NFL-NFLPA differences intensify (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Judge

When the NFL and its players union last summer agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement, it was supposed to signal peace for the next 10 years ... only 10 months later, that peace is gone, replaced by a deep and uneasy distrust that threatens to polarize the two sides.

The latest example was Wednesday, when the NFL Players Association filed a collusion claim against the league, detailing a league "conspiracy" to circumnavigate the Reggie White settlement by allegedly imposing a secret $123 million salary cap for the 2010 season ... when there was no salary cap.

That move follows Tuesday's pas de deux over knee and thigh pads. The NFL said it will mandate them for the 2013 season, while the NFLPA said it cannot, that changes like that must be collectively bargained with the union.

That, in turn, follows NFLPA complaints and grievances filed earlier this month that challenge commissioner Roger Goodell's suspensions of four players for their involvement in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. In essence, the union believes Goodell overstepped his authority and should not be allowed to rule on appeals of punishments he imposed -- even though the CBA players ratified last summer authorizes him to do it.

I think you get the idea. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

"You don't expect all parties to agree at any point and time," Goodell said, "but you have to drive toward solutions. At some point you have to make some decisions about what is best for the game."

Uh, no-can-do, said the NFLPA, and here we go again.The decision to mandate knee and thigh pads is a perfect example. According to Goodell, the NFL and NFLPA had been talking for three years about more protection for players, but the dialogue was inconclusive. So the NFL decided to move forward, notifying the union that its cooperation and input are valued until the rule takes effect.

"Three years of discussion," Goodell said. "Technology has advanced. In fact, the CEO of Nike recently told me that when they introduced the new uniforms that NBA players were wearing more pads from the hips down than NFL players.

"There is something wrong with that. We need to put that protection in. You can discuss all you want, but at some point you have to reach a conclusion."

The conclusion the NFLPA reached was that the league overstepped its authority ... again ... and so it fired off a response that said, "While the NFL is focused on one element of health and safety, the NFLPA believes that health and safety require a comprehensive approach and commitment."

The union's opposition was based on principle, with the NFLPA insisting that mandating protective pads is a change in working conditions, which means they must be collectively bargained -- an opinion the NFL does not share.

But that's how it goes these days, where relations between the two are so fractured that the New York Times' Judy Battista on Wednesday tweeted, "Is it possible the NFL and NFLPA were getting along better DURING the lockout than they are now?"

Uh, yeah, it is.

All I know is I remember both sides signed off on a provision for HGH testing. That was last summer. Since then, the NFL has said it's ready to move forward, and the NFLPA has said it's not.

Welcome to their world.

"If you look at the tension, and you look at the natural angst," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, "it's not surprising that you have 'us' and 'them' a lot -- just by the very nature of things. You can have a well-meaning issue, but you have differences of opinion as to how you work it out. That's part of a labor agreement. It doesn't surprise me at all that we have labor issues."

It doesn't surprise me, either. Employer-employee relationships are often by nature adversarial. But it's one thing to have occasional differences; it's another to engage in frequent public disputes over wide-ranging issues.

The rapport, understanding and cooperation that were there when Paul Tagliabue was NFL commissioner and Gene Upshaw was the NFLPA executive director seem absent now, replaced instead by a distrust so deep that Pittsburgh linebacker James Harrison last summer called Goodell "a crook" and "the devil."

"I hate him," he said in the August issue of Men's Journal, "and will never respect him."

Granted, that's James Harrison, and his opinions can be -- how shall I put this? -- extreme. But that lack of respect for Goodell and the league office seems to run deep -- so much so that when the NFL announced its intention to mandate thigh and knee pads, at least two of the San Diego Chargers told the Union-Tribune they aren't sure they'll comply.

Of course, they're not. Players and owners are as far apart as they were this time last year.

"It's not something that is unexpected," Jones said. "That's just the nature of it. You have a lot of things that go into club/player, coach/player [issues], the kind of thing that CBA addresses. You can't legislate some of the things that can come up, and those have to be worked through. And they will be.

