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

[JoeRedskin]

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.

First, you realize that Doty has been a big friend of the NFLPA for years and that, in the latest CBA, the NFL insisted that cases under the new CBA would not be heard by him. He gave the friendliest rulings he could in not dismissing the NFLPA's collusion case outright in light of the waiver clause. Most judges would likely have dismissed the NFLPA's claim without argument.

Second, and as others have mentioned, this case would have nothing to do with the NFLPA and labor laws. That case has been adjudicated and dismissed. Period. Done. Finito. As part of the settlement of all outstanding claims, in reaching the new CBA, the NFLPA gave up all rights to claim they had been treated unfairly during the negotiations.

Finally, to see what legal theories Snyder is relying on, I would want to go back to there original appeal in front of the arbiter. As I recall, they advanced certain theories that the arbiter said "this is the wrong forum for that argument". If I am remembering it correctly, it is those theories that Snyder would be bringing now. I have to believe it comes down to a breach of contract or a tortuous interference with business by his partners. Those are each claims which would be independent of the arbiter and NFLPA claims. It's been a while since I looked at them, and really have no evaluation of their merit, but, clearly, people being paid a lot more than me have found a credible basis to bring a civil suit on this issue.

[RedskinsInNYC]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, you realize that Doty has been a big friend of the NFLPA for years and that, in the latest CBA, the NFL insisted that cases under the new CBA would not be heard by him. He gave the friendliest rulings he could in not dismissing the NFLPA's collusion case outright in light of the waiver clause. Most judges would likely have dismissed the NFLPA's claim without argument.

Second, and as others have mentioned, this case would have nothing to do with the NFLPA and labor laws. That case has been adjudicated and dismissed. Period. Done. Finito. As part of the settlement of all outstanding claims, in reaching the new CBA, the NFLPA gave up all rights to claim they had been treated unfairly during the negotiations.

Finally, to see what legal theories Snyder is relying on, I would want to go back to there original appeal in front of the arbiter. As I recall, they advanced certain theories that the arbiter said "this is the wrong forum for that argument". If I am remembering it correctly, it is those theories that Snyder would be bringing now. I have to believe it comes down to a breach of contract or a tortuous interference with business by his partners. Those are each claims which would be independent of the arbiter and NFLPA claims. It's been a while since I looked at them, and really have no evaluation of their merit, but, clearly, people being paid a lot more than me have found a credible basis to bring a civil suit on this issue.

I would think he brings federal antitrust claims along with state law tortious interference claims. If I were him/on his legal team, I would want to bring the case in a DMV area court (preferably VA). Never underestimate the impact a fan on the bench can have on a case; see Judge Berrigan (EDLA) in the Vilma v. Goodell litigation...

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RedskinsInNYC

I would think he brings federal antitrust claims along with state law tortious interference claims. If I were him/on his legal team, I would want to bring the case in a DMV area court (preferably VA). Never underestimate the impact a fan on the bench can have on a case; see Judge Berrigan (EDLA) in the Vilma v. Goodell litigation...

Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Would it hurt the Skins? sure in the long run with possibly the NFL losing their exemptions but how much and what exactly would change about how they are doing business is the question. I presume it would only stick another entity in the middle of any and all negotiations in the future. Something every business owner has to worry about now, no reason the NFL should be exempt.

I think the big issue is simply holding up FA. Lets say the Skins file their injuction and its granted FA is held up until the CAP and 18 mill is resolved and if that 18 mill is tied into a law suit which most likely won't be heard until June, July, Aug. or later, then there is the issue of sides post poning court dates for whatever reason..... FA could be tied up into the start of next season which the owners don't want, and players will want to be on a team getting paid learning their offensive or defensive schemes. Players will just be sitting out there without jobs waiting for this to be resolved.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

I'm not 100% sure the Labor Department would disolve the whole CBA, what I am saying though is I could see the Labor Department saying clearly you (the NFL) engaged in unfair labor practices and from now on you'll lose your exemptions. If I remember correctly the government allowed the NFL to keep their exemptions.... the government does not have to allow them to though. So going nuclear could open a whole can of worms the owners don't want opened.