Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.

Thats what I've been saying, and DeMaurice Smith trashed Gene Upshaw. The first CBA he negotiates is terrible.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The further and further we get away from the settlement, the more it looks like the owners schooled the NFLPA.

You want shorter practices? No 18 game schedules? Okay. We scrap the old anti-trust settlment entirely (i.e. no more Dotty), get Commissioner discipline and a 10 year deal.

All the while, NFL teams were spending less than their mandated floors and colluding not to start bidding wars in the "uncapped" year. AND, their bad faith collusion was so well hidden, that it was never (regardless of the BS Goodell is peddling now) discovered.

I admit I was not a fan of some of the player issues at the time (can't even remember all the issues now), but, damn, the owners played the whole thing to a tee. The only real issue they had a set back on was the treble damages relating to TV money rights - but ... oh wait! ... the NFLPA waived those also in order to get limited two-a-days.

Really, in retrospect, other than easier practices and a slightly more substantial offseason, what did the players gain out of this CBA?

Nothing...nothing at all. It was a decisive win for the owners at the time and like you said the smart people in the room (the owners) knew just how big a win it was. But lots of football players had car payments to make on their Bentley's so there you go.

[SBXVII]

and... to finish my point..... the NFL almost has a duty to deny a contract that is not with in its guidlines. So had there been an agreement (unofficially) between the owners the NFL still had a duty to deny the contracts based off of the unofficial agreement. Instead they approved them which would indicate the contracts were ok and legal. If anyone should be punished it's whoever agreed to let the Skins make those deals.

[SBXVII]

I looked up the NFL's "Anti-Trust Exemptions" and basically there was the time when both leagues (NFC/AFC) were joining together to become one league and the Feds "gave" the league the exemptions in order to be able to come together as one league. If the feds took away the "exemptions" then basically the two leagues would be broken up again into to seperate entities. How that would affect the CBA, contracts, CAP, and future deals would be interesting.

Another time was when the NFL got sued by CBS for the NFL trying to sell package deals to the network instead of allowing each individual market to negotiate their own deals.

Then there was some hat company that had several teams contracted and the NFL decided to package a deal with Reebok so the small company sued the NFL for damages and the NFL won based on again the same reason that allowed them to package a deal to the networks.

[SBXVII]

Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status? | Sports Fans Coalition

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Or simply put the Feds could take away this exemption also....lol...

Why Does the National Football League Deserve Tax-Exempt Status?*|*Sports Fans Coalition

That is shocking.

[JoeRedskin]

Sure, the Federal government could take away the various anti-trust and tax exemptions. However, both are legislative actions that would require an act of Congress to change. I suggest, despite the groundswell in the Washington area and in the media, this is not likely to occur. Lots of sound and fury, but if I'm advising the other owners its "lay low, say nice things, soft peddle the collusion as sharp negotiating tactics to preserve the intergrity of the game, etc.", nothing will come of this.

There may be an existing law that allows the Feds to punish parties who conduct bad faith negotiations in labor disputes. I said this in one of my early posts in the original thread - the NFLPA's suit exposed the conflict between to competing philosophical legal concepts: (1) A settlement is a settlement is a settlement; v. (2) Parties should not benefit from bad faith. B/c so much of labor negotiations requires good faith and b/c bad faith can be disguised and only exposed well after settlements have been reached, I would not be surprised if a Federal anti-trust statute existed to punish such behavior independent of any settlement agreements. Again, it may exist - it may not. If it does, I would not be surprised. I am just unaware of it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Well one thing they did gain was lifetime healthcare through the NFL, Ross Tucker has said often that that was an important get from the negotiations.

[SFREDSKIN]

Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case

Well that's a step up from the purely negative views from a few weeks ago...

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case

What I think is interesting is that those saying the Skins will lose are basically saying they will lose b/c everyone has lost on the previous claims/lawsuits. They don't really cite any legal basis for the loss. On the other hand, those saying they may have an argument cite to a specific legal theory for how they may recover.

The stuff that has gone before really is tangential to the current potential claim. One involved the claims for redress by an entirely different party - the NFLPA. The other involved, essentially, a procedural administrative claim by the Skins that the NFL had not followed its own internal rules when levying the penalties. Neither dealt with the substantive claim for unfair dealing that Snyder is now contemplating against his business partners. (i.e. - you filled out the proper forms to levy the fines, but the underlying basis for the fines is invalid).

Also, the article says that the League and NFLPA must agree to restore the cap space. While that may be true, the Skins could seek and the judge could order equitable relief of another kind (extra draft picks for example) or levy such a monstrous fine on the NFL that would vanish if the cap space were restored. Alternatively, the Skins could seek assistance/testimony from the NFLPA saying, "yup, we agree to the restoration of the cap space if you order it judge." There's lots of creative ways to redress the wrong.

The more I think about it. The more I think that Snyder has a legit claim. It would air a LOT of dirty laundry and he may or may not succeed, but I am betting there is something actionable.

Even if he couldn't get an injuction, all it would have to do is survive a motion to dismiss and Mara, Goodell and others would be subject to depositions. Given the timing, those would likely be happening right around the opening of the new season.

I bet if they can put together a Complaint that appears to have some legal weight to it and shows they are willing to go the distance, owners will accomodate them. None of them will want to be deposed about their discussions and agreements during the lockout.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Joe - I really appreciate your insight and expertise in the letter of the law in this thread and others.

I find this all very disgusting, and unfortunately keeping this 18mil penalty is really going to hurt us this year. Last year we got by, but this may really crush our roster and chance to repeat as Champs.

I have looked around and I am a pretty avid listener to national sports talk radio and I have yet to hear anyone who agrees with the way that the league has handled this situation or the penalties levied against either team.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The more I think about it. The more I think that Snyder has a legit claim. It would air a LOT of dirty laundry and he may or may not succeed, but I am betting there is something actionable.

Great analysis Joe.

[CultBrennan59]

Wow. Things are starting to get fishy. And very interesting. Shocker, someone in a high end organization is lying.
NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Wow. Things are starting to get fishy. And very interesting. Shocker, someone in a high end organization is lying.
NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington

Ha ha, yeah Goodell, thats why the NFLPA filed a law suit against the NFL cause they agreed to collude with the owners and allow the NFL to punish anyone who failed to go along with the program. lol.

Goodell you kill me. It would have been funnier had it been said on April 1st.