Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

Yes, in principle, and in most walks of life.

However, this is a small private club of very competitive men that have decided they need to have a strong Commissioner with broad powers to keep the 32 of them rowing in the same direction.

They gave this Commissioner specific powers to punish Clubs for what he - in his sole discretion - believes is detrimental to the League and adversely affects competitive balance.

Right or wrong, whether he uses it fairly or unfairly, the 32 owners have given specific power to the Commissioner to impose certain penalties in that situation. He doesn't have to prove it to anyone - that's what "in his sole discretion" means.

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.

The only reason the Skins have arbitration as a recourse at all is that he tried to impose a different - lighter and probably more relevant - penalty than what he is authorised to impose.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.
.

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.

It doesn't matter what the warning was if the Commissioner believes the Skins acted to the detriment of the NFL and adversely affected competitive balance, and 29 other owners agree with him.

He could have warned the Skins not to serve broccoli in his hospitality suite, and he would still have the power to punish the Skins for dumping cap hit into 2010.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

Ok so in our circling of issues ...... who hears complaints in regards to owners vs. owners? I'm assuming the Commish and Exec Committe? and if there is no satisfaction? court?

you might be right, however there still is the gentlemans way of handling the whole issue which if you have a problem with your neighbor you should address it with them first and if it goes no where then you call the police. Maybe the appeal process is just that a stepping stone of formality that everyone knows will go no where but should be done before court filing happens. That whay the courts can't ask was it taken to Arbitration first.

I still think there is something your missing though other wise there would be no reason to waist the Arbitrator's time when the two teams know the issue is more fitting for the court process instead of Arbitration.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ok so in our circling of issues ...... who hears complaints in regards to owners vs. owners? I'm assuming the Commish and Exec Committe? and if there is no satisfaction? court?

you might be right, however there still is the gentlemans way of handling the whole issue which if you have a problem with your neighbor you should address it with them first and if it goes no where then you call the police. Maybe the appeal process is just that a stepping stone of formality that everyone knows will go no where but should be done before court filing happens. That whay the courts can't ask was it taken to Arbitration first.

I still think there is something your missing though other wise there would be no reason to waist the Arbitrator's time when the two teams know the issue is more fitting for the court process instead of Arbitration.

I've regurgitated what the NFL Bylaws say over and over in this thread. They are available on nfl.com if you want to read them yourself.

Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League