flemingd Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7677375/sources-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins-lose-millions-cap-space In a nutshell, both teams dumped salary cap hits into 2010 (the uncapped season) in order to free up cap space for 2011 and beyond. Owners felt this was a violation of the spirit of the law and have "fined" the teams. Both teams can split their hits over this season and next however they want to. Dallas forfeits $10 million and the skins a whopping $36 million! The $46 million is to be split amongst the other NFL teams except for Oakland and New Orleans - not specified why though. Serious dampening of rebuilding efforts if this holds up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 skins a whopping $36 million! Jebus, Snyder really should have the team forcibly taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selly Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) With no actual cap in place, no official rule about moving the "cap hits" and the NFL approving the contracts in the first place, you can bet that JJ and Danny Boy will be lawyering up on this one. That said: Jebus, Snyder really should have the team forcibly taken away. I agree wholeheartedly. Edited March 12, 2012 by Selly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I can't see how the NFL can fine two teams for doing something that was not technically against the rules. And this is coming from an Eagles fan who would like nothing more then to see the Cowboys and Redskins screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonD Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Ummmm...yeah this sort of sucks. This will put a cramp in the free agent fest that was supposed to support RG III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 With no actual cap in place, no official rule about moving the "cap hits" and the NFL approving the contracts in the first place, you can bet that JJ and Danny Boy will be lawyering up on this one. That said: I agree wholeheartedly. Chris Mortenson reported that the League office instructed teams to not do this, and only Dallas and Washington didn't get the memo. Good luck trying to lawyer up Snyder/JJ... The NFL and every other team combined is your opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I am still having a hard time figuring out why Dallas franchised Spencer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 When is enough, enough. I am sooo tired of th redskins consant screw ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 JJ and Snyder aren't high on my list but I don't see this as a black and white issue. Having the other owners decide that they should all share in that cap money adds to the bs of it, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Chris Mortenson reported that the League office instructed teams to not do this, and only Dallas and Washington didn't get the memo. Good luck trying to lawyer up Snyder/JJ... The NFL and every other team combined is your opponent. That's a horse of a different color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 As per the article: "To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. "These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis." Sounds like nobody will be fighting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 JJ and Snyder aren't high on my list but I don't see this as a black and white issue. Having the other owners decide that they should all share in that cap money adds to the bs of it, IMO. Exactly. Blatant self interest anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K.Trey Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 As per the article: "To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. "These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis." Sounds like nobody will be fighting it. the players won't fight because they still get the same piece of the pie( this is why all the other teams get more room) and the compliant owners outway the non compliant 15-1 so you are correct there will be no fight on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Self-imposing a salary cap outside of the cba in what was supposed to be an uncapped year seems like collusion by the owners to me. Apparently it sounds like collusion to the NFLPA too. Bounties and Wiretaps and Collusion, Oh My! Wow, as if the NFL could use more black eyes this offseason. :yikes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Apparently it sounds like collusion to the NFLPA too. Bounties and Wiretaps and Collusion, Oh My! Wow, as if the NFL could use more black eyes this offseason. :yikes: It will all or mostly be forgotten once the season starts. Remember all the anger directed at the league, owners, players, etc. last year. Once things were settled and we knew we'd have a season most fans moved on. (The more casual fans were probably less aware of or involved in all the debates at that time, and may have hardly even noticed.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh2 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Here is the link for the reason why Oakland and New Oraleans did not get any money and the following statement: "Oakland and New Orleans do not share in the redistributed salary cap space because they engaged in similar practices, but not to the degree of Washington and Dallas." Yahoo Sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-union-files-suit-against-161915764--nfl.html;_ylt=AjtMbKqXN7k3c9jfaDS7kdo5nYcB Owners have a problem.... looks like JJ and Synder are the good guys in this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Sounds like the NFLPA has a hard time keeping their word after signing a contract (if we believe the NFL points about the CBA prohibiting these lawsuits). