The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

by **DarthMonk** » Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:54 am

By Mark Maske

The NFL has no plans to penalize the Washington Redskins over allegations that the team’s defensive players had an improper bounty program when Gregg Williams oversaw the defense between the 2004 and 2007 seasons, according to a person with knowledge of the league’s investigation.

LINK

by **1niksder** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:07 pm

<---Link

Houston, Detroit and N.Y. Giants are all roughly 700,000 over the NFL's salary cap, according to a league source. Houston can take their cap exception from the Redskins and Cowboys and get under the cap but the Giants and Lions will have to make a move or restructure contracts to get under cap. They have until Wednesday to get under the cap.

I've got the Skins sitting at right over $7M in space... That's more that ten times what the gints have and they used some of Washington's money

by **the poster** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:06 pm

1niksder wrote:<---Link

Houston, Detroit and N.Y. Giants are all roughly 700,000 over the NFL's salary cap, according to a league source. Houston can take their cap exception from the Redskins and Cowboys and get under the cap but the Giants and Lions will have to make a move or restructure contracts to get under cap. They have until Wednesday to get under the cap.

I've got the Skins sitting at right over $7M in space... That's more that ten times what the gints have and they used some of Washington's money

what's your count for recent super bowl titles vs last place finishes? right,

by **ACW** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:26 pm

by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:41 am

the league said in court documents filed last week, “no rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins and Cowboys.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -redskins/

We might want to revisit this, in light of the NFL's own filings. :evil:

by **SkinsJock** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:44 am

Deadskins wrote:
the league said in court documents filed last week, “no rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins and Cowboys.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -redskins/

We might want to revisit this, in light of the NFL's own filings.

what a mess - I'd agree that the NFLPA is most likely going to lose in Doty's court, but I doubt that anything changes as far as the Skins and pukes are concerned

this is just a HUGE mess

by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:43 am

SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
the league said in court documents filed last week, “no rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins and Cowboys.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -redskins/

We might want to revisit this, in light of the NFL's own filings.

what a mess - I'd agree that the NFLPA is most likely going to lose in Doty's court, but I doubt that anything changes as far as the Skins and pukes are concerned

this is just a HUGE mess

If someone accepts the settlement offer and cashes the check, they can't turn around and sue you anyway. I blasted the players for this exact reason at the time and I got a bunch of flack that the players had "no choice." Well, now the NFL is safe, they can admit to whatever they want. There is no mess at all for them. The NFLPA sold us out, with friends like that....

by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:04 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
the league said in court documents filed last week, “no rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins and Cowboys.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -redskins/

We might want to revisit this, in light of the NFL's own filings.

what a mess - I'd agree that the NFLPA is most likely going to lose in Doty's court, but I doubt that anything changes as far as the Skins and pukes are concerned

this is just a HUGE mess

If someone accepts the settlement offer and cashes the check, they can't turn around and sue you anyway. I blasted the players for this exact reason at the time and I got a bunch of flack that the players had "no choice." Well, now the NFL is safe, they can admit to whatever they want. There is no mess at all for them. The NFLPA sold us out, with friends like that....

True for the NFLPA, not true for the Skins and Pies.

by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:55 am

Deadskins wrote:
kaz wrote:If someone accepts the settlement offer and cashes the check, they can't turn around and sue you anyway. I blasted the players for this exact reason at the time and I got a bunch of flack that the players had "no choice." Well, now the NFL is safe, they can admit to whatever they want. There is no mess at all for them. The NFLPA sold us out, with friends like that....

True for the NFLPA, not true for the Skins and Pies.

Not sure what that means exactly. If you mean it's not "fair" then I agree. If you mean it's not "legal" then you're going to have to be more specific. I doubt Danny and Jerry would have dropped this if they saw a legal remedy.

by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:59 am

They can still take the NFL to court. And now they have the NFL's own court filing that they did no wrong to use against them. This is considered the nuclear option, though, because taking the NFL to court exposes the league (and by extension, the Skins and Pies) to antitrust violations. But I bet, if they did file, the NFL would quickly settle before it ever got that far.

by **SkinsJock** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:21 pm

are you trying to imply that the redskins and pukes could get this changed?

that's really a stretch :roll:

by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:37 pm

SkinsJock wrote:are you trying to imply that the redskins and pukes could get this changed?

that's really a stretch

He wants to sue people who have an anti-trust exemption as violating anti-trust. You doubt that would work?

by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:58 pm

Hmm. Stephen Burbank, the arbitrator in the initial dispute said they could go that route, but I guess Kazoo and SkinsJock, the experts, know better. :roll:

What I'm saying is, now that the NFL has filed legal briefs saying we did nothing wrong, if we took them to court, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

by **1niksder** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:27 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
kaz wrote:If someone accepts the settlement offer and cashes the check, they can't turn around and sue you anyway. I blasted the players for this exact reason at the time and I got a bunch of flack that the players had "no choice." Well, now the NFL is safe, they can admit to whatever they want. There is no mess at all for them. The NFLPA sold us out, with friends like that....

True for the NFLPA, not true for the Skins and Pies.

Not sure what that means exactly. If you mean it's not "fair" then I agree. If you mean it's not "legal" then you're going to have to be more specific. I doubt Danny and Jerry would have dropped this if they saw a legal remedy.

+0.87

It is still a mess... although you are correct that it's not the NFL's mess. That's only because the Redskins and ttiT put this in their rear view mirrors a long time ago. They made their challenge and Mara and his boys technically change the reason for penalties. It went from spending beyond the unspoken cap number (which they did if there was a unspoken cap number) to moving spent money (pro-rated cap money from future years into the un-capped year... which they did on a number of contracts)). They took their punishment and moved on. Both teams did better than expected with what they had, which is better than what a lot of teams did with some of what was taken from them. The Redskins were the first to get out and Jerrah and ttiT followed. Should have ended there. The players got a higher salary cap number for 2012 and the NFL didn't have to actually increase the cap, everybody was happy. The Skins and ttiT got less then 24 hours notice of the penalties and spent about that long fighting it.

However in that limited time they let it be known that the NFLPA not only knew about it in advance but had to sign off on it. That's when the players found out what they had agreed to. It really has nothing to do with the un-capped year at this point but more about the NFLPA not going to the rank and file on some they may turn out to be a flat cap for years to come.

The NFL will always point to the 2011 and 2012 seasons where the Salary cap went virtually unchanged while player's salaries pretty much increased across the boards, with the teams that gave up space still out spending other teams the NFL can say the "competitive balance" wasn't effected by Mara's thievery.

This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent. Let's not forget, right after this agreement between the NFLEC and the NFLPA to punish the Redskins and ttiT D Smith and his gang were up for re-election :shock:

OK +0.92

by **KazooSkinsFan** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:39 pm

1niksder wrote:This is the NFLPA's mess and their's alone, they KNOW they signed away the right to sue on grounds of collusion but have to do something to save face with the players that they represent

That is the only way it makes sense. Either that or the lawyers just wanted more fees suing for a case that was already settled anyway.