Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut
The way I understand it...30 teams agreed to this punishment...so it is 30 vs 2.
The NFL is more of a club than a business.
|
The NFL is a business partnership. A joint venture of several distinct business entities. They are not a "club", they are a money making organization made up of several distinct business entities with rights and duties to the other entities in the venture.
If several of the entities violate the rules of the organization and cause damages to other entities (in this case, imposing a penalty for
legally restructuring contracts (both in that they violated no govt. imposed restrictions and did not violate the rules of the joint venture)), each entity has the right to sue each other and the joint venture itself for the damages caused to their distinct business entity - just like two buisness partners in a legal partnership can sue each other or over there rights within partnership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut
How can the skins sue?....who are they suing?...the NFL?....they are the nfl?
The 32 owners are the NFL and the commissioner is paid by the owners.
How can you sue yourself?, the players association also agreed to approve it.
|
Each owner can sue each other or they can sue the joint venture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut
This is all legit the way the NFL/players association works.
|
You and I have very different understandings of the word "legit". It may be "business as usual", but that does not make it "legit".
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut
Collusion is a different call...but you'd have to argue that was done to keep pay down..can't be argued this year since they kept the cap total the same...but could be argued during the non cap year...but think about it, is it really worth it?
|
I think we sort of agree here. Certainly, the NFL took steps to ratify their action after the fact:
"Hey, NFLPA, look, we had this agreement to violate the CBA while negotiations were taking place. However, since you dropped all allegations of "collusion" as part of the final settlement on the CBA, you can't sue us for it now. Sorry about that - our bad. .... Oh by the way, a couple of teams didn't want to participate in the collusion, so we are going to hammer them on the salary cap. If you don't agree with that, well we will just have to lower the cap for everyone
or you can sign off on the deal and we will be able to keep the cap up for all the other teams. So ... whatcha gonna do?"
The subsequent acts of ratification don't change the fact that, at the time of uncapped year, several owners secretly agreed
not to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the uncapped year and subsequently decided to selectively punish two of them that did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut
Sure the Skins got screwed..but they are going to pay the cap hit they normally would have...the issue I have is a couple others got away with it on a smaller scale....and if you pursue a lawsuit, you will make enemies of those you depend on.
You really dont want the NFL a perpetual enemy of the Skins...think of penalties, fines, scheduling, supplemental draft picks, etc
|
In general, I agree with you on this. Do you really want to toss a grenade into the room you're standing? Just b/c you can sue, doesn't mean you should. I expect that there will be some backroom negotiations and the penalty will be mediated b/c, IMHO, the NFL doesn't have a leg to stand on other than the informal "you still are stuck with us and we can make life difficult" tack. From a legal standpoint, I haven't seen one defense raised by the NFL that had any validity - Most of them barely pass the "does it smell bad" test.