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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904818]Agree it sucks, but either way you're still screwed if the cop is also the judge.[/quote]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem, IMO

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904815]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?[/quote]

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904816]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.[/quote]

Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904815]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?[/quote]

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.

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

I like this write up:

[url=http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/mar/28/tdsport01-redskins-right-nfl-wrong-in-salary-cap-d-ar-1799573/]Redskins right, NFL wrong in salary-cap dispute | WSLS 10[/url]

[QUOTE]It made sense. A season with no salary cap should equal an opportunity to ease or erase the impact of some high-dollar deals.

A team that failed to do something similar might be guilty of financial mismanagement
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The league says the Redskins and Cowboys gained an unfair competitive advantage in future seasons by taking advantage of a loophole in a non-salary cap season.

Yet each move the Redskins made was approved by the NFL, with the caveat that some of these financial maneuvers were things the Redskins really should not do.

Hey, either give the team permission and live with the consequences or deny the team permission and force it to live with the consequences.

But don't give permission, then come back two years later, rescind the approval and issue punishment.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]What the Redskins and Cowboys did might not sit well with their NFL colleagues, but what Washington and Dallas did made sense.

That's probably what has everyone confused
[/QUOTE]

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904826]Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.[/quote]

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

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

[quote=jdlea;904819]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.[/quote]

In this case, the cop is saying, "I have the authority to arrest you for reckless driving, but I'm just going to give you the lesser punishment for speeding even if the speeding laws were under review at the time."

That said, there's probably no point in pursuing this analogy further. It's getting pretty farfetched.

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

[quote=SBXVII;904823]It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.[/quote]

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904826]Thank you for the nice words.

[B]Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either[/B].

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.[/quote]


Woow. time out. you pointed out that there were rules from the 2006 CBA that were still in place regarding the CAP and how teams could spend. Either there was a CAP or there was not. I guess what I'm getting at is the same rules that apply for how much teams can over spend apply to how much teams can underspend.

which is it. was there a rule or were there no rules? Cause this is the big arguement that there was no rules because the CBA expired and there was no CAP. and if this is correct then the Skins and Boys did nothing wrong and should not be punished. No matter how much the other 30 teams don't like it.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904833]Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m[/quote]

Why do I suggest it? because the two teams pretty mush support the lower half of the league. Maybe the other 30 owners would like to have the $$$ dropping and the CAP lowered, and for once not get the $$$ they used to and maybe turn out to be one of the teams doing the supporting for the next several yrs. Have a big % of their income taken away to support teams below them.

Maybe if the fan base refused to buy tickets (which won't happen) would force DS to lower prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs if fans are not buying food. Basically its all about what the market will pay. I'm confused with Tampa though being at the bottom of the league but if the fan base plays it like Carolina or Jacksonville maybe in the long run some other piss poor team will be in the position to support the Skins and see if they like it. The DS can complain about their competative edge and take away their money.

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

[quote=biffle;904825]Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.[/quote]

Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904832]In this case, the cop is saying, "I have the authority to arrest you for reckless driving, but I'm just going to give you the lesser punishment for speeding even if the speeding laws were under review at the time."

That said, there's probably no point in pursuing this analogy further. It's getting pretty farfetched.[/quote]

But see, now this is where I like jdlea's analogy...

Even if there was wrong-doing (obviously not legal wrong-doing) wouldn't the punishment have to be stated in some kind of agreement or law? Isn't that a totally arbitrary punishment? I've said this before, basically other teams did "sketchy" things and got no punishment AND the rest of the league got a reward.

Now, in the end if we're just expected to accept Goodell as king and be done with it, that's a WHOLE bigger problem.

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904829]Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.[/quote]

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904829]Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.[/quote]

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
[url]https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133[/url]
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
[url=http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/cowboys-take-advantage-of-unca.html]Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News[/url]

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904838]But see, now this is where I like jdlea's analogy...

Even if there was wrong-doing (obviously not legal wrong-doing) wouldn't the punishment have to be stated in some kind of agreement or law? Isn't that a totally arbitrary punishment? I've said this before, basically other teams did "sketchy" things and got no punishment AND the rest of the league got a reward.

