NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[12thMan]

My uninformed legal gut tells me the Redskins may be able to tie this up in an appeals court -- at least until after season. I would expect paperwork to filed with the quickness.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

My uninformed legal gut tells me the Redskins may be able to tie this up in an appeals court -- at least until after season. I would expect paperwork to filed with the quickness.

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

That is true. A lawsuit would be unlikely anyway, given that the owners are their own "old boys club," however dysfunctional.

Owners don't sue the NFL unless their name is Al Davis.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They're not being accused of violating US federal or state law though, so a lawsuit against the National Football League by the Washington Redskins is highly dubious.

If they violated any rule, it was a rule in the old CBA.

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.


there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

so contracts between two non federal entities aren't binding? if the CBA says the year is uncapped, then guess what? you can't punish people for treating that year as uncapped unless you had documentation proven that it really wasn't... which, by the way, would incriminate the league for collusion.


there's a difference between criminal, civil, and law and contract law, and agreements are binding regardless of state involvement. obviously not a lawyer, but I don't think it'd be dubious at all.

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

the chris paul trade wasn't rejected after he had already been on the team for 2 years. this is penalizing them for something the nfl approved of at the time (the contracts), and the NFL is also being very selective on the teams (2 of MANY) it's choosing to hit... I still find it hard to prove they violated contract terms that didn't actually exist.

maybe we should get 30 teams together to say that the giants no longer exist. I'm sure they wouldn't fight that...

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

This at least seems to be the opening gambit. Either the league has the power to do this or it does not. If it does, then it has to produce the documents and follow the correct procedures. And when that happens, it's going to look pretty bad, or so it seems. So maybe the league backs down. But man, then they look like putzes. Still, they haven't endorsed the numbers or even said the skins are implicated. So maybe they can blame it on a false media leak!

Whatever. This is going to be interesting.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

This at least seems to be the opening gambit. Either the league has the power to do this or it does not. If it does, then it has to produce the documents and follow the correct procedures. And when that happens, it's going to look pretty bad, or so it seems. So maybe the league backs down. But man, then they look like putzes. Still, they haven't endorsed the numbers or even said the skins are implicated. So maybe they can blame it on a false media leak!

Whatever. This is going to be interesting.

THAT is definitely the way this thing needs to go........

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).

It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.

If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.

But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.

The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.

By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.

The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.

By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.

The NBA also owns the team who's trade they rejected. Owners can veto trades their GMs make, and that's basically what happened there, though the owner being the league made it seem like something else.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.

The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.

By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.

Even though they approved it, that doesn't mean they can't hit back later if the new CBA stipulates they can, or more accurately, if the new CBA doesn't prohibit them for doing so.

The big issues here are that: 1) this penalty is being applied very inconsistently and 2) NFL teams attempted to collude.

I'll give you an example of something they did put in the new CBA: they took out the poison pill-contract guarantee. That was collectively bargained. No one put a poison pill contract in during the uncapped year BECAUSE teams were colluding (and had been for years). But also because they feared retribution.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Even though they approved it, that doesn't mean they can't hit back later if the new CBA stipulates they can, or more accurately, if the new CBA doesn't prohibit them for doing so.

The big issues here are that: 1) this penalty is being applied very inconsistently and 2) NFL teams attempted to collude.

I'll give you an example of something they did put in the new CBA: they took out the poison pill-contract guarantee. That was collectively bargained. No one put a poison pill contract in during the uncapped year BECAUSE teams were colluding (and had been for years). But also because they feared retribution.

I disagree. I think you're, at best, on shaky ground when you try to punish people for something that was perfectly within the rules when it was done.

I agree that something that makes it even harder is that they're in effect trying to punish the Redskins and Cowboys for not going along with what was really an illegal policy.

I think the other element here is that all the parties that have decided to punish these teams (The other teams and NFLPA) stand to personally gain from the process. Imagine if a state started paying jurors more for every guilty verdict, how quickly those sentences would get thrown out.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.

The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.

By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.

The uncapped year was contained in the prior CBA - essentially it was an agreement between the parties that, if the CBA was not renewed, the year after non-renewal would be uncapped. So, while the terms of the prior CBA expired, the owners and players agreement (in this case the agreement to blow up the salary cap) continued one year past that expiration of those terms.