"They have been in the past and they're getting worked through now. It's not always a good day there. But ultimately, we know we have to do what's in the best interests of fans to keep the NFL as exciting and as popular as it is, and we will most certainly do what's in the best interests of the players and the clubs."

That's a matter of perspective. What's not is that these two sides don't seem to get along.

"Our relationship is exactly what it's supposed to be," said a source close to the union, "especially when our interests are not aligned on issues that matter to our players or when things like collusion take place in our game."

But that relationship seems to be growing more hostile, which doesn't exactly foreshadow future cooperation. Only 10 months ago center Jeff Saturday stood on the steps of the union's headquarters in Washington, D.C. and embraced New England owner Robert Kraft. I can't imagine that happening today.

"How would you characterize your relationship with the NFLPA?" Goodell was asked Tuesday.

"I don't characterize things very often," he said. "We continue to address the issues. We don't always agree, but we seek a resolution on those. Sometimes we will reach a consensus, and sometimes we won't. If that is the outcome, that is the outcome."

No, that is the problem.



Cartels reference at post #20

 

[GroveDiesel]

The players are losing any credibility they have in complaining about longterm health effects by fighting common sense stuff like padding on the lower body, safer helmets and HGH testing. The players keep talking about needing a "comprehensive approach" to player safety, but so far the only things they've seemed to come up with themselves are less practices and more money to them. That's not going to cut it. The players themselves fight the concussion rules with guys like Hines Ward refusing to admit that he has a concussion and refusing to submit to testing and many players have obviously spoken out against the new tackling rules.

Seems to me that the players want the whole ball of wax. They want to be able to play the way they want to play, in the equipment they want to play in, but then want the owners to pay them later for the injuries that occur due to those choices. The players are looking REALLY bad in this whole player safety issue. They have fought the league at every single turn, even over small common sense stuff like the padding, and have very little suggestions themselves.

 

[Jason Wood]

I REALLY struggle with the players' arguments against added padding. Unless I misunderstand, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on the NFL's part but the culmination of significant research which showed that the pads will be beneficial (not that you need multiple years of data to know that). As GroveDiesel said, there are lawsuits popping up left and right whereby players are contending they somehow weren't responsible for their own actions and were forced to endure undue risks to their health and welfare, and yet now they're fighting against pads because it wasn't collectively bargained? They're fighting against the player suspensions, even though those suspensions were born out of months of investigating and tens of thousands of pages of evidence?

Ridiculous.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I REALLY struggle with the players' arguments against added padding. Unless I misunderstand, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on the NFL's part but the culmination of significant research which showed that the pads will be beneficial (not that you need multiple years of data to know that). As GroveDiesel said, there are lawsuits popping up left and right whereby players are contending they somehow weren't responsible for their own actions and were forced to endure undue risks to their health and welfare, and yet now they're fighting against pads because it wasn't collectively bargained? They're fighting against the player suspensions, even though those suspensions were born out of months of investigating and tens of thousands of pages of evidence?

Ridiculous.

And not much of it has been released to look at either. But Goodell has seen it so I guess that's good enough...

 

[Snotbubbles]

I REALLY struggle with the players' arguments against added padding. Unless I misunderstand, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on the NFL's part but the culmination of significant research which showed that the pads will be beneficial (not that you need multiple years of data to know that). As GroveDiesel said, there are lawsuits popping up left and right whereby players are contending they somehow weren't responsible for their own actions and were forced to endure undue risks to their health and welfare, and yet now they're fighting against pads because it wasn't collectively bargained? They're fighting against the player suspensions, even though those suspensions were born out of months of investigating and tens of thousands of pages of evidence?

Ridiculous.

And not much of it has been released to look at either. But Goodell has seen it so I guess that's good enough...

...if it wasn't, why give Goodell that type of power? Why not have some mutually agreed upon third party handle such matters?