Now, in the end if we're just expected to accept Goodell as king and be done with it, that's a WHOLE bigger problem.[/quote]

I'd suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. The Commissioner has strong powers and broad authority. Everything he can't do alone he can do with 24 votes.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904840]Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.[/quote]

OK, so that being said, assuming +/- 5% of bias, wouldn't the arbitrator look at this and be like, "HA! Wow, NFL this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. I rule in favor of the Redskins and Cowboys."? There are SO MANY things in favor of both of those teams when it comes to the details. I HATE the Cowboys. I hate them with every fiber of my soul. But even with my loathing hatred of them, they got dicked over as much as we did.

Someone posted this in this thread already, but the timing, the teams, the amount, EVERYTHING screams of collusion.

In my opinion, this is a simple "can't see the forest for the trees" type of argument that unless Goodell goes all "I-do-what-I-want-bitches", it's an obvious injustice.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904842]I'd suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. The Commissioner has strong powers and broad authority. Everything he can't do alone he can do with 24 votes.[/quote]

No way this can precede arbitration. I just have a hard time believing anyone even SEMI-neutral can agree with what he did. Was it within his rights? Maybe. Should an arbitrator side with the NFL? Evidence would suggest in the Redskins and Cowboys favor.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904837]Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.[/quote]

Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.

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

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904846]Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).[/quote]

You could say the Patriots threatened competitve balance by acquring too many draft picks. And, like in this case, disperse them among all their competitiors.

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

[quote=biffle;904841]I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
[url]https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133[/url]
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
[url=http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/cowboys-take-advantage-of-unca.html]Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News[/url]

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.[/quote]

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/08/bears-can-pull-the-plug-on-peppers-after-one-year/]Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk[/url]

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904844]No way this can precede arbitration. I just have a hard time believing anyone even SEMI-neutral can agree with what he did. Was it within his rights? Maybe. Should an arbitrator side with the NFL? Evidence would suggest in the Redskins and Cowboys favor.[/quote]

Arbitration is a process outlined in the CBA, and the CBA is involved only because Goodell wanted to modify the salary cap.

If he had taken away draft picks, arbitration wouldn't be a option. They would have to sue - and they won't do that.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904847]HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.[/quote]

In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904850]As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/08/bears-can-pull-the-plug-on-peppers-after-one-year/]Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]

Maybe. I've seen so many conflicting things on his contract, I'm just not going to bother with it.

There were other contracts structured in a similar fashion, though.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904851]Arbitration is a process outlined in the CBA, and the CBA is involved only because Goodell wanted to modify the salary cap.

If he had taken away draft picks, arbitration wouldn't be a option. They would have to sue - and they won't do that.[/quote]

Sure, but just like I said before, it's a forest-for-the-trees situation and if the neutral party has any sense, we win.

Details be damned, there is just too much evidence in our favor. Goodell's power has no bearing when we go to arbitration. The arbitrator makes all decisions regardless of NFLPA/Goodell's power.

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

[quote=biffle;904845]Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.[/quote]

He never tried to impose his own salary cap in an uncapped year.

There's a difference between players fighting a league for the right to impose discipline on them and league members suing themselves because they don't like how a Commissioner they appointed used they authority they gave him, and that 29 other members agreed with.

And, they can always attempt to sue the League, but they won't because that would be stupid for everybody involved. And they would have to prove that the Commissioner abused authority that they granted him sole discretion to apply.

If every team took a league to court for every bit of discipline they thought unfair, leagues wouldn't exist. At some point, Snyder will say, "I like making 9 figures and trying to win football games better than I like spending years in court and getting screwed by the League every way possible forever."

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

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;904854]Sure, but just like I said before, it's a forest-for-the-trees situation and if the neutral party has any sense, we win.

Details be damned, there is just too much evidence in our favor. Goodell's power has no bearing when we go to arbitration. The arbitrator makes all decisions regardless of NFLPA/Goodell's power.[/quote]

And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;904840]Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.[/QUOTE]

I really don't see why its better to take this licking. It seems like you are parrotting Mara's it could have been worse. But, its not and at this point Goodell is not going to strip either team of draft picks, which certainly would have had the possibility of being very ugly had he chosen that route. Both sides are going to arbitration and its possible the skins get some redress. At this point they have nothing to lose.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904855]He never tried to impose his own salary cap in an uncapped year.

