Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You keep repeating this point that there were rules in place that showed NFL and NFLPA agreement on this, but I think you are way way off base in this part. The mere fact of a bulleted list does not show broad agreement on a principle, instead it shows specific negotiated agreements probably worked out through a lot of horse trading. If both parties wantes to show general agreement there are two simple ways, probably more, that they could have done that. One would be to write a general policy statement that said something to the effect of " no contract shall be enacted in the an uncapped league year that is determined to violate a general competitve balance" and then use the list as specific examples, or to add an elastic clause at the end of the list that said "and other contract devices as the commissioner may determine" or something along those lines. The fact that there is a well defined and specific list shows that there were specific valid tools that were invalid only during a period when the league faced an uncapped year. It is convoluted at best to assert after the fact that all such contract devices were subject to unwritten and precocious rules.

Your best points come when you expound on the procedural points and the arbitrator's role. If the league is ever forced to present your theory of implied agreement I imagine the NFLPA would be up in arms denying to their very core.

That's a fair argument. However, I'm not making the argument that the NFLMC and NFLPA agreed on how to handle that exact situation.

I'm only presenting it as evidence that the NFLPA wasn't opposed to the principle of restricting how much salary cap hit could or couldn't be dumped into an uncapped year.

The original argument was that keeping teams from dumping cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes illegal collusion. I'm only saying that it's probably not collusion if the NFLPA agreed to multiple rules that seem to intend to accomplish the same thing.

[FRPLG]

SB, I think we're sorta getting what your are saying. The problem is that all parties involved here are subject to rules. Some outlined in NFL Bylaws, some in the relevant CBAs. The arbitrator has specific authority granted by the current CBA. This same person was also the arbitrator granted specific authorities under the old CBA but that is now irellevant. He cannot expand his authority without the consent of the parties involved so he cannot under any legally theoretical notion rule as to whether what we did was a violation unless the current CBA allows for him to handle such a question. He can rule as to whether what has been done now, the punishment, was allowable under the current CBA. That's it.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

SB, I think we're sorta getting what your are saying. The problem is that all parties involved here are subject to rules. Some outlined in NFL Bylaws, some in the relevant CBAs. The arbitrator has specific authority granted by the current CBA. This same person was also the arbitrator granted specific authorities under the old CBA but that is now irellevant. He cannot expand his authority without the consent of the parties involved so he cannot under any legally theoretical notion rule as to whether what we did was a violation unless the current CBA allows for him to handle such a question. He can rule as to whether what has been done now, the punishment, was allowable under the current CBA. That's it.

Understood. But one would think if this was a violation of the "old CBA" then the punishment should have come from whatever is permitted by the Commish or Exec Committe at that time. Even if they decided to go back and punish for something 2 yrs ago it should still fall under whatever CBA was in place at the time. If the rules were similar and the same people could duel out the same punishments then fine. No matter who the Arbitrator is should be able to look at the issue considering the CBA that was in place at the time. Hopefully if this is the case and the Arbitrator see's there was no actual rule or law or whatever in place to cover said infraction can he deem the punishment wrong or innapropriate?

If the question is do they have the right to punish under the new CBA? maybe maybe not. However they (according to Hoop) met with the NFLPA to make an addendum to the current CBA which would allow a punishment for said action then went out and punished for it. This is another aspect I think is innapropriate. The Commish/and Exec Committee should have looked at what was done and decided if the two teams violated any rule/law under the CBA that was in place at the time and if they did then what was the standard punishment for that type of infraction. Where I think the Arbitrator comes in is the Commish/Exec Committee sat down and thought yea this is wrong somehow, then looked at the CBA that was in place at the time and couldn't find a rule against it and couldn't find a punishment against so they use the current CBA (so it sounds) for an old infraction. This is where I'm hoping the Arbitrator steps in and says you can't do that. This new CBA was not in place at the time and the rule was not in place at the time so no punishment is warranted and the CAP space returned.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Understood. But one would think if this was a violation of the "old CBA" then the punishment should have come from whatever is permitted by the Commish or Exec Committe at that time. Even if they decided to go back and punish for something 2 yrs ago it should still fall under whatever CBA was in place at the time. If the rules were similar and the same people could duel out the same punishments then fine. No matter who the Arbitrator is should be able to look at the issue considering the CBA that was in place at the time. Hopefully if this is the case and the Arbitrator see's there was no actual rule or law or whatever in place to cover said infraction can he deem the punishment wrong or innapropriate?

