Washington Post says Commanders figuring out how to respond to penalty

[gimmesix]

Sorry to start a new thread on this, but I thought some would be interested in knowing that Washington might take action against the league.

Commanders officials were said to be furious with the NFL’s decision and were contemplating how they should respond. ...

If the Commanders mount a challenge to the salary cap reduction, several people with knowledge of the case said, the team likely would argue that other franchises did the same thing during the uncapped year.

Those people said the Commanders also might argue that other teams were engaged in improper collusion during the uncapped year. But any such claim of collusion could be weakened by the players union’s agreement to the league’s decision in the case, and by the fact that the salary cap reductions were redistributed to other teams, meaning that the overall league-wide compensation to the players was not suppressed.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Sorry to start a new thread on this, but I thought some would be interested in knowing that Washington might take action against the league.

Those people said the Commanders also might argue that other teams were engaged in improper collusion during the uncapped year. But any such claim of collusion could be weakened by the players union’s agreement to the league’s decision in the case, and by the fact that the salary cap reductions were redistributed to other teams, meaning that the overall league-wide compensation to the players was not suppressed.

The NFLPA was paid off to allow it. The NFL said the cap will be like $113M if they didn't agree. If they did, they would raise it to $120M.

The NFLPA basically got $224M ($7M * 32 teams) for agreeing to allow the penalty. The NFLPA is actually in collusion too.

 

[LarryCanadian]

I wondered if the Cowboys would wait for the Commanders to respond legally first, since the Commanders got penalized so much more severely than even the Cowboys did.

 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...lked-about-salary-cap-controversy-on-tuesday/

League, Commanders talked about salary cap controversy on Tuesday

Per a league source, the Commanders engaged in a conference call with the league office regarding the situation.

And the conversation, we’re told, included the league conceding to G.M. Bruce Allen that the Commanders violated no rules and did nothing wrong. The league explained that the Commanders’ actions (and the Cowboys&#8217 “affected competitive balance.”

As we’ve previously mentioned, both in print and during Tuesday’s PFT Live, what about the teams that opted to underspend in the year with no salary cap or salary floor? Those teams also necessarily affected competitive balance by choosing to be uncompetitive.

The bottom line is that every team could have done what the Cowboys and Commanders did. The notion that not every team had the cash flow to do it, which was advanced on Tuesday’s NFL Live by former Colts Vice Chairman Bill Polian, is more than a little misleading. The Cowboys, for example, opted to give receiver Miles Austin $17 million in 2010. The Cowboys characterized it as base salary and not as a signing bonus to limit the impact in future years under the cap. That’s not an issue of cash flow. And any team giving a player a signing bonus in 2010 could have used this tactic instead.