 

[Mark Wimer]

I REALLY struggle with the players' arguments against added padding. Unless I misunderstand, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on the NFL's part but the culmination of significant research which showed that the pads will be beneficial (not that you need multiple years of data to know that). As GroveDiesel said, there are lawsuits popping up left and right whereby players are contending they somehow weren't responsible for their own actions and were forced to endure undue risks to their health and welfare, and yet now they're fighting against pads because it wasn't collectively bargained? They're fighting against the player suspensions, even though those suspensions were born out of months of investigating and tens of thousands of pages of evidence? Ridiculous.

Players upset that the league would try to protect them from injury? That is ridiculous.I do, however, understand why they are upset over the Cowboys and Redskins getting a penalty for "overspending" during an UNcapped year. That simply doesn't stand up to logical evaluation. Either a season is UNcapped or it is capped. However, the CBA "known and unknown" clause would seem to shield the NFL from the suit, so I don't think it will be a win for the players. But it is a black eye for the owners, IMO. The next CBA may be even more contentious than the last one, friends...

 

[Doug B]

The next CBA may be even more contentious than the last one, friends...

Has to be. The players may even be willing to strike to wrest power from Goodell.

 

[Jason Wood]

Andrew Brandt was on Mike & Mike and believes this case will be dismissed more than likely. The NFLPA signed explicit language in the global settlement that indemnifies both sides from ever being sued for things that happened prior to the enactment of the new CBA.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think this is desperation by DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler. They're the ones that approved the language in the CBA releasing all claims and they're the ones that approved the cap penalties for the Skins and Cowboys.

I'm sure the players around the league freaked out when they realized that there was proof of collusion by the owners and that their leadership directly acknowledged it and approved it.

IMO, Kessler is really the one driving the boat on the players' side and he has been chomping at the bit to go to court the whole time. That's when he starts really raking in the dough as the NFLPA lawyer. But he's also screwed the pooch a whole lot over the last year and half.

I think if the players fail here, that Smith and Kessler are both out the next time their jobs are up for vote and they both know it. They're desperately trying to spin EVERYTHING as a players vs. owners thing to try to make the players feel like Smith and Kessler are fighting for them and that the owners are just all evil instead of the NFLPA leadership simply being incompetent.

 

[Da Guru]

I think this is desperation by DeMaurice Smith and Jeffrey Kessler. They're the ones that approved the language in the CBA releasing all claims and they're the ones that approved the cap penalties for the Skins and Cowboys. I'm sure the players around the league freaked out when they realized that there was proof of collusion by the owners and that their leadership directly acknowledged it and approved it.IMO, Kessler is really the one driving the boat on the players' side and he has been chomping at the bit to go to court the whole time. That's when he starts really raking in the dough as the NFLPA lawyer. But he's also screwed the pooch a whole lot over the last year and half. I think if the players fail here, that Smith and Kessler are both out the next time their jobs are up for vote and they both know it. They're desperately trying to spin EVERYTHING as a players vs. owners thing to try to make the players feel like Smith and Kessler are fighting for them and that the owners are just all evil instead of the NFLPA leadership simply being incompetent.

I thought the NFLPA asked to be deceritfied as a union and disbanded.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The next CBA may be even more contentious than the last one, friends...

Has to be. The players may even be willing to strike to wrest power from Goodell.

the league will be 90% turned over by then. 10 years is along time. And those guys will want to get paid on time just like these players did last summer.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I agree that the player safety back-and-forth is silly and makes the NFLPA look like hypocrites, but the collusion argument has legs I think. Isn't collusion a violation of federal anti-trust law? I don't know enough to comment definitively one way or the other but the agreement not to sue over issues that occurred before the new CBA wouldn't seem to be a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to actual illegal activity. At least a case can be made I would think. The League was really, really foolish in punishing Dallas and Washington for violating a cap that supposedly didn't exist. Blatant cut-and-dried collusion that is much more obvious that the case made against MLB. Can the owners seriously say "yes, we violated the contract that existed at the time, but the new contract says you can't sue over it"? Why should the players have to abide by this new contract when the owners didn't abide by the old one? Can't have it both ways.I am just speculating and some real lawyers need to chime in. I don't see this going away though.

