The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



View Poll Results: Are the respective 10 and 36 Million dollar penalties justified?
Yes 17 45.95%
No 8 21.62%
Dear Dan and Jerry. Thanks for the 1.6 Mil in extra cap space, Morons. 12 32.43%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-12-2012, 02:03 PM   #1
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default Should the Skins and the Boys be Penalized?

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"

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Ronnie Tsunami; 03-12-2012 at 02:05 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-12-2012, 02:12 PM   #2
MagicHef
Ring of Famer
 
MagicHef's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,306

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

a) Where is that quote from?

b) The players all agreed? Wow.
MagicHef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:12 PM   #3
Mogulseeker
Formerly mightysmurf
 
Mogulseeker's Avatar
 
https://soundcloud.com/mogulseeker

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vail
Posts: 16,260

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lamin Barrow
Default

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.
Mogulseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:15 PM   #4
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicHef View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:16 PM   #5
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightysmurf View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:18 PM   #6
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Okay, so far the mane is 50% uninformed, and 50% educated. About what I expected.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:18 PM   #7
MagicHef
Ring of Famer
 
MagicHef's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,306

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Turban View Post
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.
MagicHef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:20 PM   #8
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicHef View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:21 PM   #9
fdf
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Turban View Post
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.
fdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:21 PM   #10
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
jhns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:23 PM   #11
Mogulseeker
Formerly mightysmurf
 
Mogulseeker's Avatar
 
https://soundcloud.com/mogulseeker

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vail
Posts: 16,260

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lamin Barrow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Turban View Post
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.
Mogulseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:30 PM   #12
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightysmurf View Post
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.

Last edited by Ronnie Tsunami; 03-12-2012 at 02:37 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:33 PM   #13
hades
Dallas biggest Bronco fan
 
hades's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: They've done studies you know.... 60% of the time, it works every time
Posts: 2,146
Default

They should both loose a first round pick! Imagine the implications of the trade they just made for RG III! L-O-L
hades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:39 PM   #14
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 21,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:45 PM   #15
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:48 PM   #16
OBF1
Ring of Famer
 
No avatar is the new avatar

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 15,548

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None are worthy
Default

I will answer maybe, I do not want to sound informed...or uninformed.
OBF1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:49 PM   #17
MagicHef
Ring of Famer
 
MagicHef's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,306

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Turban View Post
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.
MagicHef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:49 PM   #18
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBF1 View Post
I do not want to sound informed...
Throw that in your "about me" section
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:51 PM   #19
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,711
Default

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.
elsid13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:53 PM   #20
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicHef View Post
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"
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 02:54 PM   #21
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 03:05 PM   #22
Mogulseeker
Formerly mightysmurf
 
Mogulseeker's Avatar
 
https://soundcloud.com/mogulseeker

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vail
Posts: 16,260

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lamin Barrow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
Mogulseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 03:12 PM   #23
Ronnie Tsunami
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightysmurf View Post
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.


  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 03:21 PM   #24
WolfpackGuy
Call me, "Maybe"
 
WolfpackGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 6,732
Default

"The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders are the only two teams that will not receive a portion of the money."



You know something had to be fishy when the Cowboys paid Miles Austin $17 million in 2010 after a restructuring.
WolfpackGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 03:25 PM   #25
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Turban View Post
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.
elsid13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Denver Broncos