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]

What he said. Well done.

Just like to add, it was the Redskins and Cowboys that chose this as the forum in which to dispute the matter. I believe in a court of general jurisdiction the Skins had a much better argument. Why they chose to begin here where, arguably, they're stuck with their weakest arguments is beyond me.

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 think they don't want to sue, because that would air out too much dirty laundry. I think they'd rather eat the punishment than sue.

I think they've taken this more limited arbitration option to get the other owners to settle on a reduced punishment to make it go away.

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

[quote=FRPLG;910730]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.[/quote]

The CBA doesn't say anything about how the League can punish its Clubs, and the arbitrator doesn't have any power to decide whether a penalty was appropriate.

The arbitrator can only say that an action was unfair under the CBA.

IMO, the choices are:
- The CBA was improperly modified
- Based on the way "Salary Cap" is defined throughout the document, the modification doesn't make sense - so the modification needs to be dropped or the whole document needs to be rewritten.

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

Just want to say a quick Thanks to JoeReadskin and Hoophead,they have brought alot more to light in this then I ever imagined was involved.

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]

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910800]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.[/quote]

Thanks for the nice words. Honestly, this whole thing sucks, and I came into this pissing vinegar like you. Unfortunately, the more I read, the more it became obvious that the Commissioner has the power to punish the Skins for doing what they did. Fair or not.

The max punishment that I could see being fair is making Hall's 2010 bonus count $3m per year for 3 years. If they did that, my reaction would be "harsh but fair." $36m is ridiculous.

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

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

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

[quote=SBXVII;910800]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.[/quote]

As for positivity...salary cap be damned, in three days, WE GET RGIII!

I think that's the only reason I can even rationally discuss the salary cap issue.

IN 3 DAYS WE GET RGIII.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910851]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.[/quote]

I'll read the rest later as I gotta get going from work but your just looking at your #1 and #2.... the punishement is not collusion. The agreement the 30 owners had to keep costs down with out the NFLPA's approval is collusion. The issue is the NFLPA didn't have definite proof that the owners were colluding which is why when the new CBA was signed there was an agreement between both sides that the NFLPA gave up their right to file a law suit. The meeting the Exec Committee and the NFLPA had was to remind them of the agreement and to blackmail them into agreeing or the CAP would be lowered for their players for each team.

The punishement is proof their was an agreement between the owners to keep the costs down against the uncapped year. which there should not have been an agreement because thats colluding unless the players agreed to it.

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

[quote=mooby;910836]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.[/quote]

rgiii countdown: T-3 days!

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910866]rgiii countdown: T-3 days![/quote]

That's better ;).

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

[quote=Giantone;910857]Just want to say a quick Thanks to JoeReadskin and Hoophead,they have brought alot more to light in this then I ever imagined was involved.[/quote]

Glad someone enjoyed it

Since I'm new here, I'm not sure how strong language is appropriate, but I will say that your less-than well thought out arguments previously were what inspired me to read the documents.

And I would also say that I find Mara's behavior and comments in this matter to be less than optimal.

Finally, I would say that if I were the fan of a team blessed by Lady Luck I would spend significantly less time agitating fans of teams with lesser fortune than you seem to.

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

[quote=SBXVII;910858]My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.[/quote]

The modification I'm talking about is:

"Where 'Salary Cap' previously referred to one number for all Clubs, in 2012 and 2013, it will be $18m less for the Redskins, $5m less for the Cowboys,..."

To make this penalty, the NFLPA and NFLMC would have had to sign a side letter modifying the CBA to include a sentence like that.

One issue that I hope the arbitrator may raise is that the way the whole CBA is written, and the way the Salary Cap is discussed throughout, that change doesn't make sense as written.

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

[quote=skinsguy;910861]Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?[/quote]

I didn't say it prohibits exactly what the Skins did. It addresses other similar ways of doing what the Skins did.

I said that punishing the Skins otherwise for doing what the Skins did is not evidence of collusion, because the CBA has clauses that try to accomplish the same thing.

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

It will be interesting 1) to see if the arbitrator chooses to hear the case, I wouldn't be shocked for him to say it falls outside his purview, and 2) if he does choose to hear it, how wide the discussion will be. If it will be narrowed simply to procedural issues, or if the Skins/Cowboys are able to get him to open it up to a more thorough investigation.

Of course we may not hear any of it, except the final outcome...

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910851]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]
[/quote]

Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.

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

[quote=Evilgrin;910900]Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.[/quote]

Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.

