Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If that is the question put to this arbiter - and the only question - the arbiter would dismiss the matter as it is not within the jurisdiction granted him under the current CBA.

He may very well issue a decision saying that the Skins/Cowboys actions were not in violation of the 2006 CBA but that the modifications made to the 2012 and 2013 salary cap are both permitted under the current/governing CBA and were properly imposed under the procedures set forth in that CBA.

Why would, why do people think, and why on earth would it be allowed for the league to apply the current CBA rules to an issue that occurred under the old CBA?

I'm sorry this is where I see wrong doing also. If it was not in the old CBA shame on you change the rules so it doesn't happen again. You can't make a new CBA with a rule for this issue then go back to something that occurred 2yrs ago and apply a current rule/punishment to an issue that didn't occurr under it. IF and I'm saying IF this is what occurred it really leaves the league looking more idiotic then I thought it was before.

IF this is the case then DS definitely needs to take this to the courts.

[That Guy]

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

Yes, in principle, and in most walks of life.

However, this is a small private club of very competitive men that have decided they need to have a strong Commissioner with broad powers to keep the 32 of them rowing in the same direction.

They gave this Commissioner specific powers to punish Clubs for what he - in his sole discretion - believes is detrimental to the League and adversely affects competitive balance.

Right or wrong, whether he uses it fairly or unfairly, the 32 owners have given specific power to the Commissioner to impose certain penalties in that situation. He doesn't have to prove it to anyone - that's what "in his sole discretion" means.

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.

The only reason the Skins have arbitration as a recourse at all is that he tried to impose a different - lighter and probably more relevant - penalty than what he is authorised to impose.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.
.

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

[JoeRedskin]

Yes, I agree and that was my point SB but my words were poorly chosen, the penalty is not being imposed pursuant to the CBA. Rather, in order to effectuate it's desired penalty, the NFL needed the NFLPA to agree to a modification of the governing CBA.

[SBXVII]

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

Also, it's my understanding the warning was for teams going out and spending tons of money on players. The warning was not specific to what the two teams did which was restructure current contracts and pushing the CAP hits to one year. That's where we differ Hoop. You keep saying all the teams were specifically warned and I'm saying they were but not specific to what the two teams did. They found a loop hole, one in which was not warned about, one in which they knew if the league denied the contracts would have given the NFLPA proof of collusion, which forced the league to agree or over look the contracts at the time but now with the understanding that the NFLPA could not file suit over old issues felt comfortable enough to punish the two teams.

Basically the league didn't like the loop hole, punished, and came up wih a cock-eyed look at the warning with saying the two teams in the long run are making it difficult for other teams to keep their players.... An unfair advantage which required a punishment.

You know the league doesn't have a problem with teams signing players to large contracts, say 100mill dollar contracts which also drives up the costs on player positions and causing unfair advantages as well.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ok, um, I keep saying this but I'll say it again there was no violation to the current CBA. The violation occurred under the old CBA. So who hears the violation under the old CBA? If not an Arbitrator? Presumably whomever is the current Arbitrator I would think. It should not matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA his job is the same.

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

Which is why I believe the Arbitrator has been asked to step in. I also somewhat understand what Hoop is saying about the Arbiture only having a specific job between owners and players but if what the Redskins and Cowboys was unique and a punishment applied then perhaps this would be something new and unique for the Arbiture to oversee as well owner vs owner. I can see the Arbiture stepping up and saying this has never happened before but this will be my duties also.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ahhhhh .... now I get what you're saying. Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. A good question and one beyond my immediate knowledge, it is more labor relations specific: What redress is available to a wronged party of an expired labor agreement? My gut is "too bad, so sad" b/c the governing agreement no longer exists. At the same time, and if that were the case, it might lead to some improper results.

The problem is that the League punishing Clubs doesn't violate any CBA, old or new.

If the players disagreed with the punishment, they would have an obviously strong case to say the NFL can't unilaterally modify the salary cap.

As for timing, surely someone could sue the NFL for actions that violated a (now-expired) agreement that existed at the time.

As for the CBA, both parties agreed in the 2011 version not to sue each other or assist suits that fall under the previous CBA (emphasis added):

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:
(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues ("TR") or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.

(b) The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFLPA or any of its members, or agents acting on its behalf, or any member of its bargaining unit, with respect to conduct occurring prior to
the execution of this Agreement.

[The Goat]

I think we can all agree the league is not going reverse its ruling here and give clemency. We're stuck w/ the cap penalty...lame.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The PDF copy I found is searchable, and searching "uncapped year" will take you to the relevant sections. Here's an example:

Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior
to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding
any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section
7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the
contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player
Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.

You keep repeating this point that there were rules in place that showed NFL and NFLPA agreement on this, but I think you are way way off base in this part. The mere fact of a bulleted list does not show broad agreement on a principle, instead it shows specific negotiated agreements probably worked out through a lot of horse trading. If both parties wantes to show general agreement there are two simple ways, probably more, that they could have done that. One would be to write a general policy statement that said something to the effect of " no contract shall be enacted in the an uncapped league year that is determined to violate a general competitve balance" and then use the list as specific examples, or to add an elastic clause at the end of the list that said "and other contract devices as the commissioner may determine" or something along those lines. The fact that there is a well defined and specific list shows that there were specific valid tools that were invalid only during a period when the league faced an uncapped year. It is convoluted at best to assert after the fact that all such contract devices were subject to unwritten and precocious rules.

Your best points come when you expound on the procedural points and the arbitrator's role. If the league is ever forced to present your theory of implied agreement I imagine the NFLPA would be up in arms denying to their very core.