Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - NFLPA collusion law suit overturned by appeal (salary cap)

tshile · 06-20-2014, 11:46 AM

As for 1 and 2-
I'm willing to bet the League's interest is in not having to disclose anything on the public record, under oath. The Redskins have the negotiating power at this point - so maybe they can get some just compensation for the whole thing. Draft picks, cap space, whatever. Personally - I'd rather have draft picks, I think it's a better long-term benefit provided the people making the picks are competent

As for #3...

I had the same question, however a buddy of mine has pointed out that Doty's ruling was simply on the timing and not the actual merits of either side's case. Therefore there's no reason to believe he has any favoritism towards one side or the other; or against one side or the other. He didn't comment on merits - simply on timing. I suppose the appeals court feels that simply overruling him on timing does not mean he's not capable of actually hearing the case?

Don't know... this stuff is so far over my head...

edit: I'm also not sure the Redskins have anything to do with it at this point? Maybe it's just the NFL PA? In that case my response to questions 1&2 is irrelevant and wrong.

06-20-2014, 11:46 AM	#2
tshile Special Teams Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 446	Re: NFLPA collusion law suit overturned by appeal (salary cap) As for 1 and 2- I'm willing to bet the League's interest is in not having to disclose anything on the public record, under oath. The Redskins have the negotiating power at this point - so maybe they can get some just compensation for the whole thing. Draft picks, cap space, whatever. Personally - I'd rather have draft picks, I think it's a better long-term benefit provided the people making the picks are competent As for #3... I had the same question, however a buddy of mine has pointed out that Doty's ruling was simply on the timing and not the actual merits of either side's case. Therefore there's no reason to believe he has any favoritism towards one side or the other; or against one side or the other. He didn't comment on merits - simply on timing. I suppose the appeals court feels that simply overruling him on timing does not mean he's not capable of actually hearing the case? Don't know... this stuff is so far over my head... edit: I'm also not sure the Redskins have anything to do with it at this point? Maybe it's just the NFL PA? In that case my response to questions 1&2 is irrelevant and wrong.