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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911536]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.[/quote]

Agree 100%. Your right we do not know what is in the appeal. If it's just the punishment your probably right. I'd hope the Skins and Boys put everything in it...ie; that there was no CAP and should not be punished, that the warning was illegal, that the NFLPA was black mailed or bribed into accepting the agreed punishment, and the punishment itself. Then let the Arbitrator decide what he can hear or not.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911530]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?[/quote]

edit: deleted thought, as it was quite redundant.

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

To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911530]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?[/quote]

You misunderstand me. By agreeing to change [I]this year's[/I] and [I]next year's[/I] salary cap, the NFLPA and NFL are making changes and operating under the procedures applicable to the current CBA. You, me and the whole world knows that the reason the NFL proposed the restructuring of this year's and next year's salaray cap is b/c of the actions taken under the prior 2006 CBA. Regardless of the motivation for imposing the modification to the CBA, the only question (I believe) before the arbiter is: (1) Under the current CBA, whether or not the NFL and NFLPA could agree to such a modification for the current and following year; and (2) if permissible, was the modification done in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing (currrent) CBA. Thus, the purpose [I]behind[/I] the modification is most likely irrelevant to either (1) or (2).

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911550]You misunderstand me. By agreeing to change [I]this year's[/I] and [I]next year's[/I] salary cap, the NFLPA and NFL are making changes and operating under the procedures applicable to the current CBA. You, me and the whole world knows that the reason the NFL proposed the restructuring of this year's and next year's salaray cap is b/c of the actions taken under the prior 2006 CBA. Regardless of the motivation for imposing the modification to the CBA, the only question (I believe) before the arbiter is: (1) Under the current CBA, whether or not the NFL and NFLPA could agree to such a modification for the current and following year; and (2) if permissible, was the modification done in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing (currrent) CBA. Thus, the purpose [I]behind[/I] the modification is most likely irrelevant to either (1) or (2).[/quote]
I agree with all this, so here is my question to you:

Let's assume that your statement lines up fairly accurately with the grievance the 2 teams filed. Could, then, the arbitrator while looking at #1, decide that he has the right to look at the reason for the modification, which would in turn open up the whole 2006 CBA issue.

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

[quote=Daseal;911546]To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.[/quote]

The players had their chance. They turned down a decent deal only to take a worse deal because they blinked. In the end the issues pertaining to Goodell's power could have been mitigated had D. Smith not been such an awful leader. Instead they took less money and allowed Goodell's authority to maintain. How the union got out of this whole thing and didn't at least get appeals handled differently is baffling to me. Borders on negligence on the part of union leadership.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911554]I agree with all this, so here is my question to you:

Let's assume that your statement lines up fairly accurately with the grievance the 2 teams filed. Could, then, the arbitrator while looking at #1, decide that he has the right to look at the reason for the modification, which would in turn open up the whole 2006 CBA issue.[/quote]

I think it would be legally inappropriate for him to do so which could render any decision he makes unenforceable.

We won't do so in any case. There are too many really good lawyers involved for the arbitration hearing to turn into exposition on the collusive efforts of the league and its owners.

Those arguments are destined to be beaten to death in front of a judge.

I think the Skins and Boys lose this round and then have to decide whether to drop a proverbial grenade in the toilet. My guess, I think both owners are crazy enough to start a war.

Does anyone for a second think either DS or JJ aren't acutely aware that their cash is vitally important to many teams? At some point I have to believe they'll finally decide they're tired of being one of the very few teams that prop the league up and start a war to reshape how everything works. The other owners poking them with sticks only makes that all the more likely. Hence why I continued to be baffled at why this is the fight the other owners decided to pick. Very short-sighted and vindictive. Not two things that should ever be associated with business decisions.

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

[quote=FRPLG;911565][B]I think it would be legally inappropriate for him to do so which could render any decision he makes unenforceable.
[/B]
We won't do so in any case. There are too many really good lawyers involved for the arbitration hearing to turn into exposition on the collusive efforts of the league and its owners.

Those arguments are destined to be beaten to death in front of a judge.

I think the Skins and Boys lose this round and then have to decide whether to drop a proverbial grenade in the toilet. My guess, I think both owners are crazy enough to start a war.

