Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Ths was new news from around 9am:

Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins To Argue Salary Cap Penalties At Hearing Thursday - SB Nation Dallas

The Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins, unlikely allies in a battle against league sanctions for overspending during an uncapped, pre-lockout period before the 2011 NFL season, will argue their case at a hearing on Thursday on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania's law school.

Due to the expiration of the agreement between the league and the player's union, the 2010 season was an uncapped year. After a new agreement was settled in 2011, the league reduced the salary cap of the Redskins and Cowboys by $32 and $10 million over the next two years, respectively, as punishment for the way those clubs structured contracts in 2010.

According to sources that spoke to the Washington Post, the issue isn't retroactive punishment, but that the two clubs sought to gain an advantage by clearing room for when the new salary cap came into play:


According to several people familiar with the case, the league found that the Redskins and Cowboys technically violated no salary cap rules but sought to gain an unfair competitive advantage when the salary cap went back into effect. The two teams, according to those people familiar with the case, paid money to players during the uncapped year that otherwise would have been paid in subsequent years with the salary cap back in place. That way, the money never counted against the cap and the teams cleared salary cap space in future seasons.

The Post also reports that an immediate decision is not expected from the arbitrator.

[SBXVII]

Then there was this around 4pm:

Dallas Cowboys News: Jerry Jones Confident Headed Into Thursday's Salary Cap Hearing - SB Nation Dallas

File this under not-shocking news: Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is confident. Not about his team this time, but about his chances in Thursday's appearance before a mediator, who will decide whether or not the Cowboys and Washington Redskins can continue with an appeal in their case against the league for levying severe cap penalties against the two teams.

Jerry Jones added these comments in advance of Thursday's hearing:


"I wouldn't dare try to predict what the resolution will be," Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones said. "But I'm glad we've got an opportunity to present it, under the labor agreement, to a mediator, and that's what tomorrow's all about, whether or not we do have the opportunity to be before him. It won't resolve the issue, but it will help decide whether or not we can go before a mediator."

"I know we followed the rules," Jones said. "The league has not said that we did not follow the rules, and those were approved contracts. This is complicated issue."

Dan Snyder and the Redskins certainly have more at stake than Dallas, as Washington was hit with $36 million in cap adjustment, compared to Dallas' $10 million.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I 100% am the same way. I'll agree with other we just don't agree. Our society is based off the "rule of law". Either society/gov is making a law or someone gets into trouble and is brought before a judge or arbitrator to have the issue heard and sometimes based off the issue's in the case the law changes, rules get changed, policy gets changed, and proceedure gets changed.

Here's how I'm looking at it; Goodell tells the teams don't over turn the apple cart. If you turn over the apple cart your going to be severely punished. The Skins and Boys go to the apple cart and pull several apples from the cart and half the apples in the cart spill out onto the ground. Now Goodell says look we warned you. Now your getting punished for over turning the apple cart. When in reality the apple cart was not turned over. So then Goodell says "look we warned you about apples spill out onto the ground". But the two teams are argueing that they in fact didn't turn over the apple cart. Was the out come basically the same? yea I guess one can say the two teams gained a competative edge slightly. I say slightly cause most of those teams spend millions anyway so a few more is no big deal. It's not like all the team only spend 1 mill and the Skins went out and captured 36 mill. Most of the bad teams had 30 something mill or close to it that they never spend anyway. Had they spent their CAP space then there would be no worry about competative edge.

I just posted an article in which the person points out how the teams who underspent gave themselves a competative edge for 2012 to pick up high priced free agents. The Bills did it with the DL guy, Tampa did it with the WR, etc. etc.

But this whole case has flaws.

1- there never should have been an agreement with the owners(collusion)

2- you can't punish for an unwritten rule. you can hope everyone stays to the agreement but if they don't tuff luck. there was a reason the uncapped year was in place and all the owners agreed to it back in the 90's which was to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to it becoming an uncapped year. they didn't. both sides wanted the uncapped year. doesn't matter the reason there was no CAP high or low.

3- the league never should have approved the contracts.

4- the league never should have waited 2yrs to punish the teams.

5- the type and amount of punishment should have been taken to an owners meeting first in order for all the owners to vote on and agree on.

6- the punishment should never have be for past (2yrs) issue's, it should only have been used on any team who committed the offense from the time the new rule or punishment or policy was put into place.

So if the Arbitrator doesn't have authority as of right now as some would have you believe then maybe after he see's the information he will make precedence and rule on it anyway and another new rule or policy will be added to what the Arbitrator's job is to do. If not then I hope the two teams file in a court of law, make all the other owners worry about loosing their special media rights and possibly being forced to fall under normal business laws and hopefully prior to court they agree to give back all or the majority of the CAP space as a settlement.

