Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Especailly after the league approved the contracts. What I want to know is who approved the contracts. What is his name. and when will he be fired for not doing his job? Clearly he failed to read the contracts, failed to deny the contracts, and failed to inform the Redskins and Cowboys as to why they were denied and lastly failed to make the Skins and Boys aware the two teams could not do that because of "Competative Advantages."

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

That would be the Commissioner. And technically, he doesn't approve contracts. He has the right to disapprove within 10 days of submission.

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

So Goodell disapproved the two teams contracts, right? Oh, he couldn't because then it would have shown the owners were breaking the law.

Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?

The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.

Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?

The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.

Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.

and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

IIRC, I was the first in this thread to note that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to modify the salary cap. That's something he doesn't have the authority to do "in his sole discretion."

No argument that it's a procedural mess.

However, he does have the authority to remove draft picks "in his sole discretion." Had he done that, this would probably be over by now. I doubt Snyder and Jones are going to take this to court.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

It's very clear they dont' care about the teams that gained less then $10 mill in CAP by what they did in 2010, and they don't care about the teams who didn't atleast spend the floor limit that was also in the CBA/CAP rules to get a competative edge.

Time for DS start playing the same games. Lower ticket prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs, start shedding big contracts, and lets fall to the bottom of the league and complain that he can't compete in order to let some other team support our needs for he next 10 yrs.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

Thank you for the nice words.

Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.

I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.

On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.

In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.