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

Deadskins wrote:

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:If there is delay to the upcoming season (not reason to believe so just yet), that's just more R & R for our dear ol RG3

No one's talking about delaying the season, just the start of free agency.

^^ what he said - I mean, really

there is no way the Redskins or the NFL are going to allow anything to go to a courtroom ...

and

there is no way this 'action' involves the regular season start ...

how are you able to stretch this out?



I'm optimistic ... as usual

Deadskins wrote:

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:If there is delay to the upcoming season (not reason to believe so just yet), that's just more R & R for our dear ol RG3

No one's talking about delaying the season, just the start of free agency.

I'm aware , but we're talking about a legal proceeding that could lead to an NFL investigation. Like I said twice in that comment, unlikely to happen but possible as in stranger things have happened in sports.

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:If there is delay to the upcoming season (not reason to believe so just yet), that's just more R & R for our dear ol RG3

No one's talking about delaying the season, just the start of free agency.

I'm aware , but we're talking about a legal proceeding that could lead to an NFL investigation. Like I said twice in that comment, unlikely to happen but possible as in stranger things have happened in sports.

SORRY, but you're not 'aware' - nobody really sees even a slim chance of this getting into a courtroom where the NFLPA would be waiting ....

AND

'stranger things' have happened but not to the extent that the NFL season will be affected - GET REAL

SkinsJock wrote:

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:If there is delay to the upcoming season (not reason to believe so just yet), that's just more R & R for our dear ol RG3

No one's talking about delaying the season, just the start of free agency.

I'm aware , but we're talking about a legal proceeding that could lead to an NFL investigation. Like I said twice in that comment, unlikely to happen but possible as in stranger things have happened in sports.

SORRY, but you're not 'aware' - nobody really sees even a slim chance of this getting into a courtroom where the NFLPA would be waiting ....

AND

'stranger things' have happened but not to the extent that the NFL season will be affected - GET REAL

"...unlikely to happen." That means what it says and says what it means.

NOBODY knows what is going to happen here or if this is even a legitimate threat by the front office.

Possible does not mean probable.

whatever - this is going nowhere and is not worth wasting space on ..

the Redskins are trying to recoup cap space - this question/issue will be 'resolved' one way or the other in short order - a few weeks MAX

I'm cautiously optimistic

SkinsJock wrote::shock: whatever - this is going nowhere and is not worth wasting space on ..

the Redskins are trying to recoup cap space - this question/issue will be 'resolved' one way or the other in short order - a few weeks MAX

I'm cautiously optimistic

Agreed. Hard not to get excited about the possibility. Depending on who we're talking about (and if we were to get just $18 back)...that could be 3-4 new starters...possibly more

as I understand this ...

there is a VERY SMALL possibility that the Redskins might get some of the $18M cap hit for this coming F/A period - hence the timing ...

there is ZERO chance that the Redskins will get ANY of the $18M from last year ... NADA, ZILCH - DONE DEAL ....

and

there is a very good chance that we'll get nothing ... but ... you have to give it a shot or it'll be 'gone' like the hit from last year

that's how I see it

SkinsJock wrote:there is ZERO chance that the Redskins will get ANY of the $18M from last year ... NADA, ZILCH - DONE DEAL ....

That may wind up being the reality, but it's not like there's no chance. It really depends on how far the Skins are willing to push it.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:there is ZERO chance that the Redskins will get ANY of the $18M from last year ... NADA, ZILCH - DONE DEAL ....

That may wind up being the reality, but it's not like there's no chance. It really depends on how far the Skins are willing to push it.

I think you can count on the Redskins REALLY pushing this ... no doubt, in my opinion

however

the chance of getting anything back financially from last season's cap hit is really zilch - that is past
there may be a 'feeling' that the whole $36M 'hit' was too much but ... nothing is coming back from last season - bank on it

I'm hoping that we get the 2013 'hit' removed but even half of that, would really piss off that NY a...ole, Mara

Its my understanding from the WAPO article that the Skins arguement is based off of judge Dotties decision regarding the NFLPA's collusion case. He stated that the NFLPA should have filed their case prior to the new CBA being signed.

The Redskins are trying the approach that the NFL should have punished them prior to the new CBA being signed. The thought is the Skins might have a good chance of winning that. I agree with that.

