Daniel Snyder pays price for making enemies, then flouting them

[RS12]

Underneath the numbers, there is the sense of something personal in what the NFL did to Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder. Strip away the legalese and salary cap terms, and what we are left with is the fact that 28 other owners were so furious with Snyder that they decided to kneecap him. Call it a lifetime achievement award for how he does business.

In the most crucial offseason of the past decade for the Redskins, once again they find themselves hobbled by their owner’s bad judgment. Instead of having more than $30 million with which to buy players when free agency opened Tuesday afternoon, the Redskins had just $17 million, the rest stripped away by the league as a penalty because the owners believe Snyder maneuvered improperly during the recent NFL labor strife to gain an unfair advantage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/daniel-snyder-pays-price-for-making-enemies-then-flouting-them/2012/03/13/gIQAjYlVAS_story.html?wprss=rss_redskins

[RS12]

Snyder is said to be lawyering up and alleging “collusion,” but experts say a legal challenge will be tough. For one thing, colluding in this instance means improperly acting collectively to suppress salaries. But salaries weren’t suppressed. They were just moved around, manipulated by the Redskins for the purpose of evasion and gaining a future competitive advantage when the cap was reinstated. For another, the group that the NFL owners supposedly colluded against, the union, has signed off on the punishment.

[Ntegrase96]

Snyder is said to be lawyering up and alleging “collusion,” but experts say a legal challenge will be tough. For one thing, colluding in this instance means improperly acting collectively to suppress salaries. But salaries weren’t suppressed. They were just moved around, manipulated by the Redskins for the purpose of evasion and gaining a future competitive advantage when the cap was reinstated. For another, the group that the NFL owners supposedly colluded against, the union, has signed off on the punishment.

Maybe. But I don't see how the NFL can approve contracts, and then later punish teams for playing within the rules. That should be the strongest point of the lawyers.

How is it possible to retroactively punish any entity or organization after you, the governing body, initially approved their actions? On top of that the punishment is based on rules that weren't even in place at the time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Snyder is said to be lawyering up and alleging “collusion,” but experts say a legal challenge will be tough. For one thing, colluding in this instance means improperly acting collectively to suppress salaries. But salaries weren’t suppressed. They were just moved around, manipulated by the Redskins for the purpose of evasion and gaining a future competitive advantage when the cap was reinstated. For another, the group that the NFL owners supposedly colluded against, the union, has signed off on the punishment.

They are being punished for not colluding. Their charter is a binding contract, the collusion is not whats going on now its what they were being asked to go along with then that they didn't and are now being punished for. It would be like someone fining you for not stealing or assaulting someone. Had they gone along then salaries would have been suppressed. Thats the point.

The league cannot possibly want this type of case to become case law. if there are two teams that are inhibited by the salary cap and stand to gain the most benefit from true free agency it would be the cowboys and redskins. Of all the owners they have the least to lose.

[burmafrd]

the so called legal experts are probably ambulance chasing hacks. Sports lawyers have been saying there is no way the NFL wants this in court; and one of the reasons is that the investigation would reveal a lot of things the NFL wants kept quiet.

The NFLPA would not want it either; they already look pretty bad.