Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[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.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.

Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.

Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.

He never tried to impose his own salary cap in an uncapped year.

There's a difference between players fighting a league for the right to impose discipline on them and league members suing themselves because they don't like how a Commissioner they appointed used they authority they gave him, and that 29 other members agreed with.

And, they can always attempt to sue the League, but they won't because that would be stupid for everybody involved. And they would have to prove that the Commissioner abused authority that they granted him sole discretion to apply.

If every team took a league to court for every bit of discipline they thought unfair, leagues wouldn't exist. At some point, Snyder will say, "I like making 9 figures and trying to win football games better than I like spending years in court and getting screwed by the League every way possible forever."

[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 SBXVII

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.

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Great idea - give up $100m in revenue to put yourself in a position to beg for $10m

Why do I suggest it? because the two teams pretty mush support the lower half of the league. Maybe the other 30 owners would like to have the $$$ dropping and the CAP lowered, and for once not get the $$$ they used to and maybe turn out to be one of the teams doing the supporting for the next several yrs. Have a big % of their income taken away to support teams below them.

Maybe if the fan base refused to buy tickets (which won't happen) would force DS to lower prices, drop parking fees, lower food costs if fans are not buying food. Basically its all about what the market will pay. I'm confused with Tampa though being at the bottom of the league but if the fan base plays it like Carolina or Jacksonville maybe in the long run some other piss poor team will be in the position to support the Skins and see if they like it. The DS can complain about their competative edge and take away their money.

[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.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

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.

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

OK, so that being said, assuming +/- 5% of bias, wouldn't the arbitrator look at this and be like, "HA! Wow, NFL this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. I rule in favor of the Redskins and Cowboys."? There are SO MANY things in favor of both of those teams when it comes to the details. I HATE the Cowboys. I hate them with every fiber of my soul. But even with my loathing hatred of them, they got dicked over as much as we did.

Someone posted this in this thread already, but the timing, the teams, the amount, EVERYTHING screams of collusion.

In my opinion, this is a simple "can't see the forest for the trees" type of argument that unless Goodell goes all "I-do-what-I-want-bitches", it's an obvious injustice.