Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

"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/)



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.
Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

"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/)



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.

I heard this on the radio about an hour or two ago, came here hoping for a storm of discussion!

Standard legal tact I imagine. This, of course, is also the league's best shot.

Agree, they Know there in the wrong.

Ehh, everybody moves for a dismissal if they have even the most tenuous grounds for it. I cannot imagine that it is granted BUT they are starting to get into the stuff much more particular to labor law, the specific terms of the CBA and anti-trust stuff.

Under general contract legal concepts (Contracts 101 essentially - okay, maybe 401), I feel pretty confident that the agreement of the NFLPA to the NFL's change in the salary cap is a waiver of players rights but not of the rights of the clubs within the NFL.

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?

According to the CBA, the arbitrator in the case has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce certain articles of the CBA, including the ones regarding the salary cap.

The issue here is that the parties to the CBA are the NFLPA (exclusively representing the players), and the NFLMC (exclusively representing the Clubs that employ the players).

Normally, arbitration under the CBA is intended to settle grievances between Clubs (employer) and players (employee). It is not intended to settle grievances between the Clubs and the NFL or NFLMC.

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

If they do get relief, I'd guess it's based on the fact that the whole concept of the salary cap throughout the CBA is that "Salary Cap" is one number, and it's specifically defined as being the same for all teams. I suppose they'd have to argue that making the salary cap different for different teams completely violates the whole concept and the modifications to include these penalties is inconsistent with the rest of the CBA.

The only reason arbitration is involved at all is because the punishment involves the salary cap, the salary cap is relevant to the CBA, and the CBA provides for arbitration to enforce its provisions.

If the Commissioner had settled on another punishment, the Clubs would only have the options of a) appealing to the Commissioner to reconsider a la Sean Payton, or b) suing the NFL. The former wouldn't go anywhere, and the latter isn't something the Clubs involved seem to want to do.

There is no provision for arbitration in the NFL Bylaws (which governs the relationships between the NFL and member Clubs). The Commissioner has certain specific authority and the Executive Committee (32 owners) has authority for everything else, subject to a 3/4ths majority vote.

Personally, I believe the best case is that the Clubs and League settle on a reduced punishment in order to make this go away. Since the NFLPA is a party to the CBA and apparently named in the grievance, they will get discovery on all documents produced as part of this case. I don't think either the League or the Clubs involved really want to hand the clubs any more information than they have to in this matter.

IMO, the League made a complete mess of this punishment, but has now tied up their procedural loose ends. They probably have legit grounds for dismissal, but I'd guess they don't get it right away. I'd guess (and hope) the Clubs play chicken long enough to get the League to reduce the punishment.

Essentially, the Clubs involved here are claiming that they don't like how the NFLMC represented them in modifying the CBA with the NFLPA. The problem is that the owners voted 29-2-1 to accept the changes and the NFLPA has accepted the changes. I'm not sure how the system arbitrator for the CBA is supposed to give two Clubs relief based on the fact that they don't like that they were outvoted.

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.

The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.

The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.

The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.

Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.

Exactly, it's simply that the Arbitrator will look at this from strictly a legal stance, not a "gentlemens' agreement".

Unfortunately, if the Skins want someone to rule from a big-picture legal perspective of whether these punishments are fair or not, they would have to sue the League in open court - which they won't do.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

This arbitrator only has the power to enforce the CBA. That's his job, as written into the CBA.

The NFL Bylaws have no provision for an arbitrator - they ultimately settle everything with 24 votes. Or, you can go to court.

Question ,by using an arbitrator does either side give up the option for court if the vedict is not what they want?