Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Homer: Why Daniel Snyder should sue the hell out of Roger Goodell and the NFL

themurf

By themurf
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

themurf

themurf

Posted
Posted

snyder031312.jpg

(photo by Brian Murphy)

If I’m Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, I’m strongly considering extreme measures right about now. How drastic, you ask?

I’d be so furious at this very moment that I’d strongly considering going to war with the National Football League after the cowardly decision to penalize the Redskins $36 million in salary cap space for front-loading contracts during the 2010 season.

In case you missed it, the Redskins were penalized for the creative restructuring the contracts of former defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and current cornerback DeAngelo Hall.

During the ‘10 season, Washington adjusted their deals to immediately absorb large cap hits during the uncapped year that normally are spread out over the length of the contracts. Apparently, this was deemed unfair because it gave the Redskins an advantage over other NFL teams who failed to work the system to their benefit.

So now, the Redskins, who were set to have roughly $31 million in salary cap space once free agency kicks off tomorrow afternoon, have some seriously difficult decisions to make as they continue to try and retool Mike Shanahan’s roster.

While I openly admit that I’m a ‘Skins fan and therefore will have a tough time remaining impartial when something like this happens, I feel strongly that this is something I wouldn’t be on board with regardless of whether my favorite football team was involved or not.

For starters, I’m not exactly sure how the league can penalize a team for how they choose to handle their team salaries during an uncapped year.

It’s an uncapped year. By definition, you shouldn’t be allowed to put a limit on how teams choose to handle their salary cap. If you can, then it’s not actually an uncapped year.

If there was a law or league rule that was violated, then show it to us in writing. If a team was strongly encouraged to not get creative with contracts, but didn’t actually break a law, then I ask again — how can the NFL punish a team for how they chose to handle team salaries in an uncapped year?

Let’s hear from ESPN’s Dan Graziano on his immediate thoughts following the NFL’s ruling:

This seems a pretty ridiculous thing for the league to do. Either the year is uncapped or it’s not. To tell teams, “Yeah, it’s uncapped, but don’t spend too much this year just because of that, or we’ll fine you for it down the road” feels a little bit like collusion to me. But this is the NFL, which does what it wants and makes up the rules as it goes along.

Also, as Andrew Brandt points out, “All NFL contracts are approved by the NFL Management Council. Curious that there is now punishment for these contracts.”

If the league had a problem with the restructuring of these two deals, then why not handle the situation when it happened rather than waiting a year and dropping a bombshell 24 hours before the start of free agency? That’s nothing but evil and vindictive. That’s expected behavior from a scorned ex-girlfriend. Not the commissioner of a billion-dollar business.

If I’m in The Danny’s shoes, I’m absolutely ready to get into a pissing contest with Roger Goodell and his mafia buddies who thought this was acceptable. First step, since the NFL was “kind” enough to give the Redskins the option of spreading the $36 million cap hit over two seasons, I’d push as much as possible to next year.

And then I’d file a lawsuit.

Honestly, if you’re willing to take on a no-name columnist from a publication that’s nearly impossible to find for writing mean things about you, then surely you’ve got the stones to stand up when someone tries to maliciously hurt your franchise.

If you’re willing to file suit against grandmas who aren’t able to pay for season tickets because of a down economy, then there’s no reason you can’t get your lawyers back on the line and have them meet you at the courthouse for another day in front of the judge.

Now’s your chance to file the one lawsuit that will actually win* the respect of ‘Skins fans who have considered you public enemy number one since the day you took over the burgundy and gold more than a decade ago.

*At least temporarily.

Put on your best suit, head to the courthouse and look Goodell straight in the eyes while saying, “No one is going to bully anyone around here except me.”

Click here for the full article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slateman

Slateman

Posted
Posted

The NFL's Statement wrote:

The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years. To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.

http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redskins/2012/3/12/2865812/nfl-releases-statement-on-redskins-and-cowboys-punishment

Pretty much closes the case. It's in the CBA therefore, Snyder has no grounds for a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreek1973

TheGreek1973

Posted
Posted

For me this is all the money right here:

(Also, as Andrew Brandt points out, “All NFL contracts are approved by the NFL Management Council. Curious that there is now punishment for these contracts.”)

This makes it calculating and singling out a team to punish. This is becoming a bush league. We have seen it with the officiating we have seen it with the pathetic fines they impose on players for hard hits, now we are seeing it with the teams that are disliked by certain few A-holes in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TK

TK

Posted
Posted

I believe the next owners meeting is in a few weeks. I'd LOVE to see both Dan & Jerruh walk in there & inform them they just made up their own rule that says the two them are no longer participating in revenue sharing.

You'd see teams start to fold up shop & go under before the season was halfway through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oldskool

Oldskool

Posted
Posted

In any other industry Goodell would be arrested and be facing jail time for this. I hope the Skins go to Federal Court and get an injunction on this before Free Agency starts. He and Jerruh need to sue the NFL on Anti Trust basis over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewEraofSkins08

NewEraofSkins08

Posted
Posted
I believe the next owners meeting is in a few weeks. I'd LOVE to see both Dan & Jerruh walk in there & inform them they just made up their own rule that says the two them are no longer participating in revenue sharing.

You'd see teams start to fold up shop & go under before the season was halfway through.

YES! If it wasn't for the 'Skins and 'Boys sharing revenue all these small-market teams would really struggle financially. Danny and Jerruh need to get together and stick it right back to the NFL. This is absolute horse porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destructis

Destructis

Posted
Posted

Great article Murph.

I just don't see how the NFL can reverse this now and save face. I think we are stuck with it unless both owners take it to court. The problem is that FA starts in less than 24 hours. Maybe they could get a stay on it or something. I don't know exactly what legal means the teams have right now and they are probably discussing it with their lawyers. I have a feeling the next 24 hours are going to be a trip with emotions all over the place for Skins fans.

I do want to see Snyder and Jones go all Al Davis on their asses though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rufus T Firefly

Rufus T Firefly

Posted
Posted
The NFL's Statement wrote:

The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years. To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.

http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redskins/2012/3/12/2865812/nfl-releases-statement-on-redskins-and-cowboys-punishment

Pretty much closes the case. It's in the CBA therefore, Snyder has no grounds for a lawsuit.

There's nothing in the CBA about this. And it wouldn't matter, because we're being punished for something we did under the old CBA, and which was within the rules therein.

The owners that voted for this all get extra cap room because of it. And they basically paid off the union, by agreeing to up the cap figure as part of the agreement. I'm not sure how legit any decision is when all the parties who decide it stand to personally proifit form it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destructis

Destructis

Posted
Posted
Definitely an unfair punishment. If the league really wanted to be fair they should go ahead take some $ from Detroit. They signed Vanden Bosch to a heavily front loaded contract in 2010 they paid him 10 mil out of is 4 yr/26mil deal in 2010 how is this not taking advantage of the uncapped year ?

Excuse me, but logic has no place in this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...