There's a difference between players fighting a league for the right to impose discipline on them and league members suing themselves because they don't like how a Commissioner they appointed used they authority they gave him, and that 29 other members agreed with.

And, they can always attempt to sue the League, but they won't because that would be stupid for everybody involved. And they would have to prove that the Commissioner abused authority that they granted him sole discretion to apply.

If every team took a league to court for every bit of discipline they thought unfair, leagues wouldn't exist. At some point, Snyder will say, "I like making 9 figures and trying to win football games better than I like spending years in court and getting screwed by the League every way possible forever."[/quote]

If he's telling teams they can't spend money the way the CBA allows, then yes he's trying to overrule the CBA and impose his own version of the salary cap.

And I was providing an example of the league going to court over something that Goodell supposedly had the "sole discretion" to decide. That power isn't any where near as absolute as you try to make it sound.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;904852]In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.[/QUOTE]

No IN THIS case the supreme court is an arbitrator. As you pointed out had Goodelll taken picks then we either sue or drop it he didn't in THIS case. Now an arbitrator will weigh in

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904857]And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.[/quote]

Or he could decide to not do anything because then it would definitly be an arguement the Skins were being singled out, not that they don't have the arguement now since others who spent money didn't get punished and others who failed to meet the CAP floor didn't get punished.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904857]And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.[/quote]

Isn't that what you were saying earlier about not wanting to get into a legal battle?

If THAT happens, then ALL hell breaks lose. How far do you go back? Just the Skins? If so, then aren't you obviously singling them out without regard to Buffalo, Tennessee, etc. (very similar to the cap situation) That is a gigantic can of worms that I don't think even Goodell is prepared to open.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;904858]I really don't see why its better to take this licking. It seems like you are parrotting Mara's it could have been worse. But, its not and at this point Goodell is not going to strip either team of draft picks, which certainly would have had the possibility of being very ugly had he chosen that route. Both sides are going to arbitration and its possible the skins get some redress. At this point they have nothing to lose.[/quote]

I think they should go to arbitration and hope for the best. I was saying that if they lose in arbitration or win in arbitration but then get handed a different penalty, they should take it rather than suing the league in court.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;904857]And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.[/QUOTE]

Maybe so but that would be seen as vindictive and I don't believe the teams will necessarily line up for that. The skins and cowboys bring alot to the table that they also could use in that type of struggle.

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

[url=http://deadspin.com/5897231/why-cant-roger-goodell-go-one-day-without-lying?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deadspin%2Fexcerpts+%28Deadspin+excerpts%29]Why Can't Roger Goodell Go One Day Without Lying?[/url]

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;904863]I think they should go to arbitration and hope for the best. I was saying that if they lose in arbitration or win in arbitration but then get handed a different penalty, they should take it rather than suing the league in court.[/QUOTE]

Well this I agree with, but it had seemed like you were saying that the arbitrator could not overrule the league.

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

[quote=biffle;904859]If he's telling teams they can't spend money the way the CBA allows, then yes he's trying to overrule the CBA and impose his own version of the salary cap.

And I was providing an example of the league going to court over something that Goodell supposedly had the "sole discretion" to decide. That power isn't any where near as absolute as you try to make it sound.[/quote]

Which example? The drug testing?

If the NFLPA had fought this, they would have walked away and gone straight to draft picks before announcing it.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;904857]And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he [I][B]could come up with something else[/B][/I] and take draft picks away for that too.[/quote]

And this is the basis of why MANY people, fans and media included, thinks this cannot stand.

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

[url=http://deadspin.com/5896817/its-good-that-the-nfl-is-punishing-washington-and-dallas-for-breaking-no-rules]It's Good That The NFL Is Punishing Washington And Dallas For Breaking No Rules[/url]

His last comment is exactly how I feel now.