Of course the league colluded. If it were just a question of whether or not they colluded, this would be over already and the owners would be paying through the nose.But the players have explicitely agreed not once, but twice now, to not sue the NFL for any reason related to collusion for every year prior to 2011. They signed a legally binding contract saying they wouldn't sue for collusion under any circumstance for 2010, and yet are trying to sue for collusion for 2010.You can't agree not to sue for something and then turn around and sue for that very same thing. Their reasoning seems to be: well, yeah, we agreed not to sue, but that was before we knew it actually happened.Tough luck for the NFLPA, but this suit will get dismissed very quickly. The only repercussions will be down the line when the current CBA is up and the players are furious at how badly their leadership screwed up and how much the owners won back.

 

[renesauz]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

 

[SWC]

i guess this thread is not going the way that ministry of paint wanted it to because it is not a bunch of lynch mobs lining up to crcify roger goodall the fact is that the players and the owners gave him the powers he has in the cba so they have to live with it take that to the truth serum bank brohans

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

 

[dhockster]

The players are losing any credibility they have in complaining about longterm health effects by fighting common sense stuff like padding on the lower body, safer helmets and HGH testing. The players keep talking about needing a "comprehensive approach" to player safety, but so far the only things they've seemed to come up with themselves are less practices and more money to them. That's not going to cut it. The players themselves fight the concussion rules with guys like Hines Ward refusing to admit that he has a concussion and refusing to submit to testing and many players have obviously spoken out against the new tackling rules.Seems to me that the players want the whole ball of wax. They want to be able to play the way they want to play, in the equipment they want to play in, but then want the owners to pay them later for the injuries that occur due to those choices. The players are looking REALLY bad in this whole player safety issue. They have fought the league at every single turn, even over small common sense stuff like the padding, and have very little suggestions themselves.

Very well said. When the players come out against the league for suspending players related to bounty-gate, when it is pretty clear that those players were trying to intentionally injure other players for money, they really are a joke. Why do these unions always insist on defending the bad apples in their unions?

 

[Snotbubbles]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

Implied agreement between owners to treat uncapped year as a capped year.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

i guess this thread is not going the way that ministry of paint wanted it to because it is not a bunch of lynch mobs lining up to crcify roger goodall the fact is that the players and the owners gave him the powers he has in the cba so they have to live with it take that to the truth serum bank brohans

I'm just linking a news story.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Cartels

On Wednesday, the NFLPA dropped a hammer on the NFL, suing the league for salary-cap-related collusion during the uncapped 2010 year and claiming that the players were due $1 billion in damages.

It was a stunning move and a reminder, as Clark Judge wrote, that labor peace is already a distant memory. And on Thursday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith ramped up the rhetoric, referring to the owners as a "cartel" while meeting with the media outside the union's headquarters in Washington, DC.

"Cartels do what cartels will do when left unchecked," Smith said.

Smith added that the NFLPA did not sue the league to lose, saying (via the NFLPA's Twitter feed) that the union "wouldn't have filed it if we didn't think it was true."

Additionally, per the NFL Network's Albert Breer, Smith pointed out that the relationship might be frosty but that's the nature of business.

"We all got along and the league locked us out," Smith said. "That's the business we're in."

On Wednesday, the NFL vehemently denied that any collusion took place during the uncapped year. The bigger issue for the NFLPA, however, is proving that they're able to actually sue the NFL over something that took place prior to the new CBA being signed in August of 2011.

The legalese in there should make for some fun, expensive debates in Minnesota soon. For now, we just have to hang out and what the two sides fire public salvos at one another.

