Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
The other side of the coin here and, as NCSkins referenced, the Skins are not exactly a naive victim. No, you can't enforce illegal agreements but it's not like the Skins didn't realize the "warnings" were part of a collusive agreement. I don't recall, however, DS or Bruce Allen coming forward and telling any one in the public - "Hey, the owners are secretly trying to influence how player contracts are being negotiated."
Essentially, the Skins gave a giant middle finger to their fellow owners. It appears the Skins basically told the league "We know you don't like our contract dumping but what are you going to do about it? Call the cops? Take your pick, either approve the contracts or provide the players with hard evidence of the collusion."
Legally, how does that affect the League's substantive ability to sanction the Skins for their conduct (the contract dumping) by restructuring the salary cap? Not sure exactly. It may not have any effect - again, illegal contracts cannot be enforced. Period. As a practical matter, and in an open court trial, however, it would certainly make all the owners look bad, possibly open the owners (including DS) up to "bad faith claims", may even allow the players to reopen their collusion suit, and certainly would piss off the players (who would probably remember it 10 years from now when the CBA comes up).
Are the Skins legally correct in asserting that there is no substantive basis for sanctioning them? Based on the facts that have come out and the language cited from the 2006 & 2012 CBA's and NFL Charter/By-laws (thanks Hoophead!), I am about as certain of that as a I can be. There may be language in the documents that provides the authority, but it isn't in any of the places one would expect to find such language and there is plenty of language indicating that there was no authority for the salary cap adjustment.
Is it in their best interests to pursue a remedy through a lawsuit or other formal action? Given the nasty consequences that could occur even if they prevail, I am pretty sure that I would advise them to use that as an absolute last resort.
|
First off, imagine the implications for the league if one of it's owners had stood up and started screaming "collusion" in the middle of the labor battle. The union would practically own the league at that point, and I can't even imagine the kind of repercussions for us if that had happened. You could forget anything like the Griffin trade ever happening, for starters.
More to the point, whatever warnings were given were verbal and likely vague (they would have to be for legal reasons, I would think). The Redskins would likely say that they interpreted the warnings as telling them not to do anything improper, which they didn't. And, given the way other contracts were being handled, they didn't see anything untoward going on throughout the NFL.
So, the Redskins would probably say that the first indication they had that any kind of collusion was going on was the punishment being handed down. And I suspect that that is pretty close to being the absolute truth.