Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

NFLPA wins appeal in the 2012 Collusion Case against the NFL
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BigJohnson


Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 1569
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keleth wrote:
HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
Gmen wrote:
HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
Gmen wrote:
This is a pointless exercise. The courts aren't going to find out anything that we didn't know. Let's face it - there was collusion. But 30 teams played by the rules established by the NFL, 2 did not. So the NFL penalized those 2 teams for not playing by their rules.

Was there collusion? Yes. Were the Redskins and Cowboys unfairly punished? No. They were illegally punished. But at this point it's water under the bridge. The penalties have been imposed. What can the courts do? Fine the NFL for collusion? Ok, so the government takes some money from a bunch of billionaires. Who cares? Laughing


Laughing

Does not compute. Are you Mara?

Maybe an analogy would help you compute.

10 kids at the playground all agree not to touch a plate of cookies. 2 kids break the rules, and eat a cookie. The 8 other kids get together and beat up those 2 kids. Those 2 kids go crying to mommy.

Illegal to beat someone up, yes. But easily justified.

I hope that helps.


No, that doesn't help at all. 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies isn't illegal. 32 teams "agreeing" not to spend money above a certain limit in an uncapped year is illegal. And if 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies were illegal, those kids would have been appropriately punished for breaking the law.


I really don't understand why you cannot understand his original point.
There was collusion although it seems that Washington and Dallas were also involved in the collusion but then they decided to break the agreement they made and dumped money.
So what Dallas and Washington did was not technically illegal but they broke an agreement and basically tried to get an advantage over 30 other teams which obviously the other teams were not happy with.
So they were punished which they legally should not have been but the punishment was fair,not legal but fair.


Literally makes no sense and that's a whole lot of assumption on your part. Bottom line is that the Redskins and Cowboys didn't treat the uncapped year as a capped year. Unless you can prove to me that Jerry Jones and Snyder looked the other owners in the eye and agreed to a secret salary cap and THEN dumped money into the uncapped year, your argument has no merit. None at all. Mara is scum.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15671
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
No, that doesn't help at all. 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies isn't illegal. 32 teams "agreeing" not to spend money above a certain limit in an uncapped year is illegal. And if 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies were illegal, those kids would have been appropriately punished for breaking the law.

Forget what mommy has to say about the cookies. If those 10 kids have an agreement to not touch, and 2 of them do anyway, a punishment dished out by the other kids is 100% justified.

Let's not make this out to be John Mara sticking it to his division rivals. The Redskins and Cowboys weren't even punished. They didn't lose draft picks, they didn't get fined. The only thing that happened is the advantage they tried to gain was taken away. The salary cap playing field was made level. Sorry this isn't baseball, and you're not the Yankees and Redsox.
_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15671
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BigJohnson wrote:
Literally makes no sense and that's a whole lot of assumption on your part. Bottom line is that the Redskins and Cowboys didn't treat the uncapped year as a capped year. Unless you can prove to me that Jerry Jones and Snyder looked the other owners in the eye and agreed to a secret salary cap and THEN dumped money into the uncapped year, your argument has no merit. None at all. Mara is scum.

You do realize that 29 other owners and the commissioner had to agree that there was wrong doing, right? Rolling Eyes
_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HTTRG3Dynasty


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 3602
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
No, that doesn't help at all. 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies isn't illegal. 32 teams "agreeing" not to spend money above a certain limit in an uncapped year is illegal. And if 10 kids agreeing not to touch a plate of cookies were illegal, those kids would have been appropriately punished for breaking the law.

Forget what mommy has to say about the cookies. If those 10 kids have an agreement to not touch, and 2 of them do anyway, a punishment dished out by the other kids is 100% justified.

Let's not make this out to be John Mara sticking it to his division rivals. The Redskins and Cowboys weren't even punished. They didn't lose draft picks, they didn't get fined. The only thing that happened is the advantage they tried to gain was taken away. The salary cap playing field was made level. Sorry this isn't baseball, and you're not the Yankees and Redsox.


Right. So if one of your friends told you it was okay to kill him, and you did, it's 100% justified right? Agreement does not supersede illegality. And that's even assuming Snyder and Jones agreed, which I haven't seen proven.

And lmao at you thinking that being penalized $36 million was leveling the playing field. The fact that you think that shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15671
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
Right. So if one of your friends told you it was okay to kill him, and you did, it's 100% justified right? Agreement does not supersede illegality.

And lmao at you thinking that being penalized $36 million was leveling the playing field. The fact that you think that shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

That's a great comparison to make. Way to keep this a reasonable discussion.

Remind us again how much money the Redskins signed Fat Al for before dumping two years later in an uncapped year, hoping to get away with no repercussions. 7 years 100 million, was it? Yeah. $36 million wasn't just a number pulled out of the blue. I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the money the Redskins would be on the hook for from that awesome contract.

