Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

And "agreed" is a very loose term here. 32 owners in a room agreeing verbally to conduct illicit business practices is what you're hanging your hat on there Giantone? You have better arguments to make.

.

What was "illicit",the NFL does everything by committee vote.....I mean everything so it is an acceptable past practice agreed upon by all 32 owners.Also if I remember correctly "recorded meeting minutes" are legaly binding and an acceptable form of documentation.

This year will tell a lot about the Skins coaching staff, developing a new QB, limited free agents etc. Although i have been somewhat impressed at the signings so far.

The way I understand it...30 teams agreed to this punishment...so it is 30 vs 2.
The NFL is more of a club than a business.

The NFL is a business partnership. A joint venture of several distinct business entities. They are not a "club", they are a money making organization made up of several distinct business entities with rights and duties to the other entities in the venture.

If several of the entities violate the rules of the organization and cause damages to other entities (in this case, imposing a penalty for legally restructuring contracts (both in that they violated no govt. imposed restrictions and did not violate the rules of the joint venture)), each entity has the right to sue each other and the joint venture itself for the damages caused to their distinct business entity - just like two buisness partners in a legal partnership can sue each other or over there rights within partnership.

How can the skins sue?....who are they suing?...the NFL?....they are the nfl?
The 32 owners are the NFL and the commissioner is paid by the owners.
How can you sue yourself?, the players association also agreed to approve it.

Each owner can sue each other or they can sue the joint venture.

This is all legit the way the NFL/players association works.

You and I have very different understandings of the word "legit". It may be "business as usual", but that does not make it "legit".

Collusion is a different call...but you'd have to argue that was done to keep pay down..can't be argued this year since they kept the cap total the same...but could be argued during the non cap year...but think about it, is it really worth it?

I think we sort of agree here. Certainly, the NFL took steps to ratify their action after the fact:
"Hey, NFLPA, look, we had this agreement to violate the CBA while negotiations were taking place. However, since you dropped all allegations of "collusion" as part of the final settlement on the CBA, you can't sue us for it now. Sorry about that - our bad. .... Oh by the way, a couple of teams didn't want to participate in the collusion, so we are going to hammer them on the salary cap. If you don't agree with that, well we will just have to lower the cap for everyone or you can sign off on the deal and we will be able to keep the cap up for all the other teams. So ... whatcha gonna do?"

The subsequent acts of ratification don't change the fact that, at the time of uncapped year, several owners secretly agreed not to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the uncapped year and subsequently decided to selectively punish two of them that did.

Sure the Skins got screwed..but they are going to pay the cap hit they normally would have...the issue I have is a couple others got away with it on a smaller scale....and if you pursue a lawsuit, you will make enemies of those you depend on.
You really dont want the NFL a perpetual enemy of the Skins...think of penalties, fines, scheduling, supplemental draft picks, etc

In general, I agree with you on this. Do you really want to toss a grenade into the room you're standing? Just b/c you can sue, doesn't mean you should. I expect that there will be some backroom negotiations and the penalty will be mediated b/c, IMHO, the NFL doesn't have a leg to stand on other than the informal "you still are stuck with us and we can make life difficult" tack. From a legal standpoint, I haven't seen one defense raised by the NFL that had any validity - Most of them barely pass the "does it smell bad" test.

And "agreed" is a very loose term here. 32 owners in a room agreeing verbally to conduct illicit business practices is what you're hanging your hat on there Giantone? You have better arguments to make.

To begin with I haven't seen anything that says any of the punished teams agreed to anything. And second...it does not matter either way. A verbal agreement is not binding in any legal way. If you prefer your NFL to operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner that could diminish a team's ability to compete then you're getting what you want. I'd say be careful though. Someday Jerry and/or Dan are going to be in a position to retaliate and this situation is proving is that whatever they do will be ok. Bad precedent set here. Very bad.

Verbal agreements are absolutely binding - If I make a verbal offer to do something in return for consideration from you, and you verbally accept, we have a binding and enforceable contract. A verbal contract is just as binding as written contract.

HOWEVER, if a written contract exists, in this case the charter documents for the joint venture known as the NFL, how that document can be changed is likely to be written into the document. I seriously doubt that it permits unwritten regulations or terms to be enforced against any club. Unless the teams passed this agreement in accordance with their governing rules (which I doubt seeing as it was done secretly), it can't be binding on everyone who has agreed to be subject to those rules.

