Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Giantone

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?

Because many of the owners don't want to spend money. Several of the teams upset the "competitive balance" by taking advantage of the uncapped year to spend less than the CBA mandated league floor. Simply put, they saved a ton of actual hard cash by not spending it on the players (Believe it or not, some of these guys are intent on the bottom line as opposed to spending money to get good players).

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Because many of the owners don't want to spend money. Several of the teams upset the "competitive balance" by taking advantage of the uncapped year to spend less than the CBA mandated league floor. Simply put, they saved a ton of actual hard cash by not spending it on the players (Believe it or not, some of these guys are intent on the bottom line as opposed to spending money to get good players).

I can respect fiscal responsibility. I look at European Club Football and see almost all the major clubs going into debt to fund payrolls. The spending over there would make a tea party member cry. With that said deliberately using unwritten rules for the sake of keeping cost down is unacceptable.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok lets say you're right why did only 4 out of 32 do it?

I'd say more than 4 did it.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You are wrong. They engaged in textbook collusion. By "agreeing" to not dump monies into the uncapped year they did several things:

First they denied players guaranteed monies that would have come from non-guaranteed future monies. in the form of modifying salaries into bonuses.

Second, by "agreeing" to not clear future cap space into the uncapped year they denied players that future cap space. If teams had engaged in clearing say 500 mil of cap space into the uncapped year then that is 500 mil of future cap space that the players should have the economical advantage of having. But they don't. It is a clear and easy case to make for collusion.

FRPLG:

IF you are correct, then the NFLPA should be taking this textbook case of collusion to Federal Court to get themselves and their members - - the players - - a big time payday. When the baseball owners were found guilty of collusion by a Federal Court - - not by a few people on an Internet message board - - the baseball union and its members got $360M.

Now, the fact that the NFLPA which is headed by a labor attorney - - that is DeMaurice Smith's background - - and which has a slew of top-shelf attorneys on their staff and under retainer (I believe the guy who got Microsoft convicted of monopolistic tactics is on the NFLPA retainer list) has not filed a federal suit on this matter makes me wonder why.

My first guess is that this is not the simple "textbook collusion" that you assert that it is.

I am not an attorney so my opinion on the legality of what the owners did and did not do is not worth a lot. But I do put some stock in the fact that the NFLPA has not immediately pursued a legal course that could bring it and its members hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

FRPLG:

IF you are correct, then the NFLPA should be taking this textbook case of collusion to Federal Court to get themselves and their members - - the players - - a big time payday. When the baseball owners were found guilty of collusion by a Federal Court - - not by a few people on an Internet message board - - the baseball union and its members got $360M.

Now, the fact that the NFLPA which is headed by a labor attorney - - that is DeMaurice Smith's background - - and which has a slew of top-shelf attorneys on their staff and under retainer (I believe the guy who got Microsoft convicted of monopolistic tactics is on the NFLPA retainer list) has not filed a federal suit on this matter makes me wonder why.

My first guess is that this is not the simple "textbook collusion" that you assert that it is.

I am not an attorney so my opinion on the legality of what the owners did and did not do is not worth a lot. But I do put some stock in the fact that the NFLPA has not immediately pursued a legal course that could bring it and its members hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

They did not bring suit because they had waived there right to do so as part of the various settlements that cleared the courts of the various lawsuits and allowed the CBA to be signed. The players dropped all pending charges of collusion including the right to bring an action for collusion during the negotiation period.

Remember there were multiple suits file by both sides. In order to get to the point where a new CBA could be signed, all the lawsuits had to be settled and all the issues within them resolved. One of those issues was the charge that the owners were operating in collusion to circumvent the CBA (remember the successful challenge concerning the TV contracts?).

Essentially, both sides wiped the board clean and agreed that all that went before was forgiven/resolved. The collusion to circumvent the CBA by creating a "psuedo-cap" would be one of those issues.

The pact requires that those issues be resolved and a full CBA be done by Aug. 4; no one involved believes that will be a problem.

Doty has oversight for the "lockout insurance" case and a separate collusion claim by players.

On March 1, Doty ruled that the NFL failed to maximize TV revenues for the players, essentially leaving money on the table for the last two years to gain leverage in the labor fight. At a hearing in May, the players asked Doty to make $4 billion in disputed broadcast revenue off-limits to owners; the NFLPA also asked him to award players more than $700 million in damages.

In January [2011], the union accused teams of conspiring to restrict players' salaries last [2010] offseason [the uncapped season].

NFL.com news: Lawyers: NFL, players settle antitrust suit, two other cases