Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I know of one arguement he makes and that is there is no proof that there was an agreement, but in all actuality the warning is kinda the agreement.

I've heard him say the league does not approve contracts... thats the other arguement. My issue is if they don't approve, agree to, or have any say in them then there is no technical reason to send the contracts to the league. Teams have to send all contracts to the league for some sort of OK in order to move foreward. The league could have easily "not agreed", "denied", "declined", "requested teams fix", or just tell the teams "according to our agreement CAP or not, CBA whatever you can't make this contract.... restructure it". They didn't. Why? .....

because as we all have learned had they done that the NFLPA would have had ammunition for their collusion case against the owners. I keep saying the league can't have it two ways. Allow the contracts so they don't get into trouble for colluding, then 2 yrs later punish the two teams for failing to collude with them. Thats BS.

The warning is evidence of an agreement - but what they agreed to do with that warning is not collusion.

As for not rejecting the contracts at the time, there are plenty of reasons why the Commissioner did it the way he did it. I agree that, in the end, the Skins were screwed by the delay.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.

Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?

If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.

For the 87th time, the warning was not "not to overspend"!

It was "not to unfairly shift cap hit into the uncapped year".

If you don't see the difference, let's start ignoring each other's posts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You could make that argument if the 2006 CBA didn't have multiple clauses intended to keep clubs from shifting too much cap hit into a potential uncapped year. The League and the NFLPA foresaw an uncapped year, what it meant, and how it should be handled. There were clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from earlier years into an uncapped year and clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from a future year into the final uncapped year.
They didn't foresee people writing in void clauses with massive payback amounts that would never be exercised, just so they could call the voidable years "under player control".

It's not collusion if the NFLPA clearly agreed to the principle.

Went back and looked through about 5-8 pages and didn't see where you highlighted the clauses you reference and I have some recollection that you did so. Can you either repost or just point me to them? I think you are probably right but there is also the legal principle that if you list some things but not others than the unlisted are excluded from the list - it's not quite that cut and dry but it may be applicable. As you say, however, this is an agreement between the players and the owners so the question is how is that adjudged in a dispute between a club in the NFL.

Which reminds of another basis for which the NFL could argue for the dismissal - simply that, as they are not parties, individually, to the CBA, the Skins and Cowboys have no standing to dispute the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.

[That Guy]

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Very simply, because the penalty being imposed is being imposed pursuant to the current CBA. Sure, it is being done for actions that were taken during the prior CBA but, but, as it affects the current and future dealings between the NFLPA and the NFL, the procedural basis for imposing the penalty is the agreement governing those current and future dealings. i.e. the current CBA.

Neither CBA deals with the relationship between the League and Clubs and any penalties the League may impose on the Clubs at all.

Because they wanted to touch the salary cap, and because the CBA deals with the salary cap, they had to agree with the NFLPA to modify the CBA to include the new penalties.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Also, by going to 2006 CBA, I don't think you necessarily bring in the whole collusion issue, which no one from the 2 teams or the league wants to open (though the NFLPA may). Instead, it only goes as far as to show that the actions the 2 teams did were valid options in every league year covered under both the 2006 and 2011 CBA's thus no punishment is warranted. That is how I would be phrasing the argument if I were the Skins/Cowboys.

The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.

[JoeRedskin]

Yes, I agree and that was my point SB but my words were poorly chosen, the penalty is not being imposed pursuant to the CBA. Rather, in order to effectuate it's desired penalty, the NFL needed the NFLPA to agree to a modification of the governing CBA.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the last cba fight had a 30% increase clause to prevent dumping, but i don't think this one did, or else the contracts wouldn't have been approved.

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Went back and looked through about 5-8 pages and didn't see where you highlighted the clauses you reference and I have some recollection that you did so. Can you either repost or just point me to them? I think you are probably right but there is also the legal principle that if you list some things but not others than the unlisted are excluded from the list - it's not quite that cut and dry but it may be applicable. As you say, however, this is an agreement between the players and the owners so the question is how is that adjudged in a dispute between a club in the NFL.

Which reminds of another basis for which the NFL could argue for the dismissal - simply that, as they are not parties, individually, to the CBA, the Skins and Cowboys have no standing to dispute the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.

The PDF copy I found is searchable, and searching "uncapped year" will take you to the relevant sections. Here's an example:

Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior
to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding
any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section
7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the
contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player
Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.

[SBXVII]

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

Also, it's my understanding the warning was for teams going out and spending tons of money on players. The warning was not specific to what the two teams did which was restructure current contracts and pushing the CAP hits to one year. That's where we differ Hoop. You keep saying all the teams were specifically warned and I'm saying they were but not specific to what the two teams did. They found a loop hole, one in which was not warned about, one in which they knew if the league denied the contracts would have given the NFLPA proof of collusion, which forced the league to agree or over look the contracts at the time but now with the understanding that the NFLPA could not file suit over old issues felt comfortable enough to punish the two teams.

Basically the league didn't like the loop hole, punished, and came up wih a cock-eyed look at the warning with saying the two teams in the long run are making it difficult for other teams to keep their players.... An unfair advantage which required a punishment.

You know the league doesn't have a problem with teams signing players to large contracts, say 100mill dollar contracts which also drives up the costs on player positions and causing unfair advantages as well.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The arbitrator has specific authority outlined in the new CBA. His authority is to enforce specific articles of the CBA. Nowhere in those articles does it talk about how the League may punish its member clubs.

An arbitrator appointed under the CBA would appear to have no authority whatsover to determine whether any punishment of CLubs by the League is appropriate or not.

But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll agree to disagree cause we really don't know what the appeal says or what it regarding. We can assume all we want. But I'll again say I don't think the league can apply the new CBA to a problem that occurred under the old CBA. The arbitrator will have to look at the CBA that was in place at the time of the infraction. Did the two teams violate the CAP that was in place at the time? No cause there was no CAP. Did the two teams violate any rule in the old CBA? That's the question. And if they did then there would have to be a punishment given that was in the old CBA.

The violation by the Skins (alleged or otherwise) simply has nothing to do with the arbiter's jurisdiction. He can only, only, only, look to see if the NFL's action somehow violated the current CBA. You may disagree, but you would be wrong on this point. blatantly, overtly, slap your mama sillly kind of wrong - and I say that with love.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

The 2006 CBA did have that clause, but it did not foresee the Skins' creative manipulations designed to get around that clause.

And the truth shall set us free. You have finally gotten to my over all point. There should be no punishment for the creative manipulation of the CBA if it was not against the rules of the CBA that was in place at the time. The league should be saying wow clever now let's close the loop hole with an addendum that the NFLPA can agree to and move on.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

But what if the appeal is in regards requesting the Arbitrator to look into if the contracts made did not follow the CAP at the time or CBA? If the Arbitrator deems the two teams did nothing wrong contract wise? Where would all this stand?

If that is the question put to this arbiter - and the only question - the arbiter would dismiss the matter as it is not within the jurisdiction granted him under the current CBA.

He may very well issue a decision saying that the Skins/Cowboys actions were not in violation of the 2006 CBA but that the modifications made to the 2012 and 2013 salary cap are both permitted under the current/governing CBA and were properly imposed under the procedures set forth in that CBA.

[The Goat]

I think we can all agree the league is not going reverse its ruling here and give clemency. We're stuck w/ the cap penalty...lame.