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

[quote=SBXVII;910232]"F" those mother "Fers"

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/league-requests-dismissal-of-cowboys-redskins-grievance/]League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk[/url]



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.[/quote]
Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910232]"F" those mother "Fers"

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/league-requests-dismissal-of-cowboys-redskins-grievance/]League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk[/url]



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.[/quote]

I heard this on the radio about an hour or two ago, came here hoping for a storm of discussion!

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;910243]Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.[/quote]

Agree, they Know there in the wrong.

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

Ehh, everybody moves for a dismissal if they have even the most tenuous grounds for it. I cannot imagine that it is granted BUT they are starting to get into the stuff much more particular to labor law, the specific terms of the CBA and anti-trust stuff.

Under general contract legal concepts (Contracts 101 essentially - okay, maybe 401), I feel pretty confident that the agreement of the NFLPA to the NFL's change in the salary cap is a waiver of players rights but not of the rights of the clubs within the NFL.

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

[quote=FRPLG;909975]Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?[/quote]

According to the CBA, the arbitrator in the case has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce certain articles of the CBA, including the ones regarding the salary cap.

The issue here is that the parties to the CBA are the NFLPA (exclusively representing the players), and the NFLMC (exclusively representing the Clubs that employ the players).

Normally, arbitration under the CBA is intended to settle grievances between Clubs (employer) and players (employee). It is not intended to settle grievances between the Clubs and the NFL or NFLMC.

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

If they do get relief, I'd guess it's based on the fact that the whole concept of the salary cap throughout the CBA is that "Salary Cap" is one number, and it's specifically defined as being the same for all teams. I suppose they'd have to argue that making the salary cap different for different teams completely violates the whole concept and the modifications to include these penalties is inconsistent with the rest of the CBA.

The only reason arbitration is involved at all is because the punishment involves the salary cap, the salary cap is relevant to the CBA, and the CBA provides for arbitration to enforce its provisions.

If the Commissioner had settled on another punishment, the Clubs would only have the options of a) appealing to the Commissioner to reconsider a la Sean Payton, or b) suing the NFL. The former wouldn't go anywhere, and the latter isn't something the Clubs involved seem to want to do.

There is no provision for arbitration in the NFL Bylaws (which governs the relationships between the NFL and member Clubs). The Commissioner has certain specific authority and the Executive Committee (32 owners) has authority for everything else, subject to a 3/4ths majority vote.

Personally, I believe the best case is that the Clubs and League settle on a reduced punishment in order to make this go away. Since the NFLPA is a party to the CBA and apparently named in the grievance, they will get discovery on all documents produced as part of this case. I don't think either the League or the Clubs involved really want to hand the clubs any more information than they have to in this matter.

IMO, the League made a complete mess of this punishment, but has now tied up their procedural loose ends. They probably have legit grounds for dismissal, but I'd guess they don't get it right away. I'd guess (and hope) the Clubs play chicken long enough to get the League to reduce the punishment.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910396]Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.[/quote]

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

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

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;910534]This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.[/quote]

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

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

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;910534]This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.[/quote]

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910612]Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".[/quote]

Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910666]

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.[/quote]

Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910665]The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.[/quote]

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910666]Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.[/quote]

I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.

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

[quote=Giantone;910676]Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?[/quote]

I don't think so. The Arbitrator is only looking to see if someone broke the CBA rules and if the punishement should be emplimented and if it's fair or not.

The legal side of things would be to decide if the other teams actually were engaged in collusion and the two teams chose not to engage in it. An actual judge would have to hear that and might punish the rest of the owners for doing so. I don't think the league will want it to go that far and will come to some agreement. Will DS and JJ take it that far? I think they will file if need be and hope some of their CAP space get returned so they can drop the law suit.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;910688]as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. [B]I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that[/B]. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.[/quote]

I agree with you. I know the Exec Commitee can give punishements but where there was no CBA and no rules broken I don't think they can. Also, I see the vote as something that should have taken place prior to the punishement being given and the two teams should have had an opportunity to explain their side to the other owners prior to the vote. So all owners could make an informed decision. Unfortunatly that would have taken place after the two teams could have spent the CAP space and that is what the Exec Commitee was afraid of so they punished first. Then asked for a vote with out giving the two teams the right to explain to the other owners their side. Even kicked them out of the meeting for the vote.

