Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hailRedskins.com Fan Forums > the Cherokee Redskins Tribe

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #46  
Old 03-28-2012, 08:30 PM
Red Bear Red Bear is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 3,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonSkins View Post
So, if you're in Tampa's division and got to play them twice that is not a competitive advantage?

I feel like a player Tampa cut, or the fans might have a lawsuit here.
the point with tampa and some underspending teams is by not spending they create a competitive advantage because they didnt add any money to their future cap which allowed them to spend huge this year. and the other major point is if the NFL wanted teams to obey a non-existant cap then teams like tampa should have to obey a non-existant salary floor...
Reply With Quote

  #47  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:02 PM
Farmer Ted's Avatar
Farmer Ted Farmer Ted is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,985
Default

The problem is that the owners viewed 2010 as an 'un-floored' year, not as an 'un-capped' one.
__________________
I never bagged a babe.
Reply With Quote

  #48  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:06 PM
silverspring silverspring is offline
Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer Ted View Post
The problem is that the owners viewed 2010 as an 'un-floored' year, not as an 'un-capped' one.
Totally, but without anything in writing supporting that, I don't know how they can win with that argument.
Reply With Quote

  #49  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:19 PM
skinfanjon's Avatar
skinfanjon skinfanjon is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: College Park
Posts: 4,049
Default

Let's not overlook the fact that by spending so little in that year, more cap space was opened for Tampa in future seasons. Money that could be used for signing, oh I don't know, players like Carl Nicks and Vincent Jackson.
Reply With Quote

Where are the details on the "violations"
  #50  
Old 04-02-2012, 08:16 AM
charleesdad's Avatar
charleesdad charleesdad is offline
Runner
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 149
Default Where are the details on the "violations"

So I have been trying to find the details on the contracts the Skins adjusted in 2010 to see how they came up with 36 million.

Are there any good links out there with the details on what contracts are being flagged?

We know that none of it violated rules so this is all just the NFL and Owners trying to take a little out of Danny and Jerry's pocketbooks. But with our hit being 36 vs 10 for Dallas they must be saying we tanked our cap hits by almost $50Mil by paying in 2010.
__________________
-------------------------------------------
"Art Monk was an example for Jerry Rice. That's what Jerry always told me."- Ronnie Lott
Reply With Quote

  #51  
Old 04-02-2012, 08:32 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,560
Default

It was just the Haynesworth (21m) and Hall (15m) deals.
Reply With Quote

  #52  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:22 PM
Hr fan Hr fan is offline
Healer
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shally View Post
i dont see any way the NFL prevails with Burbank if they cannot even begin to articulate their position.. the Redskins will win, or will be offered a compromise, but it will come too late to matter this year
I have been fascinated that the following point hasn't been raised:

Did the NFL approve of the contracts that make up the alleged violation at the time the actions occurred? I for one would have hoped they didn't approve and Haynesworth never doned the burgondy and gold. But coming back 2 years after approving the actions now wanting to sanction the parties when only they knew the "rules" which they had the power to apply at the time is egregious beyond belief. Then to sit in judgement while being a party to the case...

All politicians can be bought, whether called campaign contributions or some other attempt to explain the unexplainable. Goodell is faced with 30 votes verus 2, so his motivation is clear. Whether the arbitrator is truly neutral and guided by the facts is yet to be seen. I for one hold little hope (I do expect some compromise, but would not be suprised if the issue is forced to the federal courts).
Reply With Quote

  #53  
Old 04-02-2012, 10:17 PM
shally's Avatar
shally shally is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: new orleans, now the palm springs of washington
Posts: 59,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hr fan View Post
I have been fascinated that the following point hasn't been raised:

Did the NFL approve of the contracts that make up the alleged violation at the time the actions occurred? I for one would have hoped they didn't approve and Haynesworth never doned the burgondy and gold. But coming back 2 years after approving the actions now wanting to sanction the parties when only they knew the "rules" which they had the power to apply at the time is egregious beyond belief. Then to sit in judgement while being a party to the case...

All politicians can be bought, whether called campaign contributions or some other attempt to explain the unexplainable. Goodell is faced with 30 votes verus 2, so his motivation is clear. Whether the arbitrator is truly neutral and guided by the facts is yet to be seen. I for one hold little hope (I do expect some compromise, but would not be suprised if the issue is forced to the federal courts).
nobody wants it to go to the Federal Courts.. it will end with the arbitrator, IMHO
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #54  
Old 04-18-2012, 10:32 AM
cal_junior's Avatar
cal_junior cal_junior is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,009
Default

Quote:
The hearing, according to a source close to the situation, is going to be sometime in May, though there's no firm date set and it's only a first hearing -- not the one for which you're all so eager.