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Sounds like the NFLPA has a hard time keeping their word after signing a contract (if we believe the NFL points about the CBA prohibiting these lawsuits). So the league secretly agreed to a salary cap during what was supposed to be an uncapped year, possibly costing the players millions, and you're pointing the finger at the NFLPA for filing a suit despite it going against the new CBA agreement? Just because they put it in the CBA that they couldn't sure doesn't make what the league did right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 So the league secretly agreed to a salary cap during what was supposed to be an uncapped year, possibly costing the players millions, and you're pointing the finger at the NFLPA for filing a suit despite it going against the new CBA agreement? Just because they put it in the CBA that they couldn't sure doesn't make what the league did right. I never said the league was right, I said the players are not keeping their word as specified in the CBA. Are you saying that it should be ok for people to sign an agreement not to sue, and then later sue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverback Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 A better question is, "WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE PLAYERS AGREE TO A cba THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO SUE THE LEAGUE OVER COLLUSION?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I never said the league was right, I said the players are not keeping their word as specified in the CBA. Ignoring that part implies such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 Ignoring that part implies such. No, it doesn't. It means right or wrong they agreed not to sue. Period. It's just like you taking a check from the insurance company and signing a release against all future claims for damages. If your neck flares up a year later you're on your own. You signed an agreement for which you received legitimate consideration, you are bound to it. Right or wrong, known or unknown, you agreed to it. So did the NFLPA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No, it doesn't. It means right or wrong they agreed not to sue. Period. It's just like you taking a check from the insurance company and signing a release against all future claims for damages. If your neck flares up a year later you're on your own. You signed an agreement for which you received legitimate consideration, you are bound to it. Right or wrong, known or unknown, you agreed to it. So did the NFLPA. Well it seems that point is in contention and is going to be settled by the lawyers. So it is less cut and dry than you are trying to make it seem with your insurance example. But if one side clearly couldn't keep their "word" when they agreed to have an uncapped year it seems a little ridiculous to omit that part and harp on the other side for "now" not keeping their "word" since they "may" have signed away their rights. I mean are you guys really disagreeing that the NFL owners didn't illegally (you know in the last agreement where they gave their "word") collude to have a salary cap during an uncapped year? Of course even if you guys are right in the legal definition, I still think it's kind of BS to cheat and then get someone to agree that they can't sue you if they find out you cheated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Well it seems that point is in contention and is going to be settled by the lawyers. So it is less cut and dry than you are trying to make it seem with your insurance example. But if one side clearly couldn't keep their "word" when they agreed to have an uncapped year it seems a little ridiculous to omit that part and harp on the other side for "now" not keeping their "word" since they "may" have signed away their rights. I mean are you guys really disagreeing that the NFL owners didn't illegally (you know in the last agreement where they gave their "word") collude to have a salary cap during an uncapped year? Of course even if you guys are right in the legal definition, I still think it's kind of BS to cheat and then get someone to agree that they can't sue you if they find out you cheated. Even if the court agrees and allows them to sue, that doesn't make them right. For some of us it boils down to simply being a man of your word. If you sign something agreeing to do things, then later go back on that you're breaking your word. All the excuses and reasons at that point just don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Even if the court agrees and allows them to sue, that doesn't make them right. For some of us it boils down to simply being a man of your word. If you sign something agreeing to do things, then later go back on that you're breaking your word. All the excuses and reasons at that point just don't matter. Actually it does... If you enter into an agreement with someone based on false pretenses then that agreement should be subject to review. Not saying it's exactly the same, but a simple parrallel would be the Lemon Law. If a judge agrees that the NFL did not act in good faith then I see no reason why the NFLPA shouldn't be allowed to file suit. That's what the judge will determine, whether it is "right" for them to be allowed to sue or not. I still have my doubts that they will be allowed to, but IMO they are certainly well justified in trying. On another note, I just don't get this complete & utter blind defense of the NFL as if they are beyond reproach. They weren't "men of their word" when they secretly agreed to a salary cap in an uncapped year. I don't get why they shouldn't be held accountable for that action whether the players signed an agreement not to sue or not. At the very least, they should be allowed to try and let the courts decide without facing ridicule from armchair quarterbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.