Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Redskins Locker Room


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2013, 10:39 AM   #226
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrustyRedskin View Post
Someone should have hurled a Docker.
LOL, this is not a third world country....Docker? you might as well have said a Crock. lol. No they should be throwing Timberlands. lol. Boot would be better anyway.
SBXVII is offline  

Advertisements
Old 02-26-2013, 10:46 AM   #227
Playmaker
 
CrustyRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: RatherbeinDC, TX
Posts: 2,644
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
LOL, this is not a third world country....Docker? you might as well have said a Crock. lol. No they should be throwing Timberlands. lol. Boot would be better anyway.
a crock!!!
__________________
Lafayette, we're here.

HTTR. Your wern't a bunch of losers on 10-27-14.
CrustyRedskin is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 10:47 AM   #228
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Sorry, this is just wrong. Doty has historically been very player friendly and it has long been one of the owners' goals to get him removed from hearing appeals on CBA issues. It is why he was written out of the new CBA.



No. He ruled against them because that was what the law required. As a matter of law, The NFLPA the players had waived their claims - known and unknown - of collusion for anything that occurred prior to the new CBA being signed.



Everything you say is true. The owners colluded and negotiated in bad faith - but then the NFLPA affirmatively waived their claims against the owners for all claims when they signed the new CBA. If they believed that more claims were out there, they shouldn't have waived them. They did so as part of a settlement. Once you say, "Okay, I am done suing you." You can't go back and say "Well, except for this."

As for "blackmailing" the NFLPA, I would suggest it was more of a quid pro quo. The NFLPA came to them first and said "Hey, can we make an arrgangement to get more cap space this year??" to which the NFL said "Sure .... just sign here and let us punish these two teams who refused to join in this, heretofore, unknown collusion against you and you may have some extra cap space this year."

As for the acts before the new CBA, they were fully and legally waived. As for the bad acts afterwords, the penalties were imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (per the arbiter) and were arrived at through a quid pro quo bargain with the union.

The key was the waiver. Without it, the NFL had no leg to stand on. With it the union and Snyder, as far as any appeals concerning violations of the CBA, are legally without remedy.
Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."
SBXVII is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 10:57 AM   #229
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,760
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

I am sure the owners don't want that happening either. Further, I am pretty certain I can predict how a jury would rule if any one ever finds a legal issue that actually states a claim upon which a recovery could be based.

That, however, is the crux of it right now - Crafting a legal argument that sets forth the breach of a contract or duty that will withstand a motion to dismiss. If the Skins have one, it is not jumping out at me - they, however, are convinced they do.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:04 AM   #230
Special Teams
 
RedskinsInNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York City
Age: 31
Posts: 110
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Snakes.

Dallas Cowboys won't join prospective Washington Redskins suit -- source - ESPN Dallas
RedskinsInNYC is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:28 AM   #231
Impact Rookie
 
Skinzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 721
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."
There is no dispute of the facts as it pertains to the cap going down. It was going down for one reason, the players percentage of the overall revenues went down in the new CBA. The owners knew the cap was dropping, and the NFLPA knew the cap was dropping. It was going down, completely legally, that is not in question.

The NFLPA went to the NFL and asked for money to be moved forward from future years to keep the cap stable. The new TV agreements are already negotiated and they come with a fair amount more money than the current ones, but the dont go into effect for a couple more years. The NFLPA asked to have some of that TV money moved from the future into current years to keep the cap stable until those new TV contracts go into effect.

The NFL offered the union a choice. Take the lowered salary cap that everyone knows will happen (due to reasons already explained) or allow us to sanction the teams we want. We (The NFL) will allow future money to be pulled from those TV contracts and put into the years until those TV contracts go into effect to keep the cap stable. The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.
Skinzman is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:52 AM   #232
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,318
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Not surprising. Carrying a $5M penalty just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme. The risk reward ratio isn't there for the Cowboys.

