Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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.

It doesn't matter what the warning was if the Commissioner believes the Skins acted to the detriment of the NFL and adversely affected competitive balance, and 29 other owners agree with him.

He could have warned the Skins not to serve broccoli in his hospitality suite, and he would still have the power to punish the Skins for dumping cap hit into 2010.

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.

Understood so let me ask.... are the lawyers for the Redskins really as dumb as you point out to file an appeal for an arbitrator to look into if he has no power? or it's not in his job? why file an appeal? why not take it to the appropriate place to begin with? if it's not the arbitrator?

It doesn't matter what the warning was if the Commissioner believes the Skins acted to the detriment of the NFL and adversely affected competitive balance, and 29 other owners agree with him.

He could have warned the Skins not to serve broccoli in his hospitality suite, and he would still have the power to punish the Skins for dumping cap hit into 2010.

So to be clear... what do you think the appeal is about? apparently you have this figured out. The team can't appeal the punishment cause as you say the Commish has autonomy. It's not the warning cause it doesn't matter what the warning was the Commish has ulitmate power to punish if he see's fit. So what is being appealed according to you?

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.

That argument is definitely being made (bold added):

(although, the last one may need to go to the Head of Referees if he really means illegal collision - sounds like unnecessary roughness to me)

I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.

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.

The issue isn't that the 3 teams didn't understand the warning or even that a warning wasn't given. The issue is the warning was "you better agree to illegally collide with the rest of us bullies or else well penalize you for breaking a rule that doesn't exist"

Understood so let me ask.... are the lawyers for the Redskins really as dumb as you point out to file an appeal for an arbitrator to look into if he has no power? or it's not in his job? why file an appeal? why not take it to the appropriate place to begin with? if it's not the arbitrator?

I think the Redskins would rather eat the penalty than sue in civil court.

Going to the arbitrator is a smaller step that still holds the threat of airing dirty laundry to the NFLPA, and I suspect they're playing chicken with the League in the hope that the League will reduce penalties in return for shutting up.

That's just pure speculation, though.

The other hope is that the arbitrator says the changes to the salary cap for '12 and '13 aren't consistent with the concept of the salary cap written throughout the whole CBA, and says that the whole CBA needs to be rewritten to make those changes - in which case the League might drop or modify the penalties rather than try to re-negotiate the whole CBA.

Even reading this thread is getting too much like work. I feel like I should be charging an hourly rate just to open up the thread at this point.

The thing is, the issue is simple on its face but complex in the details. Under the CBA, can the NFL do what it did? Getting to the details on that requires a lot more research than I am going to do for free. Their are strong arguments on each side and lawyers will make lots of money before the issue is resolved.

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.

I've regurgitated what the NFL Bylaws say over and over in this thread. They are available on nfl.com if you want to read them yourself.

Constitution and Bylaws of the National Football League (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.nfl.com%2Fstatic%2F content%2F%2Fpublic%2Fstatic%2Fhtml%2Fcareers%2Fpd f%2Fco_.pdf)

What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.

So to be clear... what do you think the appeal is about? apparently you have this figured out. The team can't appeal the punishment cause as you say the Commish has autonomy. It's not the warning cause it doesn't matter what the warning was the Commish has ulitmate power to punish if he see's fit. So what is being appealed according to you?

My best guess is one of:

1) The way the CBA was modified to include penalties was unfair

2) The modifications to the CBA to include these penalties were unfair because they were clearly intended to punish member Clubs - and anything dealing with how the League punishes its member Clubs doesn't belong in the CBA

3) Changing the salary cap to accomodate penalties in this way is completely inconsistent with the concept of the salary cap as it's written into the CBA, and to change that fundamental concept requires complete revision, not a simple side letter.

4) They're playing chicken with the League and are claiming whatever it takes to get the League to want the case to go away before they start copying the NFLPA on whatever documents the Skins decide might be relevant to the case.

What dirty laundry? As I understand you correctly the league and the NFLPA agreed to the Adendum and the punishment. Basically the NFLPA can't file a law suit over the past issue's since they gave up that right when the new CBA was signed. So what dirty laundry will suprise the NFLPA and make the league worried enough to want to negotiate a settlement? If there was no collusion by the owners.

I still say we are missing something. There is no reason to take it before the Arbitrator if he can't rule on the issue. You'd not waist your time. You would file in court and hopefully prior to the court date your leverage over the issue would force the league to give back CAP space or be faced with a penalty ove colluding.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess the Skins could try to include any document the have about anything remotely relevant that the League doesn't want the NFLPA to see.