The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
**********
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 25, 2012 11:50 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Ummm... Godell doesn't have the power of veto over the owners... THEY employ HIM


He just screwed two of the people who "employ HIM"


So they took him out of the equation altogether....

The fact that the Redskins included the union in the grievance triggered the procedure that allows the teams to avoid a situation in which Commissioner Goodell resolves the matter. Instead, a true outsider will determine whether the action complied with the terms and/or the spirit of the labor deal.
..__..
{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: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Penalty

Postby Deadskins » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:52 pm

1niksder wrote:
1niksder wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:There is a third option between the nuclear option and the bend-over-and-take-it option, and that's arbitration.

I actually think this will get resolved at the owners meeting starting today or tomorrow. Dan and JJ will force the owners to take a vote to make this cap hit official. The NFL won't get the required votes and the cap his will quietly go away. This is the best case situation for the NFL. The Skins and Cowgirls have already felt some punishment, by having to alter their FA plans. The NFL got their pound of flesh (vice the the arm and leg) they wanted and the Skins and Cowgirls get their cap back and come out looking like they won.

I think this just goes away.


That's step #1 and it may in there, if not it's on to arbitration (step #2) if neither option gets this resolved step three would be to take the league to court.

The only hold up to the owners resolving by a vote is the $1.6M the owners may have to give back, and what to do about the 2012 cap (considering it would have been around $114M if the room hadn't been taken from the teams.


Or they could..... do this
A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the Cowboys and Redskins have filed a formal grievance against the NFL, the NFL Management Council, and the NFL Players Association challenging the agreement to remove and redistribute cap space allocated to the Cowboys and Redskins in exchange for increasing the total salary cap for 2012 to $120.6 million per team.

Not many details currently are known about the grievance. The other 30 teams will receive a full briefing this week, at the league meetings in Florida.

http://thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php? ... ht=#573034
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

**********
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

Re: Penalty

Postby 1niksder » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:57 pm

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
1niksder wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:There is a third option between the nuclear option and the bend-over-and-take-it option, and that's arbitration.

I actually think this will get resolved at the owners meeting starting today or tomorrow. Dan and JJ will force the owners to take a vote to make this cap hit official. The NFL won't get the required votes and the cap his will quietly go away. This is the best case situation for the NFL. The Skins and Cowgirls have already felt some punishment, by having to alter their FA plans. The NFL got their pound of flesh (vice the the arm and leg) they wanted and the Skins and Cowgirls get their cap back and come out looking like they won.

I think this just goes away.


That's step #1 and it may in there, if not it's on to arbitration (step #2) if neither option gets this resolved step three would be to take the league to court.

The only hold up to the owners resolving by a vote is the $1.6M the owners may have to give back, and what to do about the 2012 cap (considering it would have been around $114M if the room hadn't been taken from the teams.


Or they could..... do this
A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the Cowboys and Redskins have filed a formal grievance against the NFL, the NFL Management Council, and the NFL Players Association challenging the agreement to remove and redistribute cap space allocated to the Cowboys and Redskins in exchange for increasing the total salary cap for 2012 to $120.6 million per team.

Not many details currently are known about the grievance. The other 30 teams will receive a full briefing this week, at the league meetings in Florida.

http://thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php? ... ht=#573034

That's 20 mins late :lol:
..__..
{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: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:08 pm

Yeah, I thought I had scooped Irn-bru, but realized the time in my profile was still EST, not EDT. :oops:

I did look before I posted, though, and didn't see a thread about it already, and I don't know why. :hmm:
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14378
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:20 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Ummm... Godell doesn't have the power of veto over the owners... THEY employ HIM


He just screwed two of the people who "employ HIM"
This is a silly response, that is, essentially, non-responsive. Goodell, first of all, did not make this call. Mara did.

Second, IF Goodell has the backing of the "majority" of owners, he get's to screw members of the minority. If Goodell does NOT have the backing of the majority of owners, he looks for a new job.

How about returning with a cogent response?
"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

Hog
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Hagerstown ,Md.

Postby jmooney » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:41 pm

For someone like Mara to "make this call" sounds illegal as well. Considering his franchise stands to benefit from it more than anyone else.

