Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
Well it all depends. "IF" procedure is to bring an arguement to the Exec committee, and if they see something wrong then it is supposed to be brought before the owners at a meeting for a vote, then a punishement applied.... their procedures were all screwed up. They went beyond their procedures. If there is no formality in how this is supposed to be handled then your right.
Two main things bother me constantly about this....
1- the league approved the contracts when they had the opportunity to not do so. Shame on them move on.
2- other teams did similar deals. Either punish all or punish none. It should not matter what the money amount was.
Going back to my #1, the league approved the deals because had they not there would have been the proof the NFLPA needed to file a law suit against the league for colluding to keep costs/salaries down. Although this is not a court of law... if it was I think a judge would have a hard time getting past the leagues blatent colluding before looking into whether the Skins and Boys did anything wrong or should be punished. I guess the league is now confortable with thinking the NFLPA can't or won't do anything about their colluding for the league to punish the two teams.
Basically I'm baffled at how 30 team owners can point fingers the whole time they are actually breaking the labor law, at two teams who chose not to break the labor law, and punish the two teams for not following the illegal agreement.
But as has been stated, it's going to be what the Skins and Boys put up as arguements for the Arbitrator to investigate. If it's only procedure then you guys might be right. However what is the normal procedure for this type of issue? for the Exec committee to simply punish then take it before the owners for a vote? That doesn't sound right. Maybe they don't need the vote and were just trying to see if all the other owners were on board with the punishement.
Maybe the arguement is that the league approved these deals and shouldn't have if they violated the CBA. The Arbitrator can then possibly agree that the league having ample opportunity to deny them and didnt' shouldn't give them the right to now punish for something they didn't exersize back when they could.
|
As explained earlier in the thread:
- Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
- Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
- Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
- The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
- The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
- The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
- The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.
The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.
As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.
The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top.