Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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.

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

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.

I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.

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

I don't think so. The Arbitrator is only looking to see if someone broke the CBA rules and if the punishement should be emplimented and if it's fair or not.

The legal side of things would be to decide if the other teams actually were engaged in collusion and the two teams chose not to engage in it. An actual judge would have to hear that and might punish the rest of the owners for doing so. I don't think the league will want it to go that far and will come to some agreement. Will DS and JJ take it that far? I think they will file if need be and hope some of their CAP space get returned so they can drop the law suit.

as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.

I agree with you. I know the Exec Commitee can give punishements but where there was no CBA and no rules broken I don't think they can. Also, I see the vote as something that should have taken place prior to the punishement being given and the two teams should have had an opportunity to explain their side to the other owners prior to the vote. So all owners could make an informed decision. Unfortunatly that would have taken place after the two teams could have spent the CAP space and that is what the Exec Commitee was afraid of so they punished first. Then asked for a vote with out giving the two teams the right to explain to the other owners their side. Even kicked them out of the meeting for the vote.

People fail to realize the "warning" the league gave was for teams going to and signing up players to big contracts. There was no "warning" for teams reworking contracts with players already under contract. No rules were broken. and honestly the contracts didn't change how much money the players got just when they got it.

The big issue the two teams can bring to the Arbitrator is the league approved the contracts when they had every opportunity to decline them or deny them. They do it all the time when they is something that is not right in the contracts so its not like they couldn't deny the contracts and tell both teams "per our agreement you are not allowed to do this." The problem is the league had to approve them or be seen colluding which would have gotten them into trouble. Now after the fact they want to punish which should not be allowed. If you couldn't punish then the league should be able to punish now. Besides how does 30 teams agree to break the law and punish two who chose not to break the law? Hopefully the Arbitrator see's it this way.

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.

I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.

By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.

#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.

#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.

#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under this CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.

But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:

1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.

2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.

3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.

What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.

Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.

The arbiter is only concerned with violations of current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.

Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.

Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under this CBA.

Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.

As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.

An Arbitrator is someone who hears a disagreement between two parties. He doesn't make the rules but he makes sure people are following them. I'd imagine he would be looking at the old CBA also to see if any rule was broken, or if any rule was broken after the new CBA was signed. The problem is the issue happened after one CBA and prior to the new CBA. In other words... no law or rule was broken.

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

Probably, but only for the arguments and issues presented to the arbiter - again, I believe that would be in the CBA. So, if the arbitration goes as Hoophead suspects and is based on the issues as he has stated them, then the Skins and Cowboys could likely sue in civil court based on improper penalites incurred b/c of the improper collusion under the prior CBA.

The devil is all in the details of the documents (coincidentally, it's where all the lawyers' money is too).

I think the crux of Hoop's argument comes down to this...the owners can whatever they want among themselves with the right amount of votes. If they want to start reapportioning cap space based on record (like draft picks) they can. If they decide they don't like some team they can reduce their cap space if they want with the proper votes. All this presupposes they get the NFLPA on board. The question I am trying to understand is what latitude the arbitrator has to call BS on maneuvering that is plainly unfair. In essence, does the arbitrator have the power to ensure that each team is treated fairly across the board and isn't getting bullied by the other owners.

It all goes back what I said earlier. If the teams can just simply vote to punish a team or teams anytime they want to for whatever reason they want, then why even have a CBA? If you're not going to follow the agreement like it's laid out, what's the purpose of it? That's quite illogical, to assume the teams can have a majority vote to penalize a team for actions they did years ago under a different CBA. Why would any owner want to go along with this willingly, knowing the same thing could easily happen to them as well.

The most logical solution goes back to this: The 'skins and 'boys did what they did in 2010, which was an uncapped season under the old CBA - which was current during 2010. This vote that Hoop keeps putting all of his apples into really doesn't have any credence of legality, but moreover, was just a formality. Just like the leagues move to ask for dismissal was a formality. The long and short of it is simply those two clubs did nothing wrong; they followed the CBA to the letter, they did not collude.