NFL taking away Redskins cap space

My thoughts too, only appropriate compensation would be picks.

Not that I 100% agree or disagree with CRedskinsRule's post, giving up what we did to get to 2 and the "cap issues" this year don't sting so bad if you get picks back later as "back handed favors."

If we could some way swing some draft picks out of this next year it would actually work out well in our favor. We take a cap hit this year but if we could get some midlevel picks 3rd or so i'd be ok with that.

Have the Skins issued a statement yet? I know they had no formal notice yesterday but was wondering if anything new had come out from Redskins park.

Adam S just said the skins have not changed any preparation for this free agency

This tells me that the Skins are going to fight the penalty. They've already, in effect, said:

1. We've done nothing wrong.
2. Rule? What rule? Show it to us in writing.
3. Notification? What notification? We've received no notification that we broke any rule. If that's the case, put it in writing, NFL.

The logical conclusion from the Redskins POV is that nothing has changed because an unwritten rule cannot be legally enforced.

BTW, what would such a rule be called if it did exist in writing? I guess that there is little chance that it would be called "The NFL Mandatory Collusion in Unfair Labor Practices Rule".

Good discussion:

NBC Sports Video Player (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/46721182#46721182)

ChucK † ‏ @Chuck_Wade Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
LMAO RT @AdamSchefter: Calvin Watkins reporting that CB Terrence Newman to visit The Redskins

ChucK † ‏ @Chuck_Wade Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
LMAO RT @AdamSchefter: Calvin Watkins reporting that CB Terrence Newman to visit The Redskins

Where's that Darth Vader noooooo video when you need it?

Where's that Darth Vader noooooo video when you need it?
Instant No Button! Star Wars funnies FTW! (http://nooooooooooooooo.com/)

No to Terrance Newman. This would be such a horrid signing.

Lombardi reporting that we still want Royal too

Newman is old but a solid 3 I guess

So I wonder what the outcome was or will be in regards to the Skins conversation with the League....

League, Redskins talked about salary cap controversy on Tuesday | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/14/league-redskins-talked-about-salary-cap-controversy-on-tuesday/)

As the Redskins were rounding up a bunch of receivers on Tuesday (they landed Pierre Garçon and Josh Morgan, and they’re working on Eddie Royal), the team also was trying to plead its case with the league office regarding Monday’s decision to strip $36 million in cap space from the team for treating the “uncapped year” of 2010 too literally.

Per a league source, the Redskins engaged in a conference call with the league office regarding the situation.

And the conversation, we’re told, included the league conceding to G.M. Bruce Allen that the Redskins violated no rules and did nothing wrong. The league explained that the Redskins’ actions (and the Cowboys’) “affected competitive balance.”

As we’ve previously mentioned, both in print and during Tuesday’s PFT Live, what about the teams that opted to underspend in the year with no salary cap or salary floor? Those teams also necessarily affected competitive balance by choosing to be uncompetitive.

The bottom line is that every team could have done what the Cowboys and Redskins did. The notion that not every team had the cash flow to do it, which was advanced on Tuesday’s NFL Live by former Colts Vice Chairman Bill Polian, is more than a little misleading. The Cowboys, for example, opted to give receiver Miles Austin $17 million in 2010. The Cowboys characterized it as base salary and not as a signing bonus to limit the impact in future years under the cap. That’s not an issue of cash flow. And any team giving a player a signing bonus in 2010 could have used this tactic instead.

Besides, without a salary cap, teams with greater cash flow have the right to try to disrupt competitive balance by spending more money, even if it usually doesn’t work. (Indeed, the Cowboys and Redskins failed to get to the postseason in 2010 or 2011.) A cap is put in place to prevent the spend-to-win arms race, and the cap was removed in 2010 to give the owners an incentive to replace the CBA before risking that teams would try to buy a championship in the uncapped year.

What many in the media are missing is that this entire controversy proves the league engaged in collusion in 2010, and that the Redskins and Cowboys are suffering the consequences now for refusing two years ago to participate in a violation of the labor laws.


I love the last paragraph. So the League of owners agreed to collude which is against National Labor Laws and two owners refused to break the law and now they are getting punished for not breaking the law.

This has got to get the ACLU or other Unions or whoever over sees National Labor Laws attention. Maybe one phone call or a couple of phone calls and guarenteed the League folds on this issue for fear they will be investigated in regards to collusion.