Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[CrustyRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

"The move has prompted a significant outcry from Cowboys and Redskins games, creating an unholy alliance between two arch rivals that could confirm the accuracy of the Mayan calendar."

LOL!!!!

[SBXVII]

So just to figure this all out.... the Skins had $36 mill of CAP space. The league has stated they are going to take it all back, but not all in one year. So they took $18 mill this year and said we will owe the other $18 mill next year. Fine. We were left with $18 mill in CAP space. Which we used. What are we going to give them next year "IF" the punishment is upheld? lol.

I'm believing the two teams can win this arguement. Based off the fact there was no actual rule or law in place saying they could not do what they did. On top of that the league approved the deals/contracts. The league had ample opportunity to review the contracts which they did, and either approve or deny the contracts. The league approved them.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

News....

Hearing coming in May on Redskins, Cowboys cap grievance | ProFootballTalk

May 10 specifically

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I think getting $18M back for next year is the most likely outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think its kind of like being indicted for a crime. Your reward is you don't get punished. The $36 million in cap penalties is kind of like bail if you ask me.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I can see us having to bite the bullet in terms of the 18 mil we lost this year, but possibly having the rest of the penalty lifted. Although, I wouldn't mind having the entire 36 mil lifted, it would allow us to get some FAs late in the offseason or even during the season if there is a need.

That's how I see it too. That way the NFL can some what keep face.

[MTK]

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

SO a few teams are mad because they got the rug pulled out from under them in their game of playing "hard ball" with their players. So instead of rewarding them with a nice contract, they'd rather keep ****ing the player over and hitting with the tag. Boo Fcking Hoo. I'm glad AJ Smith finally got reemed up the but by the system because he sure as hell was trying to use the system to screw over his players. In terms of the salaries of DTs going up, well they should have been mad at Vinny the moment he signed him. Went from the highest DT salary being 8mil average to one with a average of $15mil. That had more impact than anything.

It's a wonder why the NFLPA even agreed to this shit.

[CRedskinsRule]

This makes less sense than that we were trying to gain a competitive edge by relieving ourselves of cap obligations. While that may be why some owners willingly signed off on the vote, I can't see that ever being raised in front of the arbitrator. I would love the arbitrator to just come out and blast the NFL, but I doubt the Skins or Cowboys really want that, they just want the space back.

[CRedskinsRule]

Also using that logic the Raiders should have been docked extra cap space every year for the last 10 years of Al Davis' life (RIP). Not to hammer on him, but how many positions did his craziness inflate. How much did he pay his punter and kicker again?

[FRPLG]

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

I agree that it would be unfair, and evidence of illegal collusion if owners were punishing the Skins and Cowboys for pushing up the value of the franchise tag at certain positions.

However, this is one writer's (Breer's) speculation as to why certain owners might have generally been upset with the signings, and another writer (Graziano) taking that speculation as fact and running with it. Here's the logic used:

Breer:

• It's been reported that multiple teams are upset with the way the Skins and Cowboys structured the Austin, Haynesworth, and Hall contracts.
• 29 teams voted to support the sanctions against the Skins and Cowboys.
• I can think of three teams that were affected by the franchise tags going up at those positions.

Graziano:

• Those three teams are completely full of it!
• I know the NFL gave us a different reason why the owners were upset, but Breer says these three teams have reason to complain, and therefore they must be behind the 29-2-1 vote, and therefore they are demonstrating evidence of illegal collusion.

I would love for the arbitrator to give the Redskins relief (while somehow still managing to screw the Cowboys), but it won't be based on this logic if he does.

[FRPLG]

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

He's a law professor at Penn State, and is supposed to be unbiased by definition. My guess is his interpretations are in order:

1. Legal
2. NFL - NFLPA Precedence

[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.