PDA

View Full Version : Should the Skins and the Boys be Penalized?


Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:03 PM
Simple poll

You either:

1. Failed to do the research on the subject and don't care to understand what the issue with what the Boys and Skins did is. You'd subsequently vote "no, not fair"

or 2, vote "yes"

The level of intelligence of NFL fans is astonishing.

1."Teams were warned not to spend into the uncapped year as a way of circumventing the salary cap in the future."

2. The NFL and all of the owners and players agreed they would not spend over the projected 2012 cap, and the Redskins and cowboys still did it. Both teams doled out humongous multi-year contracts even though they KNEW 2012 would be capped and that they would have to make cuts somewhere to account for the overflow.

MagicHef
03-12-2012, 02:12 PM
a) Where is that quote from?

b) The players all agreed? Wow.

Swedish Extrovert
03-12-2012, 02:12 PM
The way I see it, they exploited a loophole in the system and are being punished retroactively.

Bill Belihick has exploited tons of loopholes like this and has never been penalized unless he was going something out-and-out illegal.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:15 PM
a) Where is that quote from?

b) The players all agreed? Wow.

It's the facts. It's a comment from ESPN, but that doesn't make it non-factual. Anyone who disputes this hasn't done their homework. B) it's called the players union. Der.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:16 PM
The way I see it, they exploited a loophole in the system and are being punished retroactively.

Bill Belihick has exploited tons of loopholes like this and has never been penalized unless he was going something out-and-out illegal.

Right, but teams were told that when there was a cap in 2012, they'd have to adjust to it.

For the Skins and Boys to KNOW that there would be a future cap and still do that is their bad.

Don't give me this BS that they didn't think there would be a cap once the **** settled from the lock-out storm. BS. They knew they'd have to get under eventually. but no, they spent it all.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:18 PM
Okay, so far the mane is 50% uninformed, and 50% educated. About what I expected.

MagicHef
03-12-2012, 02:18 PM
It's the facts. It's a comment from ESPN, but that doesn't make it non-factual. Anyone who disputes this hasn't done their homework. B) it's called the players union. Der.

I honestly don't have an insider's understanding of this, but can it be proven that all owners agreed to this?

I understood that it was the NFLPA, and was speaking to the poorly constructed sentence.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:20 PM
I honestly don't have an insider's understanding of this, but can it be proven that all owners agreed to this?

I understood that it was the NFLPA, and was speaking to the poorly constructed sentence.

I'm sure we'll be hearing from Mr. Snyder and Mr. Jones if they all didn't. If they speak out in backlash, they'll risk being **** on if they did in fact agree to it.

Or perhaps, as I suspect, these 2 GMS didn't read the bold terms like the other 30 GMs did, because Jones and Snyder piss money and are the teenage GM's of the nfl; no sense of consequence.

fdf
03-12-2012, 02:21 PM
Simple poll

You either:

1. Failed to do the research on the subject and don't care to understand what the issue with what the Boys and Skins did is. You'd subsequently vote "no, not fair"

or 2, vote "yes"

As a general rule, all teams in the AFC West besides the Broncos should be penalized a lot of money. That should happen every year. The boys and skins not being in the AFC West, I don't really care that much.

jhns
03-12-2012, 02:21 PM
I voted yes. I don't care if they broke the rules. A few of my friends are Cowboys fans and now I can laugh at them for getting cap penalties from an uncapped year.

Swedish Extrovert
03-12-2012, 02:23 PM
Okay, so far the mane is 50% uninformed, and 50% educated. About what I expected.

That is an oversimplification. Do you have the verbiage in the CBA that defined what was and wasn't acceptable behavior?

No one here can possibly make na informed decision on the matter.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:30 PM
That is an oversimplification. Do you have the verbiage in the CBA that defined what was and wasn't acceptable behavior?

No one here can possibly make na informed decision on the matter.

No, I don't have any documentation from the CBA.

