Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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

What I have read is that the Skins and Cowboys arbitration was based more on the violation of procedure by the Commissioner and MCEC. The grievance as previously submitted avoided the collusion issue and focused on the violation of the process for levying sanctions/altering the salary cap set forth in the current CBA and By-Laws.

If this is true, essentially, what the NFL has done is rectify their procedural errors and left the Skins & Cowboys with only the substantive challenge that the sanction is an attempt to enforce an illegal agreement.

If for, some reason, the NFL attempts to strip the Skins of the 2nd pick, I would expect all restraints to be turned off - DS would file for a TRO preventing the NFL from taking it, possibly threaten to hold up the draft through court proceedings, etc., etc. It would get very very messy, very very fast.

I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).

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.

and there in lies the problem. In any other situation whether its a lawyer or judge if there is any form of conflict of interest they politely back out and let someone else handle the case or issue. What are the conflicts in this case or issue...

1-Mara who heads up the committee is in the same division.

2-Mara only punished 2 teams and they are in his division.

3-Mara's team benifited from the two teams being hindered in FA.

4-Mara's team collected 1.6mill also.

If all the teams no matter how much they gained were punished it might look better. If all team who spent below the CAP floor were punished also then it would look more like the NFL trying to keep to their rules and regulations.

5-If the league is all about the NFL then they would have been more concerned with saving themselves $96-$224 mill dollars by not making the agreement with the NFLPA and simply allowing the CAP to drop 3-7mill per team. Thats 3-7mill X 32 teams. Instead they chose to over look the $96-$224 mill simply to punish the two teams at a whopping $46 mill total.

Apparently it was more important to save less money and punish the two teams vs. ignoring the two teams and saving $50+mill more.

Had the NFLPA not agreed to the punishment the league would not have punished for fear the NFLPA might file a collusion law suit and might have made the new CBA a viodable contract because of the collusion. In other words back to sqaure one with the negotiating. On top of that the NFLPA would could have won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

I would not be surprised if this is a big game of chicken between the owners and DS & JJ - who has more to lose. It will be interesting to see if the Skins or Cowboys escalate by amending their grievance claims to include the substantive issue (they may just wait and do a separate grievance or seek legal remedy on that issue).

Also, the two owners that want revenue sharing ended may very well be glad to see the NFL tumble in a anti-trust suit. Because then, it would open the doors for no salary cap and a true free market. Teams like the Colts and Jaguars would be closing shop in a matter of months.

In 1990 the MLBPA won their collusion case and the owners had to pay $280 mill to the MLBPA. That my friend is more then the NFL league would have saved and a ton more then the NFLPA got in the agreement $46mill? Their idiots.

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

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

I think Dirtbag should be stripped of half of his post numbers, and that these posts be equally distributed among all Warpath members.

hey serious questions here:

When do we get to meet and present the case before the arbitrator? Is it a joint meeting with the cowboys and skins going together or seperate cases before the abitrator?

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.

1) This arbitration is within the context of the CBA. If the MCEC has authority to negotiate with the NFLPA, they have negotiated an amendment to the CBA, and the owners (as a group) have ratified the MCEC's amendment, the two teams have the right to pursue arbitration, but the "law of the land" upon which they're asking the arbitrator to rule is the newly modified CBA. They can't argue the NFL broke the rules - they're saying the MCEC modified the rules in a way they didn't like. And the MCEC negotiated within their authority and the owners as a group have supported their amendment.

2) Even if they win in arbitration, if the same group of 30 owners meets as the Executive Committee, they can impose whatever penalties they want.

You were informed of the potential breach by post No. 478. Further, mooby through post No. 460 & 466 informed you pro se of his intent to exhibit ownership creating a prima facie case of said ownership. In the face of such notice, your use of said marks can be seen as nothing short of animo furandi and appropriate sanctions will be pursued including a hearing coram non judice.

In addition, you are still a big fat weenie.

Mooby- additional billings to be sent by PM (Wohooo! The kids are going to the posh summer camp this year!!).

I would just like to say I have no further comment at this time, and my attorney will have full discretion in regards to which questions he will and will not answer.

I would also like to rescind my previous 'no comment' so that I can say, na-na na-na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. I will be trademarking that phrase shortly as well.

All this legal talk is giving me a big headache, but I definitely appreciate the info. I'm more confused now, more than ever. In layman's terms, does this mean the Redskins and Cowboys stand a very good chance of getting burned at the stake rather than winning this thing? Or are we still just speculating? Certainly I would like to think this would be an easy win for the two teams, but if things accelerated to the point where the 'skins and 'boys not only lost, but had to surrender draft picks, I don't know how I could honestly keep supporting the NFL. I mean seriously, knowing that this franchise is trying to claw itself back to the point of respectability and on the verge of landing a franchise QB - all to lose it over some vindictive move by the other owners? I just think I'd lose faith in the pro sport after this. Not going to be overly dramatic, but I just want to know the bottom line - what are the possibilities of this mess escalating to something very nasty for the 'skins and 'boys as opposed to what we were all thinking before; that it is something the 'skins and 'boys should win easily?