Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Eh....I don't know about this. Not saying your wrong, but logically speaking, if the NFL can just up and change terms of the CBA as it goes along, anytime it wants to and anyway it wants to, what is the purpose of having a CBA? It then becomes about as worthless as the napkin it was written on. Besides, even if they could, AND they decided to change the terms of this present CBA, 2010 was under the old CBA. I would think it would be a legal conflict to change terms of a present CBA to punish/reward teams during a time period of a former governing contract. I'm no legal expert at all, just trying to look at this through a logical perspective...but I suppose if the NFL looked at this through a logical perspective, then we wouldn't be discussing this situation as it would have never happened.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?

As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e. going forward the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).

As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative at the time it was taken. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]

I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.

[NC_Skins]

Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?

Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Goodell unable to define "uncapped" - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins







Almost becoming comical now with all this Neo/Matrix type dodging.

I found the actual response from Goodell below.

Originally Posted by The Rog's response to the 'uncapped year' question

Whoa brah! Party foul. Party FOUL. You're killing my buzz brah. GTFO. Next question.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.

And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.

Then it DS would have to file a law suit based on the fact the "rule" that was changed and was agreed to by the league technically was illegal and only at that time would most likely everything change because if the "rule" made up, changed, or whatever that was agreed to is illegal then technically the Skins did nothing wrong and then the CAP can be given back.

So were in it for the long haul. Unless DS decides all this is not worth it. Cause right now although it's proceedure it's also to see what resolve each side has in this by not giving in. Hopefully the good news is DS is prepared to file the law suit if need be and I hope the league backs off first and gives the CAP back before it has to go to some form of trial. This way the team can drop the issue prior to the league looking like fools when and if ever any labor organization decides to start investigating because more then likely they won't back off and will see it to the end.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Eh....I don't know about this. Not saying your wrong, but logically speaking, if the NFL can just up and change terms of the CBA as it goes along, anytime it wants to and anyway it wants to, what is the purpose of having a CBA? It then becomes about as worthless as the napkin it was written on. Besides, even if they could, AND they decided to change the terms of this present CBA, 2010 was under the old CBA. I would think it would be a legal conflict to change terms of a present CBA to punish/reward teams during a time period of a former governing contract. I'm no legal expert at all, just trying to look at this through a logical perspective...but I suppose if the NFL looked at this through a logical perspective, then we wouldn't be discussing this situation as it would have never happened.

I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.

I could be mistaken, but the way I understand it is that there was a CBA at the time, and the provision for no cap was part of it. If true, that essentially means the NFL was in violation of the CBA, by imposing "cap rules".

[SBXVII]

In his closing press conference at the NFL owners meeting, Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked if he had heard anything from Stephen Burbank, who will be the arbitrator in the the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ salary cap case and “what is an uncapped year supposed to be?”

The normally smooth Goodell stammered through his answer like a kid who was called on in class after he didn’t read the assignment. After a pregnant pause, he repeated back “what is an uncapped year” as if to gather his thoughts. He then said that he has not heard from Burbank and reiterated that the owners have voted to ratify the penalties.

In 2010 I think the rules were articulated. I’d have to go back and look at them again but the rules were quite clear. Whatever rules there were they were followed and whatever rules weren’t . . .

His voice then trailed off and he went on to the next question.

Uh, what?

Wait. he never answered what the meaning of an uncapped year is? then he stammers into his "we had rules" (which by the way were illegal) and "those that didn't follow the rules....." what? so he's saying they took minutes and all teams were made very aware that they were to commit collusion and not spend and that if said teams did do this what ever CAP advantage they recieved would be taken back? He made it perfectly clear is what he's saying? OK.

Lets go DS. Take it to court. Take every one of those 30 owners to court.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I could be mistaken, but the way I understand it is that there was a CBA at the time, and the provision for no cap was part of it. If true, that essentially means the NFL was in violation of the CBA, by imposing "cap rules".

If thats the case I love how Goodell has been dancing around the topic. lol.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think your sorta right. I think they can meet with the NFLPA and come to an agreement but I think it would still have to be presented to the next owners meeting for a final vote. Maybe even sent to the next players meeting for a final vote. But I don't think the league can arbitrarily just change the rules.

Besides there was no CBA. No CAP. the agreement was a "hey guys lets not spend too much this offseason ok, and if you do break this suggestion then we might punish you." I doubt DS and JJ felt it was binding since they went about doing what they did. I also have a major issue with the fact the league APPROVED these contracts. They had an opportunity to deny them, decline them, or simply send them back to the teams and tell them because of the way they are written they can't be approved. That didn't happen. Why wasn't it if this is such a big deal? oh I get it the league didn't want to get into trouble with the labor laws (collusion). If it was wrong now it was wrong then and they never should have approved the contracts. If it was not wrong at the time (which it apparently was not because they approved them) then it's not wrong now. There should be no punishment.

