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

this cap penalty does hurt for this year, but we are not the worst off team when it comes to being over the cap. it might affect how many people we sign in FA this year and may be stuck with some of the same average players on our roster. but if we can restructure some contracts we will be fine, we get Orakpo and Carricker back on D, and if RG3 is healthy i wouldnt count us out of anything.

The way I look at it Goodell and Mara started the BS, and decided to try and play tough. Through all of this the Redskins have tried to play nice, filed a grievance, waited while the NFLPA file their complaint, waited while the NFLPA appealed the case, and no give on the NFL's side.

It's definitely time to go nuclear, file whatever they need to file to screw over Free Agency, then file whatever they need to file that keeps it out of the NFL's friendly court system and puts in possibly in the bulls eye of the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice. Maybe then if all the owners have to worry about their sacred business being watched by big government maybe then they will cave and give the penalty back in order to keep their business out of big governments reach.Yeah, kudos to the Skins for taking the High Road up to this point.

Really wish someone could have followed up Huly's question with something Goodell glossed over: "Mr. Goodell, in 2010, when the Redskins and Cowboys submitted the contracts in question for NFL front office approval: Why did the NFL management approve those contracts at that time?"

Yeah, kudos to the Skins for taking the High Road up to this point.

Really wish someone could have followed up Huly's question with something Goodell glossed over: "Mr. Goodell, in 2010, when the Redskins and Cowboys submitted the contracts in question for NFL front office approval: Why did the NFL management approve those contracts at that time?"

and this is the question I'd love for Goodell or Mara to answer. In a public setting. I mean everyone already knows the answer. What I hate is the NFL playing the "30" owners were duped by two and those two should be punished. No Goodell, two owners restructured contracts knowing the leauge would be forced to go along with them or get into trouble. Someone at the NFL agreed to the contracts when they had every opportunity to deny them but didn't. Why? and because of your mistake you wanted to punish the two teams? That screams of unfair business between owners.

The more I think about it. The more I think that Snyder has a legit claim. It would air a LOT of dirty laundry and he may or may not succeed, but I am betting there is something actionable.


Great analysis Joe.

http://i.imgur.com/ebBg9OZ.jpg

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

Given recent events, I was wondering about that. Yes, that is illegal to do, NFL or not.

That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101

That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101

Apparently the government doesn't care when your business is for entertainment and brings in billions of dollars in revenue streams for cities all around the U.S.

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.

To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.