Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under this CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under this CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

An Arbitrator is someone who hears a disagreement between two parties. He doesn't make the rules but he makes sure people are following them. I'd imagine he would be looking at the old CBA also to see if any rule was broken, or if any rule was broken after the new CBA was signed. The problem is the issue happened after one CBA and prior to the new CBA. In other words... no law or rule was broken.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?

Probably, but only for the arguments and issues presented to the arbiter - again, I believe that would be in the CBA. So, if the arbitration goes as Hoophead suspects and is based on the issues as he has stated them, then the Skins and Cowboys could likely sue in civil court based on improper penalites incurred b/c of the improper collusion under the prior CBA.

The devil is all in the details of the documents (coincidentally, it's where all the lawyers' money is too).

[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.

[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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

The CBA governs the working relationship between the teams and the players...not the owners and the owners.

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.

All of which I believe is probably irrelevant. I hope I am wrong but based on what Hoop has laid out and my basic understanding of how this process will work it doesn't matter whether we did anything wrong or not. The owners can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean it wasn't a pretty sh*tty thing to do. It also doesn't mean they won't choose to do more sh*tty things in the future.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

An Arbitrator is someone who hears a disagreement between two parties. He doesn't make the rules but he makes sure people are following them. I'd imagine he would be looking at the old CBA also to see if any rule was broken, or if any rule was broken after the new CBA was signed. The problem is the issue happened after one CBA and prior to the new CBA. In other words... no law or rule was broken.

Generically, you are correct that arbiters are people who hear disagreements to provide a resolution short of seeking a judicial rememdy. There are several kinds of arbitors but mostly they are either contractual or court appointed. If contractual (as here), their authority is spelled out in the contract (the current CBA). If court appointed, their authority is that given them by the court.

In this case, the arbitor's authority comes solely and expressly from the current CBA for which the parties are the NFL and the NFLPA. I may be wrong but I believe the individual clubs are only a party to the CBA under the umbrella of the NFL.

While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.

It'll be interesting to see if the argument that someone here made concerning the timing of the penalty was a violation in his eyes. Perhaps technically the penalty was imposed without proper procedure simply based on the timing. I think that may be the only decent procedural argument that can be made. The vote, post-facto, didn't magically make the penalty timely. Both teams were penalized in violation of the CBA that existed on March 13th. Maybe.

[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.

[los panda]

i see this being dragged out, delayed, pushed back, etc. i doubt that even if we (cowboys included in we:vomit "won" we'd get anything fair...
like taking $1.6M away from the 28 teams, giving $10M to the cowboys, and $36M to us to use in 2013 and 2014. but roy orbison encourages me to dream

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Generically, you are correct that arbiters are people who hear disagreements to provide a resolution short of seeking a judicial rememdy. There are several kinds of arbitors but mostly they are either contractual or court appointed. If contractual (as here), their authority is spelled out in the contract (the current CBA). If court appointed, their authority is that given them by the court.

In this case, the arbitor's authority comes solely and expressly from the current CBA for which the parties are the NFL and the NFLPA. I may be wrong but I believe the individual clubs are only a party to the CBA under the umbrella of the NFL.

While he may look beyond the current CBA to get all the facts, his ability to force any remedy is limited to determining that there was a violation of the current CBA.

Well since the issue happened prior to the current CBA, under your reasoning, the Arbiture has not authority since the issue happened under the old CBA. I would think the Arbitrator looks at the CBA no matter if it was the old CBA or new CBA to see if there were any violations of it.

I agree with you he is under the unbrella of the NFL but if the punishement is in regards to the old CBA I think he can hear it no different if he has to see if someone failed to follow the new CBA. Although there was a CBA for 2010 as many have stated there was no CAP. It's hard to get into trouble for something that was not there or in place legally in writing.

Also the warning not specific to what the Redskins and Cowboys had done and the league didn't like the fact the two teams found a loop hole. Too bad. Make a rule/law have all the owners and NFLPA sign off on it so it won't happen again and move on. Don't punish the two teams cause you don't like what they did even if it was legal.

[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.

[SBXVII]

and.... Hoop, I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.