NFL taking away Redskins cap space

At the time, I think it was understood by teams that even though there was no cap in 2010, there would be a good chance that teams would not know the full extent of how deals signed in 2010 would be treated by the new CBA; that those effects would need to be collectively bargained.

What is unclear is whether these penalties are a result of something the NFL and NFLPA agreed to in writing, or whether they just agreed to it within the last week. And, per the language of the CBA (which I have not read), maybe they can actually do this at any time. But the role of the NFLPA in this disaster sure makes it look like that these sanctions have been collectively bargained.

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.

I'm convinced this is a shrewd move by the NFL to improve future player safety. A few more moves like this and they'll start losing enough fans to keep this league going.

http://i.qkme.me/36kbt6.jpg

Wow congrats man. You are one determined skins fan coming back on this site right after having a kid!

Are you kidding? Between the Griff trade, the start of Free Agency and this cap mess, I'm surprised he went to the hospital at all. :silly:

It's simple. Right now we've got all our hopes on ONE guy. How were they going to improve the team this year? Free agency. Well that's somewhat out the window. IMO one guy can't do it. I'm getting my picks...that will give me both of Cleveland's number 1's this year, maybe a second this year and a one next year. That's 4 young guys that I can build around and add to the mix.

Instead we've can't spend in free agency, which probably isn't a good idea anyway cause it never works, and we've got no high draft picks the next couple of years. Sorry but I'm taking option one. I know it's not going to happen but still, that's what I'd do.
Here's a thought, quit bitching about the trade.. You don't like it, we get it but it's done so get over it. We aren't now going to trade with Cleveland, that's just moronic to even conceive and communicate it like it's anything that someone with more than a third grade education would consider.

This sky is falling BS because of this news is just that, BS. I'm sure the powers that be are working on all options to improve this team thru free agency, even if the $36 million penalty sticks. We will spend in free agency, we have 20, TWENTY picks over the next three years and we will see an improvement BESIDES the 'one player' who you seem to be obsessing over.

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.I do think the Redskins have a number of viable defenses here, not the least of which is simply pointing out: "who are you guys to do this? Mind your own business!" I just don't see the litigation route as one of those viable options. Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.

Ultimately though, this seems like it will come down to how hard each side is willing to fight for/against the sanctions and what was previously in writing. The Redskins certainly didn't break any rules -- at least not any rules that would void the 2010 contract restructurings -- but they are still responsible for those deals if the NFL is going to decide that all contracts that broke the Rule of 30 (or whatever) in 2010 have to be paid back on the back end.

But like I said, if the NFL is going to fight hard enough, they'll find that as soon as they set an actual standard, there will be members on the NFL side who will be liable for penalty. The unfairness of the decision is the biggest issue that could keep the Redskins fighting a decision that ultimately isn't going to hurt them that much in the long run.

Wow congrats man. You are one determined skins fan coming back on this site right after having a kid!

Lol yeah man I love my skins unfortunately for the wife maybe too much

And thanks bro

Here's a thought, quit bitching about the trade.. You don't like it, we get it but it's done so get over it. We aren't now going to trade with Cleveland, that's just moronic to even conceive and communicate it like it's anything that someone with more than a third grade education would consider.

This sky is falling BS because of this news is just that, BS. I'm sure the powers that be are working on all options to improve this team thru free agency, even if the $36 million penalty sticks. We will spend in free agency, we have 20, TWENTY picks over the next three years and we will see an improvement BESIDES the 'one player' who you seem to be obsessing over.

:blah:

Lol yeah man I love my skins unfortunately for the wife maybe too much

And thanks bro

Good for u man, congrats.

Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.


Problem with that analogy is that the Tuck Rule was, you know, the rule. What we did was also the rule and they're trying to retroactively punish us for following the rules. Again, the analogy would be punishing the Pats for benifitting from the rule that was in place at the time.

If this goes to court, the NFL would have to get on the stand and admit that they are punishing us for not going along with collusion. I don't know how they think they can get away with that.

I also don't know how they think they can punish us the full amount of the Haynesworth and Hall bonuses, but the Bears are in fact rewarded with extra cap space in spite of the way they did the Peppers contract.

This whole thing is outright lunacy.

We still have cap space and great cap guys. Free agency isn't done for us.

We shall see tomorrow!