is really grasping at straws - although .. this is what you're good at

As Kaz and 1niksder are pointing out - the Redskins and pukes are moving on and there is really ZERO possibility of what you're suggesting happening

time to move on - get over it

True. Both teams have recourse, but choose not to use it. The reality is, the arbitrator's decision, while not satisfactory, will be the last word. Both teams probably have a good case, were they to take this to court. A trial would be long, public, and ugly... and a victory would provide minimal gains, compared to what would be lost, should the NFL lose it's antitrust exemption... which would also, ultimately, probably bankrupt the league in the long run.

For the Danny and Jerruh, it's really a simple choice... getting screwed by Mara was distasteful... but the risk, no matter how small, of losing the antitrust exemption is, simply, intolerable.

The only realistic chance the teams had was a positive arbitration... that did not happen. It's done.

I think Al Davis would have made the same choice as the Danny and Jerruh, today... The risks are not the same as they were when he had his famous fight with the league.

My biggest issur is what's next? I'm in conspiracy theory mode this morning so excuse the broad context.

If they get away with a blantant conflict of interest and punish for an unwritten rule violation, they can do anything to us. I've always felt the league and its top dogs & announcers HATE this team. I don't think they'll be happy until the team is disbanded.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:33 am

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:g'day JSPB - time to pull your chain a little bit .... again

pointing to the what the Raiders and Al Davis might do is really grasping at straws - although .. this is what you're good at

As Kaz and 1niksder are pointing out - the Redskins and pukes are moving on and there is really ZERO possibility of what you're suggesting happening

time to move on - get over it

True. Both teams have recourse, but choose not to use it. The reality is, the arbitrator's decision, while not satisfactory, will be the last word. Both teams probably have a good case, were they to take this to court. A trial would be long, public, and ugly... and a victory would provide minimal gains, compared to what would be lost, should the NFL lose it's antitrust exemption... which would also, ultimately, probably bankrupt the league in the long run.

For the Danny and Jerruh, it's really a simple choice... getting screwed by Mara was distasteful... but the risk, no matter how small, of losing the antitrust exemption is, simply, intolerable.

The only realistic chance the teams had was a positive arbitration... that did not happen. It's done.

I think Al Davis would have made the same choice as the Danny and Jerruh, today... The risks are not the same as they were when he had his famous fight with the league.

My biggest issur is what's next? I'm in conspiracy theory mode this morning so excuse the broad context.

If they get away with a blantant conflict of interest and punish for an unwritten rule violation, they can do anything to us. I've always felt the league and its top dogs & announcers HATE this team. I don't think they'll be happy until the team is disbanded.

Next, Mara will convene a committe to take RGIII off our roster and put him on the Giants. He'll call it evening out a competitive disadvantage obtained by trading up--which was not illegal-but violated an unspoken rule against trading up.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:40 pm

^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:03 pm

Countertrey wrote:^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!

(Insert drum kick here)

Lawyer joke. How novel and never redundant. Fresh even.

HTTRRG3ALMO · Post by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:57 pm

Countertrey wrote:^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!

Though I doubt it would ever come to that, it is possible.

After all, they've established unfair competitive advantage with front loading contracts and then traded up to get RG3.

Again, I seriously doubt it but trading up for RG3 is a direct ramification of gathering up players in the uncapped season and then trading up.

That said, it could easily be proven in court that the "competitive advantage" was already handled with the cap space penalty.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:44 am

What???