Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.

As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs


As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

What he said. Well done.

Just like to add, it was the Redskins and Cowboys that chose this as the forum in which to dispute the matter. I believe in a court of general jurisdiction the Skins had a much better argument. Why they chose to begin here where, arguably, they're stuck with their weakest arguments is beyond me.

I think it is our first step. I am sure the lawyers who make lots of money doing these things have mapped out a strategy - but it seems to me this is really a bad way to do it. By starting with the weakest argument, you are setting yourself up to lose out the gate AND you risk losing arguments that may be better presented in a different forum. (i.e. - a judicial court may say to certain arguements "Oh, that issue is within the range of those brought out in arbitration and you can't bring them now".)

Personally, I think they should have gone nuclear out of the gate and say "Fix it or let the chips fall where they may" (Call it the "Al Davis Approach"). Instead, it seems that they are trying to play nice and are at risk for losing some arguments that would be best made in a court of general jurisdiction.

But, hey, I guess its why their lawyers make the big bucks.

I think they don't want to sue, because that would air out too much dirty laundry. I think they'd rather eat the punishment than sue.

I think they've taken this more limited arbitration option to get the other owners to settle on a reduced punishment to make it go away.

It'll be interesting to see if the argument that someone here made concerning the timing of the penalty was a violation in his eyes. Perhaps technically the penalty was imposed without proper procedure simply based on the timing. I think that may be the only decent procedural argument that can be made. The vote, post-facto, didn't magically make the penalty timely. Both teams were penalized in violation of the CBA that existed on March 13th. Maybe.

The CBA doesn't say anything about how the League can punish its Clubs, and the arbitrator doesn't have any power to decide whether a penalty was appropriate.

The arbitrator can only say that an action was unfair under the CBA.

IMO, the choices are:
- The CBA was improperly modified
- Based on the way "Salary Cap" is defined throughout the document, the modification doesn't make sense - so the modification needs to be dropped or the whole document needs to be rewritten.

Just want to say a quick Thanks to JoeReadskin and Hoophead,they have brought alot more to light in this then I ever imagined was involved.

I haven't read the complaint - didn't think it would be public.

Also FWIW, there was a CBA present in 2010, just not a salary cap. The 2006 CBA provided for an "Uncapped Year", and laid out the specifics of exactly what that meant, and what could and couldn't be done with contracts in an Uncapped Year.

As for other comments, I'm not really trying to make an argument here. I'm a Skins fan trying to understand what's going on who decided to read the relevant documents and provide some analysis as to what's going on and what's likely to happen. As best I can, I try to say "I guess" and "probably" when I'm guessing.


As for how the CBA applies to this situation, as far as I can tell:

It's designed to govern the relationships between employees (players) and employers (Clubs)
It doesn't say anything about how the Leagues can discipline the clubs or govern the relationship between the League and Clubs
The parties to the CBA are the NFLPA and NFLMC, and the agreement can be modified by written agreement of the parties
The NFLPA and NFLMC have apparently agreed to a modification of the CBA to lower the Salary Cap for the Skins
The Skins don't like what the NFLMC has done on their behalf
29 owners voted to accept the changes made by the NFLMC on behalf of all the Clubs

As far as I can tell, the arbitrator is only involved because the punishment involved the salary cap, but the CBA arbitrator doesn't really have power to rule on how the NFL punishes its member Clubs.

The only hope is for the arbitrator to say, "I know you tried to modify the CBA, but that modification is inconsistent with the rest of the document and the modification makes the CBA no longer make sense, so either lose the modification or rewrite the whole CBA.

My question to you is this. You mention a modification and you mention specifics in the CBA, but am I correct in saying the specifics in the CBA didn't cover what the Redskins did... specifically, and two the modification came in the new CBA not in the old CBA and written and agreed to by all parties. Am i correct in saying the NFL is trying to apply a new modification to the old CBA that had no CAP?

Ok so if the Arbitrator is involved only because of the salary CAP then he can look into if the NFLPA was bribed or blackmailed into having to agree with the punishement or have the CAP lowered? He can also look into whether the league colluded by trying to keep the CAP down? He should also be able to look at whether contracts approved by the league and decided if the two teams should be punished based off their approval of the contracts. Because it effected our CAP space.

and.... Hoop, ;) I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.

Thanks for the nice words. Honestly, this whole thing sucks, and I came into this pissing vinegar like you. Unfortunately, the more I read, the more it became obvious that the Commissioner has the power to punish the Skins for doing what they did. Fair or not.

The max punishment that I could see being fair is making Hall's 2010 bonus count $3m per year for 3 years. If they did that, my reaction would be "harsh but fair." $36m is ridiculous.

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

and.... Hoop, ;) I don't hate the messanger.... I hate the message. lol. although you might be right I hate the bleak message your giving us. lol. Also, even though I'm sure both sides have lawyers informing them, I hate tossing out there information the opponant could use against us. Like when the media comes on tv and says "gas companies are worried a terrorist group could highjack a gas truck and use it to blow something up", .... hello... if they were not thinking it you just now gave them the idea. lol.

Your awsome. again I just hate the negativity. How about painting this side of the fence for us so we have a positive view of you? lol.

As for positivity...salary cap be damned, in three days, WE GET RGIII!

I think that's the only reason I can even rationally discuss the salary cap issue.

IN 3 DAYS WE GET RGIII.

As explained earlier in the thread:
Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.

The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.

As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.

The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.

I'll read the rest later as I gotta get going from work but your just looking at your #1 and #2.... the punishement is not collusion. The agreement the 30 owners had to keep costs down with out the NFLPA's approval is collusion. The issue is the NFLPA didn't have definite proof that the owners were colluding which is why when the new CBA was signed there was an agreement between both sides that the NFLPA gave up their right to file a law suit. The meeting the Exec Committee and the NFLPA had was to remind them of the agreement and to blackmail them into agreeing or the CAP would be lowered for their players for each team.

The punishement is proof their was an agreement between the owners to keep the costs down against the uncapped year. which there should not have been an agreement because thats colluding unless the players agreed to it.

damnit hoophead, i'm really trying to like you and what you're contributing to this thread but you're making it impossible with your bubble bursting in regards to this shitty situation.

rgiii countdown: T-3 days!