And this is all a moot point. These penalties changed nothing. The Redskins and Cowboys haven't exactly showed a history of using their money wisely. It's like taking money away from a junkie. He wasn't going to use it wisely anyway.
_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigJohnson


Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 1569
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
BigJohnson wrote:
Literally makes no sense and that's a whole lot of assumption on your part. Bottom line is that the Redskins and Cowboys didn't treat the uncapped year as a capped year. Unless you can prove to me that Jerry Jones and Snyder looked the other owners in the eye and agreed to a secret salary cap and THEN dumped money into the uncapped year, your argument has no merit. None at all. Mara is scum.

You do realize that 29 other owners and the commissioner had to agree that there was wrong doing, right? Rolling Eyes


This is a pointless exercise. Your on the other side of the coin so obviously you've made up your mind. I can assure you that if you were on the other side of things you would view it much differently. Bottom line is you can't approve the contract moves the Redskins and Cowboys did and then subsequently punish them for it. It's like if 10 kids gathered around a plate of cookies and 2 of them took a cookie and the other 8 approved but a couple days later beat up the 2 kids that took the cookies. Your example left out that convenient fact. But I'm not going to argue with someone whose name is Gmen when your owner happens to be John Mara and the two teams that were punished happen to be within the division.

And for the record, what the Redskins and Cowboys did was kind of messed up. The skins weren't badly hurt by Haynesworths contract even though they should have been for such stupidity. But doesn't change the fact that the contracts were approved, the owners colluded, and the Skins and Cowboys were unfairly punished.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brian23


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 6803
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thaiphoon wrote:
Sciz wrote:
Is it still collusion if the NFL said "spend whatever you want but don't organize contracts for future unfair advantage"? That was what the NFL called it, which appears to be quite a difference from "don't spend more than this imaginary cap."


The structure of the contracts is not at issue. Redskins used a contract maneuver that has been used many times before by other teams. They performed that maneuver by making sure the money paid out was in the uncapped year. This is the crux of the issue. As such, it really is about spending more in the uncapped year than what the NFL wanted teams to do.
j

They continue to use that maneuver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Nuke


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 2353
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
Gmen wrote:
This is a pointless exercise. The courts aren't going to find out anything that we didn't know. Let's face it - there was collusion. But 30 teams played by the rules established by the NFL, 2 did not. So the NFL penalized those 2 teams for not playing by their rules.

Was there collusion? Yes. Were the Redskins and Cowboys unfairly punished? No. They were illegally punished. But at this point it's water under the bridge. The penalties have been imposed. What can the courts do? Fine the NFL for collusion? Ok, so the government takes some money from a bunch of billionaires. Who cares? Laughing


Laughing

Does not compute. Are you Mara?

Maybe an analogy would help you compute.

10 kids at the playground all agree not to touch a plate of cookies. 2 kids break the rules, and eat a cookie. The 8 other kids get together and beat up those 2 kids. Those 2 kids go crying to mommy.

Illegal to beat someone up, yes. But easily justified.

I hope that helps.

You're missing a few elements.

In order for the kids to have the playground to themselves they agree to not make up any rules about the cookies. (uncapped year/antitrust exemption) Two kids say, "Hey, you guys don't mind if I have a cookie, do you?" and the other 8 say "No problem, enjoy!" (approving contracts) The next day the other 8 decide that there should be rules for the cookies and then beat up the other two for eating them the day before, even though the 2 kids had permission at the time.

Bottom line is that those teams got screwed and the NFLPA took hush money to not complain. After they spent their hush money they decided they didn't want to hush any longer. I wish those owners had enough balls to sue the league themselves because they would likely win, but the NFLPA will likely lose because they accepted the hush money.

What the NFL did was wrong.
_________________
Nuke's Thread Archive
Damn the Falcons for stealing my 2014 mancrushes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigJohnson


Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 1569
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuke wrote:
Gmen wrote:
HTTRG3Dynasty wrote:
Gmen wrote:
This is a pointless exercise. The courts aren't going to find out anything that we didn't know. Let's face it - there was collusion. But 30 teams played by the rules established by the NFL, 2 did not. So the NFL penalized those 2 teams for not playing by their rules.

Was there collusion? Yes. Were the Redskins and Cowboys unfairly punished? No. They were illegally punished. But at this point it's water under the bridge. The penalties have been imposed. What can the courts do? Fine the NFL for collusion? Ok, so the government takes some money from a bunch of billionaires. Who cares? Laughing


Laughing

Does not compute. Are you Mara?


Maybe an analogy would help you compute.

10 kids at the playground all agree not to touch a plate of cookies. 2 kids break the rules, and eat a cookie. The 8 other kids get together and beat up those 2 kids. Those 2 kids go crying to mommy.

Illegal to beat someone up, yes. But easily justified.

I hope that helps.

You're missing a few elements.

