NFLPA Willing to Join Redskins over Cap-Gate

by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:27 pm

NFL players’ union willing to take joint legal action with Redskins over salary cap penalty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... p-penalty/

GIFSoup

GIFSoup

Annnnnd....this is if Danny boy wants to join up with them

by **Deadskins** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:08 pm

“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh! :roll:

by **1niksder** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:19 pm

Deadskins wrote:
“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh!

AND

The other person familiar with the situation confirmed that the union would be interested in joint legal action with the team but said the Redskins haven’t given that serious consideration because they “don’t think there was collusion.”

by **DarthMonk** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:41 pm

NFL Players’ Union Willing to Take Joint Legal Action with Redskins over Salary Cap Penalty

The NFL Players Association is willing to take joint legal action with the Washington Redskins against the league aimed at retrieving some of the salary cap space that the team lost last year when it was penalized by the NFL, two people familiar with the situation said Saturday.

LINK

by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:15 pm

1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh!

AND

The other person familiar with the situation confirmed that the union would be interested in joint legal action with the team but said the Redskins haven’t given that serious consideration because they “don’t think there was collusion.”

For a moment I figured this wouldn't get any more confusing.

If the Skins don't think there was a collusion then why have they tried anything (speaking about the past here) at all? I know the latest lawsuit talk are currently "rumor status".

by **Deadskins** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:14 pm

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh!

AND

The other person familiar with the situation confirmed that the union would be interested in joint legal action with the team but said the Redskins haven’t given that serious consideration because they “don’t think there was collusion.”

For a moment I figured this wouldn't get any more confusing.

If the Skins don't think there was a collusion then why have they tried anything (speaking about the past here) at all? I know the latest lawsuit talk are currently "rumor status".

Oh, I'm pretty sure they know there was collusion, but they can't be a party to any lawsuit that says so.

P.S. Hows about breaking this conversation out to the new thread Darth started?

by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:18 pm

Deadskins wrote:
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh!

AND

The other person familiar with the situation confirmed that the union would be interested in joint legal action with the team but said the Redskins haven’t given that serious consideration because they “don’t think there was collusion.”

For a moment I figured this wouldn't get any more confusing.

If the Skins don't think there was a collusion then why have they tried anything (speaking about the past here) at all? I know the latest lawsuit talk are currently "rumor status".

Oh, I'm pretty sure they know there was collusion, but they can't be a party to any lawsuit that says so.

P.S. Hows about breaking this conversation out to the new thread Darth started?

I posted this one before his thread...I'm quick on the draw today :twisted:

Its cool if gets moved...I'll post over on Darth's thread from here out.

Oh and I hear what you're saying about them unable to be a part of that...gotta love news politics :roll:

by **1niksder** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:46 pm

Deadskins wrote:P.S. Hows about breaking this conversation out to the new thread Darth started?

Done

Deadskins wrote:Oh, I'm pretty sure they know there was collusion, but they can't be a party to any lawsuit that says so.

If there was collusion Peppers won't have gotten a front loaded contract that paid him $26M in year one of the deal. Yep, the same contract that dumped $22M+ in cap space from a six year/$90M+ deal into the un-capped year and re-worked after the cap returned.

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
“The real question is why [the Redskins] didn’t seek to join in some action by the players,” the person said. “After all, the players’ theory is that [the Redskins] didn’t violate the rules and were punished for not agreeing to the conspiracy…. I’m a bit at a loss why they wouldn’t. At the very least, if you were [the Redskins], wouldn’t you cooperate with the players’ case?”

Maybe because the players union totally screwed us over wen they agreed to the cap hit in the first place? Duh!

AND

The other person familiar with the situation confirmed that the union would be interested in joint legal action with the team but said the Redskins haven’t given that serious consideration because they “don’t think there was collusion.”

For a moment I figured this wouldn't get any more confusing.

If the Skins don't think there was a collusion then why have they tried anything (speaking about the past here) at all? I know the latest lawsuit talk are currently "rumor status".

The Skins simple say they did nothing wrong, the contracts they were punished for were approved by the NFL and they still write the same type of contracts. They are saying they don't understand why they were punished... The NFL's stand is they dumped future cap space into a uncapped year... Collusion would have to effect the money spent and player's contracts, this was about moving future pro-rations (old Money) into the current (uncapped) year. The Bears dropped twice as much money into the uncapped year with Pepper's than TtiT did with Austin's deal, but they went with a small signing bonus and a big year one base. The Skins re-worked old deals and added buyout option that pushed all outstanding allocations for bonus money paid into the current (uncapped) year to the deal.

The whole $36M came from the deals Hall and fat Albert got from Vinny C. that Bruce had re-worked.

IMHO

The Skins knew what they were doing when they re-did the contracts...

They owed the fat man $21M one way or another so they turned it into a signing bonus to re-work the worst deal ever signed (which I predicted :twisted:

). Then they looked at Hall's deal ( :wink:

that one too)... not the worst deal but right up there and threw him $15M (which is why he can be cut now with no cap hit, when it would have been around $5.5M in 2013).

The only beef the Redskins really have is the $5M or so in dead cap the carried when the traded the whale to NE :shock:

I think they are trying to atleast get that back, but the NFL won't budge

by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:47 pm

With all due respect to the NFLPA and their team of crack lawyers, industrial relations experts and negotiators, I think I'd prefer to receive the help of Long John Silver in an arse kicking contest.

Those morons contributed greatly to our current cap issues, and it would be very helpful if they'd all just shut and go somewhere quietly to die now.

Yes, I'm still bitter.

by **DarthMonk** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:58 pm

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
GIFSoup

Killer!

by **SkinsJock** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:59 pm

I'm getting the feeling the Redskins are hoping for the best (the $5M) and are not getting any help ...

not as big a deal as it would have been if we did not have guys in charge that really know what they are doing

we won the NFC East last season - the roster we're going to have on opening day is a whole lot better than we had at the end of last season

it would have been nice, but ....

by **HTTRRG3ALMO** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:29 pm

DarthMonk wrote:
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
GIFSoup

Killer!

LOL definitely. They had some pretty killer stuff but were completely off topic

by **Skinsfan55** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:40 am

The team is wussing out. In order to join the NFLPA in a suit, they would have to agree that the NFL colluded against the players association. The Redskins are unwilling to do that, even though they would almost certainly recoup some cap space.

by **SkinsJock** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:53 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:The team is wussing out. In order to join the NFLPA in a suit, they would have to agree that the NFL colluded against the players association. The Redskins are unwilling to do that, even though they would almost certainly recoup some cap space.

this is NOT new and it is understandably the right choice

we all understand that we'd love to have the cap hit removed but there is NO WAY that the Redskins can get that done without a huge mess

they certainly are not siding with the STUPID NFLPA

and

the FO will find a way to put a competitive roster together that can win the NFC East again

by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:55 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:The team is wussing out. In order to join the NFLPA in a suit, they would have to agree that the NFL colluded against the players association. The Redskins are unwilling to do that, even though they would almost certainly recoup some cap space.

They are... But you also gotta think further ahead than the 2013 season. We don't wanna get screwed in 2025 because some people are still bitter about things.