Rypien1191 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Why? We have a great legal case. Evil flourishes in this world only when good men do nothing. Keep up the fight. I'm not saying our legal team should give it up, I'm just saying that us as fans should not expect much at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Our insiders and JLC have both said no cap relief is coming, probably best to put the pipe dream away. lol, JLC is unimportant here but where did you hear our insider's say that? Did they just give their opinion on it or was it actually inside info? It's best to actually show proof when destroying people's pipe dreams, ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Is he reluctant to share? I would think this would really stoke the media fires, which is a good thing where the Redskins cap is concerned.... No just been crazy busy with football season etc honestly forgot about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I haven't been here for a while. Thought I'd add my two cents for the day: **** Mara, **** Lurie. Happy Friday, all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien1191 Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 lol, JLC is unimportant here but where did you hear our insider's say that? Did they just give their opinion on it or was it actually inside info? It's best to actually show proof when destroying people's pipe dreams, ya know. LL did say on twitter that it's very unlikely. I believe that was on Monday. J basically confirmed what JLC said which was that it doesn't appear we'll get any back. Their opinion and inside info tend to usually be one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GO HAMSKINS Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 We need to sign FD83,Rob Jax, and DY...Asap. We will win the division next season. Imagine the read option with Helu added in the mix my gosh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 SonnyandSam, Thanks, as always, for insight into what's actually going on (e.g., you're of course absolutely right that the Skins are represented by very sophisticated--and expensive--lawyers who have access to documents that we don't, and that the arbitrator is very smart and in no way a stooge, and that what's really hamstringing us is the NFLPA being induced to sign onto a CBA that pretty much white-washed what might otherwise have been strong arguments). One thought, along the lines of "pass out the draft complaint at the next owners' meeting"--I think the strongest angle for cap relief (assuming there remains some kind of ongoing discussion) is to seek some kind of settlement that would revamp our penalty so that we would neither be advantaged nor punished for what we did in the uncapped year, beyond retroactively imposing on us the cap consequences that would have existed if the ordinary cap rules had applied. IIRC, that would mean something like $25 million (and over four years, though that's not necessary), not $36 million over two. The actual penalty we got was double punishment--along the lines of Mara's "they should have lost draft picks"--beyond putting us back to where we would have been, sans uncapped monkey business. I.e., we propose a deal in which our so-called attempt to evade the spirit of the cap is nullified, we have to eat the cap space we tried to spit out, but no punitive penalty on top of putting us back in our place. Because a) that's far more fair, if we're going to get any penalty, and that's what (I assume) we were warned (collusively or not)--if you try to evade the cap, the next CBA may well disallow it, and you'll be in a pinch if your cap space is readjusted retroactively. I seriously doubt we were warned, if you try to evade the cap (by dumping old cap space, rather than through similar mechanisms used by teams like the Bears and Bucs), we will not only put that back on the books, we will also slam you with a lot more than that (and on the eve of free agency), and c) this approach meshes with a settlement of a theoretical collusion case. Despite what some here say, it's arguably not collusion for the CBA to retroactively eliminate any prior attempt to dump cap space, b/c that's arguably an action reasonably taken in CBA/labor negotiations--how do we deal with the uncapped year as we go forward with the new CBA. But an action taken to punish, beyond retroactive elimination of dumped cap space, can only realistically be understood as implementing a collusive agreement during the uncapped year to impose (metaphorical) punitive damages on collusion-flouters. I.e., I think our (theoretical) collusion case is far stronger as to consequences beyond making us eat the cap space we spat out, and the numbers (I think) work out so that we still get punished, but not unduly excessively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 The thing to do is focus on crushing the Giants next year and run the score up big. Not just run it up, make Mara cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apickmans Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 this article will prob makes folks even madder http://redskins.espn980.com/bloggers/chris-russell/item/822-do-the-redskins-have-any-$hot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 this article will prob makes folks even madderhttp://redskins.espn980.com/bloggers/chris-russell/item/822-do-the-redskins-have-any-$hot That is really interesting especially about the part with the Bucs .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 this article will prob makes folks even madderhttp://redskins.espn980.com/bloggers/chris-russell/item/822-do-the-redskins-have-any-$hot There's a lot to this story I really don't understand. But I really don't get why one of the Skins beat writers doesn't setup an interview with Almighty Roger to ask him the hard questions that need to be answered. It seems the legal angle is closed. So what is it that ******* Roger can't discuss? Why won't the Washington press sick a rabid dog reporter on that *******? The comments in the above article about BAllen doing the "exact same thing in Tampa" really shows the vendetta the Vagiants & Beagles conducted to impose the penalty. Snyder has to be seething about this entire situation. JJones to a lesser extent, but Snyder has got to be absolutely crazy pissed off about this. It reeks of conspiracy and really deepens my hatred of the favored teams in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 There's a lot to this story I really don't understand. But I really don't get why one of the Skins beat writers doesn't setup an interview with Almighty Roger to ask him the hard questions that need to be answered. It seems the legal angle is closed. So what is it that ******* Roger can't discuss? Why won't the Washington press sick a rabid dog reporter on that *******? The comments in the above article about BAllen doing the "exact same thing in Tampa" really shows the vendetta the Vagiants & Beagles conducted to impose the penalty. Snyder