How is limiting how much a team can spend not colluding to “dampen” player salaries. If all teams agree not to spend over a certain amount, that creates less money for the players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In all the stories I have read, I have not seen this actually mentioned although I admit I could have missed it. That seems to be an implied/suspected mentality rather than a factual one. The issue has been about dumping salaries in the uncapped year (with no carryover to future years under a new cap)–that’s taking advantage of the other teams, not limiting player salaries. I have not seen anything about imposing any kind of spending threshold other than the comments sections. Granted, that could have been a “verbal agreement” behind closed doors but where is the evidence of that? I suspect that these teams could have spent any amount of money on 1 year deals (uncapped year only) and nothing much would have been said. That would have placed the team at a severe disadvantage the following year and it would have looked like they were trying to buy a championship but there would have been no real way to stop it. Just saying, it looks like a lot of speculation has somehow transformed into believed “fact” and the emotions sprang forth from there.

—————-

This “rule” most likely constitutes a felony – by following the “rule” the other owners are guilty of anti-trust violations. The other teams are the cheaters – not the ‘skins and ‘girls.

Its like if your coworkers told you they were going to commit a murder and you had to come otherwise you would be breaking their rule. What would you do?

I hate to burst your bubble about beating the Giants twice last year, but we don’t care as we are still busy enjoying our Super Bowl victory. Losing to you means nothing to us (although it was humiliating at the time). The Giants have a tendancy to play down to the competition, which is very frustrating, but we can win it when it matters!

So please stop taking your frustration out on the Giants and direct it to your own team, who even when they try to cheat AND place bounties on players, still finish last in the division (last 4 years in a row).

How is limiting how much a team can spend not colluding to “dampen” player salaries. If all teams agree not to spend over a certain amount, that creates less money for the players. For example, if 4 teams say to each other, “Okay, let’s only spend $20 on the four players we need,” That means 16 players get $5 each. Without that rule in place (i.e. 2010), a team could have spent $25 on just one player alone. So, how does agreeing to limit spending not equal out to collusion? If anyone can explain that one, then you can start winning me over to the side of the other 28 (Teams that are not the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints, and Raiders).

bounty on roger?

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Redskins-Statement-On-Salary-Cap-Reports/eeac9018-20f8-4796-90d8-a291ccfb66d6

He is claiming that the Redskins have received no written communication by the NFL that there cap will be adjusted. It looks to me like the Redskins could possibly ignore the adjustment, and file a grievance, appeal, or sue, whatever it is you would do to protest the situation.

By the way, what are the Redskins and Cowboys options in this?

With Haynesworth, the Redskins took money that was already part of a signed contract and converted that to a signing bonus, but then put in a clause that voided the last four years of the deal if Haynesworth paid the $26M in bonuses back. Because of that gimmick, the bonus can not be prorated and so was dumped entirely into the “uncapped” year. The uncapped year just meant that there was no limitation on the amount of player salary that year; contracts signed under that year are still subject to future cap rules (so signing bonuses from the prior CBA are still applied to the current year cap when applicable). These two teams ignored the repeated warnings and thought that they were too big to be punished.

I have seen no evidence to date of any other team doing this specific maneuver. Giving a front-loaded contract, yes — Peppers got $20M in year 1 and only $11.5 in year 2. But the Bears didn’t turn that into a “signing bonus” that can be repaid to void the deal, in order to stash an inordinate amount of money in an uncapped year.

Will Danny & Jerry go to war with the other owners over this?

When did the skins know this could be coming… was it the same time as all of us?

Lol

that’s is the definition of the word “collusion”

Now explain to me again how the owners colluded? By agreeing to keep the playing field level they did anything BUT collude. Man people are stupid.

Does a memo constitute a legal binding rule?
answer- not in my workplace(memo=there will be repercussions for not giving to charity at work- again against the law and unenforceable)

It seems to me that the agreement to have an uncapped year was the problem. Danny and Jerry have money, and don’t mind spending it. Most of the other owners simply do not have the same revenue streams and therefor would not use this uncapped year to their benefit.

Analogy- getting this “warning” from an authoritative entity like the NFL is like the having a holiday with no speed limits, but still punishing drivers who speed. We all know collectively that speeding is bad for all of us, but we all agreed to have this holiday.

Here’s hoping Goodell is found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and sees time behind bars…

“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony”

—————————————————————–

I would be interested to see how that could happen, considering that the NFL has an anti-trust exception.

——-

just researched – NFL does not have a broad antitrust exemption (only with respect broadcasting rights). since the courts have ruled that the NFL is 32 independently acting entities they are not prosecuted for Anti-Trust violations currently. Once Goodell opened Pandora’s box and decided that it would collude the NFL was then acting as 1 entity which would be a Anti-Trust violation. Goodell as the “mastermind” should see jailtime in a fair legal system (but chances are obviously close to 0 in our legal system).