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

[quote=Evilgrin;910900]Mara said they violated the "spirit of the salary cap", so a ghost cap did exist? Also, signing a restructured deal could be viewed the same as spending more in an uncapped year. Just the same way you restructure and resign agreements in years you have more cap space. So I guess it could down to which way the arbitrator sees it.[/quote]

And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;910918]Saying "violated the spirit of the salary cap" is just stupid language, no matter how you slice it.

Restructuring contracts is fine, as happens every year. What the Redskins did was write the restructured contracts in a way that unduly shifted salary cap hit into the Uncapped Year. Apending the money was OK, the structure of the contracts wasn't.

On Haynesworth, they gave him a $21m signing bonus on a three-year contract - which would normally mean a $7m cap hit in each of 2010, '11, and '12. They added an option for Haynesworth to void the last 2 years if he gave back $26m. Everyone knew Haynesworth would never pay $26m to void the last two years, but since the option was under player control, all of the cap hit would be taken in 2010.

With Hall, they did a deal in 2009 that gave him a $15m bonus that would normally be a signing bonus - counting $3m against the cap every year '09-'13. However, they gave all $15m to him as a roster bonus in 2010 to take all the cap hit in the uncapped year.

There would have been no penalties at all if they had just given normal signing bonuses.[/quote]


So, why didn't the league veto the contracts? I have always been under the impression that the league looks at all contracts to make sure they fall within the guidelines of the CBA. If the contracts both teams signed didn't fall into the guidelines as they are trying to say why didn't they veto, not approve, make both teams restructure them again, whatever? Why wait for 2 yrs then decide to punish?

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

[quote=SBXVII;910921]And my issue is if there was no violation to the rule as we know it and only a violation to the spirit of the rule, then at the next owners meeting you bring it up and change the rule or amend the rule and add a sentence specifically addressing the issue then the next time it occurres there is no issue with a punishment. Here there was no violation but because it rubbed other owners the wrong way they decide to punish.

And .....they decide to punish after they had the opportunity to as Hoop puts it veto the contracts and force both teams to restructure them. But the league didn't do that.[/quote]

Or, if the Commissioner has broad powers to discipline teams for vague reasons, you warn people in advance that:[LIST][*]An Uncapped year means you can spend as much as you want [*]An Uncapped year does not mean you can "hit delete" on bad contracts by shifting all the future salary cap hit into the uncapped year[*]We have written provisions into the CBA towards this effect[*]It's impractical to try to think of every possible case in advance, but be advised I will view attempts to circumvent this as adversely affecting competitive balance[*]I will discipline teams accordingly if necessary[/LIST]
In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911108]Or, if the Commissioner has broad powers to discipline teams for vague reasons, you warn people in advance that:[LIST][*]An Uncapped year means you can spend as much as you want[*]An Uncapped year does not mean you can "hit delete" on bad contracts by shifting all the future salary cap hit into the uncapped year[*]We have written provisions into the CBA towards this effect[*]It's impractical to try to think of every possible case in advance, but be advised I will view attempts to circumvent this as adversely affecting competitive balance[*]I will discipline teams accordingly if necessary[/LIST]In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.[/quote]

Personally I kinda got the impression that the league warned about a specific issue. The Redskins and Cowboys chose to do what they did and reworked contracts because it was not what the warning was referencing. After the fact Goodell decides to take it to the Exec Committee to see if something should and could be done about what the two teams did.

It was my understanding the whole arguement the two teams have is that what they did was not warned against doing. However after the fact Goodell wants to some how twist the warning to fit what the two teams did do. This is why I think we will win along with the fact the league did not have issue's with the contracts when they had the opportunity to. Had the league done what ever they do.... deny, veto, decline, whatever and sent the contracts back to the two teams and told them "per our agreement you can't do this" there would be no need for punishment. Instead they let the contracts happen, then get tied all up in the new CBA talks, and what ... 2 yrs later decide ... oh we don't like what you did here so ... we want to punish you. Thats wrong. Why the delay? They were not in constant talks with the NFLPA. The owners held meetings outside the CBA meetings. They could at any time have decided on a punishment.

I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911117].
I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.[/quote]

Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.

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

And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911233]And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.[/quote]

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

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

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;911239]The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"[/quote]

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911108]In my opinion, the Skins played with fire and got burned. Where I have a problem is with the punishment. It was two years late, it came out of nowhere, it was laid down right before free agency, it appears to be based on other owners either whining or ganging up, there's been no chance for the owners involved to be heard, it's a bad use of any political capital the League ever had with the NFLPA, and it's generally been handled poorly.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the Commissioner wasn't going to act, but a bunch of other owners whined so much he had to. That's why he didn't disapprove the contracts within the 10-day window, that's why he let Mara (an owner) take front and center with it until he started saying dumb things, and that's why it came down at the last minute - right before free agency.