People fail to realize the "warning" the league gave was for teams going to and signing up players to big contracts. There was no "warning" for teams reworking contracts with players already under contract. No rules were broken. and honestly the contracts didn't change how much money the players got just when they got it.

The big issue the two teams can bring to the Arbitrator is the league approved the contracts when they had every opportunity to decline them or deny them. They do it all the time when they is something that is not right in the contracts so its not like they couldn't deny the contracts and tell both teams "per our agreement you are not allowed to do this." The problem is the league had to approve them or be seen colluding which would have gotten them into trouble. Now after the fact they want to punish which should not be allowed. If you couldn't punish then the league should be able to punish now. Besides how does 30 teams agree to break the law and punish two who chose not to break the law? Hopefully the Arbitrator see's it this way.

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

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910697]I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.[/quote]

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of [I]current[/I] CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins [I]can[/I] argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under [I]this[/I] CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

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

[quote=FRPLG;910703]I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.[/quote]

I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.

But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:

1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.

2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.

3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.

What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;910714]Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of [I]current[/I] CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins [I]can[/I] argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under [I]this[/I] CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.[/quote]

An Arbitrator is someone who hears a disagreement between two parties. He doesn't make the rules but he makes sure people are following them. I'd imagine he would be looking at the old CBA also to see if any rule was broken, or if any rule was broken after the new CBA was signed. The problem is the issue happened after one CBA and prior to the new CBA. In other words... no law or rule was broken.

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

[quote=Giantone;910676]Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?[/quote]

Probably, but only for the arguments and issues presented to the arbiter - again, I believe that would be in the CBA. So, if the arbitration goes as Hoophead suspects and is based on the issues as he has stated them, then the Skins and Cowboys could likely sue in civil court based on improper penalites incurred b/c of the improper collusion under the prior CBA.

The devil is all in the details of the documents (coincidentally, it's where all the lawyers' money is too).

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

[quote=FRPLG;910703]I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.[/quote]

It all goes back what I said earlier. If the teams can just simply vote to punish a team or teams anytime they want to for whatever reason they want, then why even have a CBA? If you're not going to follow the agreement like it's laid out, what's the purpose of it? That's quite illogical, to assume the teams can have a majority vote to penalize a team for actions they did years ago under a different CBA. Why would any owner want to go along with this willingly, knowing the same thing could easily happen to them as well.

The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910715]I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.

But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:

1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.

2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.

3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.

What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.[/quote]
I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910723]It all goes back what I said earlier. If the teams can just simply vote to punish a team or teams anytime they want to for whatever reason they want, then why even have a CBA? If you're not going to follow the agreement like it's laid out, what's the purpose of it? That's quite illogical, to assume the teams can have a majority vote to penalize a team for actions they did years ago under a different CBA. Why would any owner want to go along with this willingly, knowing the same thing could easily happen to them as well.

The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.[/quote]

The CBA governs the working relationship between the teams and the players...not the owners and the owners.

[quote]The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.[/quote]

All of which I believe is probably irrelevant. I hope I am wrong but based on what Hoop has laid out and my basic understanding of how this process will work it doesn't matter whether we did anything wrong or not. The owners can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean it wasn't a pretty sh*tty thing to do. It also doesn't mean they won't choose to do more sh*tty things in the future.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910718]An Arbitrator is someone who hears a disagreement between two parties. He doesn't make the rules but he makes sure people are following them. I'd imagine he would be looking at the old CBA also to see if any rule was broken, or if any rule was broken after the new CBA was signed. The problem is the issue happened after one CBA and prior to the new CBA. In other words... no law or rule was broken.[/quote]

Generically, you are correct that arbiters are people who hear disagreements to provide a resolution short of seeking a judicial rememdy. There are several kinds of arbitors but mostly they are either contractual or court appointed. If contractual (as here), their authority is spelled out in the contract (the current CBA). If court appointed, their authority is that given them by the court.

