Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If we do NOTHING that means they have something on us. Maybe we spoke to St. Lou before time I don't know something like that.

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

Awesome stuff throughout this thread, JR! Very clear.

Right, this is clearly the equation at this point. And there's the real worry that the nuclear option has too much fallout even for DS--now Al Davis was radioactive, so it was no worry for him at all.

Arbitration or behind the scenes deal-making is the most likely outcome. This is the NFL, after all. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the owner's meeting!

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

You see it your way I see it mine.

[HoopheadVII]

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

3) The CBA explicitly states (Art XIII, Sec. 1) that the salary cap will the same amount for each club.

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

3) The CBA explicitly states (Art XIII, Sec. 1) that the salary cap will the same amount for each club.

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

NICE first post HH and welcome to the WP!
BTW, I think it is a little to interesting for the league to allow to fully come to light. In THAT light I think JoeRedskin is probably correct. There will be some quiet negotiations and subsequent settlement.....HTTR

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

again, what proof do you have that this took place,you have used the words" bribed and threatened" and have not shown one once of proof.

[Brody81]

Originally Posted by Giantone

again, what proof do you have that this took place,you have used the words" bribed and threatened" and have not shown one once of proof.

Again, Why are you here?

It's time to stop feeding this idiot.. Maybe if we ignore him, he will go away..

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Brody81

Again, Why are you here?

It's time to stop feeding this idiot.. Maybe if we ignore him, he will go away..

.....................:yeahright

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

again, what proof do you have that this took place,you have used the words" bribed and threatened" and have not shown one once of proof.

Unfortunately, sice I have less than 10 posts, I can't post links - so you'll have to copy and paste into your browser:

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nflpa-agreed-to-cowboysredskins-salary-cap-sanctions/

Key part:

So why did the union agree? The sources explain that the NFL offered to help pump up the 2012 team-by-team salary cap in exchange for the union’s agreement to remove cap money from the Cowboys and Redskins. One source said that, without the NFLPA’s agreement regarding the removal of cap room from the Cowboys and Redskins, the 2012 salary cap would have been in the range of $116 million per team. (One source said that the number at one point was presented to the union as being a paltry $113.5 million.) With the players agreeing to remove $46 million from the Cowboys and Redskins, the league agreed to a massaging of the salary and benefit numbers in order to get the 2012 salary cap up to $120.6 million. (The recalculation also kicked in some additional money that otherwise would not have been devoted to salary and benefits for 2012.)

Thus, the union had no real option. Without consenting to the reduction of the Redskins and Cowboys cap numbers, the unadjusted cap limit would have dropped, for the first time ever.

And with NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith up for re-election this month, he quite possibly would not have been re-elected.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

3) The CBA explicitly states (Art XIII, Sec. 1) that the salary cap will the same amount for each club.

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

Very nice. Good stuff. Point 4 involves some speculation, but certainly not unreasonable given the grounds you state. Not sure a decline in the salary cap would "ensure he is not re-eleted" but it certainly would not help him.

Welcome to the board. I think you and I will get along well.

[GoSkins!]

edit (double post)

[GoSkins!]

This debate between JR and Giantone reminds me of the arguments I used to have with my ex wife. She couldn't make a valid point so she just kept arguing louder and louder, over and over again. The worst part was that if, by pure chance, things ended up working out so that she was right, she wasn't smart enough to know that she just got lucky. When she got lucky enough to guess correctly about something, it reinforced her self serving reality that her personal opinion, or even her blind guessing, was some sort of keen insight or talent she could take credit for.

I usually think both these guys are good debaters, but JR clearly has this one won. It is time for G to stop being stubborn and realize that he has been beat here. Some NFL lawyers may someday make greater arguments than Joe Redskins has, but Giantone's arguments clearly are not better.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I usually think both these guys are good debaters, but JR clearly has this one won. It is time for G to stop being stubborn and realize that he has been beat here. Some NFL lawyers may someday make greater arguments than Joe Redskins has, but Giantone's arguments clearly are not better.

Mine are not better I admitt that but a good Lawyer must admit that there is always a possibility of another theory or he would'nt know how to attack the situation, or defend it.All of us don't know the true facts as I have stated to and admitted before but in my time dealing with lawyers I have found it's the ones that think I know nothing that end up being the most upset.
JR is obviously good at what he does and at no time have I ever said anything other wise.All I ask is that some fans here think a little with their head before their heart in a situation of this nature. Does anyone else think the all 28 "other " teams did'nt have lawyers ...or the NFL does'nt have lawyers ,...even the NFLPA has lawyers, and nobody else came up with the argument that JR did,and in fact maybe they did,noone knows is my point.
If the Skins are right as JR says, then I beleive you attack from day one and take it public.Just don't win show the world what the NFL has tried to do,if you go to arbitration or do nothing ....to me and I said it before you're admitting guilt.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Mine are not better I admitt that but a good Lawyer must admit that there is always a possibility of another theory or he would'nt know how to attack the situation, or defend it.All of us don't know the true facts as I have stated to and admitted before but in my time dealing with lawyers I have found it's the ones that think I know nothing that end up being the most upset.
JR is obviously good at what he does and at no time have I ever said anything other wise.All I ask is that some fans here think a little with their head before their heart in a situation of this nature. Does anyone else think the all 28 "other " teams did'nt have lawyers ...or the NFL does'nt have lawyers ,...even the NFLPA has lawyers, and nobody else came up with the argument that JR did,and in fact maybe they did,noone knows is my point.
If the Skins are right as JR says, then I beleive you attack from day one and take it public.Just don't win show the world what the NFL has tried to do,if you go to arbitration or do nothing ....to me and I said it before you're admitting guilt.

I understand your arguments. However, it looks to me like the NFL owners probably have consulted their lawyers and realize they are on shaky ground. This seems obvious by the timing of the punishment. They needed to find a way to stop the free agents for 2012 from signing with the skins and cowboys. They accomplished that. They will take that for now and hope their punishment, or some part of it, stands up over time. If nothing else, they got to piss off the guys who didn't go along with the program and screw up their 2012 off season plans.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

Now, one problem that the 'Skins may have is that the Commissioner does have the explicit authority to take away draft picks for 2) above. It would be approximately 87 times worse to give up the shiny new #2 pick in the upcoming draft than it would be to live with reduced cap space for two years. Creative restructuring can push cap hits from '12 and '13 into '14 - when the salary cap is expected to go up with a new TV deal.

Basically, if the 'Skins go nuclear, the Commissioner has a pretty nasty nuclear option himself.