NFL taking away Redskins cap space

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.

I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

and that means what exactly?? If I got back on my word on robbing a bank is someone allowed to punish me because I wasn't part of the heist?

I'm pretty sure irish is Sally Jenkins lol

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.
So you are saying that a case could be made

Simple point here is no rules were broken, the NFL has admitted as much to the Skins.

If the Skins and Cowboys want to press the issue legally, I think they would have a pretty good case.


Don't know, Mark Maske lays out some very interesting stuff in todays Washington Post.


Redskins salary cap actions angered NFL - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-salary-cap-actions-angered-nfl/2012/03/13/gIQA86CaAS_story.html)

I dont know if its fair or not fair but I'll go along with you and say its not fair. I think that when the Skins agreed to what the group was doing and then said f-u those who felt the skins went back on their word decided to drop the hammer. My experience tells me that's what happens when you go back on your word.

Even if they didnt give their word, the group made an agreement, like it or not when the group reaches consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do.

So, you and your friends agree to do a job for another group. After the other group leaves, your friends secretly agree to try and cheat on the agreement. Even though you know it's wrong, and may even be illegal, because the "the group reache[d] consensus and you are in the group that's what you have to do"? Sorry, illegal agreements cannot be enforced.

So you are saying that a case could be made

Perhaps. ;)

Really, I am sure one could be made and probably a pretty damn good one. I just don't know if it would be for breach of contract, tort or breach of a statutorially imposed duty.

Bottom line is the first secret agreement was totally illegal, and Snyder is very shady and probably only cares about himself and getting ahead anyway he can.

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.

woah, do you have a copy of this? in the new CBA, the NFLPA agreed to drop all pending legal cases, NOT to recant their merits. there's a HUGE difference between the two.

My thinking on this is that there's not going to be a lawsuit. Sure, there was clearly collusion, but Jerry and Danny are up to their asses in that kind of shit with the league. And probably worse--do you really think Jerry and Danny are MORE upstanding than Mara or Rooney or whomever? It would be like the Corleone's going to the cops when Tataglia hit them.

No, it will be done "in house." So, what leverage do Danny and Jerry have here? The answer is monies paid to the league and re-distributed to the "poorer" teams. I don't know how all this works, but my impression is that the league gets a cut of the kitty Dan and Jerry build up with their aggressive marketing, including very local stuff like shirts and whatnot. (Am I wrong about this?) If there is money like this out there, then I'd freeze, oh, 36 million dollars worth of it. Or slow it down. Or **** with it in some way.

Now, I figure that agreement about redistribution IS in writing, so that's an issue. But maybe they can escrow it while the "case" is debated. That alone might squeeze some teams and make Mara sweat.

Here's another idea: London Fletcher, Laron Landry, and any unsigned Cowboy FAs should sue. They are directly harmed here: the team HAD money and wanted to spend it, but collusion kept it from them and their fair-market value. Now, this, of course, goes against the NFLPA union, but at this point, how happy can London be with the union? He was deep in negotiations with his team for his contract, and the union PULLS MONEY RIGHT OFF THE TABLE. And now he's without a contract. Quit the union and sue. BUt I'm not sure he has standing--that may be an issue given the union "signing off" on the "deal."

Finally, and this is going to happen no matter what else does, Danny and Jerry should spend the rest of their working lives taking EVERY opportunity, no matter how small, to **** with Mara and the Giants. Revenge is a dish best served slow. As I said, no way Danny and Jerry are more upstanding than the other owners. I'd be a little worried if I were in the Giants organization. It will come. Believe me.

Bottom line is the first secret agreement was totally illegal, and Snyder is very shady and probably only cares about himself and getting ahead anyway he can.
Based on?