Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 170
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wilton, CT
    Posts
    11,861
    Blog Entries
    7


    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    I find it interesting that the NFL's arguments are that these teams have no right to be heard and/or that the league has sweeping authority to ensure competetive balance. They're not saying any rules were broken, they're trying to get the whole thing thrown out.

    If it is thrown out, would either of these owners sue?

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...er-advisement/
    Jerry Jones said when the punishment was announced that he would consider all legal options.
    He Who Dares.....Wins




  2. #50

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    It is hard to argue that the Redskins have "gained" a competitive advantage going forward because Haynesworth is long gone (and was after 2010). One could argue that the Cowboys, if left unpunished, have created a situation where they have a player on their team (Austin) who is taking up less cap space(right now and going forward) than he should be based on his talent/price.

    JimZipCode is correct about the collusion. In fact the NFLPA made that point/accusation about the "warnings" at the time they were being given. But as the collective bargaining agreement was reached, the NFLPA agreed to forget about the collusion.

    As for the legal ways in which the league (commissioner plus majority of owners) can punish an owner or minority of owners, it sounds like the league is trying use the "competitive balance" defense the way the US feds use the Commerce Clause or the "general welfare" clause, i.e. as some kind of nebulous catchall that allows almost unfettered power to do what it pleases.




  3. #51

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It is hard to argue that the Redskins have "gained" a competitive advantage going forward because Haynesworth is long gone (and was after 2010).
    Without the punishment from the league, they would not have felt the consequences of signing one of the worst contracts in league history because they swept that dirt under the mat of the uncapped year. The Haynesworth deal SHOULD be haunting them with salary cap ramifications, but it's not. Outside of the play on the field, the most competitive aspect of the league is the salary cap. The Redskins most certainly gained a competitive advantage.
    Q: What's Lee Evans' favorite song?
    A: "Drop it like it's hot."




  4. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,112

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by KidSampson View Post
    Baseball HAS an antitrust exemption, yet each team/owner negotiates TV rights for the most part. It could be done in football, but there probably wouldn't be all the nationally televised games we've grown accustomed to.
    The national TV contract isn't an issue, MLB has one; and beyond that the NFL used to do individual deals until the late 60s/early 70s. Baseball is different in that there are so many teams in MLB as well as teams in the minor leagues that are in an agreement with MLB that baseball has a monopoly that the NFL does not enjoy. The NFL has had competition in the past, some successful and some not. But the NFL is not in deals with other lesser leagues that in essence prevent new leagues from starting.

    It would be much more difficult to start a new baseball league for many reasons, including the existence of many successful minor league teams in potential cities, locked in leases that prevent competition due to the number of dates in the stadia around the country, etc.




  5. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,112

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It is hard to argue that the Redskins have "gained" a competitive advantage going forward because Haynesworth is long gone (and was after 2010).
    The Redskins DO have a competitive edge right now they would not have had if they had followed the rules. That Haynesworth played like crap isn't the issue, it is that they have enjoyed cap space to keep and sign other players they should not have been able to is the issue.




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    5,103

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    The Redskins DO have a competitive edge right now they would not have had if they had followed the rules. That Haynesworth played like crap isn't the issue, it is that they have enjoyed cap space to keep and sign other players they should not have been able to is the issue.
    Additionally, that contract put Haynesworth in the top 5 in salary at his position, so every team that used the franchised tag on a d-lineman had a bigger hit to their own cap and paid the price of the Redskins bad contract. As a result, they all had less room to manuever under the cap, but yet the Redskins can skate away free?




  7. #55

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    The national TV contract isn't an issue, MLB has one; and beyond that the NFL used to do individual deals until the late 60s/early 70s. Baseball is different in that there are so many teams in MLB as well as teams in the minor leagues that are in an agreement with MLB that baseball has a monopoly that the NFL does not enjoy. The NFL has had competition in the past, some successful and some not. But the NFL is not in deals with other lesser leagues that in essence prevent new leagues from starting.

    It would be much more difficult to start a new baseball league for many reasons, including the existence of many successful minor league teams in potential cities, locked in leases that prevent competition due to the number of dates in the stadia around the country, etc.

    The reason for all that is that the MLBPA has the MLB by the...well let's call them baseballs, I'm not sure how aggresive the mods are here when it comes to language. The relationship between players and owners in the NFL is a lot more eye level. In the MLB, there's no salary cap, guaranteed contracts, no rookie cap, high school players can enter the draft, players can't take paycuts, and players qualify for arbitration to override contracts. About the things that they've given into is the team's draft rights for 6 years of MLB service (although that's mitigated by arbitration) and not having the right to hold out. The NFL has a hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, a rookie cap, a 3 year waiting period after high school, players can be coerced into taking paycuts, and no arbitration (but I guess you could say that holding out serves that purpose).

    I'm just saying that the differences between the leagues is not because of anti-trust issues, it's the power between the players and the owners. Also, in part it has to do with the nature of the games. Each NFL game is important enough to warrant a network and/or national audience, so it's easy to just draw up one agreement that stands for each team. There are too many MLB games for people to keep track of, so it's easier to leave it up to the teams to find local sports stations to show the games, and have "game of the week" type games on national TV. Plus, the majority of the revenue comes from stadium revenue, while the majority of NFL revenue comes from TV.




  8. #56

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    The Redskins DO have a competitive edge right now they would not have had if they had followed the rules. That Haynesworth played like crap isn't the issue, it is that they have enjoyed cap space to keep and sign other players they should not have been able to is the issue.
    I am aware of the advantage of the move, and that they are now more competitive than they would have been had they not made the move. But there is a difference between removing a self-inflicted competitive disadvantage and gaining a universal competitive advantage. Or stated another way, there is a difference between gaining an advantage and gaining a competitive advantage.

    Going forward they would have no competitive advantage over any other team that has to fit X number of current players under a cap of $Y and has less dead cap space than they do. The Cowboys actually would have a very real competitive advantage right now over the whole league, in that they would be getting undervalued performance, or fielding a team that techinically would be over the cap.




  9. #57

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by alien bird View Post
    Additionally, that contract put Haynesworth in the top 5 in salary at his position, so every team that used the franchised tag on a d-lineman had a bigger hit to their own cap and paid the price of the Redskins bad contract. As a result, they all had less room to manuever under the cap, but yet the Redskins can skate away free?
    True. This was a leaguewide effect of the move, but I don't see how the league was powerless to exclude the contract from the franchise determination. Then again, I still don't see how the league signed off on the contract in the first place considering it was unacceptable.




  10. #58
    No!
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wilton, CT
    Posts
    11,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    No!
    I don't know. Sounds like it could get ugly. Jerry Jones implied a couple of weeks ago that he would be willing to sue the NFL over this.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ues-of-relief/

    But Burbank hints at what could come next. Near the conclusion of his ruling, Burbank says that, “if the Clubs ‘are dissatisfied with the representation of [their] multi-employer association,’ they retain whatever ‘remedies [they may have] against the association under contract and agency law.’”

    In English, this means the Cowboys and Redskins could sue the NFL for violating internal rules and regulations and/or any applicable fiduciary duties that require the league to represent the interests of all teams equally and fairly. Burbank’s ruling seems to suggest that the Cowboys and Redskins tried to push such principles under the CBA, which means that they very well could choose to pursue such arguments in a full-blown lawsuit.
    He Who Dares.....Wins




  12. #60

    Re: Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

    Sounds like it's over....

    Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt
    Am told by league source that Cowboys and Redskins are issuing a joint statement saying they accept the decision. Case closed.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland