Redskins' and Cowboys' Salary Cap Challenge Dismissed

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This is just mind boggling. Not even sure how this can be dismissed.

Simple - I am betting that Burbank's decision reads like some version of this:

1. Parties to the 2012 CBA = NFL & NFLPA;
2. Players & NFL agreed to the restructured salary cap for 2012, 2013;
3. Individual clubs have no standing to in this forum to challenge the agreement between the NFL & NFLPA.

Just read Hoophead's discussion in the old closed thread. I am betting the arbitrator pretty much followed the same line of reasoning.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Simple - I am betting that Burbank's decision reads like some version of this:

1. Parties to the 2012 CBA = NFL & NFLPA;
2. Players & NFL agreed to the restructured salary cap for 2012, 2013;
3. Individual clubs have no standing to in this forum to challenge the agreement between the NFL & NFLPA.

Just read Hoophead's discussion in the old closed thread. I am betting the arbitrator pretty much followed the same line of reasoning.

So because the NFLPA signed off on this, it pretty much ****ed our team. DeMaurice Smith is a doucebag. That dude signed off on it because the salary cap and benefits would have been lowered and he was trying to get re-elected back into power. **** that guy.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Simple - I am betting that Burbank's decision reads like some version of this:

1. Parties to the 2012 CBA = NFL & NFLPA;
2. Players & NFL agreed to the restructured salary cap for 2012, 2013;
3. Individual clubs have no standing to in this forum to challenge the agreement between the NFL & NFLPA.

Just read Hoophead's discussion in the old closed thread. I am betting the arbitrator pretty much followed the same line of reasoning.

Wait.... were still talking about the 2010 uncapped year right? and the year the offense supposedly occurred. and the fact the new CBA was not in place until 2011 a year later.... and the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA on the issue came a whole year after that in 2012.

All we will probably hear from Burbank will be that the NFL made its case and it was clear he had no standing in ruling on the case. Which is why it was dismissed. He did not rule on whether the whole case was right or not just if he could hear it.

So now DS needs to take the case to the proper venue and file it in the court of law. Scare the you know what out of the NFL into giving back the CAP space or atleast a majority of it or face going to court and possibly losing their exempt status. My money is the NFL will cave then.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Wait.... were still talking about the 2010 uncapped year right? and the year the offense supposedly occurred. and the fact the new CBA was not in place until 2011 a year later.... and the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA on the issue came a whole year after that in 2012.

Not sure if you're being ironic or starting over at square one of the earlier thread. The adjustments to the cap are for the 2012 and 2013 years. Regardless of why the NFL & NFLPA made the adjustment, the adjustment applies to the 2012 and 2013 years and, so, requires an agreement to modify the existing CBA.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

All we will probably hear from Burbank will be that the NFL made its case and it was clear he had no standing in ruling on the case. Which is why it was dismissed. He did not rule on whether the whole case was right or not just if he could hear it.

Sort of - - Burbank will say that the Skins and Cowboys failed to state a prima facie case for going forward. The NFL had nothing to prove - their argument was simply that Washington and Dallas hadn't made their case. Burbank agreed.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

So now DS needs to take the case to the proper venue and file it in the court of law. Scare the you know what out of the NFL into giving back the CAP space or atleast a majority of it or face going to court and possibly losing their exempt status. My money is the NFL will cave then.

They could, but as NC pointed out, they would be opening up the "collusion" bag for the players - a collusion that they did not expose even if they did not fully participate in it. Even without that factor, it would be a tough road to hoe given Goodell's authority under the NFL By-Laws.

Again, I thought they should've gone nuclear to start - I think the adverse ruling from the abritrator weakens their civil case and deprives them of certain arguments they could have made in a circuit court.

At this point, I am with CRed. Bite the bullet and take revenge by winning the SB.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sort of - - Burbank will say that the Skins and Cowboys failed to state a prima facie case for going forward. The NFL had nothing to prove - their argument was simply that Washington and Dallas hadn't made their case. Burbank agreed.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/mis...llocations.pdf


Cliff notes by the end of the day please, and don't forget the cover sheet for the TPS report. :cheeky-sm

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/mis...llocations.pdf


Cliff notes by the end of the day please, and don't forget the cover sheet for the TPS report. :cheeky-sm

I read it and, after careful legal analysis, have concluded that my careful legal analysis is correct.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I read it and, after careful legal analysis, have concluded that my careful legal analysis is correct.

I have read it now as well...and after careful analysis, have concluded that your careful analysis that my careful analysis in the other thread was correct is correct.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Simple - I am betting that Burbank's decision reads like some version of this:

1. Parties to the 2012 CBA = NFL & NFLPA;
2. Players & NFL agreed to the restructured salary cap for 2012, 2013;
3. Individual clubs have no standing to in this forum to challenge the agreement between the NFL & NFLPA.

Just read Hoophead's discussion in the old closed thread. I am betting the arbitrator pretty much followed the same line of reasoning.

Haven't read the actual decision, but here is a key section from a WaPo article on the decision:

Burbank, in a 10-page decision, wrote that a March 11 “reallocation” letter from the league and players’ union to the two teams informing them of the salary cap reductions, along with a March 27 vote by almost all NFL teams to affirm the cap reductions, represented a proper amending of the sport’s collective bargaining agreement.

The objections by the Redskins and Cowboys “all must fail as a matter of law if the reallocation letter, as originally executed or as ratified by the March 27 resolution, constitutes a valid amendment of the CBA,” Burbank wrote.

Later in the decision, he added: “The CBA and valid amendments thereto are binding on the clubs.”