Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904564]My best guess is that procedurally, the vote yesterday may have been a vote to accept the MCEC's agreement with the NFLPA.

If that's the case, not sure how it affects arbitration. The CBA has an arbitration procedure clubs can participate in, but if this vote modifies the CBA, not sure there's anything to arbitrate - the modified salary cap is the law under the CBA.

Even if the two clubs win in arbitration, they're in trouble if >24 other owners are intent on punishing them. The Commissioner can take away the #2 pick in the upcoming draft, and the Executive Committee can pretty much do whatever they want (including forcing Snyder to sell the team*) with 24 votes.


*please, please, please[/quote]

What I have read is that the Skins and Cowboys arbitration was based more on the violation of procedure by the Commissioner and MCEC. The grievance as previously submitted avoided the collusion issue and focused on the violation of the process for levying sanctions/altering the salary cap set forth in the [I]current[/I] CBA and By-Laws.

If this is true, essentially, what the NFL has done is rectify their procedural errors and left the Skins & Cowboys with only the substantive challenge that the sanction is an attempt to enforce an illegal agreement.

If for, some reason, the NFL attempts to strip the Skins of the 2nd pick, I would expect all restraints to be turned off - DS would file for a TRO preventing the NFL from taking it, possibly threaten to hold up the draft through court proceedings, etc., etc. It would get very very messy, very very fast.

I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;904561]Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

[B]It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me[/B].[/quote]

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904579]I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).[/quote]

Also, the two owners that want revenue sharing ended may very well be glad to see the NFL tumble in a anti-trust suit. Because then, it would open the doors for no salary cap and a true free market. Teams like the Colts and Jaguars would be closing shop in a matter of months.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

In 1990 the MLBPA won their collusion case and the owners had to pay $280 mill to the MLBPA. That my friend is more then the NFL league would have saved and a ton more then the NFLPA got in the agreement $46mill? Their idiots.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;904578]We have received no written notice from Mooby or his associates in regards to the 'gate' controversies.[/quote]

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you [I]pro se[/I] of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a [I]prima facie[/I] case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of [I]animo furandi[/I] and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing [I]coram non judice[/I].

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904588]You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you [I]pro se[/I] of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a [I]prima facie[/I] case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of [I]animo furandi[/I] and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing [I]coram non judice[/I].

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).[/quote]

I think Dirtbag should be stripped of half of his post numbers, and that these posts be equally distributed among all Warpath members.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

hey serious questions here:

When do we get to meet and present the case before the arbitrator? Is it a joint meeting with the cowboys and skins going together or seperate cases before the abitrator?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904571]Do you have anything to substantiate that? My understanding is that the arbitration is allowed due to a specific clause in the CBA, and that all parties agree to the fact that arbitration is binding.[/quote]

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904588]You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you [I]pro se[/I] of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a [I]prima facie[/I] case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of [I]animo furandi[/I] and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing [I]coram non judice[/I].

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).[/quote]

I would just like to say I have no further comment at this time, and my attorney will have full discretion in regards to which questions he will and will not answer.

I would also like to rescind my previous 'no comment' so that I can say, na-na na-na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. I will be trademarking that phrase shortly as well.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

All this legal talk is giving me a big headache, but I definitely appreciate the info. I'm more confused now, more than ever. In layman's terms, does this mean the Redskins and Cowboys stand a very good chance of getting burned at the stake rather than winning this thing? Or are we still just speculating? Certainly I would like to think this would be an easy win for the two teams, but if things accelerated to the point where the 'skins and 'boys not only lost, but had to surrender draft picks, I don't know how I could honestly keep supporting the NFL. I mean seriously, knowing that this franchise is trying to claw itself back to the point of respectability and on the verge of landing a franchise QB - all to lose it over some vindictive move by the other owners? I just think I'd lose faith in the pro sport after this. Not going to be overly dramatic, but I just want to know the bottom line - what are the possibilities of this mess escalating to something very nasty for the 'skins and 'boys as opposed to what we were all thinking before; that it is something the 'skins and 'boys should win easily?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904584]and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.[/quote]

1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904594]1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.[/quote]

Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904606]1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.[/quote]

Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904608]Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.[/quote]

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904609]Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.[/quote]

1) Any owner has a similar conflict of interest.

