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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #361  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:48 PM
cal_junior's Avatar
cal_junior cal_junior is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinSkin View Post
Can anyone tell me if we had a competitive advantage over anyone? What was our record those years? I know we are being penalized for an "attempt" to gain an unfair advantage. How did that work out?
The idea would have been to gain a competitive advantage for 2012. The Skins get money they would have owed those guys off the books in '10, then they've got tons of Cap room to get free agents this off-season.
Reply With Quote

  #362  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:49 PM
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: 25,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmanouel8 View Post
Bolded the area of focus, "in-house" meaning without taking it any further than Burbanks as the arbitrator. That was the limit of the fight.
That's weaksauce. I believe in fighting or not fighting. Getting punched in the face and responding with a shoving contest is the worst option. Walking away would have been more reasonable.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #363  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:26 PM
justinskins justinskins is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
There's no way it does. That would be like signing something saying you signed a waiver at a hospital and can't sue when the doctor cut your leg off during a tonsillectomy.
In principle, there is no reason why you can't contract away almost any right. I don't really know that much about the specific situation you mention, but you can imagine the reasons a court might not accept such a waiver. It is unlikely that the patient will have read the contract; the term itself is unreasonable; etc.

Based on the media reporting, the current situation seems very different. The NFLPA and the NFL are both highly sophisticated parties who negotiated with the benefit of excellent legal representation. The NFLPA waived its right to sue over past collusion in resolving a large, complex labor dispute. I know Doty really loves the NFLPA, but unless the NFL lawyers are terrible at drafting settlement agreements I think this won't go very far.
Reply With Quote

  #364  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:35 PM
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: 25,611
Default

And I will stand by my claim that, if that occurs, the players need to fire their leadership. I know they're used to taking it hard and deep but this new deal completely favors ownership. They hired De Smith specifically so that wouldn't happen.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #365  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:01 PM
justinskins justinskins is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhhorus View Post
Where does he say this was because they wanted to suppress salaries? "The spirit of the salary cap"? You're not making any sense here.
The purpose of the salary cap is to keep salaries low. The only reason it is legal is because it is part of a collective bargaining agreement. To the extent that teams go beyond the CBA to lower salaries, they are colluding. But the NFLPA waived the claim.
Reply With Quote

  #366  
Old 05-23-2012, 08:49 PM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinskins View Post
The purpose of the salary cap is to keep salaries low. The only reason it is legal is because it is part of a collective bargaining agreement. To the extent that teams go beyond the CBA to lower salaries, they are colluding. But the NFLPA waived the claim.
In that strict semantic sense, yes. But then the draft and every other thing along those lines keeps salaries low. Ironically, in European soccer, where you don't have a draft or salary caps, salaries are generally much lower for the star players then in the NFL.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.
Reply With Quote

  #367  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:13 PM
justinskins justinskins is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhhorus View Post
In that strict semantic sense, yes. But then the draft and every other thing along those lines keeps salaries low.
In a semantic sense and a factual sense. The draft is also designed to keep salaries low. "Competitive balance" is a secondary effect.
Reply With Quote

  #368  
Old 05-23-2012, 10:50 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: 59,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
And I will stand by my claim that, if that occurs, the players need to fire their leadership. I know they're used to taking it hard and deep but this new deal completely favors ownership. They hired De Smith specifically so that wouldn't happen.
personally, i think that is why De Smith was willing to sign on to the punishment..it was the ONLY way to keep the cap from shrinking.. had that happened, he would not have survived a vote to be extended as president.
i think it was a totally self serving move on his part
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #369  
Old 05-24-2012, 06:26 AM
akhhorus's Avatar
akhhorus akhhorus is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Monty Burns County
Posts: 61,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinskins View Post
In a semantic sense and a factual sense. The draft is also designed to keep salaries low. "Competitive balance" is a secondary effect.
But even with the cap in place, nothing would stop a team from handing out as large a contract as possible(in theory, they could pay a player 50 million a year especially with a creative bonus structure). Its hard to claim that wages are depressed by it. Especially since salaries keep rising.
__________________
Thanks for everything Johnny White Guy.

