Comments on: NFLPA would stand with Redskins in salary cap battle

By: jrh0

jrh0 — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:29:58 +0000

Actually, they WERE penalized. Mara came right out and said it was a penalty and also said he would have stripped draft picks if he had his way.

The NFLPA expressed their agreement with the Redskins/Cowboys stance from the beginning. THe PA sided with Mara because he held the money over their heads, saying if he was allowed to strip the money from the two teams, he would redistribute it to the rest of the league, thus ensuring that the players could still get paid. In effect, he bought both the owners and the players.

The players openly said they had to back Mara to make sure the league cap included that 48M total for the players.

At this point, no one (besides Mara) has said that they Boys/Skins don’t have a valid argument. All that has been said is that the Boys and skins don’t have the right to bring that argument to court because the owners and players approved decisions may not be contested.

By: eagleswin

eagleswin — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:29:52 +0000

The redskins and cowboys knew this couldn’t happen without the NFLPAs blessing. That’s why they took the risk. Never in a million years did they think that the NFLPA would support a salary cap reduction for a team.

The very organization which may or may not support them in a legal battle is the reason they had their caps reduced.

They also weren’t penalized. They were forced to count money against the cap which they tried to hide during the uncapped year which would have an impact during the capped years of the new CBA.

Other than making noises in order to boost their public perceptions the NFLPA and Redskins don’t have a case and are both dealing with self-inflicted wounds.

By: briang123

briang123 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:35:28 +0000

Clor me shocked. I thought they would be just peachy with millions of dollars being taken from player salaries.

By: whyrunbackwardsyoullvomit

whyrunbackwardsyoullvomit — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:01:17 +0000

So, you’re saying that the NFLPA may or may not stand with the Redskins in salary cap battle?

By: pftstory

pftstory — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:41:13 +0000

Why does a site that agrees a term is offensive and should be changed continue to use that term?
Principles lacking much?

By: logicalvoicesays

logicalvoicesays — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:35:21 +0000

When the Washington Redskins want something, we do it period. On the field or off, the Redskins win are successful period.

By: bigdinla

bigdinla — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:34:36 +0000

To late NFLPA, you already signed off on the penalty. To late to have remorse now.

By: FinFan68

FinFan68 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:34:23 +0000

Gonna be hard to do since the union agreed to the penalties so they can look like they got some extra money out of the new CBA.

By: paulsmith107

paulsmith107 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:34:00 +0000

Give it up foreskins you missed the boat. You should have taken a stand last year but you blew it. I get it what happened wasn’t fair considering the bears saints and raiders all did the same thing and received no penalties. Prob because Mara doesn’t own a team in any of those teams divisions but it’ll never be reversed and even if it did it would take years of court battles to accomplish it which is why Jerry jones decided not to fight it