Add in the fact that there were other teams, particularly the Bears and Packers who did exactly the same thing and, were untouched.

I think Snyder and Jones need to set their sights directly on Mara, something sounds awefully fishy there.

I mean, if you can give your company an advantage by penalizing your competitors. Especially when you are in a position of power to enforce such a thing

How is that much different than what he's accusing Snyder and Jones of doing?

the 'mudge
Posts: 14378
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:51 pm

jmooney wrote:For someone like Mara to "make this call" sounds illegal as well. Considering his franchise stands to benefit from it more than anyone else.

Ya think?

How is that much different than what he's accusing Snyder and Jones of doing?


Ya think?
"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

kazoo
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:22 am

Countertrey wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Ummm... Godell doesn't have the power of veto over the owners... THEY employ HIM


He just screwed two of the people who "employ HIM"
This is a silly response, that is, essentially, non-responsive. Goodell, first of all, did not make this call. Mara did.

Second, IF Goodell has the backing of the "majority" of owners, he get's to screw members of the minority. If Goodell does NOT have the backing of the majority of owners, he looks for a new job.

How about returning with a cogent response?


It's completely responsive. He could have told Mara that he needs to take it up with the owners. It's a dispute between owners and even more so it's division rivals. Mara may have been irked, but he's have had to understand that. It wouldn't have had a long term impact. On the other hand he was willing to burn two bridges to stick his nose in a dispute he had an easy out of. If you were the owner of another team in another division, wouldn't it bother you that he could screw you based on an accusation of one of the rivals in your division?
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

**LPJ**
Posts: 6348
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*

Postby langleyparkjoe » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:28 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:If you were the owner of another team in another division, wouldn't it bother you that he could screw you based on an accusation of one of the rivals in your division?


:!:
Hog Bowl I Champion (2009)
Hog Bowl II Champion 2010- Cappster
Hog Bowl III Champion 2011- DarthMonk
Hog Bowl IV Champion 2012- Deadskins
Hog Bowl V Champion 2013- DarthMonk

DC Area, I support you.. Unconditionally
When I die, remember me as one loyal S.O.B.!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14378
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:25 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Ummm... Godell doesn't have the power of veto over the owners... THEY employ HIM


He just screwed two of the people who "employ HIM"
This is a silly response, that is, essentially, non-responsive. Goodell, first of all, did not make this call. Mara did.

Second, IF Goodell has the backing of the "majority" of owners, he get's to screw members of the minority. If Goodell does NOT have the backing of the majority of owners, he looks for a new job.

How about returning with a cogent response?


It's completely responsive. He could have told Mara that he needs to take it up with the owners. It's a dispute between owners and even more so it's division rivals. Mara may have been irked, but he's have had to understand that. It wouldn't have had a long term impact. On the other hand he was willing to burn two bridges to stick his nose in a dispute he had an easy out of. If you were the owner of another team in another division, wouldn't it bother you that he could screw you based on an accusation of one of the rivals in your division?


Problem: The Fat lady has yet to sing. We have no idea what the power structure is among these committees... This one appears to be the most powerful, and politically potent. Mara speaks, Goodell acts.

I suspect that both have severely over-reached. It's possible that the league will find some face saving way to back out of this by the end of the owner's meetings this week.

Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall?
"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

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:29 pm

Countertrey wrote:I suspect that both have severely over-reached. It's possible that the league will find some face saving way to back out of this by the end of the owner's meetings this week.

Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall?


Heck yeah. I'm curious too where the owners come down on this. Is it all the less profitable teams vs. the richer teams?

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15974
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:50 pm

I wouldn't consider the G-strings to be a less profitable team.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14378
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:52 pm

Nor would I... and, I wouldn't be surprized to find that Kraft and Rooney are involved as well... also "not less than profitable"...
"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

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4515
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:56 pm

Deadskins wrote:I wouldn't consider the G-strings to be a less profitable team.


No, you're right - I didn't mean to imply that. Mara and the Giants have a much more obvious reason for being willing to penalize two division rivals.

kazoo
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:09 pm

Countertrey wrote:Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall?


That would be cool
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football