Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

I know this will be hard to stomach. I'm sorry. After clicking the link wait a few seconds to get aclimated then read the OP post. He does bring up a good point. Mara wanted to stick it to the Redskins and Cowboys so bad he chose not to lower the CAP by 3-7mill per team which would have saved the NFL 96-224mill for the one year in order to simply fine the Redskins and Cowboys 46 mill.

True Blue - Forums

[SmootSmack]

A lot of the same crap is being spewed out over and over again in this thread and elsewhere on this topic, making this.....REGURGIGATE

[HoopheadVII]

For clarity here's how the NFL Bylaws say the entities work:

NFL Executive Committee
- Highest NFL body
- Requires 24 votes to do anything
- Cannot reduce Commissioner discipline imposed within his authority under 8.13(A)

Commissioner
- Reports to NFL Executive Committee
- Appoints all other committees
- Has power to impose discipline under 8.13(A) up to certain levels: $500k fine, draft picks, suspensions
- Has power to recommend additional penalties to Executive Committee under 8.13(B)

Management Council Executive Committee
- Appointed by Commissioner
- Has exclusive authority to negotiate CBA with NFLPA
- Presumably only has authority to impose discipline through Commissioner and his authority

[HoopheadVII]

My best guess is that procedurally, the vote yesterday may have been a vote to accept the MCEC's agreement with the NFLPA.

If that's the case, not sure how it affects arbitration. The CBA has an arbitration procedure clubs can participate in, but if this vote modifies the CBA, not sure there's anything to arbitrate - the modified salary cap is the law under the CBA.

Even if the two clubs win in arbitration, they're in trouble if >24 other owners are intent on punishing them. The Commissioner can take away the #2 pick in the upcoming draft, and the Executive Committee can pretty much do whatever they want (including forcing Snyder to sell the team*) with 24 votes.


*please, please, please

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

My best guess is that procedurally, the vote yesterday may have been a vote to accept the MCEC's agreement with the NFLPA.

If that's the case, not sure how it affects arbitration. The CBA has an arbitration procedure clubs can participate in, but if this vote modifies the CBA, not sure there's anything to arbitrate - the modified salary cap is the law under the CBA.

Even if the two clubs win in arbitration, they're in trouble if >24 other owners are intent on punishing them. The Commissioner can take away the #2 pick in the upcoming draft, and the Executive Committee can pretty much do whatever they want (including forcing Snyder to sell the team*) with 24 votes.


*please, please, please

What I have read is that the Skins and Cowboys arbitration was based more on the violation of procedure by the Commissioner and MCEC. The grievance as previously submitted avoided the collusion issue and focused on the violation of the process for levying sanctions/altering the salary cap set forth in the current CBA and By-Laws.

If this is true, essentially, what the NFL has done is rectify their procedural errors and left the Skins & Cowboys with only the substantive challenge that the sanction is an attempt to enforce an illegal agreement.

If for, some reason, the NFL attempts to strip the Skins of the 2nd pick, I would expect all restraints to be turned off - DS would file for a TRO preventing the NFL from taking it, possibly threaten to hold up the draft through court proceedings, etc., etc. It would get very very messy, very very fast.

I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).

Also, the two owners that want revenue sharing ended may very well be glad to see the NFL tumble in a anti-trust suit. Because then, it would open the doors for no salary cap and a true free market. Teams like the Colts and Jaguars would be closing shop in a matter of months.

[Dirtbag59]

We have received no written notice from Mooby or his associates in regards to the 'gate' controversies.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

We have received no written notice from Mooby or his associates in regards to the 'gate' controversies.

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

I think Dirtbag should be stripped of half of his post numbers, and that these posts be equally distributed among all Warpath members.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

I would just like to say I have no further comment at this time, and my attorney will have full discretion in regards to which questions he will and will not answer.

I would also like to rescind my previous 'no comment' so that I can say, na-na na-na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. I will be trademarking that phrase shortly as well.

[SBXVII]

In 1990 the MLBPA won their collusion case and the owners had to pay $280 mill to the MLBPA. That my friend is more then the NFL league would have saved and a ton more then the NFLPA got in the agreement $46mill? Their idiots.

[Chico23231]

hey serious questions here:

When do we get to meet and present the case before the arbitrator? Is it a joint meeting with the cowboys and skins going together or seperate cases before the abitrator?

[skinsguy]

All this legal talk is giving me a big headache, but I definitely appreciate the info. I'm more confused now, more than ever. In layman's terms, does this mean the Redskins and Cowboys stand a very good chance of getting burned at the stake rather than winning this thing? Or are we still just speculating? Certainly I would like to think this would be an easy win for the two teams, but if things accelerated to the point where the 'skins and 'boys not only lost, but had to surrender draft picks, I don't know how I could honestly keep supporting the NFL. I mean seriously, knowing that this franchise is trying to claw itself back to the point of respectability and on the verge of landing a franchise QB - all to lose it over some vindictive move by the other owners? I just think I'd lose faith in the pro sport after this. Not going to be overly dramatic, but I just want to know the bottom line - what are the possibilities of this mess escalating to something very nasty for the 'skins and 'boys as opposed to what we were all thinking before; that it is something the 'skins and 'boys should win easily?

[SBXVII]

In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?

Wait. he never answered what the meaning of an uncapped year is? then he stammers into his "we had rules" (which by the way were illegal) and "those that didn't follow the rules....." what? so he's saying they took minutes and all teams were made very aware that they were to commit collusion and not spend and that if said teams did do this what ever CAP advantage they recieved would be taken back? He made it perfectly clear is what he's saying? OK.

Lets go DS. Take it to court. Take every one of those 30 owners to court.

[SBXVII]

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

Why send the contracts to the league for approval at all? If they are not going to look at them then there is no need to send them. But they do look at them, they do get to decide if the contracts are ok or not. The league had no problem with the contracts or they would have denied them. What... is the league all of a sudden ... oh we made a mistake and because we can't do our jobs.... we are going to make you pay for it.