In order for the kids to have the playground to themselves they agree to not make up any rules about the cookies. (uncapped year/antitrust exemption) Two kids say, "Hey, you guys don't mind if I have a cookie, do you?" and the other 8 say "No problem, enjoy!" (approving contracts) The next day the other 8 decide that there should be rules for the cookies and then beat up the other two for eating them the day before, even though the 2 kids had permission at the time.

Bottom line is that those teams got screwed and the NFLPA took hush money to not complain. After they spent their hush money they decided they didn't want to hush any longer. I wish those owners had enough balls to sue the league themselves because they would likely win, but the NFLPA will likely lose because they accepted the hush money.

What the NFL did was wrong.


This guy gets it. Anyone that thinks what the NFL did was acceptable is lying to themselves.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15671
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, does the NFL have authority to stop a team from cutting a player? I know the NFLPA can go after the NFL if a player is cut in certain circumstances. Second of all, I doubt there are 31 owners voting on whether a contract is fair or whether a team can cut a player or not. Somebody in the NFL may have approved the cutting of Haynesworth and Austin's contract, but the owners didn't catch wind of the unfairness until it was too late to block them.

So in our cookie analogy, it would be the two boys asking somebody's little sister if they can have the cookies. Yeah, she naively may let them take a cookie. But shame on them for asking when it was already decided that nobody would touch the damn cookies!


_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nuke


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 2353
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
First of all, does the NFL have authority to stop a team from cutting a player? I know the NFLPA can go after the NFL if a player is cut in certain circumstances. Second of all, I doubt there are 31 owners voting on whether a contract is fair or whether a team can cut a player or not. Somebody in the NFL may have approved the cutting of Haynesworth and Austin's contract, but the owners didn't catch wind of the unfairness until it was too late to block them.

So in our cookie analogy, it would be the two boys asking somebody's little sister if they can have the cookies. Yeah, she naively may let them take a cookie. But shame on them for asking when it was already decided that nobody would touch the damn cookies!


Why should the NFL be separated into 2 different characters? Same entity did both acts. Logic fail.

I can homer some things with the best of them, but you're taking the cake on homerism.
_________________
Nuke's Thread Archive
Damn the Falcons for stealing my 2014 mancrushes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 15671
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuke wrote:
Why should the NFL be separated into 2 different characters? Same entity did both acts. Logic fail.

I can homer some things with the best of them, but you're taking the cake on homerism.

Yeah. Like I said, I'm sure 31 other owners were consulted when the Redskins decided to dump Haynesworth. And I'm sure they sat down and read the details of Austin's contract. Because billionaires have time to sit around and scrutinize every move made by every NFL team.

Redskins and Cowboys fans should be upset at their teams' terrible management, not at Mara for dishing out justice. But that would be self loathing, which is unhealthy. So I'm kind of glad you guys have somebody else to hate, even though the anger is misplaced.
_________________


"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

- Ernie Accorsi scouting report of Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 14725
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gmen wrote:
This is a pointless exercise. The courts aren't going to find out anything that we didn't know. Let's face it - there was collusion. But 30 teams played by the rules established by the NFL, 2 did not. So the NFL penalized those 2 teams for not playing by their rules.

Was there collusion? Yes. Were the Redskins and Cowboys unfairly punished? No. They were illegally punished. But at this point it's water under the bridge. The penalties have been imposed. What can the courts do? Fine the NFL for collusion? Ok, so the government takes some money from a bunch of billionaires. Who cares? Laughing


Correct. We agree here (except about the "unfairly punished" part but in general we agree like 95% so I'm not quibbling). The NFLPA is not going to win this since they signed off on the punishment for the Cowboys and Redskins and agreed to give up their right to sue as a result of the salary cap rising for those two years (it was previously going to be flat).

This is why I said that I am 100% hoping the NFLPA gets screwed in the next round of CBA negotiations. I understand why the owners wanted to punish the two teams. If I had colluded with a few people to do something and then 2 of them went against out illegal collusion, then I would want to punish them using any means possible.

But the NFLPA screwed over the 2 teams who were ensuring that its members were getting paid (something that a union should want the teams to do in an uncapped year). They did it to get a short term cap increase. Turns out that all the NFL teams did was take that extra cap space that they received from the Redskins and Cowboys and not spend it. So now the NFLPA (because it didn't see a rise in spending relative to the increase in cap for those years) wants to take the NFL to court to get them punished for collusion when they knew it was collusion to begin with and still signed off on the punishment??

No...nuh uh...not gonna happen.

Sorry NFLPA, you screwed over my team. The punishment was levied. We're out of the punishment and can't get those two years back. But the fact remains that you are in this situation of your own choosing. In essence you screwed yourselves while you screwed my team. So I hope the owners roll the heck out of you all in the next CBA negotiations.
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Matts4313


Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 37483
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of 12
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When do we get to burn down the Giants stadium? Thats all I care about. Someone PM me the deets when thats decided.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 8911
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.
_________________

props to deadpulse

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group