Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

Also, it's my understanding the warning was for teams going out and spending tons of money on players. The warning was not specific to what the two teams did which was restructure current contracts and pushing the CAP hits to one year. That's where we differ Hoop. You keep saying all the teams were specifically warned and I'm saying they were but not specific to what the two teams did. They found a loop hole, one in which was not warned about, one in which they knew if the league denied the contracts would have given the NFLPA proof of collusion, which forced the league to agree or over look the contracts at the time but now with the understanding that the NFLPA could not file suit over old issues felt comfortable enough to punish the two teams.

Basically the league didn't like the loop hole, punished, and came up wih a cock-eyed look at the warning with saying the two teams in the long run are making it difficult for other teams to keep their players.... An unfair advantage which required a punishment.

You know the league doesn't have a problem with teams signing players to large contracts, say 100mill dollar contracts which also drives up the costs on player positions and causing unfair advantages as well.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

Which is why I believe the Arbitrator has been asked to step in. I also somewhat understand what Hoop is saying about the Arbiture only having a specific job between owners and players but if what the Redskins and Cowboys was unique and a punishment applied then perhaps this would be something new and unique for the Arbiture to oversee as well owner vs owner. I can see the Arbiture stepping up and saying this has never happened before but this will be my duties also.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Which is why I believe the Arbitrator has been asked to step in. I also somewhat understand what Hoop is saying about the Arbiture only having a specific job between owners and players but if what the Redskins and Cowboys was unique and a punishment applied then perhaps this would be something new and unique for the Arbiture to oversee as well owner vs owner. I can see the Arbiture stepping up and saying this has never happened before but this will be my duties also.

The arbitrator can't unilaterally decide to expand his own authority than the CBA gives him. While he's at it, maybe he could mandate that the Cowboys play in pink uniforms.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The arbitrator can't unilaterally decide to expand his own authority than the CBA gives him. While he's at it, maybe he could mandate that the Cowboys play in pink uniforms.

He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.

I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.

I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

The problem is that the League punishing Clubs doesn't violate any CBA, old or new.

If the players disagreed with the punishment, they would have an obviously strong case to say the NFL can't unilaterally modify the salary cap.

As for timing, surely someone could sue the NFL for actions that violated a (now-expired) agreement that existed at the time.

As for the CBA, both parties agreed in the 2011 version not to sue each other or assist suits that fall under the previous CBA (emphasis added):

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:
(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues ("TR") or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.

(b) The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFLPA or any of its members, or agents acting on its behalf, or any member of its bargaining unit, with respect to conduct occurring prior to
the execution of this Agreement.