Does anyone for a second think either DS or JJ aren't acutely aware that their cash is vitally important to many teams? At some point I have to believe they'll finally decide they're tired of being one of the very few teams that prop the league up and start a war to reshape how everything works. The other owners poking them with sticks only makes that all the more likely. Hence why I continued to be baffled at why this is the fight the other owners decided to pick. Very short-sighted and vindictive. Not two things that should ever be associated with business decisions.[/quote]

Why do you think it would be "legally inappropriate"? I think, and am pretty sure, that if an arbitrator feels the need to open avenues of inquiry while trying to rule both parties cede that to him when they agree to the arbitration.

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

Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.

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]

You could make that argument if the 2006 CBA didn't have multiple clauses intended to keep clubs from shifting too much cap hit into a potential uncapped year. The League and the NFLPA foresaw an uncapped year, what it meant, and how it should be handled. There were clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from earlier years into an uncapped year and clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from a future year into the final uncapped year.

They didn't foresee people writing in void clauses with massive payback amounts that would never be exercised, just so they could call the voidable years "under player control".

It's not collusion if the NFLPA clearly agreed to the principle.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911483]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.[/quote]

The warning is evidence of an agreement - but what they agreed to do with that warning is not collusion.

As for not rejecting the contracts at the time, there are plenty of reasons why the Commissioner did it the way he did it. I agree that, in the end, the Skins were screwed by the delay.

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]

For the 87th time, the warning was not "not to overspend"!

It was "not to unfairly shift cap hit into the uncapped year".

If you don't see the difference, let's start ignoring each other's posts.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911600]You could make that argument if the 2006 CBA didn't have multiple clauses intended to keep clubs from shifting too much cap hit into a potential uncapped year. The League and the NFLPA foresaw an uncapped year, what it meant, and how it should be handled. [B]There were clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from earlier years into an uncapped year and clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from a future year into the final uncapped year.[/B]
They didn't foresee people writing in void clauses with massive payback amounts that would never be exercised, just so they could call the voidable years "under player control".

It's not collusion if the NFLPA clearly agreed to the principle.[/quote]

Went back and looked through about 5-8 pages and didn't see where you highlighted the clauses you reference and I have some recollection that you did so. Can you either repost or just point me to them? I think you are probably right but there is also the legal principle that if you list some things but not others than the unlisted are excluded from the list - it's not quite that cut and dry but it may be applicable. As you say, however, this is an agreement between the players and the owners so the question is how is that adjudged in a dispute between a club in the NFL.

Which reminds of another basis for which the NFL could argue for the dismissal - simply that, as they are not parties, individually, to the CBA, the Skins and Cowboys have no standing to dispute the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.

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

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911531]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.[/quote]

Neither CBA deals with the relationship between the League and Clubs and any penalties the League may impose on the Clubs at all.

Because they wanted to touch the salary cap, and because the CBA deals with the salary cap, they had to agree with the NFLPA to modify the CBA to include the new penalties.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911576]Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.[/quote]

The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.

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

Yes, I agree and that was my point SB but my words were poorly chosen, the penalty is not being imposed [I]pursuant[/I] to the CBA. Rather, in order to effectuate it's desired penalty, the NFL needed the NFLPA to agree to a modification of the governing CBA.

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

[quote=That Guy;911611]the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.[/quote]

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911610]Went back and looked through about 5-8 pages and didn't see where you highlighted the clauses you reference and I have some recollection that you did so. Can you either repost or just point me to them? I think you are probably right but there is also the legal principle that if you list some things but not others than the unlisted are excluded from the list - it's not quite that cut and dry but it may be applicable. As you say, however, this is an agreement between the players and the owners so the question is how is that adjudged in a dispute between a club in the NFL.

Which reminds of another basis for which the NFL could argue for the dismissal - simply that, as they are not parties, individually, to the CBA, the Skins and Cowboys have no standing to dispute the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.[/quote]

The PDF copy I found is searchable, and searching "uncapped year" will take you to the relevant sections. Here's an example:

[I]Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior
to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding
any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section
7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the
contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player
Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.[/I]

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

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

Also, it's my understanding the warning was for teams going out and spending tons of money on players. The warning was not specific to what the two teams did which was restructure current contracts and pushing the CAP hits to one year. That's where we differ Hoop. You keep saying all the teams were specifically warned and I'm saying they were but not specific to what the two teams did. They found a loop hole, one in which was not warned about, one in which they knew if the league denied the contracts would have given the NFLPA proof of collusion, which forced the league to agree or over look the contracts at the time but now with the understanding that the NFLPA could not file suit over old issues felt comfortable enough to punish the two teams.

Basically the league didn't like the loop hole, punished, and came up wih a cock-eyed look at the warning with saying the two teams in the long run are making it difficult for other teams to keep their players.... An unfair advantage which required a punishment.

