mamiskin212689 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 If you think about the situation, it makes a lot of sense. Should the CBA not be extended and the 2007 year go uncapped, why do we not just show utter disreguard for the salary cap. Most likely the penalty would be the loss of a draft pick next year in the draft. well okay, ill take that because DS will break the bank on proven players. I dont know if this is the plan for us, but I have been thinking about it, and to me it makes sense, what does everyone else think?:logo: Hail to the Skins':helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 If you think about the situation, it makes a lot of sense. Should the CBA not be extended and the 2007 year go uncapped, why do we not just show utter disreguard of the salary cap. Most likely the penalty would be the loss of a draft pick next year in the draft. well okay, ill take that because DS will break the bank on proven players. I dont know if this is the plan for us, but have been thinking about it, and to me it makes sense, what does everyone else think?:logo: Hail to the Skins':helmet: The penalty for not being under the cap is far more severe. if you are not under the camp at the deadline you are given a 7 days grace period. if after that 7 days your team is still not in compliance with the cap then the NFL will start voiding your teams players contracts starting with the most recently signed and working backwards until the team is compliant with the cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiskin212689 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 well that clears it up, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The penalty for not being under the cap is far more severe. if you are not under the camp at the deadline you are given a 7 days grace period. if after that 7 days your team is still not in compliance with the cap then the NFL will start voiding your teams players contracts starting with the most recently signed and working backwards until the team is compliant with the cap That is what is supposed to happen, but it became harder to argue with the orginal poster after seeing the NFL's weak punishment to Denver for being found to have broken the cap during their Super Bowl run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 That is what is supposed to happen, but it became harder to argue with the orginal poster after seeing the NFL's weak punishment to Denver for being found to have broken the cap during their Super Bowl run. They were found out what 5 years after the fact? Also it was not that they were over the cap that was the problem, the problem was they were paying under the table essentially. Any kind of money or finacial windfall a player recieves that is not part of their contract falls under a differet part of the CBA in which the punishment is up to a 2 million dollar fine and loss of draft picks. It was this Denver was found guilty of. Two very different scenarios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Yeah, I've wondered about how hard it would be to pay a player "under the table" if the Skins really wanted to. Like, I wonder what would prevent Dan Snyder from buying $10M in "stock" in Eastern Motors, who then pays LaVar $10M "to film a commercial". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sullivan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What you are talking about is against the law, you do know that, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunPortisRun Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Yeah, I've wondered about how hard it would be to pay a player "under the table" if the Skins really wanted to. Like, I wonder what would prevent Dan Snyder from buying $10M in "stock" in Eastern Motors, who then pays LaVar $10M "to film a commercial". What's to stop Synder from donating 10M to a charity created by Lavar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dent19 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The penalty for not being under the cap is far more severe. if you are not under the camp at the deadline you are given a 7 days grace period. if after that 7 days your team is still not in compliance with the cap then the NFL will start voiding your teams players contracts starting with the most recently signed and working backwards until the team is compliant with the cap WOW! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What's to stop Synder from donating 10M to a charity created by Lavar? CBA restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What you are talking about is against the law, you do know that, right. By under the table he is talking about through a third party. Not circumventing the IRS. It would be against league rules, but not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 WOW! :doh: Exactly thats why no team has EVER tried to come in over the cap, because the can't the league will not let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Yeah, I've wondered about how hard it would be to pay a player "under the table" if the Skins really wanted to. Like, I wonder what would prevent Dan Snyder from buying $10M in "stock" in Eastern Motors, who then pays LaVar $10M "to film a commercial". Sounds like the old SB 49er team with Deon's $1M salary and $4-5M in endorsements. Does anyone remember that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The way to do it would be to get one of your buddies to hire his spouse at a corp. removed a few times frm Snyder and his buddy and have payments come from there. The real danger in that is if you do it for a player then in the future for whatever reason the player becomes disgruntled. He spills the beans, your screwed, but nothing happens