Folks, just b/c the NFL is club for rich guys doesn't mean they can conduct their business any damn way they like. If one or two of the rich guys don't agree with how business was conducted and the "rich guy" rules weren't followed, many lawyers will become a little richer too.

I thought that they knew they had done something wrong and knew a penalty was coming,just not the extent of it or the magnitude of it, at least according to the artical by Mark Maske.

What were they warned of? From what I have read the warning was "Don't use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage beyond this year."

Well, that f'ng bs. That is exactly why the uncapped year existed - to permit teams to manipulate contracts, salaries and expenditures in order to gain a competitive advantage over other teams. The CBA contained no clause saying "Oh, by the way, the uncapped year is only meant to create a competive imbalance for one year and one year only" (certainly players thought that, once it was gone, the salary cap was never coming back). Thus, the NFL's warning was - "Don't abide by the CBA." To which Danny and Jerry said, "Watch me abide by the terms of the CBA".

Knew the penalty was coming? People threaten with illegal actions all the time, does that mean they should be obeyed? "I may not have a leg to stand on in court, but I will drag you through the muck anyway". Danny and Jerry essentially said, "Give it your best shot. We are acting within the letter and spirit of the CBA and violating no enforceable league policies."

Further, even if the remaining owners subsequently followed the proper procedural steps to impose the current penalty, it doesn't change the illegality of the substantive fact -- the penalty is being imposed for actions that complied with the governing rules of the joint venture at the time those actions took place (If my homeowners association says that all houses in the neighbor hood must be painted blue, they can't fine me b/c my house was red last year).

You can't make an act that was substantively illegal (the agreemnt to violate the CBA) legal merely by subsequently following certain procedural steps ("All in favor of saying our cheating on the CBA was okay say 'Aye'. All in favor? Good. Our cheating on the CBA was actually an approved business practice. Danny & Jerry, b/c you didn't agree to cheat with us, and we have agreed that our cheating was an approved practice, we are going to punish you.")

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

I highly doubt that all 32 owners were in unison on this agreement. They've never been in full agreement on anything so this certainly wouldn't be any different.

I like having an actual lawyer who can explain situations like this more properly. I consider myself somewhat cogent on legal matters but nothing short of completely layman. Perhaps my views are as limited as others but it sure seems to me like some people have no concept at all how laws are applied and enforced in our country.

I have wavered back and forth about what I think is the right course of action. At first I felt this was a "grab the pitch forks" type situation. "Burn 'em all the hell." Then I backed into the "we wouldn't definitely win in a lawsuit and it could threaten the sport as a whole. it would be better to appeal to their sense of fairness."

I am back to the "burn the whole village down." Why would a team like Dallas or Washington care if the sport maintained the socialist approach? A law suit could absolutely threaten the very foundation that approach is founded on. In a real free market the Skins buy whatever they hell they want and can afford whenever they want to do it. The other owners have shown that they don't care really about fairness but rather keeping everyone in line. Sounds like how socialism has played out all over the world to me. And so often history has shown that it doesn't last. Those having to continually sacrifice get tired of doing so for everyone else and inevitably work to break the system. To me, the NFL, lit a fire under teams like Dallas and Wash that may end up causing real problems.

I highly doubt that all 32 owners were in unison on this agreement. They've never been in full agreement on anything so this certainly wouldn't be any different.

This...I find it almost laughable to think that Dan Snyder sat in a meeting and agreed to this. He's been running an NFL football team for 13 years now. He knows how the salary cap works. He understood how the uncapped year could offer him relief. And he just sat in a room and volunteered not to utilize the advantage that presented him? Does anyone in their right mind think that sounds like something he'd do? In the business world Snyder is not known as a shrinking violet. I think he'd have told Ralph Wilson and his crew of poor owners to go screw.

Perhaps he knew that many owners had agreed to this and that they would either TRY to punish those that didn't go along or were only issuing empty threats but it doesn't seem very likely at all that he actually raised his hand as a Yay when they "voted" on this.

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

You're right, I didn't see that in any of the reports I read, but I did see that the nfl "warned" teams not to do what the Skins & Boys did. Sally Jenkins is right, regardless of legality, this adds to Snyder's poor relationship w/the nfl & other owners.

Geez, every businessman...big OR small, corporate CEO or entrepenuer, will face extreme temptation do whatever it takes for "survival", aka find a way to get what is best for his own company.