 

[cobalt_27]

i guess this thread is not going the way that ministry of paint wanted it to because it is not a bunch of lynch mobs lining up to crcify roger goodall the fact is that the players and the owners gave him the powers he has in the cba so they have to live with it take that to the truth serum bank brohans

I'm just linking a news story.

Oh come on. Don't #### out like that.

 

[renesauz]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

2009 was...and it was widely assumed that 2011 going foward would be.The NFL told teams not to use 2010 to circumvent future caps. Here's two (extreme) examples of how that could be done:

When a player is released, his collected bonuses all count for the year he's released, instead of being averaged out over the contract. Teams often CAN'T release players who've collected large signing bonuses because of the cap hit. SO, in an uncapped year...a team could release a player take the (accelerated) 10 million dollar hit when there was nothing to "hit" instead of keeping a poor player on a poor contract and take the 5 million per year salary cap hit from his pro-rated bonus the next 2 years (plus have the lesser player rostered).

Example 2: Contracts normally go up in value over time, with year 4 worth more than year 3 worth more than year 2. To take advantage of an uncapped year, the figures could be written differantly, with year 1 (uncapped year) worth MORE than years 2-4 instead of less. Something like: 15 million, 5 mil, 6 mil, 7 mil. Players often recieve more the year they sign in the form of a bonus, but in the uncapped year, the team could pay the extra as salary instead...saving them the cap charge in the future.

The assertion is that the Cowboys and Skins, and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints, did what is described above. Both are examples how the teams averted not some secret cap in 2010, but used 2010 to avoid FUTURE CAPS. The NFL warned teams that once a new CBA was in place with new caps, contracts that subverted those future caps could resultin penalties. Keep in mind that although 2010 was uncapped, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CBA. The NFL may not have had the authority to tell teams how much they could pay players in 2010, but it still held the authority to demand that contracts fit certain structural parameters. These teams violated the STRUCTURAL parameters. Teams were warned that teams doing so could be later punished if and when caps were re-instated....a warning which is arguably within the NFLs authority as well.

My opinion is that in the current environment, "penalties" shouldn't be given. While not collusion, they are certainly confusing and appear too arbitrary, especially considering the charged atmosphere and uncertain conditions at that time. Charges to the respective team caps which are equivalent to the actual savings those teams managed to find are fair and reasonable though...but I've seen nothing which suggests those savings even remotely approached the levels of the penalties assessed. The cap hits in my scenario would have been less than half what the teams were assessed.

Most guys see uncapped as no limits. I disagree.

The NFLPA has to prove that the NFL had an actual cap in place....these penalties, no matter what you think of them, do NOT constitute "proof" of such a cap.

 

[Snotbubbles]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

2009 was...and it was widely assumed that 2011 going foward would be.The NFL told teams not to use 2010 to circumvent future caps. Here's two (extreme) examples of how that could be done:

When a player is released, his collected bonuses all count for the year he's released, instead of being averaged out over the contract. Teams often CAN'T release players who've collected large signing bonuses because of the cap hit. SO, in an uncapped year...a team could release a player take the (accelerated) 10 million dollar hit when there was nothing to "hit" instead of keeping a poor player on a poor contract and take the 5 million per year salary cap hit from his pro-rated bonus the next 2 years (plus have the lesser player rostered).

Example 2: Contracts normally go up in value over time, with year 4 worth more than year 3 worth more than year 2. To take advantage of an uncapped year, the figures could be written differantly, with year 1 (uncapped year) worth MORE than years 2-4 instead of less. Something like: 15 million, 5 mil, 6 mil, 7 mil. Players often recieve more the year they sign in the form of a bonus, but in the uncapped year, the team could pay the extra as salary instead...saving them the cap charge in the future.

