Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[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).

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Do you have anything to substantiate that? My understanding is that the arbitration is allowed due to a specific clause in the CBA, and that all parties agree to the fact that arbitration is binding.

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

[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.

[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?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

1-4) Personally, I think it's coincidental that it's the Giants' owner that happened to run the relevant committee. Any other team owner is a competitor, and there's no way they appoint outsiders to every committee position.

5) The salary cap refers to the max teams can spend for competitive reasons. Actual cash spending is different (i.e. signing bonus counts as actual cash in year 1, but is prorated over the length of the contract for cap purposes).

Raising the cap the way they did won't cost other teams money in total. There's no obligation to spend it. If anything, it may raise the salary floor a little for some teams - but there aren't more than a couple teams bumping against the salary floor.

The only other obligation to spend money is that the 32 clubs as a whole have to average 99% of the salary cap as actual cash spending in 2012. Luckily for them, they have two teams that consistently spend actual cash above the salary cap every year and will make sure the League meets that obligation.

In the end, they wouldn't save any money long term by lowering the cap this year. The cap is made based on projected revenues for the upcoming year, and then actual payments to players are adjusted based on actual revenue afterwards. Whether they set the cap at $116m or $121m, they'll still have to pay out the same in the long run. If they accidentally overpay now, there's a downwards adjustment in the future.

Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Kinda get what your saying kinda don't.

however someone posted here earlier that the two teams Arbitration was not based on the complaint the punishment was not fair but rather the proceedure of the punishment. Basically the Arbiture will be looking at probably several things I would imagine; should Mara have overseen it, should it have been held over to the next owners meeting and voted on, should the two teams been given enough notice to file an appeal vs. waiting until 2hrs before FA. Things like this.

The other issue being the punishment itself would have to go through a law suit against all the other 30owners.

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Understand your second half.

Your first half although it is coincidental.... is a conflict of interest. I don't think some outside individual should have heard the facts, all I'm saying is most of the boards have a #2 to take over if the #1 can not hear the case. Mara should have advised the committee he would not be heading this issue up because the two teams to be punished resided in his division. He should have stepped aside on this and allowed another team owner or the #2 to step up and hear the issue. Thats all I'm saying. He had a ton to gain by agreeing to the punishment because it would limit two teams that spend a lot in FA. It would give him 1.6 mill in spending CAP. It would keep him from possibly losing some of his players to one of these two teams. and it benifits him in 2012 if these two teams can't bring in top talent to challenge his team.

1) Any owner has a similar conflict of interest.

2) If 29 of 30 owners support it, it wouldn't have made a difference who it was.

3) I'm guessing it went something like this:
- Multiple owners complain to the Commissioner
- Commissioner decides on punishment - take away cap space
- Taking away cap space affects the CBA, better talk with NFLPA first
- Commissioner gives it to MCEC because they are responsible for negotiating with NFLPA

MCEC (Mara's committee) doesn't have authority to discipline teams. Mara's involved because he's the League's main contact with the NFLPA.