to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Sounds like the old SB 49er team with Deon's $1M salary and $4-5M in endorsements. Does anyone remember that? I remember it they were also fined, i do not recall if they lost draft picks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What's to stop Synder from donating 10M to a charity created by Lavar? That would be viewed as compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieskin Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What right has the NFL to void a contact between a player and the club that pays him, I suspect that doing so could be challenged in the courts, afterall it is the club that employs the player not the NFL, here in australia a team in the National Rugby League, the New Zealand Warriors and a couple of years ago the Canterbury Bulldogs were found guilty of deliberately paying players above the cap, the Bulldogs were heavily fined and lost game points, putting them at the bottom of the win/loss table. the warriors have been heavily fined and will start the season with a two loss penalty. I believe that this is far better than sacking someone because the team is over the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What right has the NFL to void a contact between a player and the club that pays him, I suspect that doing so could be challenged in the courts, afterall it is the club that employs the player not the NFL, here in australia a team in the National Rugby League, the New Zealand Warriors and a couple of years ago the Canterbury Bulldogs were found guilty of deliberately paying players above the cap, the Bulldogs were heavily fined and lost game points, putting them at the bottom of the win/loss table. the warriors have been heavily fined and will start the season with a two loss penalty. I believe that this is far better than sacking someone because the team is over the cap. The CBA gives them that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4Ever51 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ya know, I love the Redskins, but I would prefer we win legally, thank you..Perhaps some take that, bleeding Burgundy and Gold just a bit too far.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deskskins Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dumb Comment Nextttttttttttttt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrod6002 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 If you think about the situation, it makes a lot of sense. Should the CBA not be extended and the 2007 year go uncapped, why do we not just show utter disreguard for the salary cap. Most likely the penalty would be the loss of a draft pick next year in the draft. well okay, ill take that because DS will break the bank on proven players. I dont know if this is the plan for us, but I have been thinking about it, and to me it makes sense, what does everyone else think?:logo: Hail to the Skins':helmet: Wow!! What rock are you under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What right has the NFL to void a contact between a player and the club that pays him, I suspect that doing so could be challenged in the courts, afterall it is the club that employs the player not the NFL, here in australia a team in the National Rugby League, the New Zealand Warriors and a couple of years ago the Canterbury Bulldogs were found guilty of deliberately paying players above the cap, the Bulldogs were heavily fined and lost game points, putting them at the bottom of the win/loss table. the warriors have been heavily fined and will start the season with a two loss penalty. I believe that this is far better than sacking someone because the team is over the cap. The CBA is specifically structured to allow this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 If you think about the situation, it makes a lot of sense. Should the CBA not be extended and the 2007 year go uncapped, why do we not just show utter disreguard for the salary cap. Most likely the penalty would be the loss of a draft pick next year in the draft. well okay, ill take that because DS will break the bank on proven players. I dont know if this is the plan for us, but I have been thinking about it, and to me it makes sense, what does everyone else think?:logo: Hail to the Skins':helmet: so in essence....lets cheat. so that would be great if every team started to cheat. the NFL didn't get to get to be the best sporting league in the US and perhaps in the world, by cheating. so maybe the redskins cheat and win a championship or two and then in a couple of years dallas, giants, jets, miami, rams, minn., texans, etc. all start to cheat one way or the other. what do you think that does to the league and the product they are putting out? great ethics. you should be teaching ethics at some christian university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbuzz1962 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 As much as I hate the politics of the cap, you must admit, it is doing its job of creating equality in the league. This league is more competetive than any other in pro sports now. Teams who never made the playoffs, are now in the playoffs. Teams in smaller markets deserve a chance to compete. It also makes teams use money wisely, and keeps some players from asking a billion dollars a year to play for a team. Teams need to think hard about paying these high profile rookies 20 million dollars to sign a contract. Most of these guys have turned out to be busts, and cost teams dearly against the cap. Let them prove themselves before giving them so much money. I think they should put a rookie salary cap in place for two years. At that point a team then can consider giving them millions to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.