Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?

Because many of the owners don't want to spend money. Several of the teams upset the "competitive balance" by taking advantage of the uncapped year to spend less than the CBA mandated league floor. Simply put, they saved a ton of actual hard cash by not spending it on the players (Believe it or not, some of these guys are intent on the bottom line as opposed to spending money to get good players).

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Because many of the owners don't want to spend money. Several of the teams upset the "competitive balance" by taking advantage of the uncapped year to spend less than the CBA mandated league floor. Simply put, they saved a ton of actual hard cash by not spending it on the players (Believe it or not, some of these guys are intent on the bottom line as opposed to spending money to get good players).

I can respect fiscal responsibility. I look at European Club Football and see almost all the major clubs going into debt to fund payrolls. The spending over there would make a tea party member cry. With that said deliberately using unwritten rules for the sake of keeping cost down is unacceptable.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

- The other 30 owner's & the NFL's position: Maybe so, but until a court tells us to do otherwise, we are disapproving any contracts over the penalized amount. Further, we will take away draft choices, look for other infractions, etc. By the way, we have 400 lawyers who can make sure this doesn't see the inside of a court room for several years ... and then let's talk us some appellate review.

But I would think it's almost 100% that a judge would issue an injunction against that penalty until it sees trial.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

it seems that you are saying collusion requires that players be denied the right to make money. I don't think that's the case, collusion simply means that all parties secretly agree to an act with the intent to hurt or decieve others.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

col·lu·sion
   [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

In this case, I think it is clear that the owners were trying to weaken the players negotiating will by behind the scenes agreements on how to treat uncapped year. Remeber, the uncapped year was a provision that was called for in the previously negotiated CBA. More to the point, the players accepted the CBA with the uncapped year in the belief that the fear of it would be a constraint on the owners, but the owners turned around and tried to keep an arbitrary and secret salary cap (while not imposing a floor). That is the collusion being spoken about here.

[Brody81]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;901262]Wow. Reading is fundamental. Rather than restate my previous posts, and since you have so clearly ignored them, I'll just assume you can't refute logically and specifically any of the points I have previously made. [EDIT: See posts 63, 64,65]

Two very simple points: (1) The league cannot retroactively change its governing rules in order to sanction teams for actions that conformed to the rules at the time they were taken; and (2) the mere fact that the NFLPA subsequently signed off on the penalty does not have any bearing on whether the owners' prior actions were collusive.

Quite frankly, you're just talking out your ass and have no concept of the legal principles on which you are offering opinions.

JoeRedskins, You are my new Hero!! Giantone, anything???

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?

I'd say more than 4 did it.

[Giantone]

[quote=Brody81;901295]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Reading is fundamental. Rather than restate my previous posts, and since you have so clearly ignored them, I'll just assume you can't refute logically and specifically any of the points I have previously made. [EDIT: See posts 63, 64,65]

Two very simple points: (1) The league cannot retroactively change its governing rules in order to sanction teams for actions that conformed to the rules at the time they were taken; and (2) the mere fact that the NFLPA subsequently signed off on the penalty does not have any bearing on whether the owners' prior actions were collusive.

Quite frankly, you're just talking out your ass and have no concept of the legal principles on which you are offering opinions.



JoeRedskins, You are my new Hero!! Giantone, anything???

1) As I have said before the League runs by committee a process agreed on when the team joined the NFL.If the owners all agreed to do it (dumping cap #'s) or did'nt seems to be the question and from the reports I have read in the Washington Post some seem to think "all" the owners did agree and then 4 went back on their word.
2) Wrong the fact that the NFLPA "did" sign off is a very big deal....they are'nt complaining and again from reports are'nt planning any legal appeal of the disapline.Again reports also say the Cowboys will not appeal


P.S. May I also say I too appreciate all your time JoeRedskins I like reading you opinions and commentary but Brody as Joe will tell you there are very good Lawyers who can make a case the other way.I beleive the NFL runs more like a Labor Union more then a business and that's why I think Labor Law would be more practical in a diagnose of this situation.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Each side has some strong negotiating chips.

- The DS & JJ's position is, essentially, we did nothing wrong and your punishment violates the rules of our business agreeement. Ultimately, in any legal battle we will win and we have the money and the will to take you to the mat.

