Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.

Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.

I heard this on the radio about an hour or two ago, came here hoping for a storm of discussion!

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

Agree, they Know there in the wrong.

[JoeRedskin]

Ehh, everybody moves for a dismissal if they have even the most tenuous grounds for it. I cannot imagine that it is granted BUT they are starting to get into the stuff much more particular to labor law, the specific terms of the CBA and anti-trust stuff.

Under general contract legal concepts (Contracts 101 essentially - okay, maybe 401), I feel pretty confident that the agreement of the NFLPA to the NFL's change in the salary cap is a waiver of players rights but not of the rights of the clubs within the NFL.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

According to the CBA, the arbitrator in the case has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce certain articles of the CBA, including the ones regarding the salary cap.

The issue here is that the parties to the CBA are the NFLPA (exclusively representing the players), and the NFLMC (exclusively representing the Clubs that employ the players).

Normally, arbitration under the CBA is intended to settle grievances between Clubs (employer) and players (employee). It is not intended to settle grievances between the Clubs and the NFL or NFLMC.

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

If they do get relief, I'd guess it's based on the fact that the whole concept of the salary cap throughout the CBA is that "Salary Cap" is one number, and it's specifically defined as being the same for all teams. I suppose they'd have to argue that making the salary cap different for different teams completely violates the whole concept and the modifications to include these penalties is inconsistent with the rest of the CBA.

The only reason arbitration is involved at all is because the punishment involves the salary cap, the salary cap is relevant to the CBA, and the CBA provides for arbitration to enforce its provisions.

If the Commissioner had settled on another punishment, the Clubs would only have the options of a) appealing to the Commissioner to reconsider a la Sean Payton, or b) suing the NFL. The former wouldn't go anywhere, and the latter isn't something the Clubs involved seem to want to do.

There is no provision for arbitration in the NFL Bylaws (which governs the relationships between the NFL and member Clubs). The Commissioner has certain specific authority and the Executive Committee (32 owners) has authority for everything else, subject to a 3/4ths majority vote.

Personally, I believe the best case is that the Clubs and League settle on a reduced punishment in order to make this go away. Since the NFLPA is a party to the CBA and apparently named in the grievance, they will get discovery on all documents produced as part of this case. I don't think either the League or the Clubs involved really want to hand the clubs any more information than they have to in this matter.

IMO, the League made a complete mess of this punishment, but has now tied up their procedural loose ends. They probably have legit grounds for dismissal, but I'd guess they don't get it right away. I'd guess (and hope) the Clubs play chicken long enough to get the League to reduce the punishment.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?

I don't think so. The Arbitrator is only looking to see if someone broke the CBA rules and if the punishement should be emplimented and if it's fair or not.

The legal side of things would be to decide if the other teams actually were engaged in collusion and the two teams chose not to engage in it. An actual judge would have to hear that and might punish the rest of the owners for doing so. I don't think the league will want it to go that far and will come to some agreement. Will DS and JJ take it that far? I think they will file if need be and hope some of their CAP space get returned so they can drop the law suit.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

I agree with you. I know the Exec Commitee can give punishements but where there was no CBA and no rules broken I don't think they can. Also, I see the vote as something that should have taken place prior to the punishement being given and the two teams should have had an opportunity to explain their side to the other owners prior to the vote. So all owners could make an informed decision. Unfortunatly that would have taken place after the two teams could have spent the CAP space and that is what the Exec Commitee was afraid of so they punished first. Then asked for a vote with out giving the two teams the right to explain to the other owners their side. Even kicked them out of the meeting for the vote.

People fail to realize the "warning" the league gave was for teams going to and signing up players to big contracts. There was no "warning" for teams reworking contracts with players already under contract. No rules were broken. and honestly the contracts didn't change how much money the players got just when they got it.

The big issue the two teams can bring to the Arbitrator is the league approved the contracts when they had every opportunity to decline them or deny them. They do it all the time when they is something that is not right in the contracts so its not like they couldn't deny the contracts and tell both teams "per our agreement you are not allowed to do this." The problem is the league had to approve them or be seen colluding which would have gotten them into trouble. Now after the fact they want to punish which should not be allowed. If you couldn't punish then the league should be able to punish now. Besides how does 30 teams agree to break the law and punish two who chose not to break the law? Hopefully the Arbitrator see's it this way.

[FRPLG]

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.