Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

A lot of the same crap is being spewed out over and over again in this thread and elsewhere on this topic, making this.....REGURGIGATE

The problem with this is that Goodell and/or the Management Council Executive Committee overstepped their authority by modifying the salary cap as a penalty, but the owners as a group have more authority. Goodell can fine up to $500k, suspend individuals or take draft picks. The MCEC reports to Goodell and has the authority to negotiate with the NFLPA on behalf of the NFL.

The Executive Committee however - made up of ownership reps of all 30 teams - can impose whatever penalties they want as long as 24 votes support it. The Commissioner reports to the Executive Committee. Since the two teams were asked to leave the room, I'm guessing the meeting yesterday wasn't an actual Exec Committee meeting, just a show of hands - but it doesn't bode well. Basically, there's nothing to be discussed in arbitration if the Exec Committee imposes penalties.

Plus, if the two teams involved fight it, Goodell does have the authority to take away draft picks - his nuclear option is no RG3.
Given that it is now in the arbitrator's hands, I doubt any swift occurrence like loss of draft picks would occur before this year's draft.

And as has been said many times, you can't have a vote and make an invalid action valid. I don't care how many guys in a group vote to rob the nearest liquor store, the ones who opt not to rob it are in the right.

The reason the arbitration clause exists is to prevent situations where any one party or group has an undue ability to put their will into effect unchecked. The Skins and Cowboys certainly will have plenty to discuss with the arbitrator, regardless of whether the Executive Committee votes for penalties or not.

For clarity here's how the NFL Bylaws say the entities work:

NFL Executive Committee
- Highest NFL body
- Requires 24 votes to do anything
- Cannot reduce Commissioner discipline imposed within his authority under 8.13(A)

Commissioner
- Reports to NFL Executive Committee
- Appoints all other committees
- Has power to impose discipline under 8.13(A) up to certain levels: $500k fine, draft picks, suspensions
- Has power to recommend additional penalties to Executive Committee under 8.13(B)

Management Council Executive Committee
- Appointed by Commissioner
- Has exclusive authority to negotiate CBA with NFLPA
- Presumably only has authority to impose discipline through Commissioner and his authority

The problem with this is that Goodell and/or the Management Council Executive Committee overstepped their authority by modifying the salary cap as a penalty, but the owners as a group have more authority. Goodell can fine up to $500k, suspend individuals or take draft picks. The MCEC reports to Goodell and has the authority to negotiate with the NFLPA on behalf of the NFL.

The Executive Committee however - made up of ownership reps of all 30 teams - can impose whatever penalties they want as long as 24 votes support it. The Commissioner reports to the Executive Committee. Since the two teams were asked to leave the room, I'm guessing the meeting yesterday wasn't an actual Exec Committee meeting, just a show of hands - but it doesn't bode well. Basically, there's nothing to be discussed in arbitration if the Exec Committee imposes penalties.

Plus, if the two teams involved fight it, Goodell does have the authority to take away draft picks - his nuclear option is no RG3.
Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

My best guess is that procedurally, the vote yesterday may have been a vote to accept the MCEC's agreement with the NFLPA.

If that's the case, not sure how it affects arbitration. The CBA has an arbitration procedure clubs can participate in, but if this vote modifies the CBA, not sure there's anything to arbitrate - the modified salary cap is the law under the CBA.

Even if the two clubs win in arbitration, they're in trouble if >24 other owners are intent on punishing them. The Commissioner can take away the #2 pick in the upcoming draft, and the Executive Committee can pretty much do whatever they want (including forcing Snyder to sell the team*) with 24 votes.


*please, please, please

Given that it is now in the arbitrator's hands, I doubt any swift occurrence like loss of draft picks would occur before this year's draft.

And as has been said many times, you can't have a vote and make an invalid action valid. I don't care how many guys in a group vote to rob the nearest liquor store, the ones who opt not to rob it are in the right.

The reason the arbitration clause exists is to prevent situations where any one party or group has an undue ability to put their will into effect unchecked. The Skins and Cowboys certainly will have plenty to discuss with the arbitrator, regardless of whether the Executive Committee votes for penalties or not.

Ultimately, these are two members of a club of 32, and the bylaws of that club say 24 votes can pass just about anything.

Arbitration is relief under the CBA, but the authority of the Executive Committee to impose discipline on its members supercedes that.

Ultimately, they can probably sue the League on antitrust grounds a la Al Davis, but I think they'd rather bite this bullet than go down that route.

Excellent info right there. Very well done.

But why just the Redskins and Cowboys? If this is a precedent that the NFL and the Executive Committee is establishing, then should not every contract extension, or, free agent signing RFA tender etc that was in the uncapped year be called into question?

I am sure the Skins and Cowboys were not the only 2 teams in the league that had contracts, in one way or the other, that used monies in the uncapped season? Why these 2 teams?

It is sounding more and more like a witch hunt to me.

If I had to guess, it probably has to do with the 'Skins actively restructuring existing contracts to move the cap hit forward into 2010. I suppose, in the other owners' minds that's worse than just signing new contracts and taking a big hit in 2010.

The Haynesworth contract was specifically redone to move later cap hits into 2010. Creative accounting designed specifically to free up future cap space.

Whether it's fair to punish someone for trying to free up future cap space under a cap that may or may not exist in the future is another question, but the 'Skins were trying to shift future cap hit into the uncapped year.

You will be receiving a cease and desist letter very soon from my attorney, Mr. JoeRedskin.

You've made a very powerful enemy, friend.

Dear Dirtbag59:

Please CEASE & DESIST your use of the phrase "Gategate". Trademark and Copyright papers have been filed showing ownership of this intellectual property to belong solely to mooby. Continued use of the phrase gategate or any iteration thereof without proper attribution will result in civil penalties, possible avatar related modifications and the continued ridicule of you by me with lots of big words and some latin thrown in an ad hoc manner ad infinitum.

In addition, everyone will know you are a big fat weenie.

Mooby - you will be receiving my bill in your private messages.

Ultimately, these are two members of a club of 32, and the bylaws of that club say 24 votes can pass just about anything.

Arbitration is relief under the CBA, but the authority of the Executive Committee to impose discipline on its members supercedes that.

Ultimately, they can probably sue the League on antitrust grounds a la Al Davis, but I think they'd rather bite this bullet than go down that route.
Do you have anything to substantiate that? My understanding is that the arbitration is allowed due to a specific clause in the CBA, and that all parties agree to the fact that arbitration is binding.

We have received no written notice from Mooby or his associates in regards to the 'gate' controversies.