Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

HailGreen28 · 03-02-2013, 11:57 AM

Typed up this to a Steeler friend. A summary of some of the stuff here.

Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube (Huly and Pez's vid)

Goodell tells fans that the NFL owners and players union agreed in advance to collusion on salaries in 2010.

“When we went into the uncapped year we told everybody including the union that we were going to make sure that competitive issues were going to be considered when we came out of it. That if people got competitive advantage in some fashion, by doing certain things in an uncapped year, that would be considered with the labor agreement. That's exactly what we did."

"Teams took advantage and dumped contracts into an uncapped year, and got an advantage going forward. That was a competitive advantage. Those are the kinds of things that need to be balanced in and the players association and us agreed to that. That’s what we agreed to and every club was told that in advance and the players association was told that that would be an issue when we negotiated.”

NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance | CSN Washington

When asked for a response, NFLPA Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs George Atallah said in an email that he thought that Goodell must have gotten his words mixed up because the union was not told about possible penalties for spending prior to the 2010 uncapped year.

"I'm sure Roger didn't mean to say that we agreed to collusion, because we didn't,” Atallah said via email. “I'm also sure he didn't mean to say that we agreed to penalize teams for their failure to participate in collusion in advance of the uncapped year, because we didn't.”

Redskins still upset about cap penalties, but what can they do? | ProFootballTalk

"As one league source explained it, the Redskins remain extremely upset about the situation, strongly believing they did nothing wrong. In our view, they’re right. Each and every player contract that supposedly violated the “spirit of the salary cap” was approved by the league in 2010 and complied with the rules that were on the books.

Of course, the contracts were approved because failure to do so would have flagged for the NFLPA the fact that collusion was occurring.

That continues to be the bottom line. The teams were colluding in the uncapped year, and the Cowboys and Redskins were punished for refusing to go along with the plan. The league wisely kept the situation under wraps until the ink was dry on the new labor deal, which prevented the players from suing for collusion."

Redskins put contract talks on hold as they work to recoup salary cap space

The league ruled that the Redskins and Cowboys sought to gain an improper competitive advantage by loading extra salary into the uncapped year. The teams denied wrongdoing. Arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled last year that the teams could not bring a case because the league and union agreed to the cap reductions, which amounted to a rightful amendment of the CBA. U.S. District Court Judge David Doty has ruled twice that the union waived its right to bring a collusion complaint against the league and teams.

But......

Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case

The person with knowledge of the salary cap case said the Redskins could argue that if the union had waived its right to bring a complaint based on conduct that occurred before pro football’s 2011 labor agreement, the league and union also should be prohibited from taking action against a team for conduct prior to the labor deal.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gb...g/original.png

Other teams "took advantage" of the uncapped year. What's the difference? Mainly dollar amounts. In an uncapped year where dollar amounts don't apply.

03-02-2013, 11:57 AM	#303
HailGreen28 Playmaker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3,754	Re: Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away Typed up this to a Steeler friend. A summary of some of the stuff here. Goodell Talking Redskins Fine - YouTube (Huly and Pez's vid) Goodell tells fans that the NFL owners and players union agreed in advance to collusion on salaries in 2010. “When we went into the uncapped year we told everybody including the union that we were going to make sure that competitive issues were going to be considered when we came out of it. That if people got competitive advantage in some fashion, by doing certain things in an uncapped year, that would be considered with the labor agreement. That's exactly what we did." "Teams took advantage and dumped contracts into an uncapped year, and got an advantage going forward. That was a competitive advantage. Those are the kinds of things that need to be balanced in and the players association and us agreed to that. That’s what we agreed to and every club was told that in advance and the players association was told that that would be an issue when we negotiated.” NFLPA: We did not agree to 'collusion' in advance \| CSN Washington When asked for a response, NFLPA Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs George Atallah said in an email that he thought that Goodell must have gotten his words mixed up because the union was not told about possible penalties for spending prior to the 2010 uncapped year. "I'm sure Roger didn't mean to say that we agreed to collusion, because we didn't,” Atallah said via email. “I'm also sure he didn't mean to say that we agreed to penalize teams for their failure to participate in collusion in advance of the uncapped year, because we didn't.” Redskins still upset about cap penalties, but what can they do? \| ProFootballTalk "As one league source explained it, the Redskins remain extremely upset about the situation, strongly believing they did nothing wrong. In our view, they’re right. Each and every player contract that supposedly violated the “spirit of the salary cap” was approved by the league in 2010 and complied with the rules that were on the books. Of course, the contracts were approved because failure to do so would have flagged for the NFLPA the fact that collusion was occurring. That continues to be the bottom line. The teams were colluding in the uncapped year, and the Cowboys and Redskins were punished for refusing to go along with the plan. The league wisely kept the situation under wraps until the ink was dry on the new labor deal, which prevented the players from suing for collusion." Redskins put contract talks on hold as they work to recoup salary cap space The league ruled that the Redskins and Cowboys sought to gain an improper competitive advantage by loading extra salary into the uncapped year. The teams denied wrongdoing. Arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled last year that the teams could not bring a case because the league and union agreed to the cap reductions, which amounted to a rightful amendment of the CBA. U.S. District Court Judge David Doty has ruled twice that the union waived its right to bring a collusion complaint against the league and teams. But...... Mixed views on strength of Redskins’ legal position in salary cap case The person with knowledge of the salary cap case said the Redskins could argue that if the union had waived its right to bring a complaint based on conduct that occurred before pro football’s 2011 labor agreement, the league and union also should be prohibited from taking action against a team for conduct prior to the labor deal. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gb...g/original.png Other teams "took advantage" of the uncapped year. What's the difference? Mainly dollar amounts. In an uncapped year where dollar amounts don't apply.