The assertion is that the Cowboys and Skins, and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints, did what is described above. Both are examples how the teams averted not some secret cap in 2010, but used 2010 to avoid FUTURE CAPS. The NFL warned teams that once a new CBA was in place with new caps, contracts that subverted those future caps could resultin penalties. Keep in mind that although 2010 was uncapped, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CBA. The NFL may not have had the authority to tell teams how much they could pay players in 2010, but it still held the authority to demand that contracts fit certain structural parameters. These teams violated the STRUCTURAL parameters. Teams were warned that teams doing so could be later punished if and when caps were re-instated....a warning which is arguably within the NFLs authority as well.

My opinion is that in the current environment, "penalties" shouldn't be given. While not collusion, they are certainly confusing and appear too arbitrary, especially considering the charged atmosphere and uncertain conditions at that time. Charges to the respective team caps which are equivalent to the actual savings those teams managed to find are fair and reasonable though...but I've seen nothing which suggests those savings even remotely approached the levels of the penalties assessed. The cap hits in my scenario would have been less than half what the teams were assessed.

Most guys see uncapped as no limits. I disagree.

The NFLPA has to prove that the NFL had an actual cap in place....these penalties, no matter what you think of them, do NOT constitute "proof" of such a cap.

Agree with everything but the bolded. The penalties have to be given to ensure future competitive balance among teams AND as a future warning to any potential rogue owners to comply with the majority even if they don't agree with them. If Team X got a 30M benefit from structuring contracts contrary to NFL guidance then the league has to normalize any future gain so that competitors who relied on NFL guidance with regard to contract structuring are not wrongfully harmed.

 

[GregR]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

2009 was...and it was widely assumed that 2011 going foward would be.The NFL told teams not to use 2010 to circumvent future caps. Here's two (extreme) examples of how that could be done:

When a player is released, his collected bonuses all count for the year he's released, instead of being averaged out over the contract. Teams often CAN'T release players who've collected large signing bonuses because of the cap hit. SO, in an uncapped year...a team could release a player take the (accelerated) 10 million dollar hit when there was nothing to "hit" instead of keeping a poor player on a poor contract and take the 5 million per year salary cap hit from his pro-rated bonus the next 2 years (plus have the lesser player rostered).

Example 2: Contracts normally go up in value over time, with year 4 worth more than year 3 worth more than year 2. To take advantage of an uncapped year, the figures could be written differantly, with year 1 (uncapped year) worth MORE than years 2-4 instead of less. Something like: 15 million, 5 mil, 6 mil, 7 mil. Players often recieve more the year they sign in the form of a bonus, but in the uncapped year, the team could pay the extra as salary instead...saving them the cap charge in the future.

The assertion is that the Cowboys and Skins, and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints, did what is described above. Both are examples how the teams averted not some secret cap in 2010, but used 2010 to avoid FUTURE CAPS. The NFL warned teams that once a new CBA was in place with new caps, contracts that subverted those future caps could resultin penalties. Keep in mind that although 2010 was uncapped, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CBA. The NFL may not have had the authority to tell teams how much they could pay players in 2010, but it still held the authority to demand that contracts fit certain structural parameters. These teams violated the STRUCTURAL parameters. Teams were warned that teams doing so could be later punished if and when caps were re-instated....a warning which is arguably within the NFLs authority as well.

My opinion is that in the current environment, "penalties" shouldn't be given. While not collusion, they are certainly confusing and appear too arbitrary, especially considering the charged atmosphere and uncertain conditions at that time. Charges to the respective team caps which are equivalent to the actual savings those teams managed to find are fair and reasonable though...but I've seen nothing which suggests those savings even remotely approached the levels of the penalties assessed. The cap hits in my scenario would have been less than half what the teams were assessed.

Most guys see uncapped as no limits. I disagree.

The NFLPA has to prove that the NFL had an actual cap in place....these penalties, no matter what you think of them, do NOT constitute "proof" of such a cap.

