Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The problem with this is that Goodell and/or the Management Council Executive Committee overstepped their authority by modifying the salary cap as a penalty, but the owners as a group have more authority. Goodell can fine up to $500k, suspend individuals or take draft picks. The MCEC reports to Goodell and has the authority to negotiate with the NFLPA on behalf of the NFL.

The Executive Committee however - made up of ownership reps of all 30 teams - can impose whatever penalties they want as long as 24 votes support it. The Commissioner reports to the Executive Committee. Since the two teams were asked to leave the room, I'm guessing the meeting yesterday wasn't an actual Exec Committee meeting, just a show of hands - but it doesn't bode well. Basically, there's nothing to be discussed in arbitration if the Exec Committee imposes penalties.

Plus, if the two teams involved fight it, Goodell does have the authority to take away draft picks - his nuclear option is no RG3.

Given that it is now in the arbitrator's hands, I doubt any swift occurrence like loss of draft picks would occur before this year's draft.

And as has been said many times, you can't have a vote and make an invalid action valid. I don't care how many guys in a group vote to rob the nearest liquor store, the ones who opt not to rob it are in the right.

The reason the arbitration clause exists is to prevent situations where any one party or group has an undue ability to put their will into effect unchecked. The Skins and Cowboys certainly will have plenty to discuss with the arbitrator, regardless of whether the Executive Committee votes for penalties or not.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Given that it is now in the arbitrator's hands, I doubt any swift occurrence like loss of draft picks would occur before this year's draft.

And as has been said many times, you can't have a vote and make an invalid action valid. I don't care how many guys in a group vote to rob the nearest liquor store, the ones who opt not to rob it are in the right.

The reason the arbitration clause exists is to prevent situations where any one party or group has an undue ability to put their will into effect unchecked. The Skins and Cowboys certainly will have plenty to discuss with the arbitrator, regardless of whether the Executive Committee votes for penalties or not.

Ultimately, these are two members of a club of 32, and the bylaws of that club say 24 votes can pass just about anything.

Arbitration is relief under the CBA, but the authority of the Executive Committee to impose discipline on its members supercedes that.

Ultimately, they can probably sue the League on antitrust grounds a la Al Davis, but I think they'd rather bite this bullet than go down that route.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Ultimately, these are two members of a club of 32, and the bylaws of that club say 24 votes can pass just about anything.

Arbitration is relief under the CBA, but the authority of the Executive Committee to impose discipline on its members supercedes that.

Ultimately, they can probably sue the League on antitrust grounds a la Al Davis, but I think they'd rather bite this bullet than go down that route.

Do you have anything to substantiate that? My understanding is that the arbitration is allowed due to a specific clause in the CBA, and that all parties agree to the fact that arbitration is binding.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Do you have anything to substantiate that? My understanding is that the arbitration is allowed due to a specific clause in the CBA, and that all parties agree to the fact that arbitration is binding.

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Eh....I don't know about this. Not saying your wrong, but logically speaking, if the NFL can just up and change terms of the CBA as it goes along, anytime it wants to and anyway it wants to, what is the purpose of having a CBA? It then becomes about as worthless as the napkin it was written on. Besides, even if they could, AND they decided to change the terms of this present CBA, 2010 was under the old CBA. I would think it would be a legal conflict to change terms of a present CBA to punish/reward teams during a time period of a former governing contract. I'm no legal expert at all, just trying to look at this through a logical perspective...but I suppose if the NFL looked at this through a logical perspective, then we wouldn't be discussing this situation as it would have never happened.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?

As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e. going forward the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).

As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative at the time it was taken. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]

I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Then it DS would have to file a law suit based on the fact the "rule" that was changed and was agreed to by the league technically was illegal and only at that time would most likely everything change because if the "rule" made up, changed, or whatever that was agreed to is illegal then technically the Skins did nothing wrong and then the CAP can be given back.

So were in it for the long haul. Unless DS decides all this is not worth it. Cause right now although it's proceedure it's also to see what resolve each side has in this by not giving in. Hopefully the good news is DS is prepared to file the law suit if need be and I hope the league backs off first and gives the CAP back before it has to go to some form of trial. This way the team can drop the issue prior to the league looking like fools when and if ever any labor organization decides to start investigating because more then likely they won't back off and will see it to the end.