You started your post talking about the rule of law and then completely ignored every written rule that applies to the current situation. You ignored the NFL bylaws, you ignored the CBA, and you ignored what authority the arbitrator in this case actually has.

I agree that the Skins got screwed, I agree it was handled terribly, and I agree the process was screwed up.

However, what you want to happen would need to happen in a court after the Skins sue the League. My guess is that the Skins don't want to sue.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

You started your post talking about the rule of law and then completely ignored every written rule that applies to the current situation. You ignored the NFL bylaws, you ignored the CBA, and you ignored what authority the arbitrator in this case actually has.

I agree that the Skins got screwed, I agree it was handled terribly, and I agree the process was screwed up.

However, what you want to happen would need to happen in a court after the Skins sue the League. My guess is that the Skins don't want to sue.

The league doesn't want it in a court either. For that reason if the arbitrator doesn't dismiss it outright I hope the 2 sides work out a simple solution aside from mediation.

[VegasSkinsFan]

I hope we sue. Who cares at this point what happens? The other owners were already pissed enough to vote to take away cap space, granted to benefit themselves. At least let's drop the bomb and see what happens.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The league doesn't want it in a court either. For that reason if the arbitrator doesn't dismiss it outright I hope the 2 sides work out a simple solution aside from mediation.

Yeah, I still think that's the point of taking it to arbitration. I think the League would rather settle than argue the finer points of which League and team actions may or may not be collusion with the NFLPA having access to the proceedings.

IMO, they'd have a much better case in court than CBA arbitration, but the CBA arbitration path allows the Skins to try to get some relief without going to the nuclear option of a lawsuit.

[Chico23231]

Arbitration Day is here, new thread?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Arbitration Day is here, new thread?

Let's hope it's not as dull as this one.

[CRedskinsRule]

A little write up, but the end line is probably the most insightful:

Cap case starts today but decision will take time

The wheels of justice turn slowly. There will not be a resolution to this anytime soon. My advice would be to enjoy the spring weather, ponder the future of Chris Cooley and debate whether or not Josh LeRibeus will have an impact this year. A ruling will come sometime during the summer, probably in late June or July. Any decision that comes quickly, in fact, is likely to be bad news for the Redskins as it likely would be Burbank throwing the case out.

We are in the proverbial No News is Good News time of this thing.

[imaskin4life]

Arguments heard today, waiting for Burbank's decision.

Burbank takes motion to dismiss Cowboys-Redskins grievance under advisement | ProFootballTalk

Salary cap hearing for Redskins and Cowboys ends - The Insider - The Washington Post

[NYCskinfan82]

IMO Someone from the NFL's office probably already deliverd a suitcase full of money to Burbank already case dismissed.

[SkinItup]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

IMO Someone from the NFL's office probably already deliverd a suitcase full of money to Burbank already case dismissed.

How high are you?

That is some paranoid stuff there.

I want to say screw the league and sue but really i hope arbitration can resolve this matter with at least our spending not limited next year.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SkinItup

How high are you?

That is some paranoid stuff there.

I want to say screw the league and sue but really i hope arbitration can resolve this matter with at least our spending not limited next year.

It's not good when someone with the handle Skinitup asks you how high you are.

Either that, or everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer in your hand.

[CRedskinsRule]

Here is a snippet from the Examiner article link in the Redskins News area:

....General manager Bruce Allen said the Redskins presented their case for two and a half hours in front of special master Stephen Burbank Thursday, hoping to recoup money $36 million in salary cap space the NFL took away from them. Allen said he did not know when they would hear a resolution from the arbitrator.

"We wanted to present our case and we were able to present part of our case," Allen said.

As for whether or not there will be another hearing Allen said, "You have to check with the league or [Giants owner] John Mara."

There had been rumors (vague on another -not ES) board that a compromise was reachable. Since they didn't show up here, I didn't put a lot of credence in them, but I wonder if this statement by Bruce Allen underlies a point that Mara particularly is keeping a settlement from being reached. Remember he made very pointed statements leading in to the league meetings.

[Monksdown]

I'm not an attorney, or even admittedly very smart, but my two cents:

Burbank will determine that he has no authority over the dispute as the NFLPA agreed to the penalty. It's not a CBA issue and he should enjoy recusing himself. It's curious to me that it's gotten as far as it has really, but maybe he's giving the teams the opportunity to prove that he does have the authority to arbitrate.

On a related note, Garcon's not worth what we're paying him. It reminded me of VC and management that isnt steering the ship, but just taking orders. I thought it was out of character for the organization's new business model. How is Garcon's contract related to the 'nuclear' penalty? Because i hope that the penalty stands and it is a serious slap to the face of the organization. I want it to remind them that the path to the playoffs isnt through overpriced free agents coming from systems with Peyton Manning delivering the packages.

I dont agree with penalty on principle, but i'm hoping that it slowed down what i viewed as a bad turn in our planning.