Redskins/Cowboys to lose cap room - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 12:26 PM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/D...reduced-031212

that's great, except it was within the rules. i don't see why the cowboys and redskins wouldn't fight this because they'd win easily.

**QxmFwtlam** · 03-13-2012, 05:15 PM

League requires Cowboys, Redskins to take half their cap reductions in 2012

Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT

AP When reports of the uncapped year cap slap of the Cowboys and Redskins emerged on Monday, it was explained that the teams could decide on their own how to divide the cap consequences in 2012 and 2013. That prompted some speculation that the teams would spend now, and fight later.
A league source tells PFT that the teams will be required to absorb at least half of the cap consequences in 2012. For the Cowboys, it means $5 million in lost cap room. For the Redskins, $18 million disappears.
They can each choose to absorb more of the cap penalty in 2012, or they can push all of the other half to 2013.
In contrast, the teams that received the $1.643 million cap credit (which comes from the Cowboys/Redskins’ lost cap space) can use split it up however they choose over the next two seasons. Every franchise except the Raiders and Saints receives the extra credit.

**VottCetaVeivE** · 03-13-2012, 05:35 PM

Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions

The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read:
"The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA

**vaalmerruutel** · 03-13-2012, 05:50 PM

League requires Cowboys, Redskins to take half their cap reductions in 2012

Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT
AP When reports of the uncapped year cap slap of the Cowboys and Redskins emerged on Monday, it was explained that the teams could decide on their own how to divide the cap consequences in 2012 and 2013. That prompted some speculation that the teams would spend now, and fight later.
A league source tells PFT that the teams will be required to absorb at least half of the cap consequences in 2012. For the Cowboys, it means $5 million in lost cap room. For the Redskins, $18 million disappears.
They can each choose to absorb more of the cap penalty in 2012, or they can push all of the other half to 2013.
In contrast, the teams that received the $1.643 million cap credit (which comes from the Cowboys/Redskins’ lost cap space) can use split it up however they choose over the next two seasons. Every franchise except the Raiders and Saints receives the extra credit.

I want to see the Eagles sign a Cowboy or a Redskin for exactly $1.643 million.

**QxmFwtlam** · 03-13-2012, 05:51 PM

Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions

The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read:
"The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA

So they're just gonna ignore the league demand?

Outstanding!

**VottCetaVeivE** · 03-13-2012, 05:52 PM

So they're just gonna ignore the league demand?

Outstanding!

That has potential for some outstanding entertainment.

**QxmFwtlam** · 03-13-2012, 05:54 PM

That has potential for some outstanding entertainment.

What I find interesting is if the Redskins just start spending ridiculous money and all the contracts they supposedly agree to with FA's become null and void when the league comes in.

This is gonna be messy..

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 05:58 PM

am i mistaken in believing this is collusion?

**QxmFwtlam** · 03-13-2012, 06:00 PM

am i mistaken in believing this is collusion?

Someone was telling me that the Owners had all agreed (Handshake that is) to not go overboard in the uncapped year. Apparently Jerry and Dan didnt abide and now the other owners are asking for restitution for both teams front loading as much money as they did to avoid CBA restrictions later on.

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 06:02 PM

Someone was telling me that the Owners had all agreed (Handshake that is) to not go overboard in the uncapped year. Apparently Jerry and Dan didnt abide and now the other owners are asking for restitution for both teams front loading as much money as they did to avoid CBA restrictions later on.

i get that part of the equation. but isn't agreeing not to spend money on players(by all the owners and the league) considered collusion?

**QxmFwtlam** · 03-13-2012, 06:04 PM

i get that part of the equation. but isn't agreeing not to spend money on players(by all the owners and the league) considered collusion?

If its not in writing, absolutely!

**pavilionnotebook** · 03-13-2012, 09:35 PM

Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions

The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read:
"The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged."

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA

Bruce Allen's motto: When you're in a hole, keep digging.

**pavilionnotebook** · 03-13-2012, 10:25 PM

Gotta love the fact the Skins got in this position by adjusting the contracts of Haynesworth and Deangelo Hall.

**VottCetaVeivE** · 03-13-2012, 10:27 PM

Gotta love the fact the Skins got in this position by adjusting the contracts of Haynesworth and Deangelo Hall.

The Haynesworth deal is to free agent signings as the John Hadl deal is to NFL trades.

**pavilionnotebook** · 03-13-2012, 10:28 PM

The Haynesworth deal is to free agent signings as the John Hadl deal is to NFL trades.

The gift that keeps giving.

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 10:37 PM

Bruce Allen's motto: When you're in a hole, keep digging.

what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion.

**VottCetaVeivE** · 03-13-2012, 10:38 PM

what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion.

You're 100% correct, but why can't you see it through your iggles glasses and celebrate their bad fortune?

**Trientoriciom** · 03-13-2012, 10:45 PM

what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion.

The league agreed to add more money to this years cap so that the NFLPA wouldn't fight them for basically admitting to collusion.

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 11:01 PM

You're 100% correct, but why can't you see it through your iggles glasses and celebrate their bad fortune?

because i don't like goodell.

**BaselBimbooooo** · 03-13-2012, 11:02 PM

The league agreed to add more money to this years cap so that the NFLPA wouldn't fight them for basically admitting to collusion.

that's great, it doesn't change the fact that they did nothing wrong.

