[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

We actually agree on the NFLPA, now where we disagree is your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "committee" overrides the action of the 2(or 4) you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them. Look you saying the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.

Why is it not the case? Explain this to me. Tell me the legal principle upon which you rely. All I have seen from you is:

1) DS & JJ may have agreed with the other owners not to engage in contract dumping in the uncapped year. Alternatively, (and as demonstrated by the NFL's statement), the Skins did not agree but rather: "The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement’s early years." NFL statement on salary cap sanctions (emphasis added).

Thus, the sanction is being imposed for actions that took place in 2010. As they related to club/player "contract practices", the actions of the club owners in 2010 were governed by the CBA negotiated between the players and owners in 2006 CBA extension. Here is the relevant section of that agreement as it relates to collusion:

“ARTICLE XXVIII: ANTI-COLLUSION - Section 1. Prohibited Conduct: No Club, its employees or agents, shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents, to restrict or limit individual Club decision making as follows: …(a) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player; … (e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.” http://static.nfl.com/static/content...-2006-2012.pdf

In light of that clause, tell me how any agreement by the owners that “the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance” does not violate this section.

By their own words, the NFL, through their Management Council is sanctioning DS & JJ for refusing to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Whether or not DS & JJ may have, at some point, agreed to the violative conduct and then changed their minds is irrelevant. Any argument based on the agreement of DS & JJ to the collusive conduct is based on the theory that an illegal agreement can be enforced (In this case, the attempted enforcement comes two years after the fact in the form of a sanction).

It can’t. Show me one cite, one theory that indicates an illegal contract (i.e. the verbal agreement in 2010 to avoid contract dumping in the uncapped year) can be legally enforced against a party who subsequently reneges on their promise to participate in the illegal agreement.

2) “The NFLPA says it was fine with them.” No. If you are asserting that the NFLPA has said the NFL’s owners agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 was "fine with them", you are just wrong. Such an assertion is simply contrary to the known facts on this matter.

In fact, in January, 2011 (during the CBA negotiations), the NFLPA brought a lawsuit specifically alleging that the owner’s were entering into collusive agreements during the 2010 offseason. The validity of their allegations never reached the court as it the law suit was settled as part of the omnibus settlement that cleared the way for the current CBA. [See my response to SportsCurmdgeon above]. As a legal principle, the settlement of the NFLPA’s anti-collusion case is neither an admission nor a denial of collusive behavior - further, the settlement would be inadmissible in court as evidence and, as such, is simply not legally probative in any manner. [In fact, although I cannot find the cite, the NFLPA issued a statement that it believed the Skins actions in 2010 were proper.]

What the NFLPA has said is that under the current CBA, and pursuant to the procedures stated therein, the NFLPA has “agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.” [Quoting NFL’s statement on the penalties, see cite above].

As I stated before, this procedural acceptance by the NFLPA, under the current CBA, affects only their own substantive rights in relation to the NFL. Through their procedural acquiescence, however, the NFLPA cannot waive the substantive rights of another party. Please, show me one legal theory that would support your assertion that it can.

The only substantive effect of the NFLPA’s acceptance in regards to the rights of DS &JJ is to protect the NFL from any challenge by DS &JJ that the sanction was procedurally improper. In accordance with the procedures set forth in under the current CBA, the Management Council submitted and the NFLPA accepted the sanctions as part of their negotiated right to approve salary caps. So, as to the process by which it imposed the sanction, the NFL is protected and any attack on the sanction as procedurally invalid will likely fail. - - i.e. the Skins will cannot assert "The sanction is invalid b/c you failed to follow the rules in levying it." I concede that, as a procedural matter, it appears that the NFL followed the rules in levying the sanction.

HOWEVER - The ultimate question is not “Was the sanction levied in a procedurally correct manner?” Rather, the substantive question is whether or not the Skins took actions that would subject them to league discipline. For that to be true, they must have been in violation of a legally binding duty to the other owners or the joint venture known as the NFL. Based on well settled legal theory, I assert that the failure to abide by an agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 is simply not a legally binding agreement enforceable by the NFL against any owner and that any attempt to enforce that agreement through sanction is substantively impermissible.

Originally Posted by Giantone

This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant. You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

No. You have multiple parties and multiple rights and duties. The NFL and NFLPA are the two parties to the 2006 CBA and to the current CBA. Within the NFL, you have a joint venture of several distinct business entities. The question of the rights and duties owed by the NFL to any specific club is distinct from the rights and duties owed by the NFL to the NFLPA.

Your opinion is simply not based in any legal theory known to me. Please show me a sound, accepted legal theory … anyone, any theory, that supports your assertion that the NFLPA’s procedural acceptance of the salary cap adjustments in 2012 permits the NFL to enforce an illegal agreement against two of the distinct business entities that make up the NFL.

Yes. NFL lawyers will dress up the pile of sh** handed to them by the owners. They will obfuscate and they will point to their procedures. At the end of the day, however, the one irrefutable fact is that the sanction is being imposed based on the Skins refusal to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Neither the facts you say are disputed (DS & JJ initially agreed to the conduct and reneged) or the facts which you say are undisputed (the NFLPA has approved the sanction for the 2010 conduct; Dallas is not pursuing a remedy) are legally relevant or probative on the issue of whether or not the NFL is permitted to enforce, through sanction, the leagues attempt to “restrict or limit [the Skins] decision making” in 2010.