Addressed this already in the other Cowboys/Redskins thread, but for completeness, the CBA says explicitly that it is collusion for teams to make an agreement that will limit what contract terms can be offered to a player. So no, the NFL does not have the authority to demand contracts fit a certain structure unless that structure is included in the CBA. They signed that authority away when they agreed to the CBA, the same as the players signed away their right to redress for collusion that it turns out did happen.

 

[TobiasFunke]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

2009 was...and it was widely assumed that 2011 going foward would be.The NFL told teams not to use 2010 to circumvent future caps. Here's two (extreme) examples of how that could be done:

When a player is released, his collected bonuses all count for the year he's released, instead of being averaged out over the contract. Teams often CAN'T release players who've collected large signing bonuses because of the cap hit. SO, in an uncapped year...a team could release a player take the (accelerated) 10 million dollar hit when there was nothing to "hit" instead of keeping a poor player on a poor contract and take the 5 million per year salary cap hit from his pro-rated bonus the next 2 years (plus have the lesser player rostered).

Example 2: Contracts normally go up in value over time, with year 4 worth more than year 3 worth more than year 2. To take advantage of an uncapped year, the figures could be written differantly, with year 1 (uncapped year) worth MORE than years 2-4 instead of less. Something like: 15 million, 5 mil, 6 mil, 7 mil. Players often recieve more the year they sign in the form of a bonus, but in the uncapped year, the team could pay the extra as salary instead...saving them the cap charge in the future.

The assertion is that the Cowboys and Skins, and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints, did what is described above. Both are examples how the teams averted not some secret cap in 2010, but used 2010 to avoid FUTURE CAPS. The NFL warned teams that once a new CBA was in place with new caps, contracts that subverted those future caps could resultin penalties. Keep in mind that although 2010 was uncapped, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CBA. The NFL may not have had the authority to tell teams how much they could pay players in 2010, but it still held the authority to demand that contracts fit certain structural parameters. These teams violated the STRUCTURAL parameters. Teams were warned that teams doing so could be later punished if and when caps were re-instated....a warning which is arguably within the NFLs authority as well.

My opinion is that in the current environment, "penalties" shouldn't be given. While not collusion, they are certainly confusing and appear too arbitrary, especially considering the charged atmosphere and uncertain conditions at that time. Charges to the respective team caps which are equivalent to the actual savings those teams managed to find are fair and reasonable though...but I've seen nothing which suggests those savings even remotely approached the levels of the penalties assessed. The cap hits in my scenario would have been less than half what the teams were assessed.

Most guys see uncapped as no limits. I disagree.

The NFLPA has to prove that the NFL had an actual cap in place....these penalties, no matter what you think of them, do NOT constitute "proof" of such a cap.

Agree with everything but the bolded. The penalties have to be given to ensure future competitive balance among teams AND as a future warning to any potential rogue owners to comply with the majority even if they don't agree with them. If Team X got a 30M benefit from structuring contracts contrary to NFL guidance then the league has to normalize any future gain so that competitors who relied on NFL guidance with regard to contract structuring are not wrongfully harmed.

You have to do what we want you to do even if it's not a rule! We're the majority!

Can the majority get together and decide to punish Michael Vick for crossing the line of scrimmage? Why not? How is that different? The majority clearly prefers pass-first offenses where they don't have to account for a QB with tremendous downfield rushing ability. Why do the Eagles get to take advantage of that mentality and go against the majority's wishes for their own benefit? Just because it's not against the rules to scramble? Who cares about the rules, this is about complying with the wishes of the majority regardless of whether there's an actual rule against it, right?

