The NFL Sends Confusing Messages in Salary Cap Penalties

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:33 am

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:g'day JSPB - time to pull your chain a little bit .... again

pointing to the what the Raiders and Al Davis might do is really grasping at straws - although .. this is what you're good at :twisted:

As Kaz and 1niksder are pointing out - the Redskins and pukes are moving on and there is really ZERO possibility of what you're suggesting happening


time to move on - get over it :lol:


True. Both teams have recourse, but choose not to use it. The reality is, the arbitrator's decision, while not satisfactory, will be the last word. Both teams probably have a good case, were they to take this to court. A trial would be long, public, and ugly... and a victory would provide minimal gains, compared to what would be lost, should the NFL lose it's antitrust exemption... which would also, ultimately, probably bankrupt the league in the long run.

For the Danny and Jerruh, it's really a simple choice... getting screwed by Mara was distasteful... but the risk, no matter how small, of losing the antitrust exemption is, simply, intolerable.

The only realistic chance the teams had was a positive arbitration... that did not happen. It's done.

I think Al Davis would have made the same choice as the Danny and Jerruh, today... The risks are not the same as they were when he had his famous fight with the league.


My biggest issur is what's next? I'm in conspiracy theory mode this morning so excuse the broad context.

If they get away with a blantant conflict of interest and punish for an unwritten rule violation, they can do anything to us. I've always felt the league and its top dogs & announcers HATE this team. I don't think they'll be happy until the team is disbanded.


Next, Mara will convene a committe to take RGIII off our roster and put him on the Giants. He'll call it evening out a competitive disadvantage obtained by trading up--which was not illegal-but violated an unspoken rule against trading up.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

the 'mudge
Posts: 14639
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:40 pm

^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:03 pm

Countertrey wrote:^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!


(Insert drum kick here)

Lawyer joke. How novel and never redundant. Fresh even.
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:29 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby HTTRRG3ALMO » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:57 pm

Countertrey wrote:^ Ah, you lawyers... just so darned clever!


Though I doubt it would ever come to that, it is possible.

After all, they've established unfair competitive advantage with front loading contracts and then traded up to get RG3.

Again, I seriously doubt it but trading up for RG3 is a direct ramification of gathering up players in the uncapped season and then trading up.

That said, it could easily be proven in court that the "competitive advantage" was already handled with the cap space penalty.

the 'mudge
Posts: 14639
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:44 am

What???
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football