Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 260
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Boondocks
    Posts
    38,476
    Quote Originally Posted by duck View Post
    Atogwe and Sellers have already been cut.
    Atogwe is gonna hurt is we can't re-work a deal with him.
    The world is a toll-free toilet
    Our mouths neurological ass0s
    And psychologically speaking
    We're in a state of mental diarrhea
    Talking sh*t a mile a minute
    Or in a state of constipated notions
    Can't think of nothin' but sh*t, and in this world of stinky futures
    Sh*tty memories and constipated 19 now-nows
    Emerges from the hiney of your head the doo doo chasers
    The Promentalsh*tbackwashpsychosisenemasquad
    Bringing you music to get your sh*t together by

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Arlington (from before it was overrun by yuppies), VA
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by iggles nut View Post
    Responding to Cota's last post:

    Nope, not in the NBA. The NBA can do whatever the hell it wants and teams can't do anything because they waive legal recourse. Stern's veto of the Chris Paul trade was very legally dubious.
    True, but you see where I was going with that. Blind with rage right now. I feel like I just shot a burgler and am getting charged with murder. I know the law and HATE when sh*t like this happens. The real world calls it collusion, but the NFL calls it a day.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasta View Post
    According to PFT, teams were warned AT LEAST 6 times about front loading deals to avoid the cap. Sounds like Danny and the supposed cap genius got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Dumb idiots.

    The only two things I want to know?

    1. Why did the NFL approve these contracts?

    2. Why does this come out the day before FA?

    Need to get more info but if they were warned six times they are idiots.
    I usually don't comment at other teams board but I was interested to see what you guys are saying about the big story today. To answer question #1: the League reviews contracts to make certain that they conform to the specifcations of the both the CBA and the League and that they contain all and only the terms and conditions authorized by the League and the CBA. The issue pertaining the "front loading of contracts in the uncapped year" is driven by a directive from the NFL to all of its teams advising them not to do that. As such, there was no League rule or CBA provision and teams that chose to ignore the directive did so at their peril. I suspect that Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones thought they could either get away with ignoring the directive or that any punishment would be just a minor rap-on-the-knuckles. They were wrong. Question #2 is simply that teams just got their cap number in the past week or so and then the League had to formulate what penalties teams that violated the directive would receive. It had to act now so that both Dallas and Washington could enter free agency period knowing what their cap options would be.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by BERN View Post
    I usually don't comment at other teams board but I was interested to see what you guys are saying about the big story today. To answer question #1: the League reviews contracts to make certain that they conform to the specifcations of the both the CBA and the League and that they contain all and only the terms and conditions authorized by the League and the CBA. The issue pertaining the "front loading of contracts in the uncapped year" is driven by a directive from the NFL to all of its teams advising them not to do that. As such, there was no League rule or CBA provision and teams that chose to ignore the directive did so at their peril. I suspect that Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones thought they could either get away with ignoring the directive or that any punishment would be just a minor rap-on-the-knuckles. They were wrong. Question #2 is simply that teams just got their cap number in the past week or so and then the League had to formulate what penalties teams that violated the directive would receive. It had to act now so that both Dallas and Washington could enter free agency period knowing what their cap options would be.
    I understand those points but if there was no written rule from the NFL and only "directives" then that is really weak. As Dave said, in the real world that would never hold up in court. Basically, the NFL can get away with collusion and the owners just have to eat it.

    Legally, you'd never get away with this in the real world and that is the bottom line.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Arlington (from before it was overrun by yuppies), VA
    Posts
    244
    Can we just find one "good" in this steaming pile? At least we came out of this still under the cap. Dallas is now way over. Slight evil laugh....

