Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I've been hoping we were using the Saber rattling as a bargaining chip to get our stuff (or at least some) back.
The Dan and JJ have the two most valuable franchises in the NFL. They are....shrewd self made Billionaire guys. Very accustomed to difficult problems and negotiations. I do not see them letting this slide........

Each side has some strong negotiating chips.

- The DS & JJ's position is, essentially, we did nothing wrong and your punishment violates the rules of our business agreeement. Ultimately, in any legal battle we will win and we have the money and the will to take you to the mat.

- The other 30 owner's & the NFL's position: Maybe so, but until a court tells us to do otherwise, we are disapproving any contracts over the penalized amount. Further, we will take away draft choices, look for other infractions, etc. By the way, we have 400 lawyers who can make sure this doesn't see the inside of a court room for several years ... and then let's talk us some appellate review.

Ultimately, arbitration is the best course. I am pretty sure we will end up with a "time served" sanction (i.e. - acceptance of what's been done with a removal of the rest. Possibly a small credit to allow us to go forward w/out needing to push this years money into future caps). I can't see an arbitrated settlement that nets us draft picks. It would be nice, but I wouldn't bank on it. Even if it does, I doubt it would be anything more than a 6th or 7th round pick, maybe two (pure speculation on my part).

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Just to clarify...

32 teams agreed to break the LAW (Collusion against the players).
2 or 4 teams changed their minds and decided not to break the LAW.
and now only 2 teams are getting punished for not doing something wrong, immoral, and illegal?

^that is the message your trying to get across right?

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?

[Dirtbag59]

Galvanize aka "My finger is on the button." *push the button*

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Probably just as much as you "know" that all teams "agreed"

,,,,just going by what has been reported.

[BuckSkin]

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?

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?

see post #94

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

And can you prove that it was agreed to by all?

The NFL hasn't even been willing to go on record as saying the names of the 4 teams that were fined. All we have is people speaking off the record to insiders and beat reporters.

It's not like the NFL has been hesitant to release information about fines and suspensions in the past. Why the vague official statements citing "a small number of teams"?

Maybe I'm wrong but I've yet to see one report where an actual NFL rep came out and named the Redskins and Cowboys specifically in this scandal. In every official press release the most specific mention I've seen is "a small number of teams."

[ArtMonkDrillz]

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?

Haynesworth was signed in 2009, but yes, he did restructure in 2010.

Clearly more than 4 teams pull this kind of thing. Others have pointed out Chicago's deal with Peppers. I'm sure the giants were completely above the board with everything they did that year.

[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?

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Each side has some strong negotiating chips.

- The DS & JJ's position is, essentially, we did nothing wrong and your punishment violates the rules of our business agreeement. Ultimately, in any legal battle we will win and we have the money and the will to take you to the mat.

- The other 30 owner's & the NFL's position: Maybe so, but until a court tells us to do otherwise, we are disapproving any contracts over the penalized amount. Further, we will take away draft choices, look for other infractions, etc. By the way, we have 400 lawyers who can make sure this doesn't see the inside of a court room for several years ... and then let's talk us some appellate review.

Ultimately, arbitration is the best course. I am pretty sure we will end up with a "time served" sanction (i.e. - acceptance of what's been done with a removal of the rest. Possibly a small credit to allow us to go forward w/out needing to push this years money into future caps). I can't see an arbitrated settlement that nets us draft picks. It would be nice, but I wouldn't bank on it. Even if it does, I doubt it would be anything more than a 6th or 7th round pick, maybe two (pure speculation on my part).

If the league sticks to the "because we say so" arguement, arbitration seems a bit silly. And the chance of it being fairly considered? How do they pick the person who hears the case?

I think in addtion to good chances in a legal battle, the skins and cowboys also have the NFL not wanting any of this to take place in public. Trying to talk the crazy guy back off the cliff.

[JoeRedskin]

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?

Wow. Reading is fundamental. Rather than restate my previous posts, and since you have so clearly ignored them, I'll just assume you can't refute logically and specifically any of the points I have previously made. [EDIT: See posts 63, 64,65]

Two very simple points: (1) The league cannot retroactively change its governing rules in order to sanction teams for actions that conformed to the rules at the time they were taken; and (2) the mere fact that the NFLPA subsequently signed off on the penalty does not have any bearing on whether the owners' prior actions were collusive.

Quite frankly, you're just talking out your ass and have no concept of the legal principles on which you are offering opinions.

I think "obtuse" is the word most applicable at this point.

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Reading is fundamental. Rather than restate my previous posts, and since you have so clearly ignored them, I'll just assume you can't refute logically and specifically any of the points I have previously made. [EDIT: See posts 63, 64,65]

Two very simple points: (1) The league cannot retroactively change its governing rules in order to sanction teams for actions that conformed to the rules at the time they were taken; and (2) the mere fact that the NFLPA subsequently signed off on the penalty does not have any bearing on whether the owners' prior actions were collusive.

Quite frankly, you're just talking out your ass and have no concept of the legal principles on which you are offering opinions.

I think "obtuse" is the word most applicable at this point.

BOOYAH MUTHA SUCKA!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to the corner Giantone, or better yet, to a giants message board.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

If the league sticks to the "because we say so" arguement, arbitration seems a bit silly. And the chance of it being fairly considered? How do they pick the person who hears the case?

I think in addtion to good chances in a legal battle, the skins and cowboys also have the NFL not wanting any of this to take place in public. Trying to talk the crazy guy back off the cliff.

In arbitration the league will advance a couple of legal theories as to why the sanction should be upheld:

1. Since we [the owners] believed a new CBA was forthcoming that would reinstate the salary cap, the majority of owners reached an informal agreement not to structure contracts in a manner that would harm the competitive balance going forward. DS and JJ violated this agreement and attempted to gain a competitive advantage contrary to the spirit of the governing CBA which, by its terms, created only one uncapped year [Of course, if no subsequent CBA had been agreed upon, the cap would simply disappear going forward] .

2. As a procedural matter, pursuant to the NFL's charter, the sanction was issued by the competition committee and communicated through the Commissioner's office. Further, and because it affects the salary cap, the sanction has been approved by the NFLPA as required by the current governing CBA.

These are both legally defensible positions that create the appearance of a reasonable dispute (barely so in my humble opinion). For all the reasons I have stated before, I just don't think they stand up under any scrutiny.

The "b/c we say so" argument is the practical and informal reason for their actions rather than the legal basis.

As to who hears the arbitration, from what I understand, that would be governed by the CBA.

[BuckSkin]

Mark Maske, to whom GiantOne refers, says that individuals familiar to the situation suggest...
"Stephen Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor who was known as the sport’s special master when previous labor agreements were under the jurisdiction of a federal court in Minneapolis."