| Author |
Message |
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3875
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Nope |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Look back through the links in the beginning of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7002
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Look back through the links in the beginning of this thread. |
They could still go to court. Arbitration does not prevent that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It does if it's binding arbitration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7002
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | It does if it's binding arbitration. |
I'm telling you, they can file an antitrust lawsuit if they do not like the result of this arbitration. Possible, but unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
Prowl33
swine
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riggofan wrote: | | The Hogster wrote: | | The arbitrator for matters involving the NFL is generally determined by the CBA. I don't know Burbank. But, he's a colleague of Andrew Brandt--who is definitely not an NFL puppet. Roger Kaplan has also been fair, and I'd expect Burbank to be the same. |
Is it unusual that we still don't have a date set for arbitration? Seems like this is kind of a time sensitive issue. |
I don't think it's time sensitive at all. Why would the Redskins really want the cap space back this year... The biggest part of FA is over. If I were the skins, I would want them to take what we were docked this year, and add it on to next year... plus, they would have to take that extra 1.2 million or whatever that every other team got this year, and take it away from them next year.
Then we could front load some more contracts, and get penalized all over again... lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
DarthMonk
DarthMonk
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3210
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I found out the names of the 8 men that are actually on the NFL Management Council Executive Committee which punished us and the Cowboys.
1 John Mara, Giants (Chairman)
2 Mike Brown, Bengals
3 Clark Hunt, Chiefs
4 Jerry Jones, Cowboys  LINK
5 Robert Kraft, Patriots
6 Mark Murphy, Packers (former player union rep?) 
7 Art Rooney, Steelers
8 Dean Spanos, Chargers
Note that the oldest male money in the league (Good Old Boys) is, Brown, Hunt, Mara, and Rooney money. All 4 are on this committee. That's half of 'em. Kraft is also old money. Jones (and Snyder) are punks. Murphy represents but does not own. Spanos had an original stake in the Chargers ... I think.
DarthMonk |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarthMonk wrote: | I think I found out the names of the 8 men that are actually on the NFL Management Council Executive Committee which punished us and the Cowboys.
1 John Mara, Giants (Chairman)
2 Mike Brown, Bengals
3 Clark Hunt, Chiefs
4 Jerry Jones, Cowboys LINK
5 Robert Kraft, Patriots
6 Mark Murphy, Packers (former player union rep?)
7 Art Rooney, Steelers
8 Dean Spanos, Chargers
Note that the oldest male money in the league (Good Old Boys) is, Brown, Hunt, Mara, and Rooney money. All 4 are on this committee. That's half of 'em. Kraft is also old money. Jones (and Snyder) are punks. Murphy represents but does not own. Spanos had an original stake in the Chargers ... I think.
DarthMonk |
Yeah, Jones is on the council, which is what makes the deal all that much more shady. This was some backroom dealing by Mara when Jerrah wasn't around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12771
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Murphy is a treasonous scumbag? Say it ain't so! |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11522
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Not sure that this isn't still going to arbitration - that's happening IMHO
the NFLPA has basically taken the collusion issue out of the concern here
that was what I was looking for clarification on 
I also think that the pukes and the Redskins are kind of tied to what the arbitrator decides and I doubt this goes any further after his decision
no matter which side likes the decision or not
there seems to be some sentiment (outside of our obviously biased feelings) that the Redskins and pukes were more severely punished than was needed |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14724
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsJock wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Not sure that this isn't still going to arbitration - that's happening IMHO |
Of course it's happening. May 10th. Who said any different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | SkinsJock wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Not sure that this isn't still going to arbitration - that's happening IMHO |
Of course it's happening. May 10th. Who said any different? |
If the Skins aren't happy with the arbitration outcome, they may not go to court with it but you can bet they'll threaten to take it to the courts as it will be a option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance
| Quote: | Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL has tried to block the hearing by submitting a request to dismiss the grievance.
The NFL contends that, because the NFL Players Association consented to the imposition of cap penalties, the Cowboys and Redskins have no grounds to attack the agreement under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which governs the relationship between the league and the players.
Of course, if that argument prevails, the Cowboys and Redskins could be forced to pursue other avenues of relief. Ultimately, the Cowboys and Redskins could choose to claim that the sanctions against them arise from an effort by the NFL to engage in collusion during the uncapped year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11522
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1niksder wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | SkinsJock wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Not sure that this isn't still going to arbitration - that's happening IMHO |
Of course it's happening. May 10th. Who said any different? |
If the Skins aren't happy with the arbitration outcome, they may not go to court with it but you can bet they'll threaten to take it to the courts as it will be a option. |
sorry mate - you said - "there is no taking it to court" 
I think that might happen if ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsJock wrote: | | 1niksder wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | SkinsJock wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court. |
Not sure that this isn't still going to arbitration - that's happening IMHO |
Of course it's happening. May 10th. Who said any different? |
If the Skins aren't happy with the arbitration outcome, they may not go to court with it but you can bet they'll threaten to take it to the courts as it will be a option. |
sorry mate - you said - "there is no taking it to court"
I think that might happen if ... |
You quoted me and highlighted what DS wrote  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 14 of 25 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