You know the league doesn't have a problem with teams signing players to large contracts, say 100mill dollar contracts which also drives up the costs on player positions and causing unfair advantages as well.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911621]The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.[/quote]

But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?

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

[quote=SBXVII;911649]I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But [B]I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA.[/B] The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.[/quote]

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

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

[quote=HoopheadVII;911623]The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.[/quote]

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911651]But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?[/quote]

If that is the question put to this arbiter - and the only question - the arbiter would dismiss the matter as it is not within the jurisdiction granted him under the [I]current[/I] CBA.

He may very well issue a decision saying that the Skins/Cowboys actions were not in violation of the 2006 CBA [I]but [/I]that the modifications made to the 2012 and 2013 salary cap are both permitted under the current/governing CBA and were properly imposed under the procedures set forth in that CBA.

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

I think we can all agree the league is not going reverse its ruling here and give clemency. We're stuck w/ the cap penalty...lame.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911656]The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.[/quote]

Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;911625]The PDF copy I found is searchable, and searching "uncapped year" will take you to the relevant sections. Here's an example:

[I]Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior
to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding
any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section
7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the
contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player
Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.[/I][/QUOTE]

You keep repeating this point that there were rules in place that showed NFL and NFLPA agreement on this, but I think you are way way off base in this part. The mere fact of a bulleted list does not show broad agreement on a principle, instead it shows specific negotiated agreements probably worked out through a lot of horse trading. If both parties wantes to show general agreement there are two simple ways, probably more, that they could have done that. One would be to write a general policy statement that said something to the effect of " no contract shall be enacted in the an uncapped league year that is determined to violate a general competitve balance" and then use the list as specific examples, or to add an elastic clause at the end of the list that said "and other contract devices as the commissioner may determine" or something along those lines. The fact that there is a well defined and specific list shows that there were specific valid tools that were invalid only during a period when the league faced an uncapped year. It is convoluted at best to assert after the fact that all such contract devices were subject to unwritten and precocious rules.

Your best points come when you expound on the procedural points and the arbitrator's role. If the league is ever forced to present your theory of implied agreement I imagine the NFLPA would be up in arms denying to their very core.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911658]If that is the question put to this arbiter - and the only question - the arbiter would dismiss the matter as it is not within the jurisdiction granted him under the [I]current[/I] CBA.

He may very well issue a decision saying that the Skins/Cowboys actions were not in violation of the 2006 CBA [I]but [/I]that the modifications made to the 2012 and 2013 salary cap are both permitted under the current/governing CBA and were properly imposed under the procedures set forth in that CBA.[/quote]

Why would, why do people think, and why on earth would it be allowed for the league to apply the current CBA rules to an issue that occurred under the old CBA?

I'm sorry this is where I see wrong doing also. If it was not in the old CBA shame on you change the rules so it doesn't happen again. You can't make a new CBA with a rule for this issue then go back to something that occurred 2yrs ago and apply a current rule/punishment to an issue that didn't occurr under it. IF and I'm saying IF this is what occurred it really leaves the league looking more idiotic then I thought it was before.

IF this is the case then DS definitely needs to take this to the courts.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911660]Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.[/quote]

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911669]Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.[/quote]

Which is why I believe the Arbitrator has been asked to step in. I also somewhat understand what Hoop is saying about the Arbiture only having a specific job between owners and players but if what the Redskins and Cowboys was unique and a punishment applied then perhaps this would be something new and unique for the Arbiture to oversee as well owner vs owner. I can see the Arbiture stepping up and saying this has never happened before but this will be my duties also.

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

SB, I think we're sorta getting what your are saying. The problem is that all parties involved here are subject to rules. Some outlined in NFL Bylaws, some in the relevant CBAs. The arbitrator has specific authority granted by the current CBA. This same person was also the arbitrator granted specific authorities under the old CBA but that is now irellevant. He cannot expand his authority without the consent of the parties involved so he cannot under any legally theoretical notion rule as to whether what we did was a violation unless the current CBA allows for him to handle such a question. He can rule as to whether what has been done now, the punishment, was allowable under the current CBA. That's it.

