The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.

1niksder wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.

I been blowing up Sheft and Morrison for two days on twitter

1niksder wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm going on Sirius NFL radio right now to bitch about it.

I been blowing up Sheft and Morrison for two days on twitter

1niksder wrote:The Bucs ate up $30.2 million of cap room with the signings of Carl Nicks, Vincent Jackson and Eric Wright....

How did they do that?

1niksder wrote:The Bucs ate up $30.2 million of cap room with the signings of Carl Nicks, Vincent Jackson and Eric Wright....

How did they do that?

Countertrey wrote:You would think... except that there has already been injury caused to the skins... possibly to the Cowboys, as well. It's likely that this impaired their ability to pursue several free agents... so, how does Snyder recoup losses, if he doesn't sue?

Deadskins wrote:

Countertrey wrote:You would think... except that there has already been injury caused to the skins... possibly to the Cowboys, as well. It's likely that this impaired their ability to pursue several free agents... so, how does Snyder recoup losses, if he doesn't sue?

That's assuming they're not really proceding as if nothing's changed.

Deadskins wrote:Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Right, so if they threatened legal action, don't you think the league would have to back down?

Snyder & Jerry are NOT risking losing the anti trust deal over this

this is not over, but ...

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

Redskins, Cowboys have little recourse

By Dan Graziano

Look, I'd love to keep hammering the NFL for its ridiculous decision earlier this week to strip the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys of $36 million and $10 million, respectively, in cap room over the next two years. The league deserves to be hammered, and almost everyone else (just as the league hoped they would) is ignoring the story in favor of free agency. But the fact is that there is almost nothing the Redskins or Cowboys can do about this, and the few avenues available to them are avenues they're extremely unlikely to pursue.

When the story broke Monday, my first thought, as I wrote at the time, was that the owners appeared to have engaged in collusion by conspiring to limit spending in the uncapped 2010 season and that the Cowboys and Redskins were being punished for not going along with that plan. So I reached out to ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson and asked him if I was on the right track. Here's his response:

The NFL collusion clause (Article 17, P. 119) in the new CBA is very narrow in its definition of collusion. It applies only to certain contract procedures and any agreement among owners that would restrict the offers made to players. It is limited to multi-team decisions on whether to negotiate with a particular player, whether to submit an offer sheet, whether to offer a contract, and whether to include a right of first refusal. It is nothing like the broad anti-collusion clause that became famous in MLB. There is nothing in the NFL definition of collusion that applies to the Dallas and Washington frontloading of contracts. What the league did certainly sounds like what we normally think of as collusion, but it does not appear to violate anything in the CBA. If Dallas or Washington want to do something about the penalties, they would be forced to rely on an antitrust action, an enormous undertaking. It would be similar to the numerous cases that Al Davis filed over the years. I doubt that either Jones or Snyder would be willing to undertake so massive an effort.


I share his doubt. The idea of Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder bringing an antitrust suit against the other members of a cartel of which they themselves are members is farfetched to say the least. I know that the Redskins, at least, have made inquiries about how they can fight these penalties, but the odds are that nothing ends up happening on that front.

The NFLPA isn't going to be any help either. They agreed as part of the Brady settlement at the end of the lockout to drop all pending litigation against the league, including the collusion charges they were intending to pursue. And while they could technically revisit those charges in light of the stunning new evidence the league has presented that it did, in fact, engage in collusive behavior during the uncapped year, don't hold your breath. The NFLPA (as we also reported Monday) agreed to these penalties last weekend in a settlement after the league threatened to cut this year's salary cap by $4 million or $5 million per team. It's highly doubtful the union, which was blindsided by this whole thing, is eager to open those negotiations back up.

The NFL is remorseless in its arrogance and its hypocrisy. It doesn't believe it has to answer to anyone. The lockout (which was clearly a sham, since we now know the league was instructing teams on how to behave while awaiting what it considered an inevitable solution) was more proof of that than anyone should ever need. This latest incident is just a far more narrowly focused example of the same thing. The Cowboys and the Redskins did something the rest of the owners didn't like, so the rest of the owners ganged up on them and took away some of their money. Mob justice, sanctioned by the commissioner. It's not right. It's not fair. But in the end, there's almost nothing the Cowboys and Redskins can do about it.

1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

1niksder wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I'll wait for 1niksder to give me the real breakdown

I like Pat and Tim ... they most likely get their information from 1niksder too

I'll know the fact when everyone else does, I'll figure out what it means to the cap. I'm the Cap guy, never claimed to be a lawyer but there are a few on this site.

If you want insight on what might be ahead you might want to ask one of them. If you need a breakdown of that, no prolem...

Here ya go....

Ask one the members that occasionally steps in with their legal points of view, without really explaining why they have this knowledge, rather than the ones or one that is always pointing out that they're a attorney but seems to lacks legal knowledge on each and every situation. You've been around long enough to know who is who. If I had to co-sign on anybody ....


It would be the one on the TH.n staff

As far as how this will effect the team and the cap, nothing has changed... the contract are set up (and have been approved by the NFL) in a way that they can and will ne void in 2014 win the cap is rumored to blow up. The NFL cap penalties will have passed and any court action should be over too, if it gets that far.

Again I'm no attorney, agent or expert on legal documents but that contract (the Redskins contract sumitted to the NFL this year) Adam Carriker signed is almost identical to the ones Hall and Haynesworth signed.

Still not being a attorney or agent, Hanyesworth and Hall's Cap savings in 2010 totaled the amount of the Skins penalty and the team is and has been carrying dead cap on AH for the past two years. To me $26M was a few million too high and the team should at least get that back.


FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle so it more than likely the little general will go full steam ahead or some direction with this.

No one as brought this up anywhere in any discussion..... lets see it Pat and Tim do follow ups.

1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

Deadskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:Carriker's contract gives him the same buy out option that Hall and Haynesworth had, the option forces the team to count all pro-rated signing bonus money to be counted the year before the play has that option.

That's what they "say" was wrong with the contracts that were re-worked with Hall and AH. They approved Carriker's contract.... so.... Now we need to know why Hall and AH deals were penalized.

The difference is that Hall and AH's deals took place in the uncapped year. I don't see any evidence here that The Danny is doing anything but bending over to make Roger's jobbing a little easier to take.

Deadskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:FWIW: Jurrah has bailed on "the Danny" in this battle

What a tool. Figures, since they only tapped him for $10 million over two years. That's like one FA contract. Not worth fighting.