NFL taking away Redskins cap space

a) the other owners won't want their labor laundry aired in courts. Therefore a threat of a lawsuit alone might make them cave in.
b) Danny and Jerry aren't going to want to bite the NFL hand that feeds

So, whether there are salient legal issues or not, it is unlikely that this will see a courtroom.

The other owners just threw Danny & jerry under the bus for nothing. Why on earth would you think that they are just going to bend over and take it for the sake of the greater good? No chance. This is going to court unless the owners cave and give back ever penny of that cap room...

From what was on the nfc east blog on espn.com it really sounds pretty much like collusion of 30 teams & the nfl. Facing pressure from the 30 teams, the nfl took action & got the nflpa to buy in by spreading the cap wealth.

Maybe there's a paper trail from the nfl to the skins FO warning them about some of their contracts. If there isn't, from my ignorant non-anti trust law informed self, this just seems like collusion , the very thing the cba is designed to prevent.

Agreed, just seems odd that the NFL has not come out and issued a statement outright & that you have both teams (Skins and Boys) denying notification.......

a) the other owners won't want their labor laundry aired in courts. Therefore a threat of a lawsuit alone might make them cave in.
b) Danny and Jerry aren't going to want to bite the NFL hand that feeds

So, whether there are salient legal issues or not, it is unlikely that this will see a courtroom.

regarding a), it works both ways. i'm sure the owners have tons of dirty laundry on danny and jerry, so that wouldnt be a factor.

b) i agree with you there. i honestly think the skins and cowboys are going to see if they can talk this out to atleast get it reduced. if not, i think they'll just take their lumps now and hold this in their back pockets until they need a "favor" of some sort.

The other owners just threw Danny & jerry under the bus for nothing. Why on earth would you think that they are just going to bend over and take it for the sake of the greater good? No chance. This is going to court unless the owners cave and give back ever penny of that cap room...

The other owners did not throw Danny and Jerry under the bus "for nothing." They threw Danny and Jerry under the bus for spite and jealousy.

Once Danny and Jerry have been properly poked in the eye (and start threatening retaliatory lawsuits), the other owners should feel like they got what they wanted (a sense of spiteful revenge) and back down.

My two cents.

The other owners did not throw Danny and Jerry under the bus "for nothing." They threw Danny and Jerry under the bus for spite and jealousy.

Once Danny and Jerry have been properly poked in the eye (and start threatening retaliatory lawsuits), the other owners should feel like they got what they wanted (a sense of spiteful revenge) and back down.

My two cents.

I'll second this.

We are still in top half of league with our cap reduced. I can see why some see this as better.. It means more underrated free agent signings like last year that were good pickups... Nobiggy

check out this from a poster on the PFT article:

http://http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/league-requires-cowboys-redskins-to-take-half-their-cap-reductions-in-2012/

gurnblanstonreturns says:
Mar 13, 2012 11:22 AM
Whoa, Nellie! Nothing like a good, old-fashioned anti-trust fight to upset Goodell’s hard won decade of labor peace.

As a Redskins fan, my bias in favor of the Redskins is obvious, but does not change the situation. Realitypolice has set forth the facts very clearly. Anyone in need of a refresher course in antitrust issues as they pertain to matters between the owners (as opposed to matters between owners and labor) need only review the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the Raiders judgment against the league regarding franchise movement from the early ’80s.

This overreach by Goodell, clearly backed by small-market franchises, including the sacrosanct families such as the Rooneys and Maras, is designed to offset the consequences of the owners’ actions in the labor negotiations of the current CBA. (It surely can be no coincidence that a Mara chairs the relevant committee addressing this issue.) The owners decided to force an early termination of the CBA with the resultant “uncapped” year in their determination to obtain better terms from the players in the next CBA. This tactic proved a smashing success.

Unfortunately for the small-market franchises, an “uncapped” year presented an opportunity to franchises such as the Redskins and Cowboys to address untenable and damaging cap positions. In an effort to subvert the labor negotiations and tilt the process further in their advantage, many owners apparently devised a system of collusion that could be denied publicly and leave no papertrail. By giving multiple “warnings” to some owners that the illegal, unofficial policy of collusion would be enforced after the players had been pressured into accepting the owners’ demands, the owners acted in the classic fashion of a cartel as understood under antitrust law.

The small market franchises have benefitted for years under the socialist tenets of the league’s structure to ensure their ability to compete against wealthier franchises. In fact, these franchises have been so successful in using superior football-related organizations that they have enjoyed tremendous on-field success while the Redskins and Cowboys have endured many years of failure.

Owners such as Snyder and Jones have cooperated with this regime, while chafing at some of its revenue-sharing aspects, in the apparent belief that the NFL’s ultimate success depends upon this unique, socialist structure to avoid the fate of MLB. By poking this hornet’s nest, the owners and Goodell risk this arrangement.

If the league insists upon this punitive enforcement of an illegal collusion to dampen player salaries in the uncapped year, then Snyder and Jones should follow Al Davis’ example and bring an anti-trust suit against the league.

With the facts in their favor, they could very easily force the league’s capitulation in the face of the destruction of the “house of cards” which is the NFL under anti-trust law.

Snyder and Jones should make clear that their forebearance in underwriting the success of the Maras, Rooneys and “stockholders” of Green Bay (and the Super Bowl championships those teams have enjoyed since the mid-90s) is at an end.

If the benefactors of the socialist structure want to assert that they have the right to enforce collusion in the uncapped year, they should be put on notice that Snyder and Jones are willing, and perhaps even anxious, to reverse years of futility by two of the league’s proudest franchises by ushering in a new era of professional football – an era characterized by the survival of the fittest as the Redskins and Cowboys become the NFL’s Red Sox and Yankees. Many Redskins and Cowboys fans could comfort themselves about the dissolution of the “old” NFL by warming themselves in the glow of Red Sox- and Yankee-like rings and trophies.

Hopefully, those who have benefitted so greatly by the socialist structure of the NFL and its one great foray into capitalist hardball (forcing the uncapped year and early termination of the CBA) will recognize the fool-hardiness of seeking to further their advantage by punishing their benefactors for exercising their rights in the uncapped year. Hail!

Wouldn't a competitive advantage be if the Redskins and Cowboys had signed big money free agents and fronted all the guaranteed money in that first year...and isn't that what the Bears did with Peppers?

We are still in top half of league with our cap reduced. I can see why some see this as better.. It means more underrated free agent signings like last year that were good pickups... Nobiggy

According to the Kevin and Thom show on ESPN980, we have about 18m to deal with at THIS moment. That puts us on top of the East with Cap money to spend. Regardless of the plan, I am sure they are scrambling they're ass off at Redskins Park. I am equally confident they can get it done.....

Personally I think it's insulting to CrazyCanuck that you totally disrespect him with your sig...

Good point SS!!

Lol it's all good IRMitchell... but thanks for changing the sig. Not sure if I was insulted but everytime I read one of your posts I did leave with hurt feelings. :(

Ok sorry for the hijack...back to business.