Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
1) As I have said before the League runs by committee a process agreed on when the team joined the NFL.If the owners all agreed to do it (dumping cap #'s) or did'nt seems to be the question and from the reports I have read in the Washington Post some seem to think "all" the owners did agree and then 4 went back on their word.
|
However, as CRedskin pointed out, the agreement to limit the amount of restructering that could be done was not a decision that could be made by the owners
at the time the decision was made. At the time the decision was made, any such agreement was forbidden by the CBA then in force. Whether it was 32 or 28 it is irrelevant, the agreement was in contravention of the CBA and was simply not enforceable. The sanction being now imposed is an attempt to punish teams that operated within the letter and spirit of the CBA. Any agreement to the contrary was prohibited and no amount of retroactive procedures can change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
2) Wrong the fact that the NFLPA "did" sign off is a very big deal....they are'nt complaining and again from reports are'nt planning any legal appeal of the disapline.Again reports also say the Cowboys will not appeal
|
First and foremost, the fact that a party, whether it be the NFLPA or the Dallas Cowboys, takes no legal action is simply not indicative of whether or not other parties,
i.e. the Redskins, have legal remedies.
As to the NFLPA, it certainly cannot now complain that the sanction is improper b/c, by accepting the salary cap presented by the NFL, they have aquiesed to the penalty and the restrictions it creates for their members. Further, and as noted above, for actions taken during the 2010 offseason, the NFLPA settled their collusion claims and effectively waived any right of protest they had. Essentially, the owners have been given a free pass and are free from threat of lawsuit
by the players on any issues regarding collusion or the salary cap amounts.
In relying on the NFLPA's acquiesence to the sanction as a basis for asserting that the sanction against DS & JJ is permissible, however, you're taking procedural issues applicable to one party and improperly applying them on the same substantive level to the issues applicable to another party.
In regards to DS and JJ and the sanction issue, the NFLPA could have procedurallly nixed the sanction and this whole thing is a non-issue. Under the current CBA's procedures, the NFLPA could have said, nope, no way no how. They did not, so their members are screwed to the extent they would have benefitted from Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones having more money to spend BUT they got a higher salary cap number. Thus, under the governing procedures and
as to the players, the NFLPA's action substantively ends the issue.
However, the NFLPA's procedural acquiesence is not determinative of the substantive rights of DS and JJ as members of the joint venture known as the NFL. Specifically, the NFLPA's procedural acceptance of the sanction is not determinative of the substantive rights held by DS & JJ in relation to their fellow owners.
While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant as to whether members of the joint venture are attempting to sanction other members of the joint venture for actions that were simply not improper at the time they were taken. Again, DS and JJ were bound by the CBA then in force. Did they violate it in any way? No. The NFL and their fellow owners are now attempting to sanction DS and JJ for not cheating on the CBA. In determining whether or not such actions are permissible, the NFLPA is not part of the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
P.S. May I also say I too appreciate all your time JoeRedskins I like reading you opinions and commentary but Brody as Joe will tell you there are very good Lawyers who can make a case the other way.I beleive the NFL runs more like a Labor Union more then a business and that's why I think Labor Law would be more practical in a diagnose of this situation.
|
Yes. The NFL has very good attorneys and, I am sure, they will dress up their weak ass legal arguments (which I set out at #104) as well as can be expected.
But, when you get right down to it, the owners are punishing DS & JJ for failing to cheat on the CBA. Ultimately, regardless of all the subsequent procedural CYA, that's the ultimate fact that cannot be avoided.