Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

In this case, he apparently warned them not to try to find loopholes in advance.
.

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

The arbitrator can't unilaterally decide to expand his own authority than the CBA gives him. While he's at it, maybe he could mandate that the Cowboys play in pink uniforms.

He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.

I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.

I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.

Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:


and

I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.

Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.

Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.

Just to be clear, I did not contend that using the voidable option clause is prohibited under the CBA.

I wrote that certain clauses in the CBA refute the notion that punishing teams for finding new ways to dump cap hit into an uncapped year constitutes collusion.

ok.

but I don't believe that argument is being made. I think the collusion argument revolves around the owners agreeing(or conspiring to agree) to specific methods outside those agreed to in writing by both parties, in order to affect the outcome of the CBA negotiations.

The parts I highlighted, in my opinion, show that the NFLPA would have wanted to be included in any additional restrictions that may have been placed on teams.

This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

All of this, and the whole CBA for that matter, governs the relationship between employers (Clubs) and employees (players). None of it is relevant to whether the League can punish the Clubs for acts detrimental to the NFL.

If the players were complaining about the Skins' contract practices, or complaining about the League encouraging collusion, the CBA would be relevant.

The NFL Bylaws are relevant, and they aren't going to help the Skins at all.

You and I will simply disagree, because the specific language states "ANY CLUB" may bring suit, so while I understand your point, IF a club felt that there was a violation of the salary cap rules, these documents give them some level of standing to bring it up. That makes the point I highlighted relevant to the discussion.

Overall, this is like the CBA negotiation thread, no ones view is going to change, and in the end we will all have to see how the arbitrator rules.

I love these discussions, but they get pretty line in the sandish after a while, and I think this one has reached that point :(

He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.

I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.

I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.

The only thing I'm assuming is that the Commissioner apparently warned the teams 6+ times not to do SOMETHING, that he believes the Skins ignored those warnings and adversely affected competitive balance, and the Skins were subsequently punished for it. Here's a link substantiating that:

NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/12/nfl-warned-teams-at-least-six-times-about-not-dumping-salary-in-uncapped-year/)

What's not an assumption is that he has the authority to punish teams under those circumstances. That's specifically written into the NFL bylaws.

What's not an assumption is what authority the arbitrator has. That's specifically written into the CBA (both of them).

What's not an assumption is that the CBA (both of them) says nothing about whether the Commissioner can punish Clubs.

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.

You just:

A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.

B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did

C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.

I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.

I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.

Ok so in our circling of issues ...... who hears complaints in regards to owners vs. owners? I'm assuming the Commish and Exec Committe? and if there is no satisfaction? court?

you might be right, however there still is the gentlemans way of handling the whole issue which if you have a problem with your neighbor you should address it with them first and if it goes no where then you call the police. Maybe the appeal process is just that a stepping stone of formality that everyone knows will go no where but should be done before court filing happens. That whay the courts can't ask was it taken to Arbitration first.

I still think there is something your missing though other wise there would be no reason to waist the Arbitrator's time when the two teams know the issue is more fitting for the court process instead of Arbitration.