Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

[SBXVII]

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL has tried to block the hearing by submitting a request to dismiss the grievance.

The NFL contends that, because the NFL Players Association consented to the imposition of cap penalties, the Cowboys and Redskins have no grounds to attack the agreement under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which governs the relationship between the league and the players.

It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.

Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

Agree, they Know there in the wrong.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk



It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.

I heard this on the radio about an hour or two ago, came here hoping for a storm of discussion!

[JoeRedskin]

Ehh, everybody moves for a dismissal if they have even the most tenuous grounds for it. I cannot imagine that it is granted BUT they are starting to get into the stuff much more particular to labor law, the specific terms of the CBA and anti-trust stuff.

Under general contract legal concepts (Contracts 101 essentially - okay, maybe 401), I feel pretty confident that the agreement of the NFLPA to the NFL's change in the salary cap is a waiver of players rights but not of the rights of the clubs within the NFL.

[FRPLG]

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.

But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:

1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.

2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.

3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.

What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.

But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:

1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.

2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.

3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.

What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.

I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.

I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.

I agree with you but in some cases there are rules to play by, Arbitration first then court, and there are gentleman's games... Arbitration first simply to not take it to the extreme and if it doesn't go your way then take it to court. We may lose the battle but I think if filed in a court of law the league will be scrambling and trying to come to some agreement. I don't think they want their colluding to stand before labor law judge whome might put punishements on them they might not want or pull them into the typical business areana. Right now I think the NFL reaps the benifits of not being overseen by labor law organizations and I'm sure they won't want to be in the future.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.

I think they don't want to sue, because that would air out too much dirty laundry. I think they'd rather eat the punishment than sue.

I think they've taken this more limited arbitration option to get the other owners to settle on a reduced punishment to make it go away.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.

I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.

I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.

Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.

Two main things bother me constantly about this....

1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.

2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.

Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.

Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.

But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.

Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.

As explained earlier in the thread:

1. Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
2. Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
3. Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
4. The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
5. The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
6. The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
7. The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.

The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.

As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.

The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

It all goes back what I said earlier. If the teams can just simply vote to punish a team or teams anytime they want to for whatever reason they want, then why even have a CBA? If you're not going to follow the agreement like it's laid out, what's the purpose of it? That's quite illogical, to assume the teams can have a majority vote to penalize a team for actions they did years ago under a different CBA. Why would any owner want to go along with this willingly, knowing the same thing could easily happen to them as well.

The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.