Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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).

If the league sticks to the "because we say so" arguement, arbitration seems a bit silly. And the chance of it being fairly considered? How do they pick the person who hears the case?

I think in addtion to good chances in a legal battle, the skins and cowboys also have the NFL not wanting any of this to take place in public. Trying to talk the crazy guy back off the cliff.

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?

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.

I think "obtuse" is the word most applicable at this point.

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.

I think "obtuse" is the word most applicable at this point.

BOOYAH MUTHA SUCKA!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to the corner Giantone, or better yet, to a giants message board.

If the league sticks to the "because we say so" arguement, arbitration seems a bit silly. And the chance of it being fairly considered? How do they pick the person who hears the case?

I think in addtion to good chances in a legal battle, the skins and cowboys also have the NFL not wanting any of this to take place in public. Trying to talk the crazy guy back off the cliff.

In arbitration the league will advance a couple of legal theories as to why the sanction should be upheld:

1. Since we [the owners] believed a new CBA was forthcoming that would reinstate the salary cap, the majority of owners reached an informal agreement not to structure contracts in a manner that would harm the competitive balance going forward. DS and JJ violated this agreement and attempted to gain a competitive advantage contrary to the spirit of the governing CBA which, by its terms, created only one uncapped year [Of course, if no subsequent CBA had been agreed upon, the cap would simply disappear going forward] .

2. As a procedural matter, pursuant to the NFL's charter, the sanction was issued by the competition committee and communicated through the Commissioner's office. Further, and because it affects the salary cap, the sanction has been approved by the NFLPA as required by the current governing CBA.

These are both legally defensible positions that create the appearance of a reasonable dispute (barely so in my humble opinion). For all the reasons I have stated before, I just don't think they stand up under any scrutiny.

The "b/c we say so" argument is the practical and informal reason for their actions rather than the legal basis.

As to who hears the arbitration, from what I understand, that would be governed by the CBA.

Mark Maske, to whom GiantOne refers, says that individuals familiar to the situation suggest...
"Stephen Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor who was known as the sport’s special master when previous labor agreements were under the jurisdiction of a federal court in Minneapolis."

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).

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.

- 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.

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

[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???