2) If 29 of 30 owners support it, it wouldn't have made a difference who it was.

3) I'm guessing it went something like this:
- Multiple owners complain to the Commissioner
- Commissioner decides on punishment - take away cap space
- Taking away cap space affects the CBA, better talk with NFLPA first
- Commissioner gives it to MCEC because they are responsible for negotiating with NFLPA

MCEC (Mara's committee) doesn't have authority to discipline teams. Mara's involved because he's the League's main contact with the NFLPA.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904613]In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.[/quote]

Eh....I don't know about this. Not saying your wrong, but logically speaking, if the NFL can just up and change terms of the CBA as it goes along, anytime it wants to and anyway it wants to, what is the purpose of having a CBA? It then becomes about as worthless as the napkin it was written on. Besides, even if they could, AND they decided to change the terms of this present CBA, 2010 was under the old CBA. I would think it would be a legal conflict to change terms of a present CBA to punish/reward teams during a time period of a former governing contract. I'm no legal expert at all, just trying to look at this through a logical perspective...but I suppose if the NFL looked at this through a logical perspective, then we wouldn't be discussing this situation as it would have never happened.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904613]In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.[/quote]

Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?

As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e. [I]going forward[/I] the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).

As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative [I]at the time it was taken[/I]. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]

I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[url=http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/03/goodell-unable-to-define-uncapped.html]Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins[/url]

[quote]In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?[/quote]


:laughing-


Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=NC_Skins;904649][URL="http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/03/goodell-unable-to-define-uncapped.html"]Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins[/URL]




:laughing-


Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.[/quote]

:D I found the actual response from Goodell below.

[quote=The Rog's response to the 'uncapped year' question]
Whoa brah! Party foul. Party FOUL. You're killing my buzz brah. GTFO. Next question.
[/quote]

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904613]In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.[/quote]

Then it DS would have to file a law suit based on the fact the "rule" that was changed and was agreed to by the league technically was illegal and only at that time would most likely everything change because if the "rule" made up, changed, or whatever that was agreed to is illegal then technically the Skins did nothing wrong and then the CAP can be given back.

So were in it for the long haul. Unless DS decides all this is not worth it. Cause right now although it's proceedure it's also to see what resolve each side has in this by not giving in. Hopefully the good news is DS is prepared to file the law suit if need be and I hope the league backs off first and gives the CAP back before it has to go to some form of trial. This way the team can drop the issue prior to the league looking like fools when and if ever any labor organization decides to start investigating because more then likely they won't back off and will see it to the end.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinsguy;904629]Eh....I don't know about this. Not saying your wrong, but logically speaking, if the NFL can just up and change terms of the CBA as it goes along, anytime it wants to and anyway it wants to, what is the purpose of having a CBA? It then becomes about as worthless as the napkin it was written on. Besides, even if they could, AND they decided to change the terms of this present CBA, 2010 was under the old CBA. I would think it would be a legal conflict to change terms of a present CBA to punish/reward teams during a time period of a former governing contract. I'm no legal expert at all, just trying to look at this through a logical perspective...but I suppose if the NFL looked at this through a logical perspective, then we wouldn't be discussing this situation as it would have never happened.[/quote]

I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904686]I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.[/quote]

I could be mistaken, but the way I understand it is that there was a CBA at the time, and the provision for no cap was part of it. If true, that essentially means the NFL was in violation of the CBA, by imposing "cap rules".

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[QUOTE]In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what? [/QUOTE]

Wait. he never answered what the meaning of an uncapped year is? then he stammers into his "we had rules" (which by the way were illegal) and "those that didn't follow the rules....." what? so he's saying they took minutes and all teams were made very aware that they were to commit collusion and not spend and that if said teams did do this what ever CAP advantage they recieved would be taken back? He made it perfectly clear is what he's saying? OK.