But, I feel another, and possibly better arguement is that the contracts the Redskins reworked were filed to the NFL, as with all contracts, and the NFL had a duty to preread the contracts to make sure all the propper information and contract legalities were in the contracts. As the NFL always does. In this case the Redskins did not do something behind their back which the other owners did not know about until after the new CBA was signed, no, it was done with their knowledge and the NFL approved those contracts when they should have and did have a duty to deny them and request the Redskins to fix the contracts per their aggreement. And because of this NONE of the punishment should be upheld because it all took place under the previous CBA.

That would be my arguement and its not an arguement the Redskins have tried yet. They appealed the punishment and it was denied. The NFLPA filed collusion and Dotty ruled against because of timing of the filing.

^^ - the NFL does 'approve' all contracts ... and they did, during that time ...

however

Mara decided that what the Redskins did (with the NFL's approval) was 'not fair' to all the other teams and he basically told Godahell to take away our first draft pick in the 2012 draft ..


I think we might get the 'fine' reduced ... I just really do not see them (Mara) wanting to give the Redskins any of last years cap back

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:there is ZERO chance that the Redskins will get ANY of the $18M from last year ... NADA, ZILCH - DONE DEAL ....

That may wind up being the reality, but it's not like there's no chance. It really depends on how far the Skins are willing to push it.

I think you can count on the Redskins REALLY pushing this ... no doubt, in my opinion

however

the chance of getting anything back financially from last season's cap hit is really zilch - that is past
there may be a 'feeling' that the whole $36M 'hit' was too much but ... nothing is coming back from last season - bank on it

I'm hoping that we get the 2013 'hit' removed but even half of that, would really piss off that NY a...ole, Mara

You can't make that statement. If the Skins take the nuclear option and go to court, then there is a very real chance of them recovering some or all of last year's cap hit. I am doubtful that they would push it that far, or that the NFL wouldn't settle before it got that far, though, so in reality, I agree that there is little chance of recouping that money.

OK JSPB - help me out here ...

You feel there is a chance, the Redskins could take the NFL to court and put the anti trust stuff, front and center

I feel that most feel there is NO CHANCE that the Redskins will put the NFL and themselves in that position - why do you keep harping on this?

I do agree that there is a chance the Redskins will get the NFL to reduce the Redskins cap hit this year, DESPITE Mara's hatred for the Redskins

I just do not see there being any way the NFL and Mara will acquiesce to anything more than that - IF that

This is what supposedly the Skins are thinking:

If the NFLPA could not sue the owners for collusion because it happened during the old CBA and not the current one then:

The Skins are thinking the same way that the NFL should not be able to punish them cause the contracts occurred during the old CBA not the new one. This is a good arguement especially since it was used on the NFLPA by the NFL.

I still say for me the arguement is the NFL had a duty and obligation to deny the contracts if the Skins were going against an agreement. If the Skins tried to pass off one of those contracts tomorrow with Hall the NFL would deny them and tell the Skins to rework the contract. They would not approve it then. Year later complain that the Skins violated the CBA.

If they could not punish during a non CBA year then they should not have allowed contracts to be signed either. We all know why the contracts were approved and why the punishment, the NFL didn't want to get caught breaking the law (collusion) and had to get the NFLPA to sign off their rights.

I would agree with the punishment if the Skins did something without the rest of the owners knowing or approval and got caught, but that's not what happened here. The NFL received the contracts, looked them over, chose not to deny them so as not to get caught breaking the law, and later after getting the NFLPA to sign off their rights decided to punish the Skins.

In reality nothing was done without the owners knowledge, the NFL could have and should have denied the contracts as they would if the contracts went against the CBA or in this situation their "agreement". Because the league approved the contracts there should be no punishment.

VRIEL1 wrote:If the NFLPA could not sue the owners for collusion because it happened during the old CBA and not the current one

No, they couldn't sue, because they signed a deal saying they couldn't sue for any previous transgression, known or unknown.

SkinsJock wrote:OK JSPB - help me out here ...

You feel there is a chance, the Redskins could take the NFL to court and put the anti trust stuff, front and center

I feel that most feel there is NO CHANCE that the Redskins will put the NFL and themselves in that position - why do you keep harping on this?

No, you are misstating my position, and have changed your own. This is the first time you have put your position that way. Previously you were saying there is no way they could recoup any of last year's cap hit. Now you are saying they wouldn't take it that far, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

It's really a high-stakes game of chicken. I think the NFL would blink first, but I doubt Snyder really wants to piss off the rest of the owners that much, which is why he going about it in this candy-assed way.

