Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Its just as detrimental to Snyder as it is to the other owners that the books and messages from that year stay hidden. If you decide to "stick it to the man", are you going to do that by putting dynamite in your own house and blowing it up?

I dont fault him for bluffing, but I dont expect the NFL to do anything other than call that bluff. And I expect Danny to get the bomb squad in there to clear the dynamite before it goes off.

As much as people keep saying that hes not afraid to sue, hes also not afraid of making money. I think the making money wins out in the end.

Its just as detrimental to Snyder as it is to the other owners that the books and messages from that year stay hidden. If you decide to "stick it to the man", are you going to do that by putting dynamite in your own house and blowing it up?

I dont fault him for bluffing, but I dont expect the NFL to do anything other than call that bluff. And I expect Danny to get the bomb squad in there to clear the dynamite before it goes off.

As much as people keep saying that hes not afraid to sue, hes also not afraid of making money. I think the making money wins out in the end.

It's interesting that this comes out after the combine. Can you imagine how much lobbying and politicking the Redskins were doing. I would guess that they were planting seeds of how a legal strategy would play out as well. Even the threat of a lawsuit is a pretty big stick in a fraternity of 32 powerful men and women. I wonder if they got a sense at the combine that this strategy would work, or if it's pure throw everything at the wall and see what sticks time.

Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5um6HM89AlY&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

This is starting to snow ball around the Internet.

You beat me to it. @HTTR24-7 has been blowing his twitter up with this link and convo. My feeling is its too little too late with Judge Doty turning down our appeal twice. But if Goodell is saying that the league and teams agreed to "punish teams" that took advantage of the uncapped year through certain contract avenues that created an advantage for them, that seems like a problem to me. If you are going to say that they it can't be an uncapped year. And regardless if the teams were made aware of this ahead of time, if they league signed off on the contract/renegotiation, how can they go back and penalize the team?

5um6HM89AlY&


ES member (huly) asking Goodell about capgate. Listen to his explanation. He said the owners AND the NFLPA were told about this "competitive balance". Riiiiiight. SO you are going to tell the NFLPA prior to the lockout that you are indeed going to collude even though there is no salary cap.

5um6HM89AlY&


ES member (huly) asking Goodell about capgate. Listen to his explanation. He said the owners AND the NFLPA were told about this "competitive balance". Riiiiiight. SO you are going to tell the NFLPA prior to the lockout that you are indeed going to collude even though there is no salary cap.

Right...there is about zero chance this is true...I mean I cannot conceive of this current NFLPA agreeing to any such thing. Why the hell would they? Makes less than zero sense.

Right...there is about zero chance this is true...I mean I cannot conceive of this current NFLPA agreeing to any such thing. Why the hell would they? Makes less than zero sense.

The hope is that this video, coupled with the threat of litigation, can continue to create buzz/noise on this issue for another day or two. I think Graziano RT'd someone who sent him this link last night. Will be interesting to see if other outlets pick this up - my hope is that they do.

Right...there is about zero chance this is true...I mean I cannot conceive of this current NFLPA agreeing to any such thing. Why the hell would they? Makes less than zero sense.

So ... the NFLPA knew of the collusive agreement to keep "competitive balance". Yet, during the bitter lockout in which the NFLPA argued collusion about several specific factors this was never mentioned. Further, once (and only once) it became public, the NFLPA filed a lawsuit alleging that this agreement about "competitive balance" was unknown to them and represented a breach of the prior CBA. Finally, the NFL's response was not "We told them, they knew about it so they shouldn't be upset"; it was "Hey too bad so sad, you waived all your claims - even the one you didn't know you had."

Wow. Revisionist history is one thing. This is "1984" un-person stuff.

Its just as detrimental to Snyder as it is to the other owners that the books and messages from that year stay hidden. If you decide to "stick it to the man", are you going to do that by putting dynamite in your own house and blowing it up?

I dont fault him for bluffing, but I dont expect the NFL to do anything other than call that bluff. And I expect Danny to get the bomb squad in there to clear the dynamite before it goes off.

As much as people keep saying that hes not afraid to sue, hes also not afraid of making money. I think the making money wins out in the end.

Lets look at worst case scenarios....

1- All the owners end up hating Snyder. Not voting for his ideas later.
2- Department of Labor or Justice get involved.
3- The NFL not being exempt from labor laws.

I honestly can't fathom anything else, but I'm sure the owners are happy to be exempt from some of the labor laws and being able to do business as they please. I figure the worst that can happen is the NFL would lose that freedom and would have to do business like all other businesses and unions. That alone would go a long way in keeping both sides more honest.

So for me to weight if its worth it to go nuclear and possibly get our CAP space back.... I'd have to say yes it's worth it. Personally I think there needs to be someone keeping an eye on both sides that has no interest, someone who is not swayed to lean towards the owners in judgement (Dotty), and someone to make sure a fair punishment is delt as well as punishing everyone involved. In this case, yeah maybe the Skins do deserve a punishment although I don't agree with it, but certainly the other owners deserve to be punished for unfair practices against the NFLPA.

Well getting an injunction is quite different than running this thing all the way to a trial.

So ... the NFLPA knew of the collusive agreement to keep "competitive balance". Yet, during the bitter lockout in which the NFLPA argued collusion about several specific factors this was never mentioned. Further, once (and only once) it became public, the NFLPA filed a lawsuit alleging that this agreement about "competitive balance" was unknown to them and represented a breach of the prior CBA. Finally, the NFL's response was not "We told them, they knew about it so they shouldn't be upset"; it was "Hey too bad so sad, you waived all your claims - even the one you didn't know you had."

Wow. Revisionist history is one thing. This is "1984" un-person stuff.

Basically the NFL/Owners are back peddling and making stuff up. Lets look at it another way.... If there was an agreement between the NFL/NFLPA and the Skins reworked two players contracts then wouldn't it have been prudent for the NFL to simply deny the contracts and tell the Skins to rework them again because it goes against the "Spirit" of the uncapped year? Then no one would be docked CAP and those contracts could have been worked out another way.

No, in this case, the owners made an agreement amongst them selves to not spend in order to keep costs down, keep spending down when they were trying to tell the players that there was no money to work with, and to deny the contracts the Skins submitted would give the NFLPA proof that the owners had an agreement (collusion) with their knowledge. So the contracts were approved, CBA agreed to and signed, and because the owners were pissed that the Skins didn't go with the program they decided to punish two of their members for not playing along, but to do that they needed to black mail the NFLPA into thinking that if they didn't allow the punishment or sign the adendum to the CBA then they would lose money. and.... the only way for the NFLPA to get proof that there was collusion was for them to sign the agreement anyway. Then some judge (Dotty) denies all claims because ..... the NFLPA signed their rights away.

I think someone (big government) needs to keep the owners and Dotty in check.