03-13-2012, 12:26 PM	#1
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/D...reduced-031212 that's great, except it was within the rules. i don't see why the cowboys and redskins wouldn't fight this because they'd win easily. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:15 PM	#2
QxmFwtlam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	League requires Cowboys, Redskins to take half their cap reductions in 2012 Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT AP When reports of the uncapped year cap slap of the Cowboys and Redskins emerged on Monday, it was explained that the teams could decide on their own how to divide the cap consequences in 2012 and 2013. That prompted some speculation that the teams would spend now, and fight later. A league source tells PFT that the teams will be required to absorb at least half of the cap consequences in 2012. For the Cowboys, it means $5 million in lost cap room. For the Redskins, $18 million disappears. They can each choose to absorb more of the cap penalty in 2012, or they can push all of the other half to 2013. In contrast, the teams that received the $1.643 million cap credit (which comes from the Cowboys/Redskins’ lost cap space) can use split it up however they choose over the next two seasons. Every franchise except the Raiders and Saints receives the extra credit. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:35 PM	#3
VottCetaVeivE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read: "The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged." http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:50 PM	#4
vaalmerruutel Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 487 Senior Member	League requires Cowboys, Redskins to take half their cap reductions in 2012 Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT AP When reports of the uncapped year cap slap of the Cowboys and Redskins emerged on Monday, it was explained that the teams could decide on their own how to divide the cap consequences in 2012 and 2013. That prompted some speculation that the teams would spend now, and fight later. A league source tells PFT that the teams will be required to absorb at least half of the cap consequences in 2012. For the Cowboys, it means $5 million in lost cap room. For the Redskins, $18 million disappears. They can each choose to absorb more of the cap penalty in 2012, or they can push all of the other half to 2013. In contrast, the teams that received the $1.643 million cap credit (which comes from the Cowboys/Redskins’ lost cap space) can use split it up however they choose over the next two seasons. Every franchise except the Raiders and Saints receives the extra credit. I want to see the Eagles sign a Cowboy or a Redskin for exactly $1.643 million. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:51 PM	#5
QxmFwtlam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read: "The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged." http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA So they're just gonna ignore the league demand? Outstanding! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:52 PM	#6
VottCetaVeivE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	So they're just gonna ignore the league demand? Outstanding! That has potential for some outstanding entertainment. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:54 PM	#7
QxmFwtlam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	That has potential for some outstanding entertainment. What I find interesting is if the Redskins just start spending ridiculous money and all the contracts they supposedly agree to with FA's become null and void when the league comes in. This is gonna be messy.. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 05:58 PM	#8
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	am i mistaken in believing this is collusion? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 06:00 PM	#9
QxmFwtlam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	am i mistaken in believing this is collusion? Someone was telling me that the Owners had all agreed (Handshake that is) to not go overboard in the uncapped year. Apparently Jerry and Dan didnt abide and now the other owners are asking for restitution for both teams front loading as much money as they did to avoid CBA restrictions later on. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 06:02 PM	#10
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	Someone was telling me that the Owners had all agreed (Handshake that is) to not go overboard in the uncapped year. Apparently Jerry and Dan didnt abide and now the other owners are asking for restitution for both teams front loading as much money as they did to avoid CBA restrictions later on. i get that part of the equation. but isn't agreeing not to spend money on players(by all the owners and the league) considered collusion? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 06:04 PM	#11
QxmFwtlam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	i get that part of the equation. but isn't agreeing not to spend money on players(by all the owners and the league) considered collusion? If its not in writing, absolutely! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 09:35 PM	#12
pavilionnotebook Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Redskins, Cowboys dispute salary cap reductions The Redskins released a statement Monday evening indicating they had done nothing wrong while hinting they planned to move forward into free agency as if all was normal. The statement, attributed to GM Bruce Allen, reads:"The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office. We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season."The Cowboys also seemed ready to dispute the findings, releasing a statement that read: "The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged." http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T19U02JSSJA Bruce Allen's motto: When you're in a hole, keep digging. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 10:25 PM	#13
pavilionnotebook Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	Gotta love the fact the Skins got in this position by adjusting the contracts of Haynesworth and Deangelo Hall. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 10:27 PM	#14
VottCetaVeivE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	Gotta love the fact the Skins got in this position by adjusting the contracts of Haynesworth and Deangelo Hall. The Haynesworth deal is to free agent signings as the John Hadl deal is to NFL trades. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 10:28 PM	#15
pavilionnotebook Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	The Haynesworth deal is to free agent signings as the John Hadl deal is to NFL trades. The gift that keeps giving. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

03-13-2012, 10:37 PM	#16
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	Bruce Allen's motto: When you're in a hole, keep digging. what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 10:38 PM	#17
VottCetaVeivE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion. You're 100% correct, but why can't you see it through your iggles glasses and celebrate their bad fortune? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 10:45 PM	#18
Trientoriciom Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 444 Senior Member	what hole? the league approved the deals. they did nothing wrong but not follow a backroom deal, also known as collusion. The league agreed to add more money to this years cap so that the NFLPA wouldn't fight them for basically admitting to collusion. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 11:01 PM	#19
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	You're 100% correct, but why can't you see it through your iggles glasses and celebrate their bad fortune? because i don't like goodell. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

03-13-2012, 11:02 PM	#20
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	The league agreed to add more money to this years cap so that the NFLPA wouldn't fight them for basically admitting to collusion. that's great, it doesn't change the fact that they did nothing wrong. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote