Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under this CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

• It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
• It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
• The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
• The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
• The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
• 29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs

As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

• It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
• It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
• The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
• The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
• The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
• 29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs

As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

I'd like to thank you for sharing your perspective and hope you remain a mainstay around here. This is very enlightening.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

• It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
• It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
• The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
• The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
• The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
• 29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs

As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

What he said. Well done.

Just like to add, it was the Redskins and Cowboys that chose this as the forum in which to dispute the matter. I believe in a court of general jurisdiction the Skins had a much better argument. Why they chose to begin here where, arguably, they're stuck with their weakest arguments is beyond me.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.


As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

• It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
• It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
• The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
• The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
• The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
• 29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs

As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

The modification I'm talking about is:

"Where 'Salary Cap' previously referred to one number for all Clubs, in 2012 and 2013, it will be $18m less for the Redskins, $5m less for the Cowboys,..."

To make this penalty, the NFLPA and NFLMC would have had to sign a side letter modifying the CBA to include a sentence like that.

One issue that I hope the arbitrator may raise is that the way the whole CBA is written, and the way the Salary Cap is discussed throughout, that change doesn't make sense as written.