Let's look at this closer.. we're talking about the two most idiotic, money burning GM's in the league, notorious for spending wildly and making horrible trades. Were talking about two GMS who, more than anyone else, are most likely to spend an afternoon shooting pistol rounds in the air while yelling "amurica"

If this was such a no-brainer move to spend over the cap, why do you think none of the other 30 gms spent the money? They were being cheap-asses? Please.

and you're giving synder and jones the benefit of the doubt?

I need little information other than the fact that i've read in multiple places that there was evidence that the owners were told they needed to be under the cap whenever a new cap was agreed upon. if you can't believe that without seeing it in CBA writing, then you probably need evidence in writing that owners need to pay their players the amount stated in their signed contracts. it's common sense. something Snyder and Jones have lacked.

hades
03-12-2012, 02:33 PM
They should both loose a first round pick! Imagine the implications of the trade they just made for RG III! L-O-L

Tombstone RJ
03-12-2012, 02:39 PM
meh, they both pushed the envelop but what good came of it? What is the pokes and skins record again? I think taking away cap space is a good penalty, especially for the skins because they always max it out. The skins are is some serious trouble, they have a $36m cap hit, no first round picks the next two years and a rookie QB who "may" tank.

Now if one of these teams won the SB then yah, I'd say take some draft picks away too or something. But really nothing came of it.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:45 PM
Now if one of these teams won the SB then yah, I'd say take some draft picks away too or something. But really nothing came of it.

what they did wasn't illegal. it was within the rules. but both owners knew that after the season, they'd pay for it if they chose to exercise this advantage

pros: huge advantage for 1 season
cons: huge disadvantage after the end of the season.

OBF1
03-12-2012, 02:48 PM
I will answer maybe, I do not want to sound informed...or uninformed.

MagicHef
03-12-2012, 02:49 PM
No, I don't have any documentation from the CBA.

Let's look at this closer.. we're talking about the two most idiotic, money burning GM's in the league, notorious for spending wildly and making horrible trades. Were talking about two GMS who, more than anyone else, are most likely to spend an afternoon shooting pistol rounds in the air while yelling "amurica"

If this was such a no-brainer move to spend over the cap, why do you think none of the other 30 gms spent the money? They were being cheap-asses? Please.

and you're giving synder and jones the benefit of the doubt?

I need little information other than the fact that i've read in multiple places that there was evidence that the owners were told they needed to be under the cap whenever a new cap was agreed upon. if you can't believe that without seeing it in CBA writing, then you probably need evidence in writing that owners need to pay their players the amount stated in their signed contracts. it's common sense. something Snyder and Jones have lacked.

...that's what a contract is. A written agreement that specifies the pay of a player. If the only evidemce that they agreed to this is the league saying they did, that's not the same at all. It seems that you don't really know anything more about this than anyone else, you've just chosen to believe one side over the other.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:49 PM
I do not want to sound informed...

Throw that in your "about me" section

elsid13
03-12-2012, 02:51 PM
It hard to vote anything "yes", when the NFL front office has already stated that neither franchise did anything wrong, yet they are still being punished. So they didn't follow a verbal non formalized agreement between parties (the owners), that a tricky case to win in the court of law and public opinion. The CBA has nothing do with this because it was not signed at the time.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:53 PM
If the only evidemce that they agreed to this is the league saying they did, that's not the same at all. It seems that you don't really know anything more about this than anyone else, you've just chosen to believe one side over the other.

why would any owner or league official lie about that? why wouldnt the other 30 owners take advantage of the extra cap space? I'm using my common sense to make a jugdement call here.

that's like reading a report from adam schefter and mort that says "Peyton Manning to sign with the Broncos, details to follow" and then telling someone who retweets it and believes it that "you don't know anything more than the bunch of manning-wanting cardinals fans who haven't read the tweet yet"

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 02:54 PM
It hard to vote anything "yes", when the NFL front office has already stated that neither franchise did anything wrong, yet they are still being punished. So they didn't follow a verbal non formalized agreement between parties (the owners), that a tricky case to win in the court of law and public opinion. The CBA has nothing do with this because it was not signed at the time.

they did nothing wrong because the nfl told them that they could go ahead with spending the money, but that they'd be penalized. you don't grasp this, i see.