Lets go DS. Take it to court. Take every one of those 30 owners to court.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;904696]I could be mistaken, but the way I understand it is that there was a CBA at the time, and the provision for no cap was part of it. If true, that essentially means the NFL was in violation of the CBA, by imposing "cap rules".[/quote]

If thats the case I love how Goodell has been dancing around the topic. lol.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904686]I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.[/quote]

Well technically, the league [I]was[/I] still under the old CBA in 2010, it was just written up to state that if a new CBA had not been reached by that point, then 2010 would be an uncapped year - at least that's what I seem to remember the language was. But yeah, I think the most important aspect to remember is that the league office approved the contracts.

It just all seems to come down to a case of we're going to follow these certain rules down to the letter, while ignoring other rules of the CBA. Can't pick and choose. I just have my doubts that the league and all of its many committees can simply change the CBA at any given point to suit a few teams' fancy. It's not logical.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

Why send the contracts to the league for approval at all? If they are not going to look at them then there is no need to send them. But they do look at them, they do get to decide if the contracts are ok or not. The league had no problem with the contracts or they would have denied them. What... is the league all of a sudden ... oh we made a mistake and because we can't do our jobs.... we are going to make you pay for it.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;904630]Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?

As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e. [I]going forward[/I] the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).

As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative [I]at the time it was taken[/I]. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]

I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.[/quote]

If it's a form of discipline - the league bylaws state what authority the Commissioner has to impose sanctions, and what requires an Executive Committee vote. The Commissioner does not have the authority to modify the salary cap without Executive Committee approval.

If it involves a modification of the CBA, it requires agreement between the NFL (via the MCEC) and the NFLPA. Depending on how substantial the change is, it may require approval from the owners. Both the NFLPA and 29 owners have signed off on this apparent modification of the CBA.

In the administration of this, it seems to have gone like this:
- The 'Skins and 'Cowboys shifted salary cap burden into the uncapped year
- Several owners complained
- The Commissioner decided to punish them, and salary cap hit made the most sense, even though he didn't have the authority to impose it
- Because it affected the CBA, Commissioner sent MCEC Chairman Mara to bribe NFLPA to sign off
- Commissioner thinks, "even though I don't have the authority to do this, the two teams will back off because I do have the authority to take away draft picks - and besides the other owners have my back."
- 'Skins and Cowboys fight anyway
- ???
- Profit

Anything could happen from here.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[I]"The question was, 'Did any teams gain a competitive advantage?'" Goodell said. "And that was the focus that we and the NFLPA had in reaching our agreement -- making sure that no team had a long-term competitive advantage." [/I]

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56354/goodell-no-date-set-for-cap-penalty-hearings]No date set for cap penalty hearings - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN[/url]

Well let's see, the Redskins were 6-10 in 2010, and 5-11 in 2011. I don't see competitive advantage. And I'll take a page out of Roger Goodell's book, what is long-term competitive advantage?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=SBXVII;904724]Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't? [/quote]

The argument seems to be that they are not punishing the Skins and Cowboys for spending in an uncapped year - they are punishing them for structuring contracts so that future cap hits were shifted into 2010. The Haynesworth contract restructuring included a $21m signing bonus, and the cap hit would normally be spread evenly across 2010, 2011, and 2012.

However, they included a provision that Haynesworth could void the contract after 2010 by paying back something like $24m. Because this was entirely under player control, the entire $21m cap hit comes in 2010.

They weren't paying Haynesworth any more money in 2010 than they would if the void clause were omitted, just shifting the entire cap hit into 2010. The other owners are saying this is unfair.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for rules that don't exist or not is another issue.

Also how bright it is for members of an exclusive club to anger 29 other members of the exclusive club when the rules of the club say you can do just about anything with 24 votes is another subject for discussion.

[quote=SBXVII;904724]and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you. [/quote]

This part I agree with. The league should have said, OK you can do this contract, but the salary cap hit is going to happen as though the void clause didn't exist. Would have been a reasonable approach to this situation - Haynesworth's $21m would have been split 7m in 2010 and 14m in 2011.

Hall had a $15m roster bonus in 2010. Treat that like a signing bonus, and it counts $3m in each year 2010-2014.

Add them together and you get:
- the hit in 2012 is 20m ($14m Haynesworth '11 + $3m Hall '11 & '12)
- the hit for Hall's contract is an additional $3m in 2013 and 2014

Go to the teams and say, accept this, or I'll take away draft picks because I can. That would have been the way to handle it.

