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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904764]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[/quote]

I can see all owners taking the free cap space and I can see all owners "uniting" in the face of potential legal battles. Just like all owners voted yes on the previous CBA when a bunch of them hated it or suspected it wasn't a good deal. Shocker, it sucked for them and they had to opt out leading to this mess. 29 owners voting "yay" means nothing from an ethical standpoint. 29 "yay and here's why"s with an eloquent and well thought out rationale might be useful. Other than that it was a rubber stamp.

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

[quote=tryfuhl;904761]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.[/quote]

There is plenty of language in the previous CBA (google 2006 NFL CBA) about what could and couldn't be done re: salary cap treatment in an uncapped year, including:

- In contracts signed in an uncapped year, salary (excluding signing bonus) couldn't decrease more than 30% from the uncapped year to future capped years.

- In contracts signed in a capped year prior to an upcoming uncapped year, any bonuses loaded into the uncapped year would be treated as signing bonus and the cap hit would be spread across the whole contract.

Snyder and Jones will argue that there are specific rules to cover specific situations, there was no rule to cover this specific situation, and the League approved the contracts at the time.

The League will argue that there was a clear agreement not to unduly shift salary cap hit into an uncapped year, they attempted to address this as best they could in the CBA, but either couldn't catch everything or couldn't negotiate that rule in advance. And, they didn't address this in 2011 because there were more pressing issues to address - like starting the season.

I think the 'Skins got screwed here, but the more I read of the CBA, the previous CBA, and the NFL bylaws, the more I think they should start trying to get along with the other owners.

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

[quote=Daseal;904767]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.[/quote]

I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII]
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.
Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.[/quote]

[quote=FRPLG;904760]Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.[/quote]

Unfortunately, that may be the most relevant part of all. According to the NFL Bylaws, 24 votes pretty much trumps all.

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

[quote=FRPLG;904771]I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.[/quote]

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

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 may not be terribly clever.[/quote]

and that something violates the labor laws. Two teams chose not to break the law and are getting punished for not doing so. Thats the nice pretty message being sent to the little kids.

As long as everyone agrees it's ok to break the law. If someone does not follow the agreement even though its against the law and or does the right thing we will punish him.

Sounds like bullying to me.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904775]As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.[/quote]

And the fact that the Skins and Cowboys didn't break any of the 2006 CBA provisions, and there is no disagreement on that, makes the question of punishment questionable. If the Skins had written a contract that violated the 30% rule, it would have been voided by the league. If the Skins had written a contract that contained language forbidden by the 2006 CBA it would have been voided by the league. None of the contracts were voided by the league at the time, why? because they were allowed by the 2006 CBA. Why didn't the league simply get with the NFLPA and adjust the rules, because the NFL would have been accused of collusion. Why, now 2 years later are they punishing the Skins and Cowboys, well according to you, it's simply because they can. Maybe 24 does overrule legal sense, if the Skins and Cowboys aren't willing to blow up the whole system, but I tend to think that an arbitrator, once given the opportunity will do what it takes to make it right. Keep in mind, and I am certain of this, if the arbitrator does say he has jurisdiction, (and if he doesn't it will be on your explanation of the 24 etc), that all parties have, in advance, accepted the arbitrator's right to make a final ruling.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904775]As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.[/quote]

you seem to see this as proof the Skins/Cowboys can be punished, but I see it the opposite way. The league wrote the rules of what could and could not be done, and the Skins didn't violate them. You can't come back and punish them because you weren't smart enough to write effective rules.

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

[quote=FRPLG;904759]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.[/quote]

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

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

Collusion's a threat to the NFL:
[url=http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1061120272&format=&page=1&listingType=sco#articleFull]Collusion’s a threat to NFL - BostonHerald.com[/url]

[I]"If the owners were found to have colluded during the uncapped year the penalty could be the most feared one in jurisprudence: treble damages. If this mess ends up in court and that $46 million is trebled, that’s a $138 million hit to the owners, similar to the one baseball owners took for colluding to suppress salaries between 1985-87. Major League Baseball forked over $280 million to the union."[/I]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904764]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[/quote]

I can if it gave them another 1.6 mill to spend. whether they use it or not is moot. I still am of the opinion that the reason most voted not to give back the CAP space is because the teams spent the extra 1.6 mill for themselves already and they can't give it back. The "Nay" vote is a formatlity.

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

[quote=FRPLG;904759]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.[/quote]

The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904781]you seem to see this as proof the Skins/Cowboys can be punished, but I see it the opposite way. The league wrote the rules of what could and could not be done, and the Skins didn't violate them. You can't come back and punish them because you weren't smart enough to write effective rules.[/quote]

I didn't write that [I]I[/I] thought the Skins could be punished based on this - I wrote that that's the [I]League's[/I] argument.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904782]Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."[/quote]

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904779]and that something violates the labor laws. Two teams chose not to break the law and are getting punished for not doing so. Thats the nice pretty message being sent to the little kids.

