Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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.

Agree 100%. Your right we do not know what is in the appeal. If it's just the punishment your probably right. I'd hope the Skins and Boys put everything in it...ie; that there was no CAP and should not be punished, that the warning was illegal, that the NFLPA was black mailed or bribed into accepting the agreed punishment, and the punishment itself. Then let the Arbitrator decide what he can hear or not.

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?

edit: deleted thought, as it was quite redundant.

To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.

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?

You misunderstand me. By agreeing to change this year's and next year's salary cap, the NFLPA and NFL are making changes and operating under the procedures applicable to the current CBA. You, me and the whole world knows that the reason the NFL proposed the restructuring of this year's and next year's salaray cap is b/c of the actions taken under the prior 2006 CBA. Regardless of the motivation for imposing the modification to the CBA, the only question (I believe) before the arbiter is: (1) Under the current CBA, whether or not the NFL and NFLPA could agree to such a modification for the current and following year; and (2) if permissible, was the modification done in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing (currrent) CBA. Thus, the purpose behind the modification is most likely irrelevant to either (1) or (2).

You misunderstand me. By agreeing to change this year's and next year's salary cap, the NFLPA and NFL are making changes and operating under the procedures applicable to the current CBA. You, me and the whole world knows that the reason the NFL proposed the restructuring of this year's and next year's salaray cap is b/c of the actions taken under the prior 2006 CBA. Regardless of the motivation for imposing the modification to the CBA, the only question (I believe) before the arbiter is: (1) Under the current CBA, whether or not the NFL and NFLPA could agree to such a modification for the current and following year; and (2) if permissible, was the modification done in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing (currrent) CBA. Thus, the purpose behind the modification is most likely irrelevant to either (1) or (2).
I agree with all this, so here is my question to you:

Let's assume that your statement lines up fairly accurately with the grievance the 2 teams filed. Could, then, the arbitrator while looking at #1, decide that he has the right to look at the reason for the modification, which would in turn open up the whole 2006 CBA issue.

To go slightly off topic -- I would like to see all punishments in the NFL funneled through a group of differing stakeholder. Player Rep, Owner Rep, League Rep, Legal Rep, and one more. None of which directly involved with the NFL, NFLPA, or Owners besides being employed on their behalf.

I want to see Goodell with less power, not more. The other teams had no incentive not to drop the hammer on the skins/boys. If we weren't the ones being singled out -- we would have been okay with the decision because it meant more cap room.

The players had their chance. They turned down a decent deal only to take a worse deal because they blinked. In the end the issues pertaining to Goodell's power could have been mitigated had D. Smith not been such an awful leader. Instead they took less money and allowed Goodell's authority to maintain. How the union got out of this whole thing and didn't at least get appeals handled differently is baffling to me. Borders on negligence on the part of union leadership.

I agree with all this, so here is my question to you:

Let's assume that your statement lines up fairly accurately with the grievance the 2 teams filed. Could, then, the arbitrator while looking at #1, decide that he has the right to look at the reason for the modification, which would in turn open up the whole 2006 CBA issue.

I think it would be legally inappropriate for him to do so which could render any decision he makes unenforceable.

We won't do so in any case. There are too many really good lawyers involved for the arbitration hearing to turn into exposition on the collusive efforts of the league and its owners.

Those arguments are destined to be beaten to death in front of a judge.

I think the Skins and Boys lose this round and then have to decide whether to drop a proverbial grenade in the toilet. My guess, I think both owners are crazy enough to start a war.

Does anyone for a second think either DS or JJ aren't acutely aware that their cash is vitally important to many teams? At some point I have to believe they'll finally decide they're tired of being one of the very few teams that prop the league up and start a war to reshape how everything works. The other owners poking them with sticks only makes that all the more likely. Hence why I continued to be baffled at why this is the fight the other owners decided to pick. Very short-sighted and vindictive. Not two things that should ever be associated with business decisions.

I think it would be legally inappropriate for him to do so which could render any decision he makes unenforceable.

We won't do so in any case. There are too many really good lawyers involved for the arbitration hearing to turn into exposition on the collusive efforts of the league and its owners.

Those arguments are destined to be beaten to death in front of a judge.

I think the Skins and Boys lose this round and then have to decide whether to drop a proverbial grenade in the toilet. My guess, I think both owners are crazy enough to start a war.

Does anyone for a second think either DS or JJ aren't acutely aware that their cash is vitally important to many teams? At some point I have to believe they'll finally decide they're tired of being one of the very few teams that prop the league up and start a war to reshape how everything works. The other owners poking them with sticks only makes that all the more likely. Hence why I continued to be baffled at why this is the fight the other owners decided to pick. Very short-sighted and vindictive. Not two things that should ever be associated with business decisions.

Why do you think it would be "legally inappropriate"? I think, and am pretty sure, that if an arbitrator feels the need to open avenues of inquiry while trying to rule both parties cede that to him when they agree to the arbitration.

Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.

I don't think it is as clear cut as you believe it is. In this case the owners were certainly trying to impede teams from freeing future cap space as you have stated. Opening up cap space for future years allows a team to spend more money. By trying to create a virtual cap at the time to inhibit future cap gains they are necessarily depressing future salaries.

Did they have other reasons to desire such limits? Sure, keeping the franchise tag prices down and so forth...all of the reasons involve depressing future monies spent though. They just do.

I strongly believe that what the league attempted to do was collusive. At the very least it is something that would have been a very major issue during labor negotiations. The fact that the league both allowed the contracts at the time and never publicly discussed limiting such actions is a great indication that the league was quite concerned that the tactic the were employing was questionable. If you have a better explanation as to why they contracts were approved even though they were deemed undesirable for the league then I'd love to hear it.

You could make that argument if the 2006 CBA didn't have multiple clauses intended to keep clubs from shifting too much cap hit into a potential uncapped year. The League and the NFLPA foresaw an uncapped year, what it meant, and how it should be handled. There were clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from earlier years into an uncapped year and clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from a future year into the final uncapped year.

They didn't foresee people writing in void clauses with massive payback amounts that would never be exercised, just so they could call the voidable years "under player control".

It's not collusion if the NFLPA clearly agreed to the principle.