Instead they snuck around, made the two owners squeal, have put their dirty collusive laundry out in the public view, have pissed off the NFLPA, have given the NFLPA evidence of collusion, and have given the NFLPA a higher salary cap.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=FRPLG;904756]There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?[/quote]

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=GoSkins!;904755]What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.[/quote]

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;904758]One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or [B]may not be terribly clever.[/B][/quote]

Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

Seeing as they argue that it hurts the future aka the current cap and cba... is there any language in the current cba agreed upon by both sides as pertaining to the matter? If there was I'd think that we would have heard about it by now.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=FRPLG;904756]There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?[/quote]

They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing [I][B]previous[/B][/I] mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars"]Jacksonville Jaguars[/URL] $45 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs"]Kansas City Chiefs[/URL] $62.995 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers"]Tampa Bay Buccaneers[/URL], $60.496 million. [U]
[/U][URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals"]Cincinnati Bengals[/URL] $60 million [URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins"][/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos[/URL] $50.735 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers"]San Francisco 49ers[/URL] $39.33 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons"]Atlanta Falcons[/URL] $30.6 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots"]New England Patriots[/URL] $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=GoSkins!;904762]They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing [I][B]previous[/B][/I] mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars"]Jacksonville Jaguars[/URL] $45 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs"]Kansas City Chiefs[/URL] $62.995 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers"]Tampa Bay Buccaneers[/URL], $60.496 million. [U]
[/U][URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals"]Cincinnati Bengals[/URL] $60 million [URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins"][/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos[/URL] $50.735 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers"]San Francisco 49ers[/URL] $39.33 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons"]Atlanta Falcons[/URL] $30.6 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots"]New England Patriots[/URL] $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.[/quote]

EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinsguy;904763]EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?[/quote]
Makes it seem like it goes back to divisional in fighting, all though I can't see 29 teams siding with the current SB winner

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=GoSkins!;904762]They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing [I][B]previous[/B][/I] mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars"]Jacksonville Jaguars[/URL] $45 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs"]Kansas City Chiefs[/URL] $62.995 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers"]Tampa Bay Buccaneers[/URL], $60.496 million. [U]
[/U][URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals"]Cincinnati Bengals[/URL] $60 million [URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins"][/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos[/URL] $50.735 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers"]San Francisco 49ers[/URL] $39.33 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons"]Atlanta Falcons[/URL] $30.6 million
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots"]New England Patriots[/URL] $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.[/quote]

They can make whatever argument they want. They don't have to prove a competitive advantage. They had no ADVANTAGE. Every other team had the opportunity to do the same if they pleased. They all agreed to not do it. Their loss.

If 9 of my closest friends and I are offered a pile of money to split evenly amongst ourselves and 8 decide they don't want to take it then they can't change their mind and come back in 2 years and file a lawsuit claiming I stole their money. I mean they can but they'd most likely get thrown out of court. Now can the NFL and it's owners do the similar? Perhaps procedurally they can. But that doesn't make it right.

Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
 

[quote=skinsguy;904763]EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?[/quote]

While I DO NOT think the Redskins did anything wrong, they did create a competitive advantage for themselves. In theory, the cap should allow all teams to be competitive for a short time, then they will lose some players and have to retool due to the cap. It may not have given us an immediate advantage, but it most certainly gave us the possibility of being more competitive in the future.

The Redskins hamstrung themselves with contracts and used the uncapped year to alleviate that strain. That is where the competitive balance comes into play. The reason why it isn't an issue for many of those other teams, is they didn't have to drastically drop cap space to get where they were -- we did. The salary cap it an attempt to keep players moving and force teams to be careful with their money, we violated 'the spirit' of that philosophy.

That said -- the Redskins did nothing wrong and it was a very, very smart move. Even if the penalty stands, which I severely doubt it will -- it gave us a significant amount of manuverability. I see no real difference between restructuring deals and tossing huge salaries for new FAs into that single year -- the end result is the same, keeping your future cap number down while paying some high-priced players.