Swedish Extrovert
03-12-2012, 03:05 PM
It hard to vote anything "yes", when the NFL front office has already stated that neither franchise did anything wrong, yet they are still being punished. So they didn't follow a verbal non formalized agreement between parties (the owners), that a tricky case to win in the court of law and public opinion. The CBA has nothing do with this because it was not signed at the time.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable?

It was a gentleman's agreement. There was no verbiage saying, "you cannot give out more than 50 percent of a players contract in the first year."

If it's in writing, I'll drop the hammer... otherwise, I think the league might have taken it a bit too far.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 03:12 PM
This is exactly what I'm saying. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable?

It was a gentleman's agreement. There was no verbiage saying, "you cannot give out more than 50 percent of a players contract in the first year."

If it's in writing, I'll drop the hammer... otherwise, I think the league might have taken it a bit too far.

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2009/12/6a00df351d536588330111689d2076970c-800wi.png

http://www.sportsgrindent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/JerryJones2.JPG

WolfpackGuy
03-12-2012, 03:21 PM
"The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders are the only two teams that will not receive a portion of the money."

LOL

You know something had to be fishy when the Cowboys paid Miles Austin $17 million in 2010 after a restructuring.

elsid13
03-12-2012, 03:25 PM
they did nothing wrong because the nfl told them that they could go ahead with spending the money, but that they'd be penalized. you don't grasp this, i see.

You do realize the reworked deals had to get approved by NFL Front Office, if there was chances for penalty or unfair advantage they (NFL FO) should have not approved the rework deals. And non defined actions under verbal agreement is weak case to stand upon.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 03:28 PM
You do realize the reworked deals had to get approved by NFL Front Office, if there was chances for penalty or unfair advantage they (NFL FO) should have not approved the rework deals. And non defined actions under verbal agreement is weak case to stand upon.

that's not true at all. If people have reason to believe that the salary cap will be lowered the next year, they still are allowed to sign up to the maximum $$$ of players for that year. they just have to cut the following year to make the max. if it does down. no different here.

MagicHef
03-12-2012, 03:29 PM
why would any owner or league official lie about that? why wouldnt the other 30 owners take advantage of the extra cap space? I'm using my common sense to make a jugdement call here.

that's like reading a report from adam schefter and mort that says "Peyton Manning to sign with the Broncos, details to follow" and then telling someone who retweets it and believes it that "you don't know anything more than the bunch of manning-wanting cardinals fans who haven't read the tweet yet"

ROFL!

You are not so great at analogies. Sorry if this is news to you.

Ronnie Tsunami
03-12-2012, 03:31 PM
ROFL!

You are not so great at analogies. Sorry if this is news to you.

sorry for using my common sense. thanks for the typical argument deflection answer.

Beantown Bronco
03-12-2012, 03:47 PM
that's not true at all. If people have reason to believe that the salary cap will be lowered the next year, they still are allowed to sign up to the maximum $$$ of players for that year. they just have to cut the following year to make the max. if it does down. no different here.

Then, by definition, the two teams should only be penalized in 2012 if they cannot, in 2012, get under the new 2012 cap. Right? They shouldn't be penalized in 2012 for spending what some consider to be too much in 2011.

Penalize them now if they're not under the new $120 mil cap. Period. I don't care about contracts that were signed years ago, before the new CBA was even agreed to.

gunns
03-12-2012, 04:14 PM
The Cowboys should be fined for being the Cowboys, same as the Raiders. I don't care what the issue is.

MagicHef
03-12-2012, 05:38 PM
sorry for using my common sense. thanks for the typical argument deflection answer.

Your common sense tells you that teams should receive absurdly harsh punishments for "breaking" a "rule" that does not actually exist anywhere?