In this case, the arbitor's authority comes solely and expressly from the current CBA for which the parties are the NFL and the NFLPA. I may be wrong but I believe the individual clubs are only a party to the CBA under the umbrella of the NFL.

While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;910727]While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.[/quote]

It'll be interesting to see if the argument that someone here made concerning the timing of the penalty was a violation in his eyes. Perhaps technically the penalty was imposed without proper procedure simply based on the timing. I think that may be the only decent procedural argument that can be made. The vote, post-facto, didn't magically make the penalty timely. Both teams were penalized in violation of the CBA that existed on March 13th. Maybe.

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

[quote=FRPLG;910724]I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot.[I] In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.[/I]

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.[/quote]

I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.

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

i see this being dragged out, delayed, pushed back, etc. i doubt that even if we (cowboys included in we:vomit:) "won" we'd get anything fair...
like taking $1.6M away from the 28 teams, giving $10M to the cowboys, and $36M to us to use in 2013 and 2014. but roy orbison encourages me to dream

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

[quote=FRPLG;910724]I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. [B]In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument[/B] at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.[/quote]

Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;910727]Generically, you are correct that arbiters are people who hear disagreements to provide a resolution short of seeking a judicial rememdy. There are several kinds of arbitors but mostly they are either contractual or court appointed. If contractual (as here), their authority is spelled out in the contract (the current CBA). If court appointed, their authority is that given them by the court.

In this case, the arbitor's authority comes solely and expressly from the current CBA for which the parties are the NFL and the NFLPA. I may be wrong but I believe the individual clubs are only a party to the CBA under the umbrella of the NFL.

While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.[/quote]

Well since the issue happened prior to the current CBA, under your reasoning, the Arbiture has not authority since the issue happened under the old CBA. I would think the Arbitrator looks at the CBA no matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA to see if there were any violations of it.

I agree with you he is under the unbrella of the NFL but if the punishement is in regards to the old CBA I think he can hear it no different if he has to see if someone failed to follow the new CBA. Although there was a CBA for 2010 as many have stated there was no CAP. It's hard to get into trouble for something that was not there or in place legally in writing.

Also the warning not specific to what the Redskins and Cowboys had done and the league didn't like the fact the two teams found a loop hole. Too bad. Make a rule/law have all the owners and NFLPA sign off on it so it won't happen again and move on. Don't punish the two teams cause you don't like what they did even if it was legal.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;910733]I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.[/quote]

I agree with you but in some cases there are rules to play by, Arbitration first then court, and there are gentleman's games... Arbitration first simply to not take it to the extreme and if it doesn't go your way then take it to court. We may lose the battle but I think if filed in a court of law the league will be scrambling and trying to come to some agreement. I don't think they want their colluding to stand before labor law judge whome might put punishements on them they might not want or pull them into the typical business areana. Right now I think the NFL reaps the benifits of not being overseen by labor law organizations and I'm sure they won't want to be in the future.

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

and.... Hoop, ;) I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910795]Well since the issue happened prior to the current CBA, under your reasoning, the Arbiture has not authority since the issue happened under the old CBA. I would think the Arbitrator looks at the CBA no matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA to see if there were any violations of it.

I agree with you he is under the unbrella of the NFL but if the punishement is in regards to the old CBA I think he can hear it no different if he has to see if someone failed to follow the new CBA. Although there was a CBA for 2010 as many have stated there was no CAP. It's hard to get into trouble for something that was not there or in place legally in writing.

Also the warning not specific to what the Redskins and Cowboys had done and the league didn't like the fact the two teams found a loop hole. Too bad. Make a rule/law have all the owners and NFLPA sign off on it so it won't happen again and move on. Don't punish the two teams cause you don't like what they did even if it was legal.[/quote]
You're missing the point. The teams are not appealing to the arbitrator to rule that what they did in the uncapped year was proper. They appealing that what the owners did as "punishment" during the current CBA was not procedurally proper.

