NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

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.

At the time, I think it was understood by teams that even though there was no cap in 2010, there would be a good chance that teams would not know the full extent of how deals signed in 2010 would be treated by the new CBA; that those effects would need to be collectively bargained.

What is unclear is whether these penalties are a result of something the NFL and NFLPA agreed to in writing, or whether they just agreed to it within the last week. And, per the language of the CBA (which I have not read), maybe they can actually do this at any time. But the role of the NFLPA in this disaster sure makes it look like that these sanctions have been collectively bargained.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

At the time, I think it was understood by teams that even though there was no cap in 2010, there would be a good chance that teams would not know the full extent of how deals signed in 2010 would be treated by the new CBA; that those effects would need to be collectively bargained.

What is unclear is whether these penalties are a result of something the NFL and NFLPA agreed to in writing, or whether they just agreed to it within the last week. And, per the language of the CBA (which I have not read), maybe they can actually do this at any time. But the role of the NFLPA in this disaster sure makes it look like that these sanctions have been collectively bargained.

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

By everything I've seen and read, there was absolutely nothing written that made it outside the rules. And I don't care if it's collectively bargained. You still can't go back and punish someone two years later for playing within the rules. I mean, I hate the Patriots, but if the NFL went back now and said "You know what? That Tuck rule was bad. We're going to eliminate it retroactively and take away your Lombardi Trophy" people would be understandably incensed, and it wouldn't stand.

And again, the league essentially paid off the union to sign off on this, so their approval of this means less than nothing.

I do think the Redskins have a number of viable defenses here, not the least of which is simply pointing out: "who are you guys to do this? Mind your own business!" I just don't see the litigation route as one of those viable options. Much like Al Davis couldn't have sued the league because the Tuck Rule was dumb. Well, he could have sued but it would have been thrown out.

Ultimately though, this seems like it will come down to how hard each side is willing to fight for/against the sanctions and what was previously in writing. The Redskins certainly didn't break any rules -- at least not any rules that would void the 2010 contract restructurings -- but they are still responsible for those deals if the NFL is going to decide that all contracts that broke the Rule of 30 (or whatever) in 2010 have to be paid back on the back end.

But like I said, if the NFL is going to fight hard enough, they'll find that as soon as they set an actual standard, there will be members on the NFL side who will be liable for penalty. The unfairness of the decision is the biggest issue that could keep the Redskins fighting a decision that ultimately isn't going to hurt them that much in the long run.

[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.