As long as everyone agrees it's ok to break the law. If someone does not follow the agreement even though its against the law and or does the right thing we will punish him.

Sounds like bullying to me.[/quote]

The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904789]The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.[/quote]

As far as I know, the teams are bound by three things:

1.) The CBA
2.) NFL rules
3.) Laws

Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

If true, which bindings did they violate, as they existed at the time of said violation?

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904786]The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.

In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.

What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.

The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.

The question is, how do you deal with it?

A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.

B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.

C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.

D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.

Looks like the League chose B).

Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.

Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).[/quote]

I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.

I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...

1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.

2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904788]That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.[/quote]

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

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

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;904792]As far as I know, the teams are bound by three things:

1.) The CBA
2.) NFL rules
3.) Laws

Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

If true, which bindings did they violate, as they existed at the time of said violation?[/quote]

2) The NFL bylaws give the Commissioner broad powers to impose discipline for vague reasons. If the Commissioner thinks they acted to the detriment of league and affected competitive balance, he has the authority to punish them harshly.

He apparently said in advance "don't do X (or I will consider it conduct detrimental and a violation of competitive balance)" and they did X.

The real issue here is procedure and authority to impose discipline. The Commissioner doesn't have the authority to modify the salary cap.

He does have the authority to take draft picks. At any time he could just say, "fine, you can have your cap money back, I'm taking away your first round pick in the upcoming draft." I expect Minnesota would be happy to get a few picks for the chance to take RG3 at #3.

He did something he doesn't really have the authority to do, but it's easier on the Skins than what he does have the authority to do. In addition, 29 owners apparently have his back, so the Skins are kinda screwed, fair or not.

The only hope here is that the League decides that they want this to go away quickly and quietly, and come to a reduced penalty to keep people like Mara from saying dumb stuff in public.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904795]So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.[/quote]

Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?

The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.

Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904789]The League will argue that they're not punishing the Skins for spending on players in the uncapped year. They're punishing them for shifting salary cap hit into an uncapped year.

What they actually pay the players is relevant to the collusion charge. Salary cap is a separate construct for competitive balance.[/quote]

I understand what your saying. I understand your trying to get us all to see how we might lose this battle. Fine. But it doesn't make the whole situation morally correct due to unlawful practices.

I'll play your game. I'm all for the league "punishing" us if they would like. Just like DS and JJ have my vote on taking all this to a labor relations board and pointing out that the other 30 owners colluded. At this point Goodell has pissed me off enough I don't care what he does as long as in the long run they lose the war. which they will. Lets see back in 1990 the Baseball Union won a whopping $280 mill dollar settlement. Imagine what it would be today? Go ahead Goodell keep pushing the issue and DS has my approval to keep pushing ours.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904797]Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?

The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.

Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.[/quote]

and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904793]I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.

I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...

1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.

2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.[/quote]

1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).

2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.

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

Oh and why would the league need to sit down with the NFLPA and bribe, strong arm, or whatever you want to call it, them into not filing a suit if the owners did nothing wrong? If they didn't break any laws then there would be no need to even get them involved. Simply punish the two teams and be done with it.

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

I think the league will have trouble with this "It's not collusion because it's about competitive balance, it's not about player salaries" line.

Q: What competitive advantage did the Redskins and Cowboys gain?
A: Extra cap room.
Q: How would they take advantage of this advantage?
A: By spending it on player salaries.

I may not be the brightest knife in the shed, but I think I may have spotted a flaw in the argument.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904801]1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).

2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.[/quote]

You don't argue with the cop period. But your arguement would be for the judge. If proven the cop instructed you that it was OK to speed then he ticketed you for it the judge would throw it out. You would not be punished.

As I see this will if it goes to court. The league approved the contracts. Don't come back later and cry foul when you have the opportunity to tell both teams they can't do that at the time.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904796]2) The NFL bylaws give the Commissioner broad powers to impose discipline for vague reasons. If the Commissioner thinks they acted to the detriment of league and affected competitive balance, he has the authority to punish them harshly.

He apparently said in advance "don't do X (or I will consider it conduct detrimental and a violation of competitive balance)" and they did X.

The real issue here is procedure and authority to impose discipline. The Commissioner doesn't have the authority to modify the salary cap.

He does have the authority to take draft picks. At any time he could just say, "fine, you can have your cap money back, I'm taking away your first round pick in the upcoming draft." I expect Minnesota would be happy to get a few picks for the chance to take RG3 at #3.

He did something he doesn't really have the authority to do, but it's easier on the Skins than what he does have the authority to do. In addition, 29 owners apparently have his back, so the Skins are kinda screwed, fair or not.

The only hope here is that the League decides that they want this to go away quickly and quietly, and come to a reduced penalty to keep people like Mara from saying dumb stuff in public.[/quote]

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

I was under the impression that, at the time, no NFL rule existed that was violated, but the "detrimental conduct" clause is pretty broad and subjective.

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

[quote=biffle;904803]I think the league will have trouble with this "It's not collusion because it's about competitive balance, it's not about player salaries" line.