- The other 30 owner's & the NFL's position: Maybe so, but until a court tells us to do otherwise, we are disapproving any contracts over the penalized amount. Further, we will take away draft choices, look for other infractions, etc. By the way, we have 400 lawyers who can make sure this doesn't see the inside of a court room for several years ... and then let's talk us some appellate review.

Ultimately, arbitration is the best course. I am pretty sure we will end up with a "time served" sanction (i.e. - acceptance of what's been done with a removal of the rest. Possibly a small credit to allow us to go forward w/out needing to push this years money into future caps). I can't see an arbitrated settlement that nets us draft picks. It would be nice, but I wouldn't bank on it. Even if it does, I doubt it would be anything more than a 6th or 7th round pick, maybe two (pure speculation on my part).

I imagine you are correct. I really cannot see the NFL doing an "about face" completely on the issue as it might cast the NFL in a unfavorable light. The time served analogy makes sense to me as it allows all to win.....some and no Crawfishin' done by either side..

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

FRPLG:

IF you are correct, then the NFLPA should be taking this textbook case of collusion to Federal Court to get themselves and their members - - the players - - a big time payday. When the baseball owners were found guilty of collusion by a Federal Court - - not by a few people on an Internet message board - - the baseball union and its members got $360M.

Now, the fact that the NFLPA which is headed by a labor attorney - - that is DeMaurice Smith's background - - and which has a slew of top-shelf attorneys on their staff and under retainer (I believe the guy who got Microsoft convicted of monopolistic tactics is on the NFLPA retainer list) has not filed a federal suit on this matter makes me wonder why.

My first guess is that this is not the simple "textbook collusion" that you assert that it is.

I am not an attorney so my opinion on the legality of what the owners did and did not do is not worth a lot. But I do put some stock in the fact that the NFLPA has not immediately pursued a legal course that could bring it and its members hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

[Evilgrin]

[quote=Giantone;901303]

Originally Posted by Brody81

1) As I have said before the League runs by committee a process agreed on when the team joined the NFL.If the owners all agreed to do it (dumping cap #'s) or did'nt seems to be the question and from the reports I have read in the Washington Post some seem to think "all" the owners did agree and then 4 went back on their word.
2) Wrong the fact that the NFLPA "did" sign off is a very big deal....they are'nt complaining and again from reports are'nt planning any legal appeal of the disapline.Again reports also say the Cowboys will not appeal


P.S. May I also say I too appreciate all your time JoeRedskins I like reading you opinions and commentary but Brody as Joe will tell you there are very good Lawyers who can make a case the other way.I beleive te NFL runs more like a Labor Union more then a business and that's why I think Labor Law would be more practical in a diagnose of this situation.

Your main point that all agreed is very much in dispute. The NFL has only said warnings were issued.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

FRPLG:

IF you are correct, then the NFLPA should be taking this textbook case of collusion to Federal Court to get themselves and their members - - the players - - a big time payday. When the baseball owners were found guilty of collusion by a Federal Court - - not by a few people on an Internet message board - - the baseball union and its members got $360M.

Now, the fact that the NFLPA which is headed by a labor attorney - - that is DeMaurice Smith's background - - and which has a slew of top-shelf attorneys on their staff and under retainer (I believe the guy who got Microsoft convicted of monopolistic tactics is on the NFLPA retainer list) has not filed a federal suit on this matter makes me wonder why.

My first guess is that this is not the simple "textbook collusion" that you assert that it is.

I am not an attorney so my opinion on the legality of what the owners did and did not do is not worth a lot. But I do put some stock in the fact that the NFLPA has not immediately pursued a legal course that could bring it and its members hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

They did not bring suit because they had waived there right to do so as part of the various settlements that cleared the courts of the various lawsuits and allowed the CBA to be signed. The players dropped all pending charges of collusion including the right to bring an action for collusion during the negotiation period.

Remember there were multiple suits file by both sides. In order to get to the point where a new CBA could be signed, all the lawsuits had to be settled and all the issues within them resolved. One of those issues was the charge that the owners were operating in collusion to circumvent the CBA (remember the successful challenge concerning the TV contracts?).

Essentially, both sides wiped the board clean and agreed that all that went before was forgiven/resolved. The collusion to circumvent the CBA by creating a "psuedo-cap" would be one of those issues.

The pact requires that those issues be resolved and a full CBA be done by Aug. 4; no one involved believes that will be a problem.

Doty has oversight for the "lockout insurance" case and a separate collusion claim by players.