has to be seething about this entire situation. JJones to a lesser extent, but Snyder has got to be absolutely crazy pissed off about this. It reeks of conspiracy and really deepens my hatred of the favored teams in the NFL. All Snyder has to do is set foot in Federal Court and we win and the money comes back and Goddell is gone as Commish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 All Snyder has to do is set foot in Federal Court and we win and the money comes back and Goddell is gone as Commish. So if it's that simple, why doesn't he do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So if it's that simple, why doesn't he do it? Because (imho) he still has to deal with the folks in the league in the aftermath, and that's not easy. The NFL has clearly broken Federal Labor Law with their actions, but I think we are trying to do it in a way where we can still work with them afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So if it's that simple, why doesn't he do it? My guess is he is weighing the benefits of going that route and becoming a pariah versus maybe getting a lot of IOU's from different owners and maybe some favorable decisions in the future. I say screw it, its obvious they hate him from these actions. Does he really think anything he does changes that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So if it's that simple, why doesn't he do it? Unfortunately, as that article says, federal court would be a 'thermo-nuclear' approach, and could have devastating, long lasting effects for either side. To that, with my tongue slightly in my cheek, I say GOOD. A free-agency-eve, unexplainable bull**** massive cap penalty, yea, let's call it pearl harbor. So **** you NFL, you started it. You approved the contracts, you ignored teams under the cap, and only the division rivals of mr Mara were punished. It was and continues to be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS BULL****. The reason 2cents says that's 'all he has to do', it because so far, all decisions are being made BY the NFL, with the best interest of the NFL. The arbitrator? What a joke. That had no chance, the arbitrator might as well have been Mara, they weren't going to compromise the NFL by running with the idea of collusion. Federal court however, would have no problem sticking it to the NFL. But the problem remains, it could screw things up for everyone, the whole system etc, this whole CBA that was fought so hard over. And in the event the Redskins (Cowboys, whoever) actually lose the lawsuit, they're screwed far worse than they were in the first place. ugh it's such bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I say screw it, its obvious they hate him from these actions. Does he really think anything he does changes that.. Yep. Heck, if they hate him, he might as well go ahead and sue them and get it over with. They're gonna hate him regardless, so just do it and get it over with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That source has to be DeMaurice Smith. He is on with them regularly and that sounds like some **** he would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Unfortunately, as that article says, federal court would be a 'thermo-nuclear' approach, and could have devastating, long lasting effects for either side.To that, with my tongue slightly in my cheek, I say GOOD. A free-agency-eve, unexplainable bull**** massive cap penalty, yea, let's call it pearl harbor. So **** you NFL, you started it. You approved the contracts, you ignored teams under the cap, and only the division rivals of mr Mara were punished. It was and continues to be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS BULL****. The reason 2cents says that's 'all he has to do', it because so far, all decisions are being made BY the NFL, with the best interest of the NFL. The arbitrator? What a joke. That had no chance, the arbitrator might as well have been Mara, they weren't going to compromise the NFL by running with the idea of collusion. Federal court however, would have no problem sticking it to the NFL. But the problem remains, it could screw things up for everyone, the whole system etc, this whole CBA that was fought so hard over. And in the event the Redskins (Cowboys, whoever) actually lose the lawsuit, they're screwed far worse than they were in the first place. ugh it's such bull**** Agreed. The problem with the nuclear option is that we have to stiil work with the folks at ground zero and live with the radiation fallout after we win. Not a pleasent thought. But I agree....they hate Danny anyway, so I'm pretty much at the "bite me" stage. Although as you said....this could rip up a lot in the league....but I think that's why the NFL did it in the first place, they figured we wouldn't want to upset the status quo too much. I still want to see thd league taken down a couple of notches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm fine with a nuclear option at this point. **** the league. They started this ****. I want JUSTICE. Might be cutting off our head to spite our face, but I don't care about repercussions or what it might do to the league at this point. Maybe they need to be knocked down a peg or two anyway. Anytime you can openly admit to participating in what in any other business is a crime in front of the National Media like a mob boss and basically dare anyone to do anything about it, maybe they need to be knocked down a peg or two. Could it be the NFL has grown too powerful that they now think they are above the law and rules that everyone else has to obey? I mean, I'm not naive. I know all sorts of underhanded back door **** goes on everyday, but what blew me away and still does was the audacity in which Mara made his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien1191 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The NFL, Roger, and Mara deserve a good blowing up. Not just for this, but for all their other indiscretions during his regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 "it has nothing to do with collusion" What gives Mara the right to say something like that? Does he decide what and what isn't a crime now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 "it has nothing to do with collusion" What gives Mara the right to say something like that? Does he decide what and what isn't a crime now? I know right? Admit we didn't collude with them and then say it's not about collusion. WTF????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Why cant the Redskin season ticket holders sue the NFL for taking away the 36 million. Having a 36 million penalty can easily influence a person weather to buy or renew season tickets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSkin30 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I have been trying to read that article all morning and it is the only one on that terribly designed site that doesn't come up. Anybody know what could be causing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.