NFL taking away Redskins cap space

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.

The Redskins have a very simple defense --> Please tell me what rule I broke. The NFL has NOTHING to point to, therein lies the issue. I honestly cannot understand your stance. I haven't met a single person (skins fan or otherwise) that didn't think we got ****ed.

Also, don't pretend 4 teams did this. Multiple teams went under the salary cap. GB, Chicago, and others gave huge amounts of cash on the capless year.

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being able to do that.

Obvioulsly what happened is some teams gassed the car a bit while the Skins floored it. Its like driving on the beltway, everyone is doing 70 and breaking the law but the nit wit who does 90 gets pulled over. All the Skins had to do was go 70 with the rest of traffic but they werent smart enough to do that.

It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.

It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now that was shady.

He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?

How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them for failing to collude with the other owners.

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]

It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."

The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now that was shady.



How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them for failing to collude with the other owners.

I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.

Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.

[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

How is that relevant?

How is that relevant?

Everyone's arguement is that the Skins didnt want to be part of a collusion agreement (which is BS) and according to the NFL and the NFLPA there was no intent to collude.

As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't get to decide whether collusion took place -- the court does (or the NLRB, idk), and I bet they'd take the opportunity to assert their authority to rule on it.

In any case, I understand what you're saying Irish -- the Redskins supposedly didn't hold true to their word, and that is dishonorable assuming they actually gave their word on it. I think we're in agreement there. The problem I, and others, see is that the punishment isn't fair, considering:

1.) AH and DH would have been paid bonuses that year, yet the fine is equal to their bonuses in their entirety.
2.) Other teams, like the Bears, acquired new players with big bonuses and are not being fined, but rather receiving extra cap room.
3.) Other teams supposedly didn't meet the cap minimum that year, and receive no punishment.

The Redskins would be doing the suing so they wouldnt be making a defense, they would have to make a case and I dont see them being abole to do that.

DAN SNYDER's LAWYER: Your honor, the case is quite simple. In violation of the relevant CBA, Mr. Snyder's business partners attempted to create an agreement to limit Mr. Snyder's ability to gain a competitive advantage during the uncapped year. Mr. Snyder refused to cooperate in the secret and illegal agreement. As a result, Mr. Snyder's business partners have now imposed a penalty upon him that restricts his ability to improve his product through the use of the contractually permitted and bargained for free agency process.

At its heart, the "Agreement" was a collusive attempt by Mr. Snyder's partners to lessen the negative consequences of Mr. Snyder and his business partners' decision to terminate the prior CBA. The evidence of the Agreement is contained in the reason given for the recently imposed sanction - Mr. Snyder is being punished for attempting to gain a "competitive advantage" during the uncapped year. The illegality of the Agreement is self evident and, further, the fact that Mr. Snyder's business partners knew of its illegality is the demonstrated by the fact that they hid the Agreement's existence from the NFLPA during the labor negotiation process.

If permitted to stand, the sanction imposed will restrict Mr. Snyder's ability to improve his product. As a result, Mr. Snyder will suffer lost revenues and, at a minimum, be placed in a position of relative contractual inequality with his business partners.

Simply put, your Honor, if permitted to stand, this sanction allows Mr. Snyder's business partners to benefit from their illegal, secret, collusive agreement by gaining a competitive advantage over Mr. Snyder. Thus, in an attempt to enforce their illegal backroom deal, Mr. Snyder's business partners seek to gain the very advantage that they would deny Mr. Snyder despite the fact that Mr. Snyder violated no rules and, in fact, was acting fully within the letter and spirit of the governing CBA.

Mr. Snyder seeks damages by way of specific performance in the removal of the sanction and the award of additional draft choices to compensate for the lost competitive equality. Further, he seeks a bazillion, gazillion dollars from his business partners just to rub some salt in it.

But the only all important piece of documentation signed by the NFLPA says no collusion happened. I have no doubt that if D Smith was on the stand and asked if he or the NFLPA was blackmailed into agreeing to this he say no.

Which piece of paper is this? I have heard that the NFLPA agreed to the sanction and the salary cap. I have also heard that, as part of the settlement, the NFLPA agreed to drop its allegations of collusion. Neither of these, however, is determinative of whether collusion existed.

To a certain extent it is ridiculous to assert that what the NFLPA says is in any way relevant to the proof of collusion. They weren't a party to the illegal collusive conspiracy. Rather, as I pointed out before, they were the victim.

It would be for an independent fact finder to determine if the owners' secret agreement to not take full advantage of the uncapped year was an attempt by the owners to circumvent the CBA's intended and negotiated terms. Geee, I wonder if it was ...

Are you really arguing that the agreement didn't exist? Or are you asserting that, while labor negotiations were proceeding, a secret agreement between the owners to limit competition in contravention of an existing collective bargaining agreement term is not "collusion"?