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

[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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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).

Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it when it was in force.

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - unless the NFL brings it up (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

He's correct. You may only seek damages for your own injuries. The Skins do not have standing to sue on behalf of the NFLPA or any players. Those parties stand on their own -- You can't sue me seeking to recover damages for injuries I might have done to your brother, only your brother has the right to sue me for those damages.

The NFLPA brought their action seeking remedies and lost. Fair and square and for sound legal reasons ("Oops, I didn't think it would mean that" is generally not seen a sound basis for allowing people to reopen lawsuits).




Just off the top of my head, I think anything doing with the collusion is bound to fail. The crux of the argument being it is a breach of contract to penalize the team for violating an agreement that was, at the time it existed, inherently illegal (i.e. the agreement to violate the "uncapped year" through collusion). I think, however, this fails b/c even, if they didn't completely comply with it, Snyder conspired to further it by failing to reveal it when it was in force.

As an example: A bunch of criminals agree not to sell their ill-gotten gains until the heat dies down. One, thinking he can get one-up the other criminals goes out and does just that. The others are miffed but don't dare do anything b/c it would lead the cops right to them. They all flee the country and, as soon as they cross the border, they beat up the rogue conspirator and take teh rest of his share away from him. The conspirator cannot sue for his share of the stolen goods back.



The argument that the contracts were approved by the League after the Skins followed the written rules of the league, I think probably holds water. I am betting that the Skins knew these contracts were objectionable and that they followed the procedural requirements for their approval by the League to a tee. Not an I undotted or a T uncrossed. In that case, the argument is that the League's penalty even though imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (as ruled by the arbiter) constituted a substantive violation of the owners' rules concerning contract approval.

The beauty of this second argument is that it leaves the collusion out of it - unless the NFL brings it up (i.e. Sure, we approved the contracts, but they knew, and were part of, a bad faith collusive agreement not to submit these contracts. If we had disapproved them, it would have shown us to be illegally colluding and damaged the negotiation process for everyone). In the end, the collusion comes out and everybody looks bad BUT, it forces the other owners to admit their bad faith and try to prove Snyder was part of it. If the Skins' lawyers thought it out this far, I am in awe of their subtle elegance.

It didn't take us long to come up with that. more then likely they already have.

[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.

[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...

[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

[Evilgrin]

It's looks bad when you cover yourself with lies.

[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.

[redskins5044]

this cap penalty does hurt for this year, but we are not the worst off team when it comes to being over the cap. it might affect how many people we sign in FA this year and may be stuck with some of the same average players on our roster. but if we can restructure some contracts we will be fine, we get Orakpo and Carricker back on D, and if RG3 is healthy i wouldnt count us out of anything.