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

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

GWinSkins83
01-08-2013, 08:36 AM
I think the reason the PA case was dismissed is because the Cap penalty will be retracted. It's no way around what they did and what Mara said to prove they didn't violate the spirit of an antitrust law.

JoeRedskin
01-08-2013, 09:26 AM
No. The reason the case was dismissed was because, in entering into the new CBA, the players waived any and all claims "known and unknown" that occurred prior to the signing of the CBA. Their suit was for "unknown" claims that occurred prior to the signing of the new CBA and, thus, were waived.

GWinSkins83
01-08-2013, 09:38 AM
No. The reason the case was dismissed was because, in entering into the new CBA, the players waived any and all claims "known and unknown" that occurred prior to the signing of the CBA. Their suit was for "unknown" claims that occurred prior to the signing of the new CBA and, thus, were waived.

I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

SCRedskinsFan
01-08-2013, 09:56 AM
I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

Take it for what it's worth, arguing legal stuff with JoeRedskin will get you nowhere. He's right, end of story.

CRedskinsRule
01-08-2013, 10:05 AM
I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

JoeRedskin
01-08-2013, 10:08 AM
It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

Yup. JoeRedskin seal of approval issued.

Monkeydad
01-08-2013, 10:10 AM
Good news but the damage has been done.

We likely would have had a few more players like Eric Winston, Brandon Carr and who knows, possibly Vincent Jackson too.

However, glad this could be happening, it was bogus from the start and needs to be corrected. How about a compensatory 1st-rounder to help alleviate the damage done to our 2012 roster? Fat chance, but would be fair.

NC_Skins
01-08-2013, 10:16 AM
I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.


Only hooskins is allowed to debate law/legality issues with JR here on the Warpath. :laughing-

Skinzman
01-08-2013, 10:28 AM
It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

Maybe Judges view it differently for an entity like the NFLPA because they have big boy lawyers themselves. But, the concept of "Signing your rights away" is not recognized by the courts. People have been bullied into doing just that plenty of times only to have the Judge claim "Signed under duress" and throw that clause out. Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.

I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.

ethat001
01-08-2013, 10:29 AM
Bittersweet. Would have been nice to have the cap money this year, and could have gone further in playoffs.

Next year, I'm still scared that RG3 will be recovering from another ACL repair... Still would like the cap money, but doubt it comes.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum