Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

You don't argue with the cop period. But your arguement would be for the judge. If proven the cop instructed you that it was OK to speed then he ticketed you for it the judge would throw it out. You would not be punished.

As I see this will if it goes to court. The league approved the contracts. Don't come back later and cry foul when you have the opportunity to tell both teams they can't do that at the time.

I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

Goodell didn't do this. The owners lead by John Mara did.

Oh and why would the league need to sit down with the NFLPA and bribe, strong arm, or whatever you want to call it, them into not filing a suit if the owners did nothing wrong? If they didn't break any laws then there would be no need to even get them involved. Simply punish the two teams and be done with it.

If the Commissioner took away draft picks, as he has the authority to do, the NFLPA wouldn't be involved at all, there would be no arbitration, everything would be neat and tidy, and the Skins wouldn't be getting RG3.

Everything got messy because the Commissioner, apparently pushed by multiple owners, wanted to impose a different, lighter, and possibly fairer penalty on the Skins.

They had to get the NFLPA involved because he wanted to touch salary cap space.

I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.

No the more correct analogy would be the cop telling you not to speed, you speed, he stops you and simply gives you a warning and lets you go, then 2 yrs later decides file paper work to bring you to court to punish you for speeding.

The league as you say had rules. Two teams failed to abide by those rules. The league approved the contracts. Then 2 yrs later wants to punish them. Ludicrous.

You keep saying that, but the League has a solid argument that they weren't breaking the law.

They would also argue that they only dealt with it now for convenience reasons.

The Commissioner may be guilty of a ridiculous process, and unfairly singling (doubling?) out two teams, but the NFL Bylaws use the phrase "The Commissioner may...in his sole discretion..." a whole lot. Everything else is covered with "by the affirmative votes of not less than three-quarters...of the member clubs..."

It sucks, it's unfair, but "in his sole discretion" means "in his sole discretion."

So far, you've been a great addition to this board, and your objective posts have been well-taken.

Now, my question is, if the league has a solid argument, what can they say to teams who underspent or had "Julius Peppers" contracts? I mean if the bottom line is Goodell is "God" is the sense of the NFL, then doesn't that mean there are a ton of things that teams can suddenly start complaining about hoping for an advantage?

No it doesn't. There's a reason every league gets taken to court by it's teams and players (and quite often loses). It's because you can put those kind of phrases into your bylaws all you want, but your members still have a right to be treated fairly and to seek redress if not.

In this case, Goodell tried to overrule the CBA, which he has absolutely no power to do.

IIRC, I was the first in this thread to note that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to modify the salary cap. That's something he doesn't have the authority to do "in his sole discretion."

No argument that it's a procedural mess.

However, he does have the authority to remove draft picks "in his sole discretion." Had he done that, this would probably be over by now. I doubt Snyder and Jones are going to take this to court.

If the Commissioner took away draft picks, as he has the authority to do, the NFLPA wouldn't be involved at all, there would be no arbitration, everything would be neat and tidy, and the Skins wouldn't be getting RG3.

Everything got messy because the Commissioner, apparently pushed by multiple owners, wanted to impose a different, lighter, and possibly fairer penalty on the Skins.

They had to get the NFLPA involved because he wanted to touch salary cap space.

I guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Personally I didn't expect to get RG3. I had figured we were out of the running because he would not be there at #6. So using that money on FA's and a 2nd round QB is what I suspected anyway. My first round pick was going to be a WR. But we picked those up in FA.

But no matter what I still have issues with the fact the league approved these deals when they could have said no back in 2010. I have issues with what on the surface looks like a conflict of interest with Mara heading up the whole CAPGATE issue. I don't care that there were 24+ other votes. He's in our division, he got 1.6 mill out of the deal, he hindered our FA ability by 18 mill, and he gained an advantage through all that by keeping our two teams from picking up better talent.

No the more correct analogy would be the cop telling you not to speed, you speed, he stops you and simply gives you a warning and lets you go, then 2 yrs later decides file paper work to bring you to court to punish you for speeding.

The league as you say had rules. Two teams failed to abide by those rules. The league approved the contracts. Then 2 yrs later wants to punish them. Ludicrous.

Agree it sucks, but either way you're still screwed if the cop is also the judge.

I agreed that the procedure was screwed up. But when the cop acts as judge and jury too, good luck complaining to him that he didn't follow proper procedure.

And within your analogy, it's more like the cop told him not to speed, saw him speeding, and then waited a year to write the ticket because he was working on a murder case at the time.

Actually, I feel like both of your analogies miss the point. It's a lot more like this:
Cops tell you not to speed. Then, the state lifts the law against speeding. Cop says, "That law's coming back so you be careful." You speed like a mad man during the time that there is no law. The state reinstates the law. Cop tries to arrest you for speeding while there was no law.

Unfortunately, that's not really how rules or laws work. There is no way that there is a justification for the punishment being levied against the Skins in this case. There's no way a team should be punished for breaking an imaginary rule.