The whole process looks like something done by a committee of angry people trying to work something out, rather than by a sigle strong, rational, savvy leader. Whatever you think of him, Goodell has been strong, rational, serious, and has stayed clearly within his authority on other punishments besides this one.[/quote]

I think the league had to wait for any punishment to make sure that it didn't come back and bite them. Had the league not approved the re-structured contracts when they happened, it could have given the Players ammunition on their suit against the league.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911232]Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.[/quote]

I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.

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

[quote=FRPLG;911447]I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.[/quote]

I know of one arguement he makes and that is there is no proof that there was an agreement, but in all actuality the warning is kinda the agreement.

I've heard him say the league does not approve contracts... thats the other arguement. My issue is if they don't approve, agree to, or have any say in them then there is no technical reason to send the contracts to the league. Teams have to send all contracts to the league for some sort of OK in order to move foreward. The league could have easily "not agreed", "denied", "declined", "requested teams fix", or just tell the teams "according to our agreement CAP or not, CBA whatever you can't make this contract.... restructure it". They didn't. Why? .....

because as we all have learned had they done that the NFLPA would have had ammunition for their collusion case against the owners. I keep saying the league can't have it two ways. Allow the contracts so they don't get into trouble for colluding, then 2 yrs later punish the two teams for failing to collude with them. Thats BS.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911232][B]Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact?[/B] Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).

According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.

Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.[/quote]

We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.

Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?

If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911487]We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.

Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?

If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.[/quote]

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair [U]by the book[/U]. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911506]The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair [U]by the book[/U]. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.[/quote]

We need some die hard Cowpukes or Redskins senator to raise a stink about this.

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

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

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

[quote=Monkeydad;911515]Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins![/quote]

:rofl:

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911506]The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair [U]by the book[/U]. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.[/quote]

Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911324]Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that [B]an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion[/B]. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.[/quote]

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the [I]current[/I] CBA and the arbiter's authority.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911527]I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

[B]Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the [I]current[/I] CBA and the arbiter's authority[/B].[/quote]

It shouldn't. No one not even the courts can apply a punishment for something that was not in effect at the time. The new CBA was not in effect at the time. The Arbitrator should only be able to look at the old CBA and CAP and see if the two teams broke any rule or law that was in place at the time. Since there was no CAP then all he has is the old CBA and or whatever "warnings" that were given. and in regards to the warnings was the warning right to enforce by the league or was it an illegal act?

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

[quote=SBXVII;911525][B]Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules?[/B] My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.[/quote]

Very simply, because the penalty being imposed is being imposed pursuant to the current CBA. Sure, it is being done for actions that were taken during the prior CBA [I]but[/I], but, as it affects the current and future dealings between the NFLPA and the NFL, the procedural basis for imposing the penalty is the agreement governing those current and future dealings. [I]i.e.[/I] the current CBA.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911324]Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.[/quote]

you dont seem to understand that you are not the authority on the matter. ive read your posts and simply dont agree with your interpretation of the facts available, as have alot of others here.

yes, you might have explained your OPINION on matter a number of times, its still just your optinion. stating it as some sort of fact is ridiculous.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911525]Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.[/quote]
It really goes to the one point none of us knows, and that is what specifically did the Skins/Cowboys appeal to the arbitrator. But we will know more, once the arbitrator approves or denies the league's motion for dismissal. IF the arbitrator is looking solely at the procedures used to enact the salary cap punishment, then he most likely will dismiss based on the league's motion.

If it goes to a full hearing, I am sure the two teams will try to bring all those arguments up, but again, the arbitrator will have the say as to how far he thinks his jurisdiction goes. I don't think it's clear cut that the two teams will be able to bring up all the issues from the 2006 CBA and 2010 uncapped year, because the arbitrator could easily declare those issues outside the scope of his inquiry.

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

Perhaps my arguement is exactly what the two teams are trying to bring up procedurally. That any punishments (if any are warranted) should be applied by using the old CBA vs. the new CBA which was not in effect.

I think some people here are looking past whether the Arbitrator will even look at if the two teams did anything wrong and will simply look at whether the punishment fits the crime per the new CBA. I'm still at the beginning point that the Arbitrator will be looking at whether the two teams should have even been punished at all based off the CBA and CAP at the time and if he determines the "warning" was an illegal act by the league then hopefully if he see's it that way the punishment will be dropped.