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

[CultBrennan59]

I would love for this to happen (behind RG3 being healthy though), but I don't believe it. Our luck; we'd get fined more money out of this lol


And as for Jarius Byrd, he's probably gonna get franchised. Goldson of San Fran is more likely to come here.

[VegasSkinsFan]

Hope if we do get it back it won't be the day before free agency hits or worse on August 1st. **** you giants

[GWinSkins83]

I think the reason the PA case was dismissed is because the Cap penalty will be retracted. It's no way around what they did and what Mara said to prove they didn't violate the spirit of an antitrust law.

[JoeRedskin]

No. The reason the case was dismissed was because, in entering into the new CBA, the players waived any and all claims "known and unknown" that occurred prior to the signing of the CBA. Their suit was for "unknown" claims that occurred prior to the signing of the new CBA and, thus, were waived.

[GWinSkins83]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. The reason the case was dismissed was because, in entering into the new CBA, the players waived any and all claims "known and unknown" that occurred prior to the signing of the CBA. Their suit was for "unknown" claims that occurred prior to the signing of the new CBA and, thus, were waived.

I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

[SCRedskinsFan]

Originally Posted by GWinSkins83

I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

Take it for what it's worth, arguing legal stuff with JoeRedskin will get you nowhere. He's right, end of story.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GWinSkins83

I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

Yup. JoeRedskin seal of approval issued.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It was "unknown" at the time the new CBA was agreed upon. The NFLPA basically said at that point, regardless of what happened up until this point, we will not go back and try to sue you NFL. Then when Mara flapped his trap, the NFLPA said well Whoa now, Now we want to sue you. But you can't do that.

Before the new CBA was agreed on, the NFLPA had every right to investigate possible collusion type practices by the NFL. They had a lawsuit doing just that. But in order to bring peace to the NFL-NFLPA legal landscape, both sides had to agree to letting all that happened before basically be erased from the legal landscape.

although Joe could explain it better by far, that's the gist of it.

Maybe Judges view it differently for an entity like the NFLPA because they have big boy lawyers themselves. But, the concept of "Signing your rights away" is not recognized by the courts. People have been bullied into doing just that plenty of times only to have the Judge claim "Signed under duress" and throw that clause out. Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.

I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Maybe Judges view it differently for an entity like the NFLPA because they have big boy lawyers themselves. But, the concept of "Signing your rights away" is not recognized by the courts. People have been bullied into doing just that plenty of times only to have the Judge claim "Signed under duress" and throw that clause out.

Yes, contracts entered into under duress can be voided, if a party demonstrates the duress. The players, however, did not enter the new CBA under duress but after much, very public, arms length negotiations. It is the contract terms of the new CBA, negotiated by the NFLPA, that provided the basis for the dismissal.

And, BTW, you can absolutely "sign your rights away", if you do so through the lack of due diligence. If you were pressured, but you could have found out the facts, well too bad, so sad.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.

Huh? The NFLPA sued for breach of the prior CBA. The NFL said the new CBA pre-empted the old CBA and, as part of that new agreement, you (the NFLPA) agreed not to sue us for any breaches of the old CBA. The govt. wasn't a party to either. It's essentially a breach of contract action.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.

Well, it's not going anywhere b/c J. Doty deemed, essentially, that there was no breach of a contract term. As to the rest, you just lost me - the Constitution has nothing to do with this action. Further, there is nothing illegal about a waiver clause. They are, in fact, common in any settlement agreement. It is practically unheard of to enter into a settlment agreement without such a waiver. No client of mine would ever sign a settlement agreement that didn't have such a clause.

For the record, I think collusion occurred and that the NFL didn't disclose it prior to signing the new CBA. None of that, however, effects the correctness of J. Doty's dismissal.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Maybe Judges view it differently for an entity like the NFLPA because they have big boy lawyers themselves. But, the concept of "Signing your rights away" is not recognized by the courts. People have been bullied into doing just that plenty of times only to have the Judge claim "Signed under duress" and throw that clause out. Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.

I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.

Out of curiosity, what do you think any formal waiver is? It is a waiving of your rights, ie signing your rights away.

The level of the waiver, and how it is reached certainly can be reviewed, which is what J. Doty looked at, and he came to the conclusion that the waiver signed by both parties was valid, not reached via bullying tactics, and included even unknown acts of collusion.

Had he not ruled, and the two parties dropped the matter before he did, then your thinking about a cap settlement might have been closer to the fact. But he did rule, and specifically in the NFL's favor, so the NFL is not going to suddenly say Oops, NFLPA you got us.

Also, our getting the cap money back is actually a separate fact which the NFLPA was not trying to change. Our penalty was solely a means to an end for them to try and re-open the collusion case, they were not trying to get the Skins penalty revoked.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GWinSkins83

I don't know about that. Mara is on record claiming collusion. It's not unknown.

Only hooskins is allowed to debate law/legality issues with JR here on the Warpath.

[Monkeydad]

Good news but the damage has been done.

We likely would have had a few more players like Eric Winston, Brandon Carr and who knows, possibly Vincent Jackson too.

However, glad this could be happening, it was bogus from the start and needs to be corrected. How about a compensatory 1st-rounder to help alleviate the damage done to our 2012 roster? Fat chance, but would be fair.

[ethat001]

Bittersweet. Would have been nice to have the cap money this year, and could have gone further in playoffs.

Next year, I'm still scared that RG3 will be recovering from another ACL repair... Still would like the cap money, but doubt it comes.

[SouperMeister]

This would be great news after the somber news leaking on Griffin's condition. The cap penalty is bogus considering the violation occurred in an uncapped year - clearly there was collusion among every owner (and Goodell) not named Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones.