Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

The way I understand it...30 teams agreed to this punishment...so it is 30 vs 2.
The NFL is more of a club than a business.
How can the skins sue?....who are they suing?...the NFL?....they are the nfl?
The 32 owners are the NFL and the commissioner is paid by the owners.
How can you sue yourself?, the players association also agreed to approve it.
This is all legit the way the NFL/players association works.
Collusion is a different call...but you'd have to argue that was done to keep pay down..can't be argued this year since they kept the cap total the same...but could be argued during the non cap year...but think about it, is it really worth it?
Sure the Skins got screwed..but they are going to pay the cap hit they normally would have...the issue I have is a couple others got away with it on a smaller scale....and if you pursue a lawsuit, you will make enemies of those you depend on.
You really dont want the NFL a perpetual enemy of the Skins...think of penalties, fines, scheduling, supplemental draft picks, etc

Good points, but the fact that the NFL can actually take such action even though no actual rules were broken is pretty scary for an owner. Theoretically, any 1 or 2 teams could at any time be ganged up upon like this, just because the other 30 & the nflpa agree to it.

I would think if a suit is filed you'll see the words "arbitrary and capricious" over & over. This fits the definition to a t.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Good points, but the fact that the NFL can actually take such action even though no actual rules were broken is pretty scary for an owner. Theoretically, any 1 or 2 teams could at any time be ganged up upon like this, just because the other 30 & the nflpa agree to it.

.

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

"Agree"

[Player_HTTR]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

Long story, short:

Only 28 teams agreed.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

Well four decided to dump cap money. Numerous others had new contracts that were pretty insane.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

I haven't read anywhere that something was actually agreed too? It's not like the NFL can admit that all the teams agreed to collude against the players in an "uncapped year". We've read conflicting reports that both teams were warned, but no documentation exists because it would also be illegal?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

I highly doubt that all 32 owners were in unison on this agreement. They've never been in full agreement on anything so this certainly wouldn't be any different.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I highly doubt that all 32 owners were in unison on this agreement. They've never been in full agreement on anything so this certainly wouldn't be any different.

This...I find it almost laughable to think that Dan Snyder sat in a meeting and agreed to this. He's been running an NFL football team for 13 years now. He knows how the salary cap works. He understood how the uncapped year could offer him relief. And he just sat in a room and volunteered not to utilize the advantage that presented him? Does anyone in their right mind think that sounds like something he'd do? In the business world Snyder is not known as a shrinking violet. I think he'd have told Ralph Wilson and his crew of poor owners to go screw.

Perhaps he knew that many owners had agreed to this and that they would either TRY to punish those that didn't go along or were only issuing empty threats but it doesn't seem very likely at all that he actually raised his hand as a Yay when they "voted" on this.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

You're right, I didn't see that in any of the reports I read, but I did see that the nfl "warned" teams not to do what the Skins & Boys did. Sally Jenkins is right, regardless of legality, this adds to Snyder's poor relationship w/the nfl & other owners.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What I think some are missing is that from some reports all 32 did agree and then 4 decided to do it anyway .

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?

[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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

The way I understand it...30 teams agreed to this punishment...so it is 30 vs 2.
The NFL is more of a club than a business.

The NFL is a business partnership. A joint venture of several distinct business entities. They are not a "club", they are a money making organization made up of several distinct business entities with rights and duties to the other entities in the venture.

If several of the entities violate the rules of the organization and cause damages to other entities (in this case, imposing a penalty for legally restructuring contracts (both in that they violated no govt. imposed restrictions and did not violate the rules of the joint venture)), each entity has the right to sue each other and the joint venture itself for the damages caused to their distinct business entity - just like two buisness partners in a legal partnership can sue each other or over there rights within partnership.

Originally Posted by skinsnut

How can the skins sue?....who are they suing?...the NFL?....they are the nfl?
The 32 owners are the NFL and the commissioner is paid by the owners.
How can you sue yourself?, the players association also agreed to approve it.

Each owner can sue each other or they can sue the joint venture.

Originally Posted by skinsnut

This is all legit the way the NFL/players association works.

You and I have very different understandings of the word "legit". It may be "business as usual", but that does not make it "legit".

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Collusion is a different call...but you'd have to argue that was done to keep pay down..can't be argued this year since they kept the cap total the same...but could be argued during the non cap year...but think about it, is it really worth it?

I think we sort of agree here. Certainly, the NFL took steps to ratify their action after the fact:
"Hey, NFLPA, look, we had this agreement to violate the CBA while negotiations were taking place. However, since you dropped all allegations of "collusion" as part of the final settlement on the CBA, you can't sue us for it now. Sorry about that - our bad. .... Oh by the way, a couple of teams didn't want to participate in the collusion, so we are going to hammer them on the salary cap. If you don't agree with that, well we will just have to lower the cap for everyone or you can sign off on the deal and we will be able to keep the cap up for all the other teams. So ... whatcha gonna do?"

The subsequent acts of ratification don't change the fact that, at the time of uncapped year, several owners secretly agreed not to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the uncapped year and subsequently decided to selectively punish two of them that did.

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Sure the Skins got screwed..but they are going to pay the cap hit they normally would have...the issue I have is a couple others got away with it on a smaller scale....and if you pursue a lawsuit, you will make enemies of those you depend on.
You really dont want the NFL a perpetual enemy of the Skins...think of penalties, fines, scheduling, supplemental draft picks, etc

In general, I agree with you on this. Do you really want to toss a grenade into the room you're standing? Just b/c you can sue, doesn't mean you should. I expect that there will be some backroom negotiations and the penalty will be mediated b/c, IMHO, the NFL doesn't have a leg to stand on other than the informal "you still are stuck with us and we can make life difficult" tack. From a legal standpoint, I haven't seen one defense raised by the NFL that had any validity - Most of them barely pass the "does it smell bad" test.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

The way I understand it...30 teams agreed to this punishment...so it is 30 vs 2.
The NFL is more of a club than a business.
How can the skins sue?....who are they suing?...the NFL?....they are the nfl?
The 32 owners are the NFL and the commissioner is paid by the owners.
How can you sue yourself?, the players association also agreed to approve it.
This is all legit the way the NFL/players association works.
Collusion is a different call...but you'd have to argue that was done to keep pay down..can't be argued this year since they kept the cap total the same...but could be argued during the non cap year...but think about it, is it really worth it?
Sure the Skins got screwed..but they are going to pay the cap hit they normally would have...the issue I have is a couple others got away with it on a smaller scale....and if you pursue a lawsuit, you will make enemies of those you depend on.
You really dont want the NFL a perpetual enemy of the Skins...think of penalties, fines, scheduling, supplemental draft picks, etc

So in essence none of the owners have to follow the labor laws. The NFL as a group does not have to follow any of the labor laws. The in reality the NFLPA is just a club also and there really is no Union.

Also It doesn't matter when the Collusion accured, the team just would have to prove there was Collusion. If there was no punishment then it would have been difficult for any other owner or the NFLPA to prove that there was Collusion unless an owner came out and admitted it. JJ and DS didn't throw their fellow owners under the bus, they threw themselves under the bus when they decided to force a punishment. They are essentially admitting there was an agreement and these two owners failed to go along with it.

So again the message should be:

It's ok to break the law and for those who choose not to they will be punished.

[diehardskin2982]

If you don't believe owner's can't sue the NFL and win google Al Davis

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

If you don't believe owner's can't sue the NFL and win google Al Davis

Someone on the radio mentioned Al's case in connection with this, and being in favor of the skins and cowboys. Does anyone understand it enough to explain?