Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

So just to figure this all out.... the Skins had $36 mill of CAP space. The league has stated they are going to take it all back, but not all in one year. So they took $18 mill this year and said we will owe the other $18 mill next year. Fine. We were left with $18 mill in CAP space. Which we used. What are we going to give them next year "IF" the punishment is upheld? lol.

I'm believing the two teams can win this arguement. Based off the fact there was no actual rule or law in place saying they could not do what they did. On top of that the league approved the deals/contracts. The league had ample opportunity to review the contracts which they did, and either approve or deny the contracts. The league approved them.

[MTK]

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

SO a few teams are mad because they got the rug pulled out from under them in their game of playing "hard ball" with their players. So instead of rewarding them with a nice contract, they'd rather keep ****ing the player over and hitting with the tag. Boo Fcking Hoo. I'm glad AJ Smith finally got reemed up the but by the system because he sure as hell was trying to use the system to screw over his players. In terms of the salaries of DTs going up, well they should have been mad at Vinny the moment he signed him. Went from the highest DT salary being 8mil average to one with a average of $15mil. That had more impact than anything.

It's a wonder why the NFLPA even agreed to this shit.

[CRedskinsRule]

This makes less sense than that we were trying to gain a competitive edge by relieving ourselves of cap obligations. While that may be why some owners willingly signed off on the vote, I can't see that ever being raised in front of the arbitrator. I would love the arbitrator to just come out and blast the NFL, but I doubt the Skins or Cowboys really want that, they just want the space back.

[CRedskinsRule]

Also using that logic the Raiders should have been docked extra cap space every year for the last 10 years of Al Davis' life (RIP). Not to hammer on him, but how many positions did his craziness inflate. How much did he pay his punter and kicker again?

[FRPLG]

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

I agree that it would be unfair, and evidence of illegal collusion if owners were punishing the Skins and Cowboys for pushing up the value of the franchise tag at certain positions.

However, this is one writer's (Breer's) speculation as to why certain owners might have generally been upset with the signings, and another writer (Graziano) taking that speculation as fact and running with it. Here's the logic used:

Breer:

• It's been reported that multiple teams are upset with the way the Skins and Cowboys structured the Austin, Haynesworth, and Hall contracts.
• 29 teams voted to support the sanctions against the Skins and Cowboys.
• I can think of three teams that were affected by the franchise tags going up at those positions.

Graziano:

• Those three teams are completely full of it!
• I know the NFL gave us a different reason why the owners were upset, but Breer says these three teams have reason to complain, and therefore they must be behind the 29-2-1 vote, and therefore they are demonstrating evidence of illegal collusion.

I would love for the arbitrator to give the Redskins relief (while somehow still managing to screw the Cowboys), but it won't be based on this logic if he does.

[FRPLG]

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

He's a law professor at Penn State, and is supposed to be unbiased by definition. My guess is his interpretations are in order:

1. Legal
2. NFL - NFLPA Precedence

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

According to the CBA, the arbitrator in the case has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce certain articles of the CBA, including the ones regarding the salary cap.

The issue here is that the parties to the CBA are the NFLPA (exclusively representing the players), and the NFLMC (exclusively representing the Clubs that employ the players).

Normally, arbitration under the CBA is intended to settle grievances between Clubs (employer) and players (employee). It is not intended to settle grievances between the Clubs and the NFL or NFLMC.

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

If they do get relief, I'd guess it's based on the fact that the whole concept of the salary cap throughout the CBA is that "Salary Cap" is one number, and it's specifically defined as being the same for all teams. I suppose they'd have to argue that making the salary cap different for different teams completely violates the whole concept and the modifications to include these penalties is inconsistent with the rest of the CBA.

The only reason arbitration is involved at all is because the punishment involves the salary cap, the salary cap is relevant to the CBA, and the CBA provides for arbitration to enforce its provisions.

If the Commissioner had settled on another punishment, the Clubs would only have the options of a) appealing to the Commissioner to reconsider a la Sean Payton, or b) suing the NFL. The former wouldn't go anywhere, and the latter isn't something the Clubs involved seem to want to do.

There is no provision for arbitration in the NFL Bylaws (which governs the relationships between the NFL and member Clubs). The Commissioner has certain specific authority and the Executive Committee (32 owners) has authority for everything else, subject to a 3/4ths majority vote.

Personally, I believe the best case is that the Clubs and League settle on a reduced punishment in order to make this go away. Since the NFLPA is a party to the CBA and apparently named in the grievance, they will get discovery on all documents produced as part of this case. I don't think either the League or the Clubs involved really want to hand the clubs any more information than they have to in this matter.

IMO, the League made a complete mess of this punishment, but has now tied up their procedural loose ends. They probably have legit grounds for dismissal, but I'd guess they don't get it right away. I'd guess (and hope) the Clubs play chicken long enough to get the League to reduce the punishment.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.