Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

We need some die hard Cowpukes or Redskins senator to raise a stink about this.

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

Shuler, here's your chance to finally do something positive for the Skins!

:rofl:

The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.

I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.

Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the current CBA and the arbiter's authority.

I respectively disagree and have stated why several time earlier in the thread but basically as has been just reiterated by FRPLG. I believe that the "warnings" issued were in fact evidence of an agreement by the owners to prohibit something which was otherwise permitted by the governing (2006) CBA.

Again, not sure what effect that has on the ruling regarding the current CBA and the arbiter's authority.

It shouldn't. No one not even the courts can apply a punishment for something that was not in effect at the time. The new CBA was not in effect at the time. The Arbitrator should only be able to look at the old CBA and CAP and see if the two teams broke any rule or law that was in place at the time. Since there was no CAP then all he has is the old CBA and or whatever "warnings" that were given. and in regards to the warnings was the warning right to enforce by the league or was it an illegal act?

Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.

Very simply, because the penalty being imposed is being imposed pursuant to the current CBA. Sure, it is being done for actions that were taken during the prior CBA but, but, as it affects the current and future dealings between the NFLPA and the NFL, the procedural basis for imposing the penalty is the agreement governing those current and future dealings. i.e. the current CBA.

Have you read the thread at all?

Please stop saying that an agreement not to do what the Redskins are being punished for is collusion. It's not.

It's a pretty simple concept that's been explained several times, including in my last post.

you dont seem to understand that you are not the authority on the matter. ive read your posts and simply dont agree with your interpretation of the facts available, as have alot of others here.

yes, you might have explained your OPINION on matter a number of times, its still just your optinion. stating it as some sort of fact is ridiculous.

Ok, I'm confused cause I keep hearing this but how can an Arbitrator rule on a case using current rules/CBA for a period not covered by these rules? My arguement is I believe the Arbitrator will be forced to use the old CBA at most and or the CBA that was in place at the time the Skins and Cowboys made their contracts and whatever CAP was in place at the time. We know there was no CAP so he will have to look at what the CBA rules were at the time and what 'warnings' were given. I'm also thinking he will see the "warning" as colluding and will take the punishment away from the two teams cause what the league did was illegal.

I think your idea is the Arbitrator is looking solely at whether the Exec Committee and or Commish can with the current CBA rules punish the two teams. I think he also will have the right to look at the CBA that was in place and decide if the two teams even broke a rule for which they should be punished for. I think the major points the two teams should bring up is there was no CAP and the league approved or passed off on the contracts with out having the two teams notified they violated an agreement or CBA and told to restructure them again to fall within the perimaters.
It really goes to the one point none of us knows, and that is what specifically did the Skins/Cowboys appeal to the arbitrator. But we will know more, once the arbitrator approves or denies the league's motion for dismissal. IF the arbitrator is looking solely at the procedures used to enact the salary cap punishment, then he most likely will dismiss based on the league's motion.

If it goes to a full hearing, I am sure the two teams will try to bring all those arguments up, but again, the arbitrator will have the say as to how far he thinks his jurisdiction goes. I don't think it's clear cut that the two teams will be able to bring up all the issues from the 2006 CBA and 2010 uncapped year, because the arbitrator could easily declare those issues outside the scope of his inquiry.

Perhaps my arguement is exactly what the two teams are trying to bring up procedurally. That any punishments (if any are warranted) should be applied by using the old CBA vs. the new CBA which was not in effect.

I think some people here are looking past whether the Arbitrator will even look at if the two teams did anything wrong and will simply look at whether the punishment fits the crime per the new CBA. I'm still at the beginning point that the Arbitrator will be looking at whether the two teams should have even been punished at all based off the CBA and CAP at the time and if he determines the "warning" was an illegal act by the league then hopefully if he see's it that way the punishment will be dropped.