Two teams lose cap space (grievances filed)

Pharmcat · Post #1 » by **Pharmcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:04 am

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76773 ... -cap-space

how can they do this? I mean it was a no salary cap season

anyone else disagree with this decision

Post #2 » by **Rafael122** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:12 am

Nazis. 2 owners who have smarter front offices than the other 28 teams in the league, and those teams cried foul. Bengals have $50 million in cap space, and it will stay at $50 million because their owner won't spend any money.

Post #3 » by **Icness** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:24 am

It sounds like the league warned DAL and WAS more than once about doing that sort of stuff during the lockout. That would be the only justification I can think of.

The league does have to approve every contract so I wonder how they justify approving the deals and now saying they are violating something.

Ong_dynasty · Post #4 » by **Ong_dynasty** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:36 am

Rafael122 wrote:Nazis. 2 owners who have smarter front offices than the other 28 teams in the league, and those teams cried foul. Bengals have $50 million in cap space, and it will stay at $50 million because their owner won't spend any money.

How the hell do the Redskins and Cowboys have the 2 smarter front offices? They may spend the most but definitely not the smartest.

As an Eagles fan, I love the fact that we are getting additional capsapce at the expence of the cowboys and redskins.

How much is this going to affect Redskins, especially after they gave up alot for RG3

Post #5 » by **Rafael122** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:17 pm

ANY team could have done what the Skins and Cowboys did. They broke no rules or violations and the NFL admitted as such. The only reason this is happening is because the other 28 owners are putting up a bitch fit about this even though they could have done the same thing. It's collusion, it's an under the table, back room deal made by everyone except Washington and Dallas that they couldn't do this.

Post #6 » by **Da Schwab** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:48 pm

As much as I hate the Skins and Cowboys, I can't help but agree with all the naysayers. This is dirty, bush league type stuff. How the NFL can justify something like this is just beyond my comprehension.

Post #7 » by **Rafael122** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:42 pm

And then on top of that, the league takes the Skins cap space AFTER the league themselves said they could split it anyway they want.

Washington are still going to sign their players. Eric Schaffer is probably the top capologist in the league.

JustAwesome · Post #8 » by **JustAwesome** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:51 pm

Redskins were relying heavily on that cap space to build their team, too. That's why they were willing to give up all those high draft picks.

Post #9 » by **HCYanks** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:46 pm

I hope Goodell gets nailed for this. It sets a bad precedent for Goodell to be retroactively punishing teams for stuff he doesn't like, or punishing teams for not going along with what was effectively collusion. He has to play by the rules too.

Post #10 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:33 pm

goodell is such a piece of sh*t

Pharmcat · Post #11 » by **Pharmcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:07 pm

any legal expert here?

can these teams sue?

I mean im not a fan of these 2 teams, but this is a JOKE

JustAwesome · Post #12 » by **JustAwesome** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:40 pm

Wonder if the Redskins would have signed someone other than Garcon and Morgan had their cap space not been taken away?

rachinesafire · Post #13 » by **rachinesafire** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Ohh.. It would very bad effect on the team if there is no cap season because if a team does not has the money then they cannot afford good players and how they can compete with other teams. This is not a competition. So I disagree with this decision. Major league games must institute a salary cap season.

Post #14 » by **HCYanks** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:56 pm

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... oys_032212

It’s hard to know which is more galling:

The fact that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is openly promoting the idea of collusion in keeping down player salaries or the fact that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith was forced to accept it, according to sources.

As the NFLPA’s annual meeting of player representatives takes place this week in Marco Island, Fla., followed by the NFL owners meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., next week, one issue both sides must address is what appears to be an obvious case of collusion on the part of the league.

...

“Why did we agree to it?” a former player said, rhetorically. “Because the league had us over a barrel. If we didn’t agree to the penalty for the Redskins and the Cowboys, the cap would have been $113 million, the players would have been [angry] and De would have gotten fired.

“What the league is doing is collusion, plain and simple.”

Goodell's in a lot of hot water if this gets taken to court.

Pharmcat · Post #15 » by **Pharmcat** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:54 pm

update:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/77346 ... eport-says

I totally support the DAL and WASH

they need to argue collusion

TSE · Post #16 » by **TSE** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:09 pm

I predict they lose the grievance, but what I'm most interested in knowing right now is what the rule is with regard to initiating a frivolous grievance. Surely you can't just summon a grievance for any reason you make up, so I wonder if Goodell is already planning what the penalties should be for that? I'm guessing the biggest penalty is in the form of a counter-suit if DAL and WAS try to take it further. And then a bonus penalty would be the validation that DAL and WAS are bigger cheaters than the Saints. All the Saints did was act questionably immorally, whereas DAL and WAS mind as well have been running a Ponzi-scheme, I think millions of dollars of financial cheating is more serious than the nickel and dime stuff the Saints were doing, unless they actually do have a case with merit.

TSE · Post #17 » by **TSE** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:19 pm

HCYanks wrote:Goodell's in a lot of hot water if this gets taken to court.

That happened to me once. I got in the shower without checking the water carefully and it was uncomfortable for a few seconds. I was upset until I realized that at least I wasn't living poor or with bad health or in a war-zone. NOT a big deal.

Post #18 » by **Icness** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:29 pm

They are discussing it at the owner's meeting this week.

I bet they wind up halving the punishment for DAL and WAS. They get hit this year but get the 2013 hit taken off.

Pharmcat · Post #19 » by **Pharmcat** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:06 pm

TSE wrote:I predict they lose the grievance, but what I'm most interested in knowing right now is what the rule is with regard to initiating a frivolous grievance. Surely you can't just summon a grievance for any reason you make up, so I wonder if Goodell is already planning what the penalties should be for that? I'm guessing the biggest penalty is in the form of a counter-suit if DAL and WAS try to take it further. And then a bonus penalty would be the validation that DAL and WAS are bigger cheaters than the Saints. All the Saints did was act questionably immorally, whereas DAL and WAS mind as well have been running a Ponzi-scheme, I think millions of dollars of financial cheating is more serious than the nickel and dime stuff the Saints were doing, unless they actually do have a case with merit.

is this post for real? :eek1:

ohara · Post #20 » by **ohara** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:46 pm

ESPN is saying the Owners voted 29 - 0 to keep the punishment for Dallas and Washington as is. 1 abstension, and Dallas and Washington cannot vote. They can file a suit if they want, but I wonder if 29- 0 will make them just bite the bullet and accept their punishment.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/77434 ... n-redskins