Carrying $18M though is very significant, so clearly we're in a different position, one where at least threatening action makes some sense.
Schneed10 is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:53 AM   #233
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinzman View Post
You forget about Scenario 2A... The Justice department getting involved, and getting a collusion charge to be done through the Govt. The NFL loses said collusion case and has to pay 2-3 bil to the players, that is instantly tripled. The owners also want nothing to happen to the EXTREMELY owner friendly CBA.

Doubt it would ever happen, but being found guilty of collusion is no easy sentence that the other owners are laughing over. If those are truly the worst case scenarios, then Snyder would have already sued, and the NFL would have already counter sued. Court options are a last resort scenario here for a reason.

P.S. there is a reason the players choose to go to Doty and the owners choose other courts. And it has nothing to do with Doty being pro-owners.
If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:04 PM   #234
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 9,972
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsInNYC View Post
I would think he brings federal antitrust claims along with state law tortious interference claims. If I were him/on his legal team, I would want to bring the case in a DMV area court (preferably VA). Never underestimate the impact a fan on the bench can have on a case; see Judge Berrigan (EDLA) in the Vilma v. Goodell litigation...
Why would he want to mess up their anti-trust exemptions? He capitalizes on them as much or more than anyone. This isn't a labor issue but rather an business issue as JR has basically guessed. His business partners acting in coordination to screw him.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:05 PM   #235
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 9,972
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly.
In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:15 PM   #236
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 9,972
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinzman View Post
The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.
Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:17 PM   #237
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 9,972
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.
It's a "civil" issue most likely. No chance of jail time.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:55 PM   #238
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
In a general sense you couldn't be more wrong. Doty has been historically very player-friendly.
Already been addressed. Thank You for the help.
SBXVII is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:55 PM   #239
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,760
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
If the owners were found guilty of collusion, i would imagine the penalties would be more than just monitary. Its a serious crime that could involve jail time. How funny would that be, if a number of owners ended up in Jail for colluding to screw over the players. I would love it.
Folks, the collusion ship has sailed, and the NFLPA "waived" it good-bye.

@FRLPG as to the waiver being a termination offense - Waivers like the one in this settlement are pretty standard in any settlement. Had their been no omnibus waiver, there would not have been a settlement. I would never let a client settle a suit without a general waiver. If the other side wants to change that, it would have to be a very specific, very limited exception and you would need to give up a lot to get it as a settlement term. Think about it - would you settle a huge lawsuit against you, with terms you didn't like but accepted so the suit would be over, if the someone could reopen the whole can of worms, again, six months after the ink was dry? I don't fault the waiver. I fault the pre-settlement investigation.

If I'm a player, my reaction is - "What the hell? Why didn't this come out? Somebody was not asking the right questions. Was this something we knew about? What did we get for waiving this?"

The owners played their cards very well. They knew exactly when to hold'em and when to fold'em.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:58 PM   #240
Impact Rookie
 
Skinzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 721
Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
Right...because they knew they had no choice. Likely their lawyers were smart enough to know that they had no legal remedy so in the grand scheme they we're giving up nothing and getting what they wanted. More subtle arguments were probably discussed concerning shifting cap space from cap-spending teams to non-cap spending teams but those discussions were rally only theoretical. The NFLPAs mistake was the waiver in the first place. Major boo-boo. To me, if I was a player, that is a termination type offense. I want D. Smith and every other jabroni who let them affirmatively waive all future claims of collusion associated with the CBA proverbially shot.
They did have a choice. They could have taken the lower cap.

Or better yet, they could have actually saved up some money so they didnt have to take a horrible deal just to get a paycheck to keep their houses from being foreclosed on because 100k gaudy looking diamond encrusted necklaces are the norm instead of a savings account.

Everyone associated with the NFLPA, from the lawyers to the negotiators to the players themselves knew the cap was going to go down if they accepted a deal that had the players taking a lower percentage of the revenues than they received in the previous CBA. Not only did they take a decrease, they took a huge decrease.

If the union was any good, they would make the players start a fund for these exact things. Maybe 5% of their salaries go in there and it gets saved for paychecks when there are negotiations on a new CBA. If you cannot threaten the owners with lost games (meaning lost revenue), you cant get the owners to offer a fair contract.
Skinzman is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.41147 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25