| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
Redskin in Canada
~~~~~~
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 10277
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A settlement is likely BECAUSE this situation HURTS both the teams and the NFL as a whole.
Mara and his gang got Goodell in trouble and they are trying to save face on all sides, which is difficult if you really think about it:
1) The NFL wants the whole thing to go away. But it also wants some recognition of "unfair advantage" by the two teams in the settlement.
2) The Skins and Pukes want not only their cap money back BUT also recognition that they did nothing wrong.
3) The NFL top brass has already enough of a mess with several issues relating to the NFLPA. It does not need to fight too many battles on different sides.
4) What to do with already re-alocated cap space to other teams? Can the NFL get it back? No way.
So, while a settlement is likely and even necessary to all, the devil will be in the details.
Stay tuned: this settlement deal is not easy but lawyers love it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12766
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Redskin in Canada wrote: | A settlement is likely BECAUSE this situation HURTS both the teams and the NFL as a whole.
Mara and his gang got Goodell in trouble and they are trying to save face on all sides, which is difficult if you really think about it:
1) The NFL wants the whole thing to go away. But it also wants some recognition of "unfair advantage" by the two teams in the settlement.
2) The Skins and Pukes want not only their cap money back BUT also recognition that they did nothing wrong.
3) The NFL top brass has already enough of a mess with several issues relating to the NFLPA. It does not need to fight too many battles on different sides.
4) What to do with already re-alocated cap space to other teams? Can the NFL get it back? No way.
So, while a settlement is likely and even necessary to all, the devil will be in the details.
Stay tuned: this settlement deal is not easy but lawyers love it.
|
The cap space that was reallocated to the other teams will be the real problem. Taking it back, would cause severe problems for several teams. If I'm Danny and Jerruh, I'm pushing this, until I get some equity... all of my cap, plus some... to equal the advantage that other teams recieved by conspiring against our teams. Only THEN would I entertain real discussion about a settlement.
Otherwise, I take it to the arbitrator.
This is not going to cause severe damage to the league... the current rules limit that. However, two teams were severely, and unjustly, injured, and their options for pursuing free agents was very limited due to that. The arbitrator is privately contracted, and the publishing of the results limited, with the league permitted to spin the outcome any way they choose. I'm sure that Danny and Jerruh would like to get this resolved quickly, but they have a strong hand, and I doubt they would let the league manipulate them into an unsatisfactory settlement. I'm also sure that allowing the league to save face is low on their list of priorities... they did nothing wrong... Mara can sit in a sewer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11504
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^ and to both your and RiC's point - there should be a settlement (as aluded to by 1niksder) by now ....
except
IMO - Jerrah and the Redskins are pushing for more
and rightly so
I hope that something comes out of this that pisses Mara off in a big way
this was vindictive on his part |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14695
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | Redskin in Canada wrote: | A settlement is likely BECAUSE this situation HURTS both the teams and the NFL as a whole.
Mara and his gang got Goodell in trouble and they are trying to save face on all sides, which is difficult if you really think about it:
1) The NFL wants the whole thing to go away. But it also wants some recognition of "unfair advantage" by the two teams in the settlement.
2) The Skins and Pukes want not only their cap money back BUT also recognition that they did nothing wrong.
3) The NFL top brass has already enough of a mess with several issues relating to the NFLPA. It does not need to fight too many battles on different sides.
4) What to do with already re-alocated cap space to other teams? Can the NFL get it back? No way.
So, while a settlement is likely and even necessary to all, the devil will be in the details.
Stay tuned: this settlement deal is not easy but lawyers love it.
|
The cap space that was reallocated to the other teams will be the real problem. Taking it back, would cause severe problems for several teams. If I'm Danny and Jerruh, I'm pushing this, until I get some equity... all of my cap, plus some... to equal the advantage that other teams recieved by conspiring against our teams. Only THEN would I entertain real discussion about a settlement. |
The cap money taken from us over a two year period was given to 28 other teams in this year, so if it is given back to us, I would assume the other teams would keep this year's allotment and possibly lose it off next year's cap. I don't see the arbitrator punishing the other teams for this, even though they voted to keep the penalties intact. But, since these other 28 teams get an extra $1.6 million this year, it would only be fair to increase the other four team's cap by the same amount for this year as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12766
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well... the bottom line is, 28 teams were co-conspirators against the Redskins and Cowboys... it's not the arbitor's job to mitigate THEIR damage if he concludes that the league injured the complainants... his job, in that case, would be to attempt to make the Redskins and Cowboys whole again...
Some would say that the Redskins hardly seem injured, as they have done fairly well in FA... perhaps... but the fact that they have very skillfully dealt with the crappy hand dealt them, does not play here. They should not be punished for being effective crisis managers, and responding to this with skill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14695
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We should know soon enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16570
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | SkinsJock wrote: | | 1niksder wrote: | | Chris Luva Luva wrote: | | I think Redskin1 knows something, he's just not telling us! |
Nope I tell ya when I hear it, just haven't heard anything else with less than 48 hours before the set date arrives.
If the ruling comes back the same as the rumored settlement then we know the process is a shame |
I'll take that as a sham  |
Both would apply! |
What he said  |
|
| Back to top |
|
cleg
cleg
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2589
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomorrow is the hearing. i am not clear if it is just whether or not to dismiss per the NFL request or full hearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14695
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Redskins, Cowboys set for hearing Thursday in challenge to salary cap penalties
By Mark Maske
An arbitrator is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday in the challenge by the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys to salary cap reductions imposed on them by the NFL in March.