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

[quote=FRPLG;910725]
All of which I believe is probably irrelevant. I hope I am wrong but based on what Hoop has laid out and my basic understanding of how this process will work it doesn't matter whether we did anything wrong or not. The owners can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean it wasn't a pretty sh*tty thing to do. It also doesn't mean they won't choose to do more sh*tty things in the future.[/quote]

That doesn't make very good, logical, business sense though. Not saying that isn't the case at all, but what would stop teams from ganging up on a team and stripping them of salary any time they want for any reason, good, bad, or ugly? There HAS to be some safety net in place to keep teams from frivolous acts?

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

[quote=FRPLG;910807]You're missing the point. The teams are not appealing to the arbitrator to rule that what they did in the uncapped year was proper. They appealing that what the owners did as "punishment" during the current CBA was not procedurally proper.[/quote]

Ok, my question to you is has anyone actually seen what the written complaint is? It was my understanding that they were filing procedurally, but procedure not only encompasses how the punishement was doled out but the whole procedure period meaning that the league approved these deals when they had the opportunity to not approve them and now after approving them have decided to punish both teams. That is a procedural part also. You can't approve something then 2 yrs later punish the two teams for something they procedurally approved.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910823]That doesn't make very good, logical, business sense though. Not saying that isn't the case at all, but what would stop teams from ganging up on a team and stripping them of salary any time they want for any reason, good, bad, or ugly? There HAS to be some safety net in place to keep teams from frivolous acts?[/quote]

Which is what the Arbitrator is for then there is filing suit against 30 owners.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;910714]Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of [I]current[/I] CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins [I]can[/I] argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under [I]this[/I] CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.[/quote]

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:[LIST][*]It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)[*]It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs[*]The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties[*]The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins[*]The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf[*]29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs[/LIST]
As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

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

Damnit Hoophead, I'm really trying to like you and what you're contributing to this thread but you're making it impossible with your bubble bursting in regards to this shitty situation.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910823]That doesn't make very good, logical, business sense though. Not saying that isn't the case at all, but what would stop teams from ganging up on a team and stripping them of salary any time they want for any reason, good, bad, or ugly?[/quote]
I don't disagree...and I have said as much either earlier in this thread or in the original thread on this topic. What "makes sense" and is "fair" though is irrelevant. Here we are in the middle of getting screwed in a way that isn't fair and doesn't make much sense at all. The owners have given us lemons. Right now we are slowly approaching the decision point between making lemonade or finding some grenades and painting them like lemons and giving them back to the other owners.

[quote]
There HAS to be some safety net in place to keep teams from frivolous acts?[/quote]

Why? It's their league. You and I and everyone else can WANT there to be. We can HOPE that someone comes to their senses and puts an end to this idiocy but hopes and wants mean nothing in this case.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910723]It all goes back what I said earlier. If the teams can just simply vote to punish a team or teams anytime they want to for whatever reason they want, then why even have a CBA? If you're not going to follow the agreement like it's laid out, what's the purpose of it? That's quite illogical, to assume the teams can have a majority vote to penalize a team for actions they did years ago under a different CBA. Why would any owner want to go along with this willingly, knowing the same thing could easily happen to them as well.

The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.[/quote]

The CBA doesn't have anything to do with how the League can discipline it's member Clubs. It authorises an arbitrator to enforce certain provisions and settle disputes.

The NFL Bylaws do describe how the NFL can discipline its member Clubs. It provides for appeals to go to the Executive Committee (32 owners). Beyond that, a Club would have to sue in civil court.

And the vote that was made by the owners seemed to be a limited vote on a specific subject - to ratify the NFLMCs agreement with the NFLPA to modify the salary cap to punish two teams.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910833]I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:[LIST][*]It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)[*]It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs[*]The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties[*]The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins[*]The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf[*]29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs[/LIST]
As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.[/quote]

I'd like to thank you for sharing your perspective and hope you remain a mainstay around here. This is very enlightening.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910788]Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.[/quote]

As explained earlier in the thread:[LIST=1][*]Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion[*]Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year[*]Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year[*]The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes [I]in his sole discretion[/I] that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.[*]The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance[*]The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them[*]The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.[/LIST]
The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.

As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.

The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.