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

[quote=FRPLG;911759]SB, I think we're sorta getting what your are saying. The problem is that all parties involved here are subject to rules. Some outlined in NFL Bylaws, some in the relevant CBAs. The arbitrator has specific authority granted by the current CBA. This same person was also the arbitrator granted specific authorities under the old CBA but that is now irellevant. He cannot expand his authority without the consent of the parties involved so he cannot under any legally theoretical notion rule as to whether what we did was a violation unless the current CBA allows for him to handle such a question. He can rule as to whether what has been done now, the punishment, was allowable under the current CBA. That's it.[/quote]

Understood. But one would think if this was a violation of the "old CBA" then the punishment should have come from whatever is permitted by the Commish or Exec Committe at that time. Even if they decided to go back and punish for something 2 yrs ago it should still fall under whatever CBA was in place at the time. If the rules were similar and the same people could duel out the same punishments then fine. No matter who the Arbitrator is should be able to look at the issue considering the CBA that was in place at the time. Hopefully if this is the case and the Arbitrator see's there was no actual rule or law or whatever in place to cover said infraction can he deem the punishment wrong or innapropriate?

If the question is do they have the right to punish under the new CBA? maybe maybe not. However they (according to Hoop) met with the NFLPA to make an addendum to the current CBA which would allow a punishment for said action then went out and punished for it. This is another aspect I think is innapropriate. The Commish/and Exec Committee should have looked at what was done and decided if the two teams violated any rule/law under the CBA that was in place at the time and if they did then what was the standard punishment for that type of infraction. Where I think the Arbitrator comes in is the Commish/Exec Committee sat down and thought yea this is wrong somehow, then looked at the CBA that was in place at the time and couldn't find a rule against it and couldn't find a punishment against so they use the current CBA (so it sounds) for an old infraction. This is where I'm hoping the Arbitrator steps in and says you can't do that. This new CBA was not in place at the time and the rule was not in place at the time so no punishment is warranted and the CAP space returned.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911657]And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.[/quote]

Yes, in principle, and in most walks of life.

However, this is a small private club of very competitive men that have decided they need to have a strong Commissioner with broad powers to keep the 32 of them rowing in the same direction.

They gave this Commissioner specific powers to punish Clubs for what he - in his sole discretion - believes is detrimental to the League and adversely affects competitive balance.

Right or wrong, whether he uses it fairly or unfairly, the 32 owners have given specific power to the Commissioner to impose certain penalties in that situation. He doesn't have to prove it to anyone - that's what "in his sole discretion" means.

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.

The only reason the Skins have arbitration as a recourse at all is that he tried to impose a different - lighter and probably more relevant - penalty than what he is authorised to impose.

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;911667]You keep repeating this point that there were rules in place that showed NFL and NFLPA agreement on this, but I think you are way way off base in this part. The mere fact of a bulleted list does not show broad agreement on a principle, instead it shows specific negotiated agreements probably worked out through a lot of horse trading. If both parties wantes to show general agreement there are two simple ways, probably more, that they could have done that. One would be to write a general policy statement that said something to the effect of " no contract shall be enacted in the an uncapped league year that is determined to violate a general competitve balance" and then use the list as specific examples, or to add an elastic clause at the end of the list that said "and other contract devices as the commissioner may determine" or something along those lines. The fact that there is a well defined and specific list shows that there were specific valid tools that were invalid only during a period when the league faced an uncapped year. It is convoluted at best to assert after the fact that all such contract devices were subject to unwritten and precocious rules.

Your best points come when you expound on the procedural points and the arbitrator's role. If the league is ever forced to present your theory of implied agreement I imagine the NFLPA would be up in arms denying to their very core.[/quote]

That's a fair argument. However, I'm not making the argument that the NFLMC and NFLPA agreed on how to handle that exact situation.

I'm only presenting it as evidence that the NFLPA wasn't opposed to the principle of restricting how much salary cap hit could or couldn't be dumped into an uncapped year.

The original argument was that keeping teams from dumping cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes illegal collusion. I'm only saying that it's probably not collusion if the NFLPA agreed to multiple rules that seem to intend to accomplish the same thing.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;911669]Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.[/quote]

The problem is that the League punishing Clubs doesn't violate any CBA, old or new.

If the players disagreed with the punishment, they would have an obviously strong case to say the NFL can't unilaterally modify the salary cap.

As for timing, surely someone could sue the NFL for actions that violated a (now-expired) agreement that existed at the time.

As for the CBA, both parties agreed in the 2011 version not to sue each other or assist suits that fall under the previous CBA (emphasis added):

[I]Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:
(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding ([B]including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement[/B]) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues ("TR") or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.

