Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

And as for what the League warned about or didn't warn about, the Commisioner and 29 other owners seem to be clear on what the warning was.

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the current CBA and the arbiter's authority.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the current CBA and the arbiter's authority.

It shouldn't. No one not even the courts can apply a punishment for something that was not in effect at the time. The new CBA was not in effect at the time. The Arbitrator should only be able to look at the old CBA and CAP and see if the two teams broke any rule or law that was in place at the time. Since there was no CAP then all he has is the old CBA and or whatever "warnings" that were given. and in regards to the warnings was the warning right to enforce by the league or was it an illegal act?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

you dont seem to understand that you are not the authority on the matter. ive read your posts and simply dont agree with your interpretation of the facts available, as have alot of others here.

yes, you might have explained your OPINION on matter a number of times, its still just your optinion. stating it as some sort of fact is ridiculous.

[Monkeydad]

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

[SBXVII]

Perhaps my arguement is exactly what the two teams are trying to bring up procedurally. That any punishments (if any are warranted) should be applied by using the old CBA vs. the new CBA which was not in effect.

I think some people here are looking past whether the Arbitrator will even look at if the two teams did anything wrong and will simply look at whether the punishment fits the crime per the new CBA. I'm still at the beginning point that the Arbitrator will be looking at whether the two teams should have even been punished at all based off the CBA and CAP at the time and if he determines the "warning" was an illegal act by the league then hopefully if he see's it that way the punishment will be dropped.

[Daseal]

To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.

The players had their chance. They turned down a decent deal only to take a worse deal because they blinked. In the end the issues pertaining to Goodell's power could have been mitigated had D. Smith not been such an awful leader. Instead they took less money and allowed Goodell's authority to maintain. How the union got out of this whole thing and didn't at least get appeals handled differently is baffling to me. Borders on negligence on the part of union leadership.

[CRedskinsRule]

Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.

The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.

But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?

If that is the question put to this arbiter - and the only question - the arbiter would dismiss the matter as it is not within the jurisdiction granted him under the current CBA.

He may very well issue a decision saying that the Skins/Cowboys actions were not in violation of the 2006 CBA but that the modifications made to the 2012 and 2013 salary cap are both permitted under the current/governing CBA and were properly imposed under the procedures set forth in that CBA.