The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Hog
Posts: 2496
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:05 pm
Location: Midland, VA

Postby Kilmer72 » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:25 pm

I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about. I am assuming it is keeping money out of the hands of the players during 2010. So, what we did was pay off players during an uncapped season which was OKed by the league. There was no written rule and both the Cowboys and Redskins said they were never told about this. Other teams did it and they weren't punished for a non rule only us. What really gets me is the timing. So, if anyone can really find fault with what the Redskins did wrong please link some sort of valid sorce. All I see is two teams getting screwed in Mara's division. Even some Philly fans think this is messed up and they don't like us. If this can be broken down in laymans terms I would like to hear it.

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11174
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:58 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the quick-and-dirty summary is this:

Normally the NFL operates by negotiating with the NFL Players Association (a union). The fact that the league is working with a union means that it's making arrangements with players that all of the players agree to. Hence the owners could all talk to each other and decide on a position, then pitch it to the NFLPA, and if the PA agreed everything could move forward.

2010 was a year without the NFLPA, meaning there was no player's union in place. Among other things, that means that if all of the owners talked to each other and decided on certain financial actions (e.g., keeping player salaries down), they'd be acting in unison while the players were all left to fend for themselves (with no union representation). That could be in violation of US competition laws.

So the question is whether owners in fact worked together in that way ("collude" just means to plot together).

So, if the Redskins broke rank and payed players more than the rest of the owners, and then were punished for doing so, doesn't that imply that there were rules the Redskins were supposed to be following? And if those rules were in place, they were there without the consent of a players union.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's (roughly) the point of view the Skins would argue from.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:21 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:I really don't understand most of this but, if someone could be more specific and explain what the collusion is all about.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the quick-and-dirty summary is this:

Normally the NFL operates by negotiating with the NFL Players Association (a union). The fact that the league is working with a union means that it's making arrangements with players that all of the players agree to. Hence the owners could all talk to each other and decide on a position, then pitch it to the NFLPA, and if the PA agreed everything could move forward.

2010 was a year without the NFLPA, meaning there was no player's union in place. Among other things, that means that if all of the owners talked to each other and decided on certain financial actions (e.g., keeping player salaries down), they'd be acting in unison while the players were all left to fend for themselves (with no union representation). That could be in violation of US competition laws.

So the question is whether owners in fact worked together in that way ("collude" just means to plot together).

So, if the Redskins broke rank and payed players more than the rest of the owners, and then were punished for doing so, doesn't that imply that there were rules the Redskins were supposed to be following? And if those rules were in place, they were there without the consent of a players union.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's (roughly) the point of view the Skins would argue from.

That's the point they will argue.... it's also why Smith from the NFLPA agreed with the owners. He's up for re-election and if it came out he was talking to the owners on behave of the players while that was going on he re-election won't be so easy. Well it's out now, it's just a matter if the NFL wants to go to court considering the record in court battles
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:01 pm

A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.


Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:22 pm

1niksder wrote:
A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.


Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us. :twisted:
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14842
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:34 pm

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.


Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us. :twisted:

It would probably have to come from every team that benefitted at the Redskins expense. Accepting the additional cap space would, effectively, equate to concurring with the decision to penalize the 'skins, therefore, making them complicit. I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:04 pm

Countertrey wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
A person with knowledge of the case said there have been discussions about using an arbitration provision of the league’s collective bargaining agreement to challenge the penalty imposed by the NFL. The league took away $36 million in cap space over two years from the Redskins, and $10 million over two years from the Dallas Cowboys, for the way they structured player contracts in 2010, when the league had no salary cap.

The Redskins and the NFL declined to comment. People familiar with the case have said the Redskins have been considering their options in response to last week’s ruling by the league.


Are Redskins heading to arbitration on salary cap case?

Under the labor deal, the burden of proof would be on the team that initiaties the complaint. The arbitrator can award damages or provide injunctive relief, and his decision can be appealed to an appeals panel.

That's not a very high hurdle. This seems like the most likely route to take. It would be nice if we were arwarded damages from the G-strings, since it was basically their owner who did this to us. :twisted:

It would probably have to come from every team that benefitted at the Redskins expense. Accepting the additional cap space would, effectively, equate to concurring with the decision to penalize the 'skins, therefore, making them complicit. I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he? :P
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

08 Champ
Posts: 13930
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: New England

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:34 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:.... I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he? :P


any updates on this?

OR

is the new 'Goodell edict' taking all the attention right now? :wink:
The Redskins need to change to improve - we need a better GM and we need to do a better job of who we bring in to coach and play here - players and coaches need to be held accountable when they do not do their jobs well

---
User avatar
Posts: 18573
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:47 pm

It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables

The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table

Snyder - kids table
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:53 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables


I agree

Chris Luva Luva wrote:The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table


More like the head of the big kids table

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Snyder - kids table


I'm pretty sure he was refusing to sit with Jerruh, now they and Benson might be looking for milk crates to build there own table. Might take a while because you know they're going to go big
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:10 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:.... I imagine that it would take some significant additional evidence of malice on Mara's part to convince a master that the Giants should be singled out for a special penalty... and, even then, would probably require an additional league finding.

Sure, I would think they would just nullify the penalty, and take the $1.6 million back from the other teams, but a guy can dream, can't he? :P


any updates on this?

OR

is the new 'Goodell edict' taking all the attention right now? :wink:

Nothing official, but apparently Bruce Allen said they are definitely going to fight it.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

DarthMonk
Online
Posts: 4648
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:42 pm

1niksder wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's apparent that there's a big kids table and a little kids table in regards to the owners.

The patriots cheat and the league burns the evidence. - big kids tables


I agree

Chris Luva Luva wrote:The Giants owner sanctions teams within his division. - big kids table


More like the head of the big kids table

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Snyder - kids table


I'm pretty sure he was refusing to sit with Jerruh, now they and Benson might be looking for milk crates to build there own table. Might take a while because you know they're going to go big


This is what I'm talkin' 'bout maibruthas.

There is OLD MONEY. NFL teams are toys for Old Money. For years Old Money owners lost money with their NFL toys. Danny is not Old Money. He's is New Money from marketing. His team is not a toy. Never was. It's gotta make money.

DarthMonk
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:56 pm

Cap Beat Down

Postby rskin72 » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:56 pm

Well, I hope Snyder fights this.....but what I hear on NFL radio does not lend support to fact that Skins nor Cowgirls will fight as no one wants to open the collusion can of worms.

To me, from what I have read and heard, this is a pile of horse crap. What the heck would the league have done if we would have gone NY Yankees and just bought all the talent we could for a year?

I have NEVER been a fan of competitive balance idea.....limiting teams to what they can spend each year on salaries. This just flies in the face of capitalism......in addition, the more you spend does not necessarily equate to the amount of championships that you will win....see baseball for that. But, if one owner group does not want to spend money on their produce, but another does, I do not see where the one who wants to spend should be penalized.

Sorry, I ramble. Want to see this fought on, but do not hold out high hopes that we will get out from this stupid penalty.
A winning effort begins with preparation.
Failures are expected by losers, ignored by winners.

Quotes by Joe Gibbs

the 'mudge
Posts: 14842
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:31 pm

I'm sure that Snyder is scratching to find a way to get redress without opening the league to threats from a collusion investigation. I guess it depends on who has the most devious lawyers (a double negative, I know :wink: ). Since there are more lawyers per capita in DC than most anywhere else, I imagine the Danny has access to a pretty good arsenal.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11174
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:32 pm

Hopefully Snyder seeks better legal advice than he did for his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper . . . :whistle:
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football