My source tells me this first hearing, in front of arbitrator Stephen Burbank, will be solely for the purpose of determining whether the NFL and the NFLPA had the authority to impose the sanctions against the Cowboys and the Redskins. There will be no determination made at the first hearing on how much, if any, money the teams get back. If Burbank finds that the league and the union did not have the authority to strip the Redskins of $36 million and the Cowboys of $10 million in cap room over the next two years, then a second hearing will be scheduled to determine how to make those teams whole. If he finds that the league and the union did have such authority, then it's possible a second hearing would be scheduled to rule on whether the punishments were appropriate or should be adjusted.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post...ng-set-for-may
__________________
"Back up off me, bro."
Reply With Quote

  #55  
Old 04-18-2012, 10:49 AM
shally's Avatar
shally shally is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: new orleans, now the palm springs of washington
Posts: 59,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_junior View Post
it would be great if he found they did NOT have the authority to do what they did.. BUT, I think it will more likely be the second scenario, where it will be determined that the NFL DID have the authority, but the punishment was arbitrary and should be modified.. that would be viewed as a win/win by both sides
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #56  
Old 04-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Keino's Avatar
Keino Keino is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shally View Post
it would be great if he found they did NOT have the authority to do what they did.. BUT, I think it will more likely be the second scenario, where it will be determined that the NFL DID have the authority, but the punishment was arbitrary and should be modified.. that would be viewed as a win/win by both sides
I really don't see how he is going to draw the conclusion as to the NFL and the NFLPA authority since the issue at hand, in my view is wholly controlled by the previous CBA. It always comes back to how do you circumvent something that was not in-place? Nevermind the failure to follow its own procedures for amending the current CBA, which, IMO is irrelevant in determining whether or not a violation occurred under the previous CBA.
__________________
Fire the Shanahans.
Reply With Quote

  #57  
Old 04-18-2012, 11:55 AM
WinnpegSkinsFan's Avatar
WinnpegSkinsFan WinnpegSkinsFan is offline
Healer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shally View Post
it would be great if he found they did NOT have the authority to do what they did.. BUT, I think it will more likely be the second scenario, where it will be determined that the NFL DID have the authority, but the punishment was arbitrary and should be modified.. that would be viewed as a win/win by both sides
Agreed. I think what will happen is that the $18M penalty will stick for 2012 but the penalty will be lifted for 2013. A compromise solution that saves face for both parties.
__________________
Sean Taylor - You'll always be missed but never forgotten.
Reply With Quote

  #58  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:21 PM
shally's Avatar
shally shally is offline
Grumpy Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: new orleans, now the palm springs of washington
Posts: 59,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keino View Post
I really don't see how he is going to draw the conclusion as to the NFL and the NFLPA authority since the issue at hand, in my view is wholly controlled by the previous CBA. It always comes back to how do you circumvent something that was not in-place? Nevermind the failure to follow its own procedures for amending the current CBA, which, IMO is irrelevant in determining whether or not a violation occurred under the previous CBA.
i hope you are correct.. it would be a stunning win for the Redskins if that happened.. I am just too cynical to think that right will prevail in this matter..
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #59  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:30 PM
Keino's Avatar
Keino Keino is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shally View Post
i hope you are correct.. it would be a stunning win for the Redskins if that happened.. I am just too cynical to think that right will prevail in this matter..
I hope I am correct too. My facts and understanding of the legal issues here are somewhat limited.
__________________
Fire the Shanahans.
Reply With Quote

  #60  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:57 PM
justinskins's Avatar
justinskins justinskins is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keino View Post
I really don't see how he is going to draw the conclusion as to the NFL and the NFLPA authority since the issue at hand, in my view is wholly controlled by the previous CBA. It always comes back to how do you circumvent something that was not in-place? Nevermind the failure to follow its own procedures for amending the current CBA, which, IMO is irrelevant in determining whether or not a violation occurred under the previous CBA.
There are really two questions here:
1) As a threshold matter, does the current CBA allow a team to be punished with lost cap space for any reason?
2) If yes, what kind of wrongdoing is necessary to justify such a punishment? Would the league need to show a formal violation of the rules in place at the time (which clearly did not occur), or is the league free to impose the punishment after finding that the team did some generally anti-competitive action?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |