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

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

Folks, the collusion ship has sailed, and the NFLPA "waived" it good-bye.

@FRLPG as to the waiver being a termination offense - Waivers like the one in this settlement are pretty standard in any settlement. Had their been no omnibus waiver, there would not have been a settlement. I would never let a client settle a suit without a general waiver. If the other side wants to change that, it would have to be a very specific, very limited exception and you would need to give up a lot to get it as a settlement term. Think about it - would you settle a huge lawsuit against you, with terms you didn't like but accepted so the suit would be over, if the someone could reopen the whole can of worms, again, six months after the ink was dry? I don't fault the waiver. I fault the pre-settlement investigation.

If I'm a player, my reaction is - "What the hell? Why didn't this come out? Somebody was not asking the right questions. Was this something we knew about? What did we get for waiving this?"

The owners played their cards very well. They knew exactly when to hold'em and when to fold'em.