^^ typical

still not sure about what exactly your position is - it seems we both are 'interpreting' each other's position differently - whatever

I have not changed my feeling that: ....
the Redskins are hoping that they can get the 2013 cap hit, reduced or eliminated

AND that nothing they are doing affects the $18M hit from last season

ALSO that the Redskins are posturing aggressively but nobody expects the Redskins (or the NFL & Mara) to allow this to get into a courtroom

Deadskins wrote:

VRIEL1 wrote:If the NFLPA could not sue the owners for collusion because it happened during the old CBA and not the current one

No, they couldn't sue, because they signed a deal saying they couldn't sue for any previous transgression, known or unknown.

Yes you are right but the judge also made the point to say the NFLPA should have filed prior to the new CBA. The NFLPA didn't sign their rights away until the eve of FA which was like 6 months later.

I've heard the Skins are thinking along the same lines with the punishment , that the NFL should have punished prior to the new CBA while they were still under the so called "agreement."

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:OK JSPB - help me out here ...

You feel there is a chance, the Redskins could take the NFL to court and put the anti trust stuff, front and center

I feel that most feel there is NO CHANCE that the Redskins will put the NFL and themselves in that position - why do you keep harping on this?

No, you are misstating my position, and have changed your own. This is the first time you have put your position that way. Previously you were saying there is no way they could recoup any of last year's cap hit. Now you are saying they wouldn't take it that far, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

It's really a high-stakes game of chicken. I think the NFL would blink first, but I doubt Snyder really wants to piss off the rest of the owners that much, which is why he going about it in this candy-assed way.

I too am antsy but for this threat to work DS probably is thinking he will need to file the eve of FA similarly to how the punishment was doled out last minute so the Skins didn't have time to challenge it. DS waits until the eve of FA and the NFL can't call an emergency hearing to lift the injunction prior to march 12th.

I too doubts he does it but will wait until March 12th before calling him a wuss.

SkinsJock wrote:^^ typical

still not sure about what exactly your position is - it seems we both are 'interpreting' each other's position differently - whatever

I have not changed my feeling that: ....
the Redskins are hoping that they can get the 2013 cap hit, reduced or eliminated

AND that nothing they are doing affects the $18M hit from last season

ALSO that the Redskins are posturing aggressively but nobody expects the Redskins (or the NFL & Mara) to allow this to get into a courtroom

I agree wih you. I'll say this "IF" DS does find the balls to go ahead and file the suit I think the Skins could win all 36 mill back, but right now we are in bluff stage with the hopes the NFL lets us keep some or all of this years penalty.

Unless there's someone on here with inside knowledge, we have no clue if this is a bluff or not.

Get someone desperate enough and they'll do just about anything to survive.

Time will tell...

If Dan... If Dan can sue elderly women, he has the nads to sue the NFL.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:If Dan... If Dan can sue elderly women, he has the nads to sue the NFL.

That entire, "Dan sued a grandmother" thing was product of the negative local media. Yes, he took legal action against a person that was in the first year of a multi-year contract and repetitively refused to talk to the Skins to try about a way of reconciling her extremely large debt. Yes, she is a grandmother, but would ANY company not try to collect a debt they were entitled to?

The grandmother got sued for not paying her bills, the same as any person would be.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:If Dan... If Dan can sue elderly women, he has the nads to sue the NFL.

That entire, "Dan sued a grandmother" thing was product of the negative local media. Yes, he took legal action against a person that was in the first year of a multi-year contract and repetitively refused to talk to the Skins to try about a way of reconciling her extremely large debt. Yes, she is a grandmother, but would ANY company not try to collect a debt they were entitled to?

The grandmother got sued for not paying her bills, the same as any person would be.

Its also really easy to sue someone you don't know vs fellow business owners whom you have to work with all the time.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:If Dan... If Dan can sue elderly women, he has the nads to sue the NFL.

That entire, "Dan sued a grandmother" thing was product of the negative local media. Yes, he took legal action against a person that was in the first year of a multi-year contract and repetitively refused to talk to the Skins to try about a way of reconciling her extremely large debt. Yes, she is a grandmother, but would ANY company not try to collect a debt they were entitled to?

The grandmother got sued for not paying her bills, the same as any person would be.

No, no, no. Dan Snyder is the anti-christ and we will forever be a joke because of dan snyder, there is no "fact" that can dispute this narrative.

/sarcasm