SBXVII
03-26-2012, 03:32 PM
This may have been already provided but I love the comments after the article.....
Cowboys and Redskins Knew They Would Be Punished...So Why the Fuss? | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1119324-cowboys-and-redskins-knew-they-would-be-punishedso-why-the-fuss)
When did uncapped means spend only as much money as everyone else is spending and don't use any business sense.
You didn't mention 3 things.
First. John Mara is the owner of the Giants, but you forget to mention that he also happens to be the chairman of the Management Council Executive Committee/Labor for the NFL. John became chairman on October 20th 2011. This department was the one that imposed the fines on two NFC East teams.
In 2011 the redskins where 15.7 million under the cap according to thehogs.net. The redskins salary was only 11.7 million more dollars in 2010 then the cowboys, except the redskins where then fined 26 million more then the Cowboys.
Their was never an agreement not to front load salaries. You can't go back and change the rules, and it seems wickedly suspicious that the owner of the Giants got to fine 2 of the teams in his division and no one else in the NFL. The contracts were approved my the NFLs front office during 2010 and they had a chance to say no then.
This is truly one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen written. The author (or NFL) can't point to any rule that was violated, but concludes that the NFL has some authority to mete out punishment anyway?
A simple example will clearly expose the folly of this all: What if you're submitting a permit to your City to perform renovation work and the City states that there'll be "consequences" for performing those renovations, despite the fact that they can't point to any law you're breaking? You then submit the permit anyways, the City approves it, and you perform the work. Later, the City then cites you for the renovations you performed and assesses punishment on grounds that "we gave your fair warning."
Huh? Unless the City or the NFL had some basis to issue the warning in the first place, the fact that they "warned" the Redskins is garbage. Even if they did have the authority to issue the warning, the fact that NFL (or City in the example) APPROVED the contracts / permit gives rise to what lawyers call estoppel and/or waiver.
What's at issue here is something pretty basic: it's called the "rule of law." If you're not violating something when performing a particular act, you can't be prosecuted for the act itself. How this author concludes an differently is absolutely mind-boggling.
And, as for full disclosure, I'm a die-hard Redskins fan. I'm (understandably) pissed to no end, and am frankly disappointed that the Redskins have resorted to some vanilla means (i.e., arbitration) to strike back at the NFL and people like Mara. Perhaps there are some issues with league politics and such, but if I were them, I'd be in federal court, seeking a TRO/preliminary injunction, and suing for a number of things, including antitrust liability. (Also for full disclosure, I'm a labor lawyer that deals a lot with labor-antitrust issues like these, and would love to help out the Redskins if they pursue this course of action.)
Cowboys and Redskins Knew They Would Be Punished...So Why the Fuss? | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1119324-cowboys-and-redskins-knew-they-would-be-punishedso-why-the-fuss)
When did uncapped means spend only as much money as everyone else is spending and don't use any business sense.
You didn't mention 3 things.
First. John Mara is the owner of the Giants, but you forget to mention that he also happens to be the chairman of the Management Council Executive Committee/Labor for the NFL. John became chairman on October 20th 2011. This department was the one that imposed the fines on two NFC East teams.
In 2011 the redskins where 15.7 million under the cap according to thehogs.net. The redskins salary was only 11.7 million more dollars in 2010 then the cowboys, except the redskins where then fined 26 million more then the Cowboys.
Their was never an agreement not to front load salaries. You can't go back and change the rules, and it seems wickedly suspicious that the owner of the Giants got to fine 2 of the teams in his division and no one else in the NFL. The contracts were approved my the NFLs front office during 2010 and they had a chance to say no then.
This is truly one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen written. The author (or NFL) can't point to any rule that was violated, but concludes that the NFL has some authority to mete out punishment anyway?
A simple example will clearly expose the folly of this all: What if you're submitting a permit to your City to perform renovation work and the City states that there'll be "consequences" for performing those renovations, despite the fact that they can't point to any law you're breaking? You then submit the permit anyways, the City approves it, and you perform the work. Later, the City then cites you for the renovations you performed and assesses punishment on grounds that "we gave your fair warning."
Huh? Unless the City or the NFL had some basis to issue the warning in the first place, the fact that they "warned" the Redskins is garbage. Even if they did have the authority to issue the warning, the fact that NFL (or City in the example) APPROVED the contracts / permit gives rise to what lawyers call estoppel and/or waiver.
What's at issue here is something pretty basic: it's called the "rule of law." If you're not violating something when performing a particular act, you can't be prosecuted for the act itself. How this author concludes an differently is absolutely mind-boggling.
And, as for full disclosure, I'm a die-hard Redskins fan. I'm (understandably) pissed to no end, and am frankly disappointed that the Redskins have resorted to some vanilla means (i.e., arbitration) to strike back at the NFL and people like Mara. Perhaps there are some issues with league politics and such, but if I were them, I'd be in federal court, seeking a TRO/preliminary injunction, and suing for a number of things, including antitrust liability. (Also for full disclosure, I'm a labor lawyer that deals a lot with labor-antitrust issues like these, and would love to help out the Redskins if they pursue this course of action.)