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

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RedskinsInNYC

I would think he brings federal antitrust claims along with state law tortious interference claims. If I were him/on his legal team, I would want to bring the case in a DMV area court (preferably VA). Never underestimate the impact a fan on the bench can have on a case; see Judge Berrigan (EDLA) in the Vilma v. Goodell litigation...

Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly.

In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.

Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.

Already been addressed. Thank You for the help.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.

Folks, the collusion ship has sailed, and the NFLPA "waived" it good-bye.

@FRLPG as to the waiver being a termination offense - Waivers like the one in this settlement are pretty standard in any settlement. Had their been no omnibus waiver, there would not have been a settlement. I would never let a client settle a suit without a general waiver. If the other side wants to change that, it would have to be a very specific, very limited exception and you would need to give up a lot to get it as a settlement term. Think about it - would you settle a huge lawsuit against you, with terms you didn't like but accepted so the suit would be over, if the someone could reopen the whole can of worms, again, six months after the ink was dry? I don't fault the waiver. I fault the pre-settlement investigation.

If I'm a player, my reaction is - "What the hell? Why didn't this come out? Somebody was not asking the right questions. Was this something we knew about? What did we get for waiving this?"

The owners played their cards very well. They knew exactly when to hold'em and when to fold'em.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.

They did have a choice. They could have taken the lower cap.

Or better yet, they could have actually saved up some money so they didnt have to take a horrible deal just to get a paycheck to keep their houses from being foreclosed on because 100k gaudy looking diamond encrusted necklaces are the norm instead of a savings account.

Everyone associated with the NFLPA, from the lawyers to the negotiators to the players themselves knew the cap was going to go down if they accepted a deal that had the players taking a lower percentage of the revenues than they received in the previous CBA. Not only did they take a decrease, they took a huge decrease.

If the union was any good, they would make the players start a fund for these exact things. Maybe 5% of their salaries go in there and it gets saved for paychecks when there are negotiations on a new CBA. If you cannot threaten the owners with lost games (meaning lost revenue), you cant get the owners to offer a fair contract.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Would it hurt the Skins? sure in the long run with possibly the NFL losing their exemptions but how much and what exactly would change about how they are doing business is the question. I presume it would only stick another entity in the middle of any and all negotiations in the future. Something every business owner has to worry about now, no reason the NFL should be exempt.

I think the big issue is simply holding up FA. Lets say the Skins file their injuction and its granted FA is held up until the CAP and 18 mill is resolved and if that 18 mill is tied into a law suit which most likely won't be heard until June, July, Aug. or later, then there is the issue of sides post poning court dates for whatever reason..... FA could be tied up into the start of next season which the owners don't want, and players will want to be on a team getting paid learning their offensive or defensive schemes. Players will just be sitting out there without jobs waiting for this to be resolved.

[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?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.

depends on what the Redskins claim is. Owner vs. Owner you would be correct.

If the Redskins bring up unfair negotiating tactics and collusion against the NFLPA this could go in a different direction. Essentially this would be one Owner trying to defend the rights of all the players by filing a suit against his fellow business men.

More then likely it's own vs. owner though. The real issue on that end is:

1- was there a CAP? no.
2- did the Skins violate any laws? no because there was no CBA.
3- did the Skins agree to something then go against the agreement?

If the Skins didn't agree with the "agreement" (collusion) then its hard to say they broke a verbal contract (collusion). then there is the fact:

4- the NFL previewed the contracts, agreed with the contracts, and signed off on the contracts. It would be a different story if the Redskins did something behind the NFL's back with out their knowledge and then got caught, then a punishement would be understandable. In this case the league agreed to the contracts where and when they could have denied them and told the two teams to restructure them. The league didn't. Which should tell any common sense person as well as court that the NFL did not have a problem with the contracts. So no punishments should have been issued.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But.... if the Redskins are crying foul in regards to unfair labor practices against the players during the negotiations of the new CBA then I could see the Feds getting involved. The Redskins essentially would be the proof and evidence that the owners had an agreement and got involved in unfair labor/negotiating practices to screw the players out of money.

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

[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]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Maybe. In light of the waiver, however, I still question the ability of the Feds to intervene. There was a labor dispute, governed by a binding CBA, which proceeded to resolution through the court system until and out of court settlement was reached. While there were practices during the negotiations by one side that violated the original binding agreement, any claims for damages resulting from these practices were waived by the other side as part of the omnibus settlement of all outstanding claims.

In light of the mutually negotiated settlement's terms, what statutory basis does the Federal government have to nullify an otherwise binding contract? There has to be some law that allows to do so. Unless it is inherently illegal (gambling contracts for example, or contracts to commit criminal actions) Governments cannot just say "We don't like this contract - away with you!!" (Which, by the way, is a very good thing).

I'm not 100% sure the Labor Department would disolve the whole CBA, what I am saying though is I could see the Labor Department saying clearly you (the NFL) engaged in unfair labor practices and from now on you'll lose your exemptions. If I remember correctly the government allowed the NFL to keep their exemptions.... the government does not have to allow them to though. So going nuclear could open a whole can of worms the owners don't want opened.

[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.