Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Another good write up;

salary cap penalty | Tumblr





A very well written article. and I agree with her sentiment on paragraph 3, something so important as making an addendum or something that would be as important as to punish someone should have been taken to an owners meeting for a vote on whether the new made up rule should be added to the new CBA or not. Not simply behind the curtains agreements and a punishment issued.

Her arguments don't hold up. She is laboring under the assumption that the two teams were punished for spending too much cash in the uncapped year - which is not what the league has said they punished the teams for.

It's also pretty clear she hasn't read the CBA.

FWIW, I believe the 29-2-1 vote at the owners meeting was whether to ratify the side letter modification to the CBA to include the penalties.

[skinsguy]

I will be so glad when this mess is over with. I'm tired of the arguing.

[SBXVII]

A comment from the "Sports Law Blog"

Thomas Grove said...
A clause in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws allows the Commissioner to take away draft picks and/or fine a team whenever he deems a competitive aspect of the game has been violated "at any time". Clause in conjunction with that allows Commissioner to refer the matter to the NFL Management Committee to impose any such other recommendations it deems appropriate. A final clause allows the Commissioner to disapprove of contracts within 10 days after such contracts are filed with the Commissioner.

Redskins and Cowboys will argue that by not disapproving the contracts within 10 days means the NFL accepted them, and they cannot now retroactively go back and punish them. NFL will argue that "at any time" language means they can go back and punish. The problem I see with NFL's argument is that the clause that the Commissioner can disapprove of contracts is directly on point in this situation.

Further, why are only the Redskins and Cowboys punished when other teams gained the same competitive advantage by (1) front-loading contracts (Julius Peppers, Kyle Vanden Bosch) and (2) going under the salary floor (8 teams did so in 2010). The teams that went under the floor also had the most cap room in 2012 and were able to sign the best players (Vincent Jackson, Carl Nicks for the Bucs, Mario Williams for the Bills, Laurent Robinson for the Jags). Those teams sacrificed 2010 to save money and rid themselves of bad contracts to gain cap space in future years, like 2012.

The only logical explanation for why the NFL did this is that the Redskins and Cowboys grossly outspent every other team in 2010, and that made certain NFL owners look bad in the CBA negotiations for wanting to lower player salaries.

He makes a arguement.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Her arguments don't hold up. She is laboring under the assumption that the two teams were punished for spending too much cash in the uncapped year - which is not what the league has said they punished the teams for.

It's also pretty clear she hasn't read the CBA.

FWIW, I believe the 29-2-1 vote at the owners meeting was whether to ratify the side letter modification to the CBA to include the penalties.

Although the vote is what it was for mine and several others here I think feel that procedure is or was screwed up and the punishment should have been shelved until after that meeting. I don't have a problem with them deciding to come up with a new policy, I don't have a problem with them taking it to an owners meeting to be voted on and approved, and then the punishment given. My complaint is the order in which they handled their business and the fact the owners would have punished for something that happened prior to the policy, prior to the vote, and prior to approval of said punishment.

That's not how business works, not how the law works. How about now they go back and punish all the teams that engaged in a bounty program since the inception of the league?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I will be so glad when this mess is over with. I'm tired of the arguing.

I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.

i agree.. i keep thinking there's an update, but no... it's just SB and hop again.

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i agree.. i keep thinking there's an update, but no... it's just SB and hop again.

Same here! I am just waiting for the arbitrator to award us two number ones and a number 2 for all our troubles. Plus give us our cap money back.

[T.O.Killa]

The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post

Here is the update we are all looking for.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post

Here is the update we are all looking for.

Maske used a lot of words to basically tell us there's a hearing and no one knows how it will go.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.

I 100% am the same way. I'll agree with other we just don't agree. Our society is based off the "rule of law". Either society/gov is making a law or someone gets into trouble and is brought before a judge or arbitrator to have the issue heard and sometimes based off the issue's in the case the law changes, rules get changed, policy gets changed, and proceedure gets changed.

