Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[biffle]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'd imagine the arguement is going to be that by freeing up all that space we in the future would be able to sign all the top talent in FA and no one else would be able to. However what was presented to me that I didn't know was all the CAP room the other teams had which really makes the arguement a moot point since they had just as much if not more CAP space to pick up all the top FA's.

I think you missed the point. The NFL is saying that the instructions on how to treat the uncapped year weren't collusion because they weren't trying to suppress salaries. But, by trying to stop teams from (perfectly legally) gaining future cap room to spend on salaries, that's exactly what they were doing.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Goodell didn't do this. The owners lead by John Mara did.

[SBXVII]

I like this write up:

Redskins right, NFL wrong in salary-cap dispute | WSLS 10

It made sense. A season with no salary cap should equal an opportunity to ease or erase the impact of some high-dollar deals.

A team that failed to do something similar might be guilty of financial mismanagement

The league says the Redskins and Cowboys gained an unfair competitive advantage in future seasons by taking advantage of a loophole in a non-salary cap season.

Yet each move the Redskins made was approved by the NFL, with the caveat that some of these financial maneuvers were things the Redskins really should not do.

Hey, either give the team permission and live with the consequences or deny the team permission and force it to live with the consequences.

But don't give permission, then come back two years later, rescind the approval and issue punishment.

What the Redskins and Cowboys did might not sit well with their NFL colleagues, but what Washington and Dallas did made sense.

That's probably what has everyone confused

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

[biffle]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

You could say the Patriots threatened competitve balance by acquring too many draft picks. And, like in this case, disperse them among all their competitiors.

[CRedskinsRule]

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

I really don't see why its better to take this licking. It seems like you are parrotting Mara's it could have been worse. But, its not and at this point Goodell is not going to strip either team of draft picks, which certainly would have had the possibility of being very ugly had he chosen that route. Both sides are going to arbitration and its possible the skins get some redress. At this point they have nothing to lose.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I really don't see why its better to take this licking. It seems like you are parrotting Mara's it could have been worse. But, its not and at this point Goodell is not going to strip either team of draft picks, which certainly would have had the possibility of being very ugly had he chosen that route. Both sides are going to arbitration and its possible the skins get some redress. At this point they have nothing to lose.

I think they should go to arbitration and hope for the best. I was saying that if they lose in arbitration or win in arbitration but then get handed a different penalty, they should take it rather than suing the league in court.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I think they should go to arbitration and hope for the best. I was saying that if they lose in arbitration or win in arbitration but then get handed a different penalty, they should take it rather than suing the league in court.

and I'd say take it to court because at this point there would be more evidence that the league is trying to continue to soley pick on the Redskins. Since they didn't win in court they would get their revenge some other way would not fair well with the league in court.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.

No IN THIS case the supreme court is an arbitrator. As you pointed out had Goodelll taken picks then we either sue or drop it he didn't in THIS case. Now an arbitrator will weigh in

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

And even if the arbitrator says, "you can't modify the CBA even though you followed the correct procedure for modifying the CBA" and the salary cap is restored, the Commissioner could still turn around and take away draft picks.

Or he could take a closer look at Gregg Williams' time with the 'Skins and decide they should lose a draft pick for that.

Or he could come up with something else and take draft picks away for that too.

Maybe so but that would be seen as vindictive and I don't believe the teams will necessarily line up for that. The skins and cowboys bring alot to the table that they also could use in that type of struggle.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Maybe so but that would be seen as vindictive and I don't believe the teams will necessarily line up for that. The skins and cowboys bring alot to the table that they also could use in that type of struggle.

You would hope so, but I got nervous when I saw the 29-0-1 vote with Snyder and Jones out of the room.

Frankly, I thought we'd definitely win until I saw that.

[SBXVII]

Why Can't Roger Goodell Go One Day Without Lying?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I think they should go to arbitration and hope for the best. I was saying that if they lose in arbitration or win in arbitration but then get handed a different penalty, they should take it rather than suing the league in court.

Well this I agree with, but it had seemed like you were saying that the arbitrator could not overrule the league.