 

[SWC]

i guess this thread is not going the way that ministry of paint wanted it to because it is not a bunch of lynch mobs lining up to crcify roger goodall the fact is that the players and the owners gave him the powers he has in the cba so they have to live with it take that to the truth serum bank brohans

I'm just linking a news story.

i do not come here looking for a fight so do not think i am but i do not remember you ever linking a story where it was about how good of a job goodall is doing and about the good stuff he is doing to protect players and the nfl from lawsuits that is all i am saying it seems to me your linking is pretty one sided and you have a thing out for goodall slo take it to the fairness bank brohan and post from both sides of the story and be a good journalist with integrity like the guys who blew open watergate back in the day

 

[Snotbubbles]

FTR...some of us are not yet convinced that the salary cap thing really was collusion. IE: It wasn't that they obliterated a non-existant cap, but that these teams used an uncapped year to circumvent charges to capped years. I realize I'm in the minority, but let's not assume that the "collusion" is universally accepted as fact.

How can you circumvent a capped year when there are no capped years?

2009 was...and it was widely assumed that 2011 going foward would be.The NFL told teams not to use 2010 to circumvent future caps. Here's two (extreme) examples of how that could be done:

When a player is released, his collected bonuses all count for the year he's released, instead of being averaged out over the contract. Teams often CAN'T release players who've collected large signing bonuses because of the cap hit. SO, in an uncapped year...a team could release a player take the (accelerated) 10 million dollar hit when there was nothing to "hit" instead of keeping a poor player on a poor contract and take the 5 million per year salary cap hit from his pro-rated bonus the next 2 years (plus have the lesser player rostered).

Example 2: Contracts normally go up in value over time, with year 4 worth more than year 3 worth more than year 2. To take advantage of an uncapped year, the figures could be written differantly, with year 1 (uncapped year) worth MORE than years 2-4 instead of less. Something like: 15 million, 5 mil, 6 mil, 7 mil. Players often recieve more the year they sign in the form of a bonus, but in the uncapped year, the team could pay the extra as salary instead...saving them the cap charge in the future.

The assertion is that the Cowboys and Skins, and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints, did what is described above. Both are examples how the teams averted not some secret cap in 2010, but used 2010 to avoid FUTURE CAPS. The NFL warned teams that once a new CBA was in place with new caps, contracts that subverted those future caps could resultin penalties. Keep in mind that although 2010 was uncapped, THEY WERE STILL OPERATING UNDER A CBA. The NFL may not have had the authority to tell teams how much they could pay players in 2010, but it still held the authority to demand that contracts fit certain structural parameters. These teams violated the STRUCTURAL parameters. Teams were warned that teams doing so could be later punished if and when caps were re-instated....a warning which is arguably within the NFLs authority as well.

My opinion is that in the current environment, "penalties" shouldn't be given. While not collusion, they are certainly confusing and appear too arbitrary, especially considering the charged atmosphere and uncertain conditions at that time. Charges to the respective team caps which are equivalent to the actual savings those teams managed to find are fair and reasonable though...but I've seen nothing which suggests those savings even remotely approached the levels of the penalties assessed. The cap hits in my scenario would have been less than half what the teams were assessed.

Most guys see uncapped as no limits. I disagree.

The NFLPA has to prove that the NFL had an actual cap in place....these penalties, no matter what you think of them, do NOT constitute "proof" of such a cap.

Agree with everything but the bolded. The penalties have to be given to ensure future competitive balance among teams AND as a future warning to any potential rogue owners to comply with the majority even if they don't agree with them. If Team X got a 30M benefit from structuring contracts contrary to NFL guidance then the league has to normalize any future gain so that competitors who relied on NFL guidance with regard to contract structuring are not wrongfully harmed.

You have to do what we want you to do even if it's not a rule! We're the majority!

Can the majority get together and decide to punish Michael Vick for crossing the line of scrimmage? Why not? How is that different? The majority clearly prefers pass-first offenses where they don't have to account for a QB with tremendous downfield rushing ability. Why do the Eagles get to take advantage of that mentality and go against the majority's wishes for their own benefit? Just because it's not against the rules to scramble? Who cares about the rules, this is about complying with the wishes of the majority regardless of whether there's an actual rule against it, right?

Actually, the league could make a rule that prohibits QBs from running past the line of scrimmage if they wanted to. Not a very good example there.