Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/57182/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad-2)

Cowboys/Redskins: Why the NFL got mad - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/57182/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad-2)


SO a few teams are mad because they got the rug pulled out from under them in their game of playing "hard ball" with their players. So instead of rewarding them with a nice contract, they'd rather keep ****ing the player over and hitting with the tag. Boo Fcking Hoo. I'm glad AJ Smith finally got reemed up the but by the system because he sure as hell was trying to use the system to screw over his players. In terms of the salaries of DTs going up, well they should have been mad at Vinny the moment he signed him. Went from the highest DT salary being 8mil average to one with a average of $15mil. That had more impact than anything.

It's a wonder why the NFLPA even agreed to this shit.

This makes less sense than that we were trying to gain a competitive edge by relieving ourselves of cap obligations. While that may be why some owners willingly signed off on the vote, I can't see that ever being raised in front of the arbitrator. I would love the arbitrator to just come out and blast the NFL, but I doubt the Skins or Cowboys really want that, they just want the space back.

Also using that logic the Raiders should have been docked extra cap space every year for the last 10 years of Al Davis' life (RIP). Not to hammer on him, but how many positions did his craziness inflate. How much did he pay his punter and kicker again?

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

Well this just highlights that the NFL was actively trying to depress salaries with this handshake agrreement on an imaginary cap. Seems like the NFL would want to just settle this and move on before Burbank gets a hold of it and potentially throws a bomb into the room.

I'd love to hear a more legally informed opinion regarding the NFLPA's agreement to all of this. I know they signed away their right to sue in the CBA negotiations but it seems like an argument could be made that they signed away their rights absent key incriminating evidence and that could maybe render that unenforceable.

Plus what is the legal justification for extortion? Wouldn't informing a union that the cap was going to decrease if they didn't sign off be legally shaky at best?

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.

The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.

This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.

I agree that it would be unfair, and evidence of illegal collusion if owners were punishing the Skins and Cowboys for pushing up the value of the franchise tag at certain positions.

However, this is one writer's (Breer's) speculation as to why certain owners might have generally been upset with the signings, and another writer (Graziano) taking that speculation as fact and running with it. Here's the logic used:

Breer:

It's been reported that multiple teams are upset with the way the Skins and Cowboys structured the Austin, Haynesworth, and Hall contracts.
29 teams voted to support the sanctions against the Skins and Cowboys.
I can think of three teams that were affected by the franchise tags going up at those positions.


Graziano:

Those three teams are completely full of it!
I know the NFL gave us a different reason why the owners were upset, but Breer says these three teams have reason to complain, and therefore they must be behind the 29-2-1 vote, and therefore they are demonstrating evidence of illegal collusion.


I would love for the arbitrator to give the Redskins relief (while somehow still managing to screw the Cowboys), but it won't be based on this logic if he does.

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

Still waiting on an informed legal opinion on the above and I have another question.

What set of laws, rules, guidelines, philosophies is the arbitrator tied to? Meaning does he interpret law as it applies here, NFL rules, some combo of the two, basic ethical principles, or what?

He's a law professor at Penn State, and is supposed to be unbiased by definition. My guess is his interpretations are in order:

1. Legal
2. NFL - NFLPA Precedence

"F" those mother "Fers"

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/20/league-requests-dismissal-of-cowboys-redskins-grievance/)

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL has tried to block the hearing by submitting a request to dismiss the grievance.

The NFL contends that, because the NFL Players Association consented to the imposition of cap penalties, the Cowboys and Redskins have no grounds to attack the agreement under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which governs the relationship between the league and the players.


It shouldn't matter that the two sides agreed, the fact still remains that 30 owners are punishing 2 and the two don't think its fair. I hope DS and JJ take this all the way until we either get the CAP space back (all of it) or it can't be taken any further.