Well technically, the league was still under the old CBA in 2010, it was just written up to state that if a new CBA had not been reached by that point, then 2010 would be an uncapped year - at least that's what I seem to remember the language was. But yeah, I think the most important aspect to remember is that the league office approved the contracts.

It just all seems to come down to a case of we're going to follow these certain rules down to the letter, while ignoring other rules of the CBA. Can't pick and choose. I just have my doubts that the league and all of its many committees can simply change the CBA at any given point to suit a few teams' fancy. It's not logical.

[SBXVII]

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

Why send the contracts to the league for approval at all? If they are not going to look at them then there is no need to send them. But they do look at them, they do get to decide if the contracts are ok or not. The league had no problem with the contracts or they would have denied them. What... is the league all of a sudden ... oh we made a mistake and because we can't do our jobs.... we are going to make you pay for it.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?

As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e. going forward the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).

As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative at the time it was taken. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]

I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.

If it's a form of discipline - the league bylaws state what authority the Commissioner has to impose sanctions, and what requires an Executive Committee vote. The Commissioner does not have the authority to modify the salary cap without Executive Committee approval.

If it involves a modification of the CBA, it requires agreement between the NFL (via the MCEC) and the NFLPA. Depending on how substantial the change is, it may require approval from the owners. Both the NFLPA and 29 owners have signed off on this apparent modification of the CBA.

In the administration of this, it seems to have gone like this:
- The 'Skins and 'Cowboys shifted salary cap burden into the uncapped year
- Several owners complained
- The Commissioner decided to punish them, and salary cap hit made the most sense, even though he didn't have the authority to impose it
- Because it affected the CBA, Commissioner sent MCEC Chairman Mara to bribe NFLPA to sign off
- Commissioner thinks, "even though I don't have the authority to do this, the two teams will back off because I do have the authority to take away draft picks - and besides the other owners have my back."
- 'Skins and Cowboys fight anyway
- ???
- Profit

Anything could happen from here.

[skinsguy]

"The question was, 'Did any teams gain a competitive advantage?'" Goodell said. "And that was the focus that we and the NFLPA had in reaching our agreement -- making sure that no team had a long-term competitive advantage."

No date set for cap penalty hearings - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

Well let's see, the Redskins were 6-10 in 2010, and 5-11 in 2011. I don't see competitive advantage. And I'll take a page out of Roger Goodell's book, what is long-term competitive advantage?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yeah I keep getting my letters mixed up at this point. CBA, CAP. Ya know there's right and wrong and no matter how many idiots out there want to say the Skins and Boys violated some unwritten fraternity rule, I can't get past the fact the rule itself was illegal. It doesn't matter if 15 people agree or 32 the fact is the rule agreed upon was illegal. How does one justify not punishing 30 people for breaking the law, but it's ok to punish 2 people who didn't?

The argument seems to be that they are not punishing the Skins and Cowboys for spending in an uncapped year - they are punishing them for structuring contracts so that future cap hits were shifted into 2010. The Haynesworth contract restructuring included a $21m signing bonus, and the cap hit would normally be spread evenly across 2010, 2011, and 2012.

However, they included a provision that Haynesworth could void the contract after 2010 by paying back something like $24m. Because this was entirely under player control, the entire $21m cap hit comes in 2010.

They weren't paying Haynesworth any more money in 2010 than they would if the void clause were omitted, just shifting the entire cap hit into 2010. The other owners are saying this is unfair.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for rules that don't exist or not is another issue.

Also how bright it is for members of an exclusive club to anger 29 other members of the exclusive club when the rules of the club say you can do just about anything with 24 votes is another subject for discussion.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

and secondly the league approved the contracts. This was not a situation where the league had no clue these contracts were made and only now getting to see them and have decided to punish two teams for it. This is two teams being warned, restructured contracts, sent them to the league to be either approved or denied, the league looked them over and said they are ok you can continue with these contracts, and 2 yrs later are saying hold on a minute you can't do this so now we are going to punish you.

This part I agree with. The league should have said, OK you can do this contract, but the salary cap hit is going to happen as though the void clause didn't exist. Would have been a reasonable approach to this situation - Haynesworth's $21m would have been split 7m in 2010 and 14m in 2011.

Hall had a $15m roster bonus in 2010. Treat that like a signing bonus, and it counts $3m in each year 2010-2014.

Add them together and you get:
- the hit in 2012 is 20m ($14m Haynesworth '11 + $3m Hall '11 & '12)
- the hit for Hall's contract is an additional $3m in 2013 and 2014

Go to the teams and say, accept this, or I'll take away draft picks because I can. That would have been the way to handle it.

Instead they snuck around, made the two owners squeal, have put their dirty collusive laundry out in the public view, have pissed off the NFLPA, have given the NFLPA evidence of collusion, and have given the NFLPA a higher salary cap.

[GoSkins!]

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.