Q: What competitive advantage did the Redskins and Cowboys gain?
A: Extra cap room.
Q: How would they take advantage of this advantage?
A: By spending it on player salaries.

I may not be the brightest knife in the shed, but I think I may have spotted a flaw in the argument.[/quote]

I'd imagine the arguement is going to be that by freeing up all that space we in the future would be able to sign all the top talent in FA and no one else would be able to. However what was presented to me that I didn't know was all the CAP room the other teams had which really makes the arguement a moot point since they had just as much if not more CAP space to pick up all the top FA's.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904800]and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.[/quote]

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

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

[quote=SBXVII;904806]I'd imagine the arguement is going to be that by freeing up all that space we in the future would be able to sign all the top talent in FA and no one else would be able to. However what was presented to me that I didn't know was all the CAP room the other teams had which really makes the arguement a moot point since they had just as much if not more CAP space to pick up all the top FA's.[/quote]

I think you missed the point. The NFL is saying that the instructions on how to treat the uncapped year weren't collusion because they weren't trying to suppress salaries. But, by trying to stop teams from (perfectly legally) gaining future cap room to spend on salaries, that's exactly what they were doing.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904804]You don't argue with the cop period. But your arguement would be for the judge. If proven the cop instructed you that it was OK to speed then he ticketed you for it the judge would throw it out. You would not be punished.

As I see this will if it goes to court. The league approved the contracts. Don't come back later and cry foul when you have the opportunity to tell both teams they can't do that at the time.[/quote]

I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904807]You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."[/quote]

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

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

Goodell didn't do this. The owners lead by John Mara did.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904802]Oh and why would the league need to sit down with the NFLPA and bribe, strong arm, or whatever you want to call it, them into not filing a suit if the owners did nothing wrong? If they didn't break any laws then there would be no need to even get them involved. Simply punish the two teams and be done with it.[/quote]

If the Commissioner took away draft picks, as he has the authority to do, the NFLPA wouldn't be involved at all, there would be no arbitration, everything would be neat and tidy, and the Skins wouldn't be getting RG3.

Everything got messy because the Commissioner, apparently pushed by multiple owners, wanted to impose a different, lighter, and possibly fairer penalty on the Skins.

They had to get the NFLPA involved because he wanted to touch salary cap space.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904809]I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.[/quote]

No the more correct analogy would be the cop telling you not to speed, you speed, he stops you and simply gives you a warning and lets you go, then 2 yrs later decides file paper work to bring you to court to punish you for speeding.

The league as you say had rules. Two teams failed to abide by those rules. The league approved the contracts. Then 2 yrs later wants to punish them. Ludicrous.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904807]You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."[/quote]

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

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

[quote=biffle;904810]No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.[/quote]

IIRC, I was the first in this thread to note that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to modify the salary cap. That's something he doesn't have the authority to do "in his sole discretion."

No argument that it's a procedural mess.

However, he does have the authority to remove draft picks "in his sole discretion." Had he done that, this would probably be over by now. I doubt Snyder and Jones are going to take this to court.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904812]If the Commissioner took away draft picks, as he has the authority to do, the NFLPA wouldn't be involved at all, there would be no arbitration, everything would be neat and tidy, and the Skins wouldn't be getting RG3.

Everything got messy because the Commissioner, apparently pushed by multiple owners, wanted to impose a different, lighter, and possibly fairer penalty on the Skins.

They had to get the NFLPA involved because he wanted to touch salary cap space.[/quote]

I guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Personally I didn't expect to get RG3. I had figured we were out of the running because he would not be there at #6. So using that money on FA's and a 2nd round QB is what I suspected anyway. My first round pick was going to be a WR. But we picked those up in FA.

But no matter what I still have issues with the fact the league approved these deals when they could have said no back in 2010. I have issues with what on the surface looks like a conflict of interest with Mara heading up the whole CAPGATE issue. I don't care that there were 24+ other votes. He's in our division, he got 1.6 mill out of the deal, he hindered our FA ability by 18 mill, and he gained an advantage through all that by keeping our two teams from picking up better talent.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904813]No the more correct analogy would be the cop telling you not to speed, you speed, he stops you and simply gives you a warning and lets you go, then 2 yrs later decides file paper work to bring you to court to punish you for speeding.

The league as you say had rules. Two teams failed to abide by those rules. The league approved the contracts. Then 2 yrs later wants to punish them. Ludicrous.[/quote]

Agree it sucks, but either way you're still screwed if the cop is also the judge.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904809]I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.[/quote]

Actually, I feel like both of your analogies miss the point. It's a lot more like this:
Cops tell you not to speed. Then, the state lifts the law against speeding. Cop says, "That law's coming back so you be careful." You speed like a mad man during the time that there is no law. The state reinstates the law. Cop tries to arrest you for speeding while there was no law.

Unfortunately, that's not really how rules or laws work. There is no way that there is a justification for the punishment being levied against the Skins in this case. There's no way a team should be punished for breaking an imaginary rule.