NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Haynesworth stay here was punishment enough for the bonus we paid him.

I'm mainly upset at the NFL in this situation because there is no legal reason why the Redskins should be penalized, but I'm also mad at the redskins for such poor management considering they knew it was a possibility that we would be penalized later. Knowing Haynesworth was such a risk, it seems ridiculous to have two risks in him being a poor player, and getting screwed by the NFL by giving him his 21 million roster bonus. I wouldn't be as upset in this situation if we had 21 mil more in cap space over the next two years. 7 mil less a year is a far cry from 18 mil less. 11 mil more a year than we have gets us two quality players without having to restructure. I hate restructuring, it always seems to make us hold on to players longer than we want to which seems to have a ripple effect on our team for many years. Especially when our team will rely on Free agency so heavily with our draft picks gone

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by irish

I think the rest of the league would agree with you because they think RG let the Skins off too easy. It boggles my mind how anyone with the Skins could have thought they'd get away with going so overboard.

This is easy. Imagine you have an HOA in your neighborhood. The main road that goes through the neighborhood has a speed limit of 45MPH. The HOA holds an all hands meeting and they make an agreement all residents go 35MPH. Bill says "Screw that" and drives 45MPH. Then he gets mailed a ticket.

He didn't break ANY rules. When he goes to court, that ticket will be tossed out in a second. Is he an asshole? Maybe. But he's doing everything by the book, and when it comes down to it, the HOA/NFL cannot LEGALLY do what they did.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

I think it would hold up quite well especially since the NFLPA has signed off on what the NFL did. Some teams pressed on the gas a bit and the Skins floored it. What they did while technically not illegal definitely was not smart. If the shoe was on the other foot and a few owners had done what the Skins did I am 100% certain this thread would look a whole lot different.

I'm surprised that you would want the NFL to morph into MLB where a few rich teams buy up all the top players and create a have and have not league that ends up being not very interesting.

It would not hold up well. In the society we live in EVERYTHING needs to be documented. There is no rule that we broke, and no documentation of any warning. In court (if it were brought to court) the only argument that the NFL could have is that it is their league and they can do whatever they want (but I doubt that would hold up).

[irish]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree. However, that doesn't make the point irrelevant.

When you do the right/legal thing, you should not get punished even if you do it for the wrong reasons. You may not get an "Atta Boy", but you certainly shouldn't be singled out sanction either.

You can't legislate morality, intention or beliefs. You can regulate actions.

Ultimately, as someone said, this is a cat fight amongst a bunch of owners. GGiven that the NFLPA has signed off on the collusive behavior and the private nature of the owner's agreement (i.e. - not an action by the govt.). Not sure what Snyder's legal grounds would be. I wonder if could file a complaint with the NLRB essentially alleging that the owners colluded and should be sanctioned regardless of the players subsequent approval of the collusion. If that were possible, that would really make it a pissing match.

Again, I think the whole D.Smith backroom deals thing CRed described probably has merit along with the whole "F you Danny Boy. Play by our rules or we will get you!" aspect.

All in all, a bunch of very rich guys pissed about how one or two of them don't play nice with the other little rich boys and didn't share his toys after nap time.

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

No idea why the NFLPA would ever sign off on this. It sets a precedent for future years where the owners work against the players in collusion. I guess they are trying to score brownie points/build a good relationship. Politics.

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

It would not hold up well. In the society we live in EVERYTHING needs to be documented. There is no rule that we broke, and no documentation of any warning. In court (if it were brought to court) the only argument that the NFL could have is that it is their league and they can do whatever they want (but I doubt that would hold up).

You are right it should have been documented but I suspect the owners decided as a group they they could trust each other which in retrospect was a mistake with Snyder in the group. Now that the other owners know DS's word is no good it will be interesting to see how they handle any future agreements either as a group or one on one with DS.

Be honest, if you made a gents agreement with me and we shook on it and gave our word and I f'd you over you'd be as mad as these guys are.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

This is easy. Imagine you have an HOA in your neighborhood. The main road that goes through the neighborhood has a speed limit of 45MPH. The HOA holds an all hands meeting and they make an agreement all residents go 35MPH. Bill says "Screw that" and drives 45MPH. Then he gets mailed a ticket.

He didn't break ANY rules. When he goes to court, that ticket will be tossed out in a second. Is he an asshole? Maybe. But he's doing everything by the book, and when it comes down to it, the HOA/NFL cannot LEGALLY do what they did.

Would you ever trust or do business with a guy like Bill who makes an agreement with you then essentially says fu? I wouldnt.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by skinster

No idea why the NFLPA would ever sign off on this. It sets a precedent for future years where the owners work against the players in collusion. I guess they are trying to score brownie points/build a good relationship. Politics.

D Smith's contract is up for renewel, i think this month. Goodell was threatening to reduce the cap amount for the first time ever. If that had happened right before Smith's election.... he would lose.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm not sure how one can argue there was collusion when the party colluded against (NFLPA) essentially said there was no collusion.

The NFLPA said the Skins & Boys didnt do anything wrong but signed off on the NFL's decision because if they didnt the NFL was going to lower the cap for all 32 teams. Since the NFLPA is looking out for players on 32 teams instead of a couple, they signed off, reluctantly, on the deal.

Just because the NFL blackmailed the NFLPA into agreeing on the punishment doesn't mean they'll get away with it. Lotus was the first to mention this, but since this is just an owners' pissing match I expect DS and JJ to go into the owners meetings threatening to raise hell until the punishment is reduced. And the other owners definitely have stuff to lose if this goes to the courts so I expect them to comply.

[irish]

Originally Posted by mooby

Just because the NFL blackmailed the NFLPA into agreeing on the punishment doesn't mean they'll get away with it. Lotus was the first to mention this, but since this is just an owners' pissing match I expect DS and JJ to go into the owners meetings threatening to raise hell until the punishment is reduced. And the other owners definitely have stuff to lose if this goes to the courts so I expect them to comply.

What stuff do the other owners have to lose?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by irish

Would you ever trust or do business with a guy like Bill who makes an agreement with you then essentially says fu? I wouldnt.

If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.

Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

[Player_HTTR]

Originally Posted by irish

What stuff do the other owners have to lose?

Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

You are right it should have been documented but I suspect the owners decided as a group they they could trust each other which in retrospect was a mistake with Snyder in the group. Now that the other owners know DS's word is no good it will be interesting to see how they handle any future agreements either as a group or one on one with DS.

Be honest, if you made a gents agreement with me and we shook on it and gave our word and I f'd you over you'd be as mad as these guys are.

Its not a matter of weather it was a douche move by snyder. It was. The fact of the matter is that they are not legally allowed to penalize snyder. Snyder probably lost respect from the owners, but if he took them to court he would win in this situation.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Player_HTTR

Financial restitution to the parties whose ability to perform was hindered by illegal activity.

Huh?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Daseal

If Bill signs something and is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oblige to it, then yes, I would do business with him no problem. There need to be clearly defined boundries. If you fail to realize something (i.e. a loophole) then learn from your mistakes and fix it next time.

Even if this was an agreement. "Don't go overboard" can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

28 other owners understood what "dont go overboard" meant. Obviously DS made the mistake of not having the boundries of "dont go overboard" defined. DS didnt see this loophole but I suspect he will learn from his mistake and fix it next time.