Last edited by akhhorus : 05-24-2012 at 06:30 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #370  
Old 05-24-2012, 07:07 AM
Keino's Avatar
Keino Keino is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
And I will stand by my claim that, if that occurs, the players need to fire their leadership. I know they're used to taking it hard and deep but this new deal completely favors ownership. They hired De Smith specifically so that wouldn't happen.
If he agreed to waive future claims, then I would be inclined to agree with you here. They need to fire their lawyers as well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinsSwag2 View Post
Long will never start for us and neither will the kid from stanford. We fot fleecsd .....moses wont start either there is a reason he fell so far. Sosorry this draft has disaster written all over it
Just so I don't forget, I intend to remind the above poster about this quote.
Reply With Quote

  #371  
Old 05-24-2012, 07:33 AM
hail2skins's Avatar
hail2skins hail2skins is offline
hR Owner
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 34,135
Default

Interesting read

ESPN.com

Tidbit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESPN
"On multiple occasions, the players and their representatives specifically dismissed all claims, known or unknown, whether pending or not, regarding alleged violations of the 2006 CBA and the related settlement agreement. We continue to look forward to focusing on the future of the game rather than grievances of a prior era that have already been resolved."
But Kessler said that agreement was rejected by the court.
"The document they are referring to was not accepted by the district court in Minnesota," he said Wednesday. "It was rejected and the court entered an order which only dismissed claims under White that were pending."
Reply With Quote

  #372  
Old 05-24-2012, 08:23 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: 25,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hail2skins View Post
Interesting read

ESPN.com

Tidbit:
This makes much more sense. The court would be correct in not accepting a complete clean slate for management who is already getting a sweet deal in their anti-trust exemption from the government.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #373  
Old 05-24-2012, 08:34 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: 59,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave View Post
This makes much more sense. The court would be correct in not accepting a complete clean slate for management who is already getting a sweet deal in their anti-trust exemption from the government.
www.profootballtalk.com has a little more on this subject this am

frankly, i think they are correct that the way this will end up eventually is with checks with lots of zeroes being passed back and forth in the future

i dont think this will make a damn bit of difference to the Redskins in the end

still, what Mara said for public consumption may end up hurting the NFL in the end.. Discovery would be a very difficult process for the NFL if the suit is allowed to go forward
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #374  
Old 05-24-2012, 08:59 AM
Keino's Avatar
Keino Keino is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shally View Post
www.profootballtalk.com has a little more on this subject this am

frankly, i think they are correct that the way this will end up eventually is with checks with lots of zeroes being passed back and forth in the future

i dont think this will make a damn bit of difference to the Redskins in the end

still, what Mara said for public consumption may end up hurting the NFL in the end.. Discovery would be a very difficult process for the NFL if the suit is allowed to go forward
While I realize that this means nothing for us and the Cowboys (who i don't give a damn about anyways) I am so hoping the players prevail here (even though I highly doubt they will) and I hope it's Mara's very public douchicity than puts the nail in the coffin. That would be such poetic justice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinsSwag2 View Post
Long will never start for us and neither will the kid from stanford. We fot fleecsd .....moses wont start either there is a reason he fell so far. Sosorry this draft has disaster written all over it
Just so I don't forget, I intend to remind the above poster about this quote.
Reply With Quote

  #375  
Old 05-24-2012, 09:05 AM
cal_junior's Avatar
cal_junior cal_junior is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 13,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keino View Post
and I hope it's Mara's very public douchicity than puts the nail in the coffin. That would be such poetic justice.
This. A thousand times this.

Last edited by cal_junior : 05-24-2012 at 09:31 AM.
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 02:26 PM.


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 |