Here's how I'm looking at it; Goodell tells the teams don't over turn the apple cart. If you turn over the apple cart your going to be severely punished. The Skins and Boys go to the apple cart and pull several apples from the cart and half the apples in the cart spill out onto the ground. Now Goodell says look we warned you. Now your getting punished for over turning the apple cart. When in reality the apple cart was not turned over. So then Goodell says "look we warned you about apples spill out onto the ground". But the two teams are argueing that they in fact didn't turn over the apple cart. Was the out come basically the same? yea I guess one can say the two teams gained a competative edge slightly. I say slightly cause most of those teams spend millions anyway so a few more is no big deal. It's not like all the team only spend 1 mill and the Skins went out and captured 36 mill. Most of the bad teams had 30 something mill or close to it that they never spend anyway. Had they spent their CAP space then there would be no worry about competative edge.

I just posted an article in which the person points out how the teams who underspent gave themselves a competative edge for 2012 to pick up high priced free agents. The Bills did it with the DL guy, Tampa did it with the WR, etc. etc.

But this whole case has flaws.

1- there never should have been an agreement with the owners(collusion)

2- you can't punish for an unwritten rule. you can hope everyone stays to the agreement but if they don't tuff luck. there was a reason the uncapped year was in place and all the owners agreed to it back in the 90's which was to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to it becoming an uncapped year. they didn't. both sides wanted the uncapped year. doesn't matter the reason there was no CAP high or low.

3- the league never should have approved the contracts.

4- the league never should have waited 2yrs to punish the teams.

5- the type and amount of punishment should have been taken to an owners meeting first in order for all the owners to vote on and agree on.

6- the punishment should never have be for past (2yrs) issue's, it should only have been used on any team who committed the offense from the time the new rule or punishment or policy was put into place.

So if the Arbitrator doesn't have authority as of right now as some would have you believe then maybe after he see's the information he will make precedence and rule on it anyway and another new rule or policy will be added to what the Arbitrator's job is to do. If not then I hope the two teams file in a court of law, make all the other owners worry about loosing their special media rights and possibly being forced to fall under normal business laws and hopefully prior to court they agree to give back all or the majority of the CAP space as a settlement.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post

Here is the update we are all looking for.

Thank you , nice updat. But it only hits on what the leagues going to argue. I guess as in any case if there is a request to have the case dropped you have to hear that first prior to hearing any facts about the case. I'd guess the league is going to use up most of the time argueing that it can't be argued. That he has no authority in hearing the case. But one would think if part of the Skins arguement is about proceedure then he should be able to hear it. If its in regards to the reason for the uncapped year and now being punished for not violating the spirit of the uncapped year then he should be able to hear it. Perhaps the fact the league approved the contracts.

The problem is we don't know what the actual arguement the two teams are bringing to the table.

[CRedskinsRule]

Memory Lane:

During the CBA negotiations and lawsuits, I remember the NFL telling the lower court judge that she didn't have authority to hear the case and how much that ruffled her feathers. At the time, I thought it was quite funny to hear her responses, but ultimately the expedited appellate court found substance in the NFL's claims. We are basically at that same point here. If Burbank says he has authority, then the NFL will appeal it (which is allowed for in the CBA) and the process will continue. Unfortunately, I doubt any resolution to this will be accomplished before the end of this league year, especially since there is no way either side can establish a basis for expedited hearings.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I feel like a moth to a flame in that I open this thread every single time it's new/unread but in the end it's just a rehash.

I love good discussions, but this one is more like two boxers throwing the same jabs round after round with neither one landing a knockout punch.

well said. im very interested in this topic, but everything that could possibly be said about it has been said atleast 10 times. i just want a decision to be reached one way or another so we can move forward.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

The Insider - Your daily source for news and commentary on the Washington Redskins, by Mike Jones. - The Washington Post

Here is the update we are all looking for.

Awesome! The penalty that was initiated by the Giants owner against the Redskins and Cowboys will have a hearing to review it in Philadelphia!

Nothing to worry about!

[CrustyRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Awesome! The penalty that was initiated by the Giants owner against the Redskins and Cowboys will have a hearing to review it in Philadelphia!

Nothing to worry about!

lol wtf?? This is worse than King George "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" !!!!!!!!!!