If the question is do they have the right to punish under the new CBA? maybe maybe not. However they (according to Hoop) met with the NFLPA to make an addendum to the current CBA which would allow a punishment for said action then went out and punished for it. This is another aspect I think is innapropriate. The Commish/and Exec Committee should have looked at what was done and decided if the two teams violated any rule/law under the CBA that was in place at the time and if they did then what was the standard punishment for that type of infraction. Where I think the Arbitrator comes in is the Commish/Exec Committee sat down and thought yea this is wrong somehow, then looked at the CBA that was in place at the time and couldn't find a rule against it and couldn't find a punishment against so they use the current CBA (so it sounds) for an old infraction. This is where I'm hoping the Arbitrator steps in and says you can't do that. This new CBA was not in place at the time and the rule was not in place at the time so no punishment is warranted and the CAP space returned.

The problem is the arbitrator doesn't have the power to do that. If the Skins want someone to do that, they would have to sue the League in civil court.

If the Commissioner had taken away draft picks, the matter could probably end up in criminal court - for inciting riots over the loss of RGIII.

By the way, HAPPY RGIII DAY EVERYBODY!! Today's the day.

[CRedskinsRule]

Just a note: on page 287 of the 2011 CBA there is this paragraph

20. WAIVER AND RELEASE. Player waives and releases: (i) any claims relating to the 2011 lockout; (ii) any antitrust claims relating to the Draft, restrictions on free agency, franchise player designations, transition player designations, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, or any other term or condition of employment relating to conduct engaged in prior to the date of this Agreement; and (iii) any claims relating to conduct engaged in pursuant to the express terms of any collective bargaining agreement during the term of any such agreement. This waiver and release also extends to any conduct engaged in pursuant to the express terms of the Stipulation and Settle-ment Agreement in White. This waiver and release does not waive any rights player may have to commence a grievance under the 2006 CBA or to commence a grievance or other arbitration under the 2011 CBA.

It is out of context from a club against league grievance like the salary cap issue, but I only did a quick word search, not a reading of the whole bloody thing. My point (and to SBXVII's contention) is that it's highly unlikely that clubs would just throw out all ability to file grievances, or resolve disputes from the 2006 CBA, and instead wrote some language to allow a team to seek some form of mediation in case a said dispute did arise.

[CRedskinsRule]

Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:

Originally Posted by 2011 CBA

ARTICLE 14 ENFORCEMENT OF THE SALARY CAP AND ROOKIE COMPENSATION POOL
Section 1. [...]
Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which in-cludes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.
Section 3. System Arbitrator Proceeding: Any individual player or the NFLPA acting on that player’s or any number of players’ behalf, the NFL, and any Club may bring a proceeding before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Article 7, Article 12, Article 13 or Article 14, Section 2 of this Agreement. Issues of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding. Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.

and

Originally Posted by 2006 CBA same paragraph

Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or
player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other
transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected
by (a) the provisions of this Agreement with respect to Total Revenues,
Salary Cap, Entering Player Pool, and Minimum Team Salary, and (b) any
other term and provision of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted
by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this
provision.

I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:


and

I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.

You and I will simply disagree, because the specific language states "ANY CLUB" may bring suit, so while I understand your point, IF a club felt that there was a violation of the salary cap rules, these documents give them some level of standing to bring it up. That makes the point I highlighted relevant to the discussion.

Overall, this is like the CBA negotiation thread, no ones view is going to change, and in the end we will all have to see how the arbitrator rules.

I love these discussions, but they get pretty line in the sandish after a while, and I think this one has reached that point

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.

ok.

but I don't believe that argument is being made. I think the collusion argument revolves around the owners agreeing(or conspiring to agree) to specific methods outside those agreed to in writing by both parties, in order to affect the outcome of the CBA negotiations.

The parts I highlighted, in my opinion, show that the NFLPA would have wanted to be included in any additional restrictions that may have been placed on teams.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

ok.

but I don't believe that argument is being made. I think the collusion argument revolves around the owners agreeing(or conspiring to agree) to specific methods outside those agreed to in writing by both parties, in order to affect the outcome of the CBA negotiations.

The parts I highlighted, in my opinion, show that the NFLPA would have wanted to be included in any additional restrictions that may have been placed on teams.

That argument is definitely being made (bold added):

(although, the last one may need to go to the Head of Referees if he really means illegal collision - sounds like unnecessary roughness to me)

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.

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"

[FRPLG]

I might argue if I were the NFL that the what we call "punishments" are no such thing. They are a re-apportioning of unfairly gained cap space.

I don't agree with that load but I am guessing the NFL will present the "adjustments" as such.

[JoeRedskin]

Even reading this thread is getting too much like work. I feel like I should be charging an hourly rate just to open up the thread at this point.

The thing is, the issue is simple on its face but complex in the details. Under the CBA, can the NFL do what it did? Getting to the details on that requires a lot more research than I am going to do for free. Their are strong arguments on each side and lawyers will make lots of money before the issue is resolved.

[SBXVII]

What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess the Skins could try to include any document the have about anything remotely relevant that the League doesn't want the NFLPA to see.