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    20,911
    The union is really the only one who can challenge it as collusion and they've signed off on the punishments. The Redskins and Cowboys can't challenge it as collusion because as part of the league in general they're complicit in it.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Arlington (from before it was overrun by yuppies), VA
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by iggles nut View Post
    The union is really the only one who can challenge it as collusion and they've signed off on the punishments. The Redskins and Cowboys can't challenge it as collusion because as part of the league in general they're complicit in it.
    Not saying it would be easy, but you can still fight it. Even with the anti trust powers granted to the NFL, it's not without its option for challenge. Without a rule in place, and given the NFL approval on contracts, there is room.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    31,600
    Yeah, interestingly Schefter said he thought this would be tougher for Dallas than DC because of where Dallas was, cap-wise.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    20,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Cota View Post
    Not saying it would be easy, but you can still fight it. Even with the anti trust powers granted to the NFL, it's not without its option for challenge. Without a rule in place, and given the NFL approval on contracts, there is room.
    We'd all have to see all the legal paperwork for franchise agreements with the NFL to say for sure. I'm sure that Snyder and Jones are directing their legal staff to see if there's a feasible way to fight it legally or appeal it to some arbitrator.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Arlington (from before it was overrun by yuppies), VA
    Posts
    244
    And why is the Cowboys figure 10 mil? From what I'm hearing is it was because of a 17 mil bonus to Miles Austin. The Redskins figure is perfectly matching the DeAngelo/Haynesworth deals.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    16,480
    From ESPN...

    Q: What exactly did they do?

    A: During the uncapped 2010 season, teams were repeatedly warned by the league not to structure contracts so that big money was assigned to 2010 in order to attain future-years cap relief. They were told there would be penalties if they did this. The Cowboys and the Redskins, to a greater extent than the league's other 30 teams, ignored these warnings and engaged in such behavior anyway. Miles Austin's contract with the Cowboys, which included a $17 million base salary in 2010, is being brought up as the prime example.

    Q: How did they get caught?

    A: The complaints against the Cowboys and the Redskins for engaging in perfectly legal behavior that violated no actual rules but only the collusive backroom dictates being issued by the league came not from the league office but from the other 30 teams, who were doing what they were told while the Cowboys and the Redskins were not. The other teams demanded action, since they were the good soldiers, and so the league decided it needed to take some.

    Q: Why isn't the union challenging this?

    A: While this behavior seems to fit the very dictionary definition of collusion, as multiple teams were engaged in discussions to limit the earning potential of their employees and prospective employees, do not expect it to be challenged in court. The decision today, in which the Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space and the Cowboys $10 million, is the result of a settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. One reason the union has no problem with it is that the money lost to the Cowboys and Redskins is not taken out of the overall 2012 spending pool — each of 28 other teams gets $1.6 million extra in cap room, so there's no net loss league-wide. Another reason the union won't push on it is because they agreed, as part of the settlement of last year's Brady vs. NFL federal lawsuit, to drop all pending legal action against the league. That included their claims that the league engaged in collusion in 2010.

    Q: Why is this happening now, the day before free agency?

    A: The answer to that lies in the reason it took so long for the league to establish and announce this year's salary cap. The union must sign off on the cap before it is approved, and it obviously took issue initially with the idea of punishing teams for spending money in an uncapped year. But the league was toying with the idea of lowering this year's salary cap, and used this issue as a bargaining chip with the union. Basically, if the union agreed to the punishment for the Redskins and Cowboys, the cap would be $120.6 million, as it is now. But if they refused, the league was prepared to make the cap lower. I don't know by how much, but say for the sake of argument they wanted to drop it to $116 million per team. That'd have been a total of $128 million when spread across 32 teams — a significant loss to the players if they agreed to it.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post...skins-cap-mess

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    5,964
    The whole thing is BS, its revisionist history at its best, the same could be said of teh Davis & Williams suspensions if they tested positive while the players were on strike.

    But as others have said, it's probably a good thing that the skins dont have as much room to blow their brains out. Or as I saw on another board they could take the full $36 hit this yr and have like $50 mil in cap space next yr.

    Either way I think our team will be OK.
    ST forever

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    808 state
    Posts
    43,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Breed View Post
    Atogwe is gonna hurt is we can't re-work a deal with him.
    Dude was hardly on the field to begin with.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,430
    Agreed. Take as much a possible this year. Bye, Fletcher.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    16,480
    Grant Paulsen ‏ @granthpaulsen
    With $83 million on books for 2013, #Redskins are $37 MM under next yr's cap (if it stays at $120MM). Should defer most of penalty to '13.

    If we were 40M under the cap as of today, we have another 5M with the cuts of Atogwe & Sellers. So that's 45M. If we were to take 15M right now that would still leave us with 30M for this year and leaves us with 17M for next year assuming the cap stays at 120M.
    Last edited by Rasta; 03-12-2012 at 11:23 PM.

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.