On March 1, Doty ruled that the NFL failed to maximize TV revenues for the players, essentially leaving money on the table for the last two years to gain leverage in the labor fight. At a hearing in May, the players asked Doty to make $4 billion in disputed broadcast revenue off-limits to owners; the NFLPA also asked him to award players more than $700 million in damages.

In January [2011], the union accused teams of conspiring to restrict players' salaries last [2010] offseason [the uncapped season].

NFL.com news: Lawyers: NFL, players settle antitrust suit, two other cases

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

1) As I have said before the League runs by committee a process agreed on when the team joined the NFL.If the owners all agreed to do it (dumping cap #'s) or did'nt seems to be the question and from the reports I have read in the Washington Post some seem to think "all" the owners did agree and then 4 went back on their word.

However, as CRedskin pointed out, the agreement to limit the amount of restructering that could be done was not a decision that could be made by the owners at the time the decision was made. At the time the decision was made, any such agreement was forbidden by the CBA then in force. Whether it was 32 or 28 it is irrelevant, the agreement was in contravention of the CBA and was simply not enforceable. The sanction being now imposed is an attempt to punish teams that operated within the letter and spirit of the CBA. Any agreement to the contrary was prohibited and no amount of retroactive procedures can change that.

Originally Posted by Giantone

2) Wrong the fact that the NFLPA "did" sign off is a very big deal....they are'nt complaining and again from reports are'nt planning any legal appeal of the disapline.Again reports also say the Cowboys will not appeal

First and foremost, the fact that a party, whether it be the NFLPA or the Dallas Cowboys, takes no legal action is simply not indicative of whether or not other parties, i.e. the Redskins, have legal remedies.

As to the NFLPA, it certainly cannot now complain that the sanction is improper b/c, by accepting the salary cap presented by the NFL, they have aquiesed to the penalty and the restrictions it creates for their members. Further, and as noted above, for actions taken during the 2010 offseason, the NFLPA settled their collusion claims and effectively waived any right of protest they had. Essentially, the owners have been given a free pass and are free from threat of lawsuit by the players on any issues regarding collusion or the salary cap amounts.

In relying on the NFLPA's acquiesence to the sanction as a basis for asserting that the sanction against DS & JJ is permissible, however, you're taking procedural issues applicable to one party and improperly applying them on the same substantive level to the issues applicable to another party.

In regards to DS and JJ and the sanction issue, the NFLPA could have procedurallly nixed the sanction and this whole thing is a non-issue. Under the current CBA's procedures, the NFLPA could have said, nope, no way no how. They did not, so their members are screwed to the extent they would have benefitted from Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones having more money to spend BUT they got a higher salary cap number. Thus, under the governing procedures and as to the players, the NFLPA's action substantively ends the issue. However, the NFLPA's procedural acquiesence is not determinative of the substantive rights of DS and JJ as members of the joint venture known as the NFL. Specifically, the NFLPA's procedural acceptance of the sanction is not determinative of the substantive rights held by DS & JJ in relation to their fellow owners.

While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant as to whether members of the joint venture are attempting to sanction other members of the joint venture for actions that were simply not improper at the time they were taken. Again, DS and JJ were bound by the CBA then in force. Did they violate it in any way? No. The NFL and their fellow owners are now attempting to sanction DS and JJ for not cheating on the CBA. In determining whether or not such actions are permissible, the NFLPA is not part of the equation.

Originally Posted by Giantone

P.S. May I also say I too appreciate all your time JoeRedskins I like reading you opinions and commentary but Brody as Joe will tell you there are very good Lawyers who can make a case the other way.I beleive the NFL runs more like a Labor Union more then a business and that's why I think Labor Law would be more practical in a diagnose of this situation.

Yes. The NFL has very good attorneys and, I am sure, they will dress up their weak ass legal arguments (which I set out at #104) as well as can be expected. But, when you get right down to it, the owners are punishing DS & JJ for failing to cheat on the CBA. Ultimately, regardless of all the subsequent procedural CYA, that's the ultimate fact that cannot be avoided.

[BuckSkin]

My head feels like I ate a quart of ice cream really fast after reading that. [ note to self; never argue with JoeRedskin] Sir, that is truly impressive.

[FRPLG]

Man Joe is humming now. I am going stop posting on this since I am absolutely an idiot in comparison to JR

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Man Joe is humming now. I am going stop posting on this since I am absolutely an idiot in comparison to JR

Comments like this only feed the beast :cheeky-smil