Several people familiar with the case said in recent days they thought it was unlikely that Stephen Burbank, the sport’s system arbitrator, would make an immediate ruling.
The hearing is to take place at the University of Pennsylvania law school in Philadelphia. Burbank, who is in charge of resolving disputes arising from the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement, is a law professor at the school.
Attorneys are scheduled to argue the case before Burbank without testimony from any witnesses on Thursday, according to several people familiar with the case. One of those people said Thursday’s hearing is likely to focus primarily on jurisdictional issues, specifically whether the Redskins and Cowboys have the right to bring such a case before Burbank given that the league and the NFL Players Association agreed to the salary cap reductions given to the teams.
A person familiar with the matter previously said that the league had asked Burbank to dismiss the case because of that agreement on the cap reductions between the league and the players’ union.
It is not clear when Burbank will make a decision about whether the case will be dismissed. It also is not clear if another hearing would be required if Burbank allows the case to continue. But a person familiar with the proceedings said it was not expected that other aspects of the case would be addressed during Thursday’s hearing.
Redskins officials, including Coach Mike Shanahan and General Manager Bruce Allen, consistently have refused to comment on the details of the case.
The league imposed a $36 million salary cap reduction over two years on the Redskins, at least half of which must be absorbed by the team this season. The Cowboys were given a $10 million cap reduction over two years. The reductions were imposed for the manner in which the two teams structured players’ contracts during the sport’s season without a salary cap in 2010.
According to several people familiar with the case, the league found that the Redskins and Cowboys technically violated no salary cap rules but sought to gain an unfair competitive advantage when the salary cap went back into effect. The two teams, according to those people familiar with the case, paid money to players during the uncapped year that otherwise would have been paid in subsequent years with the salary cap back in place. That way, the money never counted against the cap and the teams cleared salary cap space in future seasons.
The 2010 season was played without a salary cap under a provision in the sport’s previous labor agreement. It went back into effect last year with the ratification of a new CBA by the league and union.
The teams voted, 29-2, at the annual league meeting in Palm Beach, Fla., in late March to endorse the salary cap reductions. The Redskins and Cowboys voted against that resolution and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers abstained.
The salary cap reductions were imposed as part of an agreement between the league and union. A person familiar with the union’s view of the case said previously that the union believed the Redskins and Cowboys did nothing wrong, but agreed to the reductions to avoid having the salary cap set lower for all teams. The $46 million in salary cap reductions was redistributed to 28 of the other 30 NFL teams and this season’s salary cap was set at $120.6 million per team.
According to several people familiar with the case, the owners of some teams were angry enough at the Redskins’ actions that they urged NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to strip draft choices from them. The league imposed the salary cap reduction instead.
The Redskins and Cowboys have denied wrongdoing in the case and have pointed out that all of the contracts were approved by the league at the time. The teams filed their case against both the league and the union.
Under the CBA, a ruling by Burbank could be appealed to an appeals panel. It also is possible for the parties to reach a settlement prior to a ruling by Burbank, although several people familiar with the case said they don’t see any indication at this point that a compromise is within reach or even is being considered.
Legal experts have said the case is complex and it is not clear which way Burbank will rule. According to those legal experts, Burbank must weigh the NFL’s right to act as it sees fit to maintain competitive balance against the teams’ claim that they acted within the stated rules of the salary cap. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/redskins-cowboys-set-for-hearing-today-in-challenge-to-salary-cap-penalties/2012/05/09/gIQAKJJzBU_blog.html?tid=pm_sports_pop |
|
| Back to top |
|
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3875
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question. Why would the redistributed $1.6M team need to be rectified? I mean it isn't like the salary cap represents actual dollars. They didn't take 46M actual dollars from the Skins and Cowgirls and give it to the 28 other teams. They just said we couldn't spend that amount of money and the other teams could.
The genie is already out of the bottle. Teams either spent that amount or didn't. They could a be ordered to spend $1'6 less next year, but really what would be the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11504
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If this BS results in our not getting some satisfaction - I hope someone takes a bounty out on Mara
nothing bad of course .... but any action resulting in his being maimed would be fine with me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14695
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When you're right up against the cap, $1.6 million can mean the difference between signing a FA or not. The purpose of the cap is to give competitive balance. If everyone else get an extra 1.6, then the other four teams should too. But I agree that there is no point in trying to take it back this year (or really ever), just give it to everyone and call that the new limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 5991
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the court is gonna do a "Roc".. "you can take this grievance, oil it up real good, turn it sideways, AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ______ ! "
then we can talk about how the courts screwed us too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
UK Skins Fan
|||||||
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4437
Location: Somewhere, out there.
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| langleyparkjoe wrote: | | the court is gonna do a "Roc".. "you can take this grievance, oil it up real good, turn it sideways, AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ______ ! " |
You really do have a splendid way with words. Have you ever thought of running for the Senate?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
riggofan
Hog
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 2940
Location: Montclair, Virginia
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Redskin in Canada wrote: | A settlement is likely BECAUSE this situation HURTS both the teams and the NFL as a whole.
Mara and his gang got Goodell in trouble and they are trying to save face on all sides, which is difficult if you really think about it |
I agree with your comments, except I don't see how this makes a settlement LIKELY. As you pointed out, its a difficult, complex situation. That seems like it would make a settlement hard to negotiate.
Also if there is a settlement where the skins/boys get their cap space back, isn't that the same as the NFL basically LOSING? What do they win in that scenario? I don't see why the NFL wouldn't just go through arbitration where they at least have some chance of winning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 18 of 25 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
