Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Lets look at worst case scenarios....

1- All the owners end up hating Snyder. Not voting for his ideas later.
2- Department of Labor or Justice get involved.
3- The NFL not being exempt from labor laws.

I honestly can't fathom anything else, but I'm sure the owners are happy to be exempt from some of the labor laws and being able to do business as they please. I figure the worst that can happen is the NFL would lose that freedom and would have to do business like all other businesses and unions. That alone would go a long way in keeping both sides more honest.

So for me to weight if its worth it to go nuclear and possibly get our CAP space back.... I'd have to say yes it's worth it. Personally I think there needs to be someone keeping an eye on both sides that has no interest, someone who is not swayed to lean towards the owners in judgement (Dotty), and someone to make sure a fair punishment is delt as well as punishing everyone involved. In this case, yeah maybe the Skins do deserve a punishment although I don't agree with it, but certainly the other owners deserve to be punished for unfair practices against the NFLPA.

You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.

You right and basically what I said about the Justice Department. or atleast what I was trying to say. All the other owners are happy with how the system is now and don't want big government involved with their system. Maybe there would be some new rules governing players and their contracts or owners having to have insurance on each player or retirement I don't know. But that alone should be enough to scare the other owners. Worst case scenario the Skins win and the Justice department decides to step in and the NFL loses it's exemptions. Best case scenario the other owners give the CAP back and Snyder calls off the law suit and injuction and allows the NFL to operate as normal.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.

Also I doubt the NFL would file a counter suit because I'm sure they feel pretty confortable that they have won each time the issue has come to court. Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly. Which is why the Skins lost their appeal, and why the NFLPA lost their case. God forbid he rule against the owners and what then? would he have to face the fact the owners negotiated in bad faith and the whole CBA is null and void? Then the two sides would have to start over in regards to a new CBA tying him up for long hours and meeting and more negotiations? Heck no it's easier to simply side with the owners and ignore the facts: the owners colluded, negotiated in bad faith, black mailed the NFLPA, and punished two teams for not violating any CBA.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Also I doubt the NFL would file a counter suit because I'm sure they feel pretty confortable that they have won each time the issue has come to court. Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly. Which is why the Skins lost their appeal, and why the NFLPA lost their case.

Sorry, this is just wrong. Doty has historically been very player friendly and it has long been one of the owners' goals to get him removed from hearing appeals on CBA issues. It is why he was written out of the new CBA.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

God forbid he rule against the owners and what then? would he have to face the fact the owners negotiated in bad faith and the whole CBA is null and void? Then the two sides would have to start over in regards to a new CBA tying him up for long hours and meeting and more negotiations?

No. He ruled against them because that was what the law required. As a matter of law, The NFLPA the players had waived their claims - known and unknown - of collusion for anything that occurred prior to the new CBA being signed.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Heck no it's easier to simply side with the owners and ignore the facts: the owners colluded, negotiated in bad faith, black mailed the NFLPA, and punished two teams for not violating any CBA.

Everything you say is true. The owners colluded and negotiated in bad faith - but then the NFLPA affirmatively waived their claims against the owners for all claims when they signed the new CBA. If they believed that more claims were out there, they shouldn't have waived them. They did so as part of a settlement. Once you say, "Okay, I am done suing you." You can't go back and say "Well, except for this."

As for "blackmailing" the NFLPA, I would suggest it was more of a quid pro quo. The NFLPA came to them first and said "Hey, can we make an arrgangement to get more cap space this year??" to which the NFL said "Sure .... just sign here and let us punish these two teams who refused to join in this, heretofore, unknown collusion against you and you may have some extra cap space this year."

As for the acts before the new CBA, they were fully and legally waived. As for the bad acts afterwords, the penalties were imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (per the arbiter) and were arrived at through a quid pro quo bargain with the union.

The key was the waiver. Without it, the NFL had no leg to stand on. With it the union and Snyder, as far as any appeals concerning violations of the CBA, are legally without remedy.

Also, the NFLPA could have said "Nope, we won't sign off on this. These two teams will spend their money on players and taking cap space away from them harms players." The NFLPA leadership did not do this and simply caved so that they would look better in front of their constituents.

While the owners played hard ball all throughout, I would suggest that the players were ultimately ill served by their leadership. The players gave up a lot of legal issues that seemed like small potatoes at the time but that have come back to haunt them (the Commissioner's authority on sanctions, the waiver) in order to get a shortened work year.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, this is just wrong. Doty has historically been very player friendly and it has long been one of the owners' goals to get him removed from hearing appeals on CBA issues. It is why he was written out of the new CBA.



No. He ruled against them because that was what the law required. As a matter of law, The NFLPA the players had waived their claims - known and unknown - of collusion for anything that occurred prior to the new CBA being signed.



Everything you say is true. The owners colluded and negotiated in bad faith - but then the NFLPA affirmatively waived their claims against the owners for all claims when they signed the new CBA. If they believed that more claims were out there, they shouldn't have waived them. They did so as part of a settlement. Once you say, "Okay, I am done suing you." You can't go back and say "Well, except for this."

As for "blackmailing" the NFLPA, I would suggest it was more of a quid pro quo. The NFLPA came to them first and said "Hey, can we make an arrgangement to get more cap space this year??" to which the NFL said "Sure .... just sign here and let us punish these two teams who refused to join in this, heretofore, unknown collusion against you and you may have some extra cap space this year."

As for the acts before the new CBA, they were fully and legally waived. As for the bad acts afterwords, the penalties were imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (per the arbiter) and were arrived at through a quid pro quo bargain with the union.

The key was the waiver. Without it, the NFL had no leg to stand on. With it the union and Snyder, as far as any appeals concerning violations of the CBA, are legally without remedy.

Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."

There is no dispute of the facts as it pertains to the cap going down. It was going down for one reason, the players percentage of the overall revenues went down in the new CBA. The owners knew the cap was dropping, and the NFLPA knew the cap was dropping. It was going down, completely legally, that is not in question.

The NFLPA went to the NFL and asked for money to be moved forward from future years to keep the cap stable. The new TV agreements are already negotiated and they come with a fair amount more money than the current ones, but the dont go into effect for a couple more years. The NFLPA asked to have some of that TV money moved from the future into current years to keep the cap stable until those new TV contracts go into effect.

The NFL offered the union a choice. Take the lowered salary cap that everyone knows will happen (due to reasons already explained) or allow us to sanction the teams we want. We (The NFL) will allow future money to be pulled from those TV contracts and put into the years until those TV contracts go into effect to keep the cap stable. The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.

Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.

They did have a choice. They could have taken the lower cap.

Or better yet, they could have actually saved up some money so they didnt have to take a horrible deal just to get a paycheck to keep their houses from being foreclosed on because 100k gaudy looking diamond encrusted necklaces are the norm instead of a savings account.

Everyone associated with the NFLPA, from the lawyers to the negotiators to the players themselves knew the cap was going to go down if they accepted a deal that had the players taking a lower percentage of the revenues than they received in the previous CBA. Not only did they take a decrease, they took a huge decrease.

If the union was any good, they would make the players start a fund for these exact things. Maybe 5% of their salaries go in there and it gets saved for paychecks when there are negotiations on a new CBA. If you cannot threaten the owners with lost games (meaning lost revenue), you cant get the owners to offer a fair contract.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly.

In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.

Already been addressed. Thank You for the help.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion). then there is the fact:

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).

Originally Posted by SBXVII

More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion).

Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it when it was in force.

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - unless the NFL brings it up (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).




Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it when it was in force.

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.



The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - unless the NFL brings it up (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

It didn't take us long to come up with that. more then likely they already have.