(b) The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFLPA or any of its members, or agents acting on its behalf, or any member of its bargaining unit, with respect to conduct occurring prior to
the execution of this Agreement.[/I]

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

[quote=SBXVII;911675]Which is why I believe the Arbitrator has been asked to step in. I also somewhat understand what Hoop is saying about the Arbiture only having a specific job between owners and players but if what the Redskins and Cowboys was unique and a punishment applied then perhaps this would be something new and unique for the Arbiture to oversee as well owner vs owner. I can see the Arbiture stepping up and saying this has never happened before but this will be my duties also.[/quote]

The arbitrator can't unilaterally decide to expand his own authority than the CBA gives him. While he's at it, maybe he could mandate that the Cowboys play in pink uniforms.

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

[quote=SBXVII;911766]Understood. But one would think if this was a violation of the "old CBA" then the punishment should have come from whatever is permitted by the Commish or Exec Committe at that time. Even if they decided to go back and punish for something 2 yrs ago it should still fall under whatever CBA was in place at the time. If the rules were similar and the same people could duel out the same punishments then fine. No matter who the Arbitrator is should be able to look at the issue considering the CBA that was in place at the time. Hopefully if this is the case and the Arbitrator see's there was no actual rule or law or whatever in place to cover said infraction can he deem the punishment wrong or innapropriate?

If the question is do they have the right to punish under the new CBA? maybe maybe not. However they (according to Hoop) met with the NFLPA to make an addendum to the current CBA which would allow a punishment for said action then went out and punished for it. This is another aspect I think is innapropriate. The Commish/and Exec Committee should have looked at what was done and decided if the two teams violated any rule/law under the CBA that was in place at the time and if they did then what was the standard punishment for that type of infraction. Where I think the Arbitrator comes in is the Commish/Exec Committee sat down and thought yea this is wrong somehow, then looked at the CBA that was in place at the time and couldn't find a rule against it and couldn't find a punishment against so they use the current CBA (so it sounds) for an old infraction. This is where I'm hoping the Arbitrator steps in and says you can't do that. This new CBA was not in place at the time and the rule was not in place at the time so no punishment is warranted and the CAP space returned.[/quote]

The problem is the arbitrator doesn't have the power to do that. If the Skins want someone to do that, they would have to sue the League in civil court.

If the Commissioner had taken away draft picks, the matter could probably end up in criminal court - for inciting riots over the loss of RGIII.

By the way, HAPPY RGIII DAY EVERYBODY!! Today's the day.

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

Just a note: on page 287 of the 2011 CBA there is this paragraph
[QUOTE]20. WAIVER AND RELEASE. Player waives and releases: (i) any claims relating to the 2011 lockout; (ii) any antitrust claims relating to the Draft, restrictions on free agency, franchise player designations, transition player designations, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, or any other term or condition of employment relating to conduct engaged in prior to the date of this Agreement; and (iii) any claims relating to conduct engaged in pursuant to the express terms of any collective bargaining agreement during the term of any such agreement. This waiver and release also extends to any conduct engaged in pursuant to the express terms of the Stipulation and Settle-ment Agreement in White. [B]This waiver and release does not waive any rights player may have to commence a grievance under the 2006 CBA[/B] or to commence a grievance or other arbitration under the 2011 CBA.[/QUOTE]

It is out of context from a club against league grievance like the salary cap issue, but I only did a quick word search, not a reading of the whole bloody thing. My point (and to SBXVII's contention) is that it's highly unlikely that clubs would just throw out all ability to file grievances, or resolve disputes from the 2006 CBA, and instead wrote some language to allow a team to seek some form of mediation in case a said dispute did arise.

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

Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:

[QUOTE=2011 CBA]ARTICLE 14 ENFORCEMENT OF THE SALARY CAP AND ROOKIE COMPENSATION POOL
Section 1. [...]
Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which in-cludes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. [B]However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.[/B]
Section 3. System Arbitrator Proceeding: Any individual player or the NFLPA acting on that player’s or any number of players’ behalf, the NFL, and any Club may bring a proceeding before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Article 7, Article 12, Article 13 or Article 14, Section 2 of this Agreement. Issues of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding. Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=2006 CBA same paragraph]Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or
player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other
transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected
by (a) the provisions of this Agreement with respect to Total Revenues,
Salary Cap, Entering Player Pool, and Minimum Team Salary, and (b) any
other term and provision of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted
by this Agreement [B]shall not be considered to be a violation of this
provision.[/B][/QUOTE]
I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

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

I might argue if I were the NFL that the what we call "punishments" are no such thing. They are a re-apportioning of unfairly gained cap space.

I don't agree with that load but I am guessing the NFL will present the "adjustments" as such.