Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Keep feeding the beast GiantOne. I am hungry and I am on a roll.

JoeRedskin could go "nuclear" over cap mess.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

JoeRedskin could go "nuclear" over cap mess.

Yeah, can there be a Fans Union? and can the fans file a law suit against the other 30 teams for collusion? Maybe the only fans who can file are the ones who have paid for their seating vs. someone who purchases tickets here and there.

I seriously would love to see some players start filing their law suits against the 30 clubs who colluded. Basically usurping the NFLPA that they didn't represent them in the Exec Commity. lol.

[Player_HTTR]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yeah, can there be a Fans Union? and can the fans file a law suit against the other 30 teams for collusion? Maybe the only fans who can file are the ones who have paid for their seating vs. someone who purchases tickets here and there.

I seriously would love to see some players start filing their law suits against the 30 clubs who colluded. Basically usurping the NFLPA that they didn't represent them in the Exec Commity. lol.

I thought about this yesterday and gave up. The only people I could see suing are Season Ticket Holders for the devaluing of the their ticket's face value, by the team not being able to field as competitive a team. But I am not familiar with the T&As of being a Season Ticket Holder and had to worry about real life for a bit.

[FRPLG]

Actually there was a CBA in place technically...just no cap as part of the CBA. This mechanism was intended to motivate both sides to negotiate a new CBA prior to a last year lame-duck CBA situation. Instead the owners decided that that CBA was not to their benefit and opted out, via a provision of the CBA, thus fast-forwarding the last year into 2010.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Actually there was a CBA in place technically...just no cap as part of the CBA. This mechanism was intended to motivate both sides to negotiate a new CBA prior to a last year lame-duck CBA situation. Instead the owners decided that that CBA was not to their benefit and opted out, via a provision of the CBA, thus fast-forwarding the last year into 2010.

OK, that part I wasn't quite sure on. I was assuming the owners had let the CBA expire making 2010 an uncapped year without a CBA, but you're probably right.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

OK, that part I wasn't quite sure on. I was assuming the owners had let the CBA expire making 2010 an uncapped year without a CBA, but you're probably right.

Probably saying the same thing but wasn't 2009 the last yr of the CBA (through extentions)? and due to a rule in the last CBA that kept the rules in place for 1 yr after the CBA then tech. clubs and players were to follow the old CBA rules. (I kept thinking it was done but wasn't). 2011 was tech. a yr with out a CBA and because the player and owners could not come to an agreement the owners locked out the players to force an agreement which really didn't work, but in the end an the new CBA was formed.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Probably saying the same thing but wasn't 2009 the last yr of the CBA (through extentions)? and due to a rule in the last CBA that kept the rules in place for 1 yr after the CBA then tech. clubs and players were to follow the old CBA rules. (I kept thinking it was done but wasn't). 2011 was tech. a yr with out a CBA and because the player and owners could not come to an agreement the owners locked out the players to force an agreement which really didn't work, but in the end an the new CBA was formed.

No, the uncapped year was part of the CBA. The last year in all recent CBAs have always been uncapped as an incentive to get a deal done before an uncapped year happened.

Not much of an incentive, since apparently Goodell has the power to implement a de facto cap anyway.

[mitch e]

What would Al Davis do??? Sue, SUe,SUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NYCskinfan82]

If we do NOTHING that means they have something on us. Maybe we spoke to St. Lou before time I don't know something like that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If we do NOTHING that means they have something on us. Maybe we spoke to St. Lou before time I don't know something like that.

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

Awesome stuff throughout this thread, JR! Very clear.

Right, this is clearly the equation at this point. And there's the real worry that the nuclear option has too much fallout even for DS--now Al Davis was radioactive, so it was no worry for him at all.

Arbitration or behind the scenes deal-making is the most likely outcome. This is the NFL, after all. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the owner's meeting!

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. If we do nothing, it simply means that, in weighing the probability and benefits of prevailing against the costs of pursuing the claim, the possibility of an adverse decision and/or the incidental costs created by attacking their fellow owners, DS decided it was best to go quietly into the night.

Lots of people settle or fail to pursue meritorious claims and they do so for lots of reasons unrelated to the actual merit of the claim. It is why Dallas' decision not to pursue a claim is simply not in any way probative as to the merit of the Skins' substantive claim.

You see it your way I see it mine.

[HoopheadVII]

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

3) The CBA explicitly states (Art XIII, Sec. 1) that the salary cap will the same amount for each club.

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

A couple of relevant points that may or may not have been made yet:

1) The NFL's Constitution and bylaws outline the authority of the Executive Committee, the Commissioner, and they authorize the commissioner to create other committees reporting to the commissioner (including the Management Council Executive Committee). The authority of the commissioner is specifically defined (Art. VIII), and nowhere in there does the commissioner have the power to modify the salary cap. He does have the right to recommend other punishment to the Executive Committee, but punishment by the Executive Committee requires the affirmative vote of 3/4 of the clubs.

2) The discipline enacted relies on the clubs involved exhibiting "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League." This should be interesting to prove given that the Commissioner had the ability to disapprove the relevant contracts at the time and didn't.

3) The CBA explicitly states (Art XIII, Sec. 1) that the salary cap will the same amount for each club.

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

NICE first post HH and welcome to the WP!
BTW, I think it is a little to interesting for the league to allow to fully come to light. In THAT light I think JoeRedskin is probably correct. There will be some quiet negotiations and subsequent settlement.....HTTR

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

4) The NFLPA agreed to not dispute the penalty because DeMaurice Smith was bribed with his job. He is up for re-election this month, and seeing the salary cap go down from the fixed amount last year would all but ensure he's not re-elected. The Salary Cap is calculated for a given year based on projected revenues - and the total cash spending requirement across all teams is adjusted later based on actual revenues. Since the League makes this projection, they threatened to lower the salary cap in 2012 if the NFLPA didn't accept the penalties on the 'Skins and Cowboys.

again, what proof do you have that this took place,you have used the words" bribed and threatened" and have not shown one once of proof.