Cowboys and Redskins to lose cap space? (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think the suit that could be filed by Dallas/Washington would be some sort of breach of contract or the like, not collusion.That said, the wording of those team's statement about the decision might imply they are going to let it rest.

It's hard to believe even Snyder and Jones would want to open up that can of worms.In fact, the union might be doing the league a favor by reminding Dallas and Washington of the potential consequences if either team were to file a lawsuit.Also not a lawyer, but that language against being sued seems pretty tight. Be curious to see if the NFLPA was just trying to give the owners a black eye, or if they really believe they can pursue the suit for some reason.But any doubt that the league colluded in 2010 is out the window IMO. They did it, they knew they did it, they've pretty much admitted doing it, and they included language in the CBA to protect them from what they did.

 

[Marvelous]

From PFT:

Collusion suit directly resulted from Redskins, Cowboys cap penalties

Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2012, 1:46 PM EDT

The lawsuit filed Wednesday by the NFLPA against the NFL for collusion in the uncapped year technically is framed as a petition to “reopen and enforce” the agreement that finally settled the Reggie White litigation. And it’s clear upon reviewing the 20-page document that the claim flows directly from the NFL’s effort to remove $46 million in combined cap space from the Cowboys and Redskins.

Setting aside for now the impact of the NFLPA’s agreement to those cap penalties upon the new action, it’s clear that the claims wouldn’t have been made at all if the NFL hadn’t tried to impose the cap charges on the Cowboys and Redskins for their behavior in the uncapped year.

Paragraph 2 of the petition explains that the NFLPA became first aware of the alleged “conspiracy” to limit spending in the uncapped year to $123 million per team via the disclosure on March 12 that four teams (the Cowboys, Redskins, Saints, and Raiders) failed to “abide by secret NFL rules to suppress player salaries.”

The petition explains that the Redskins exceeded the secret cap by more than $102 million, the Cowboys by more than $52 million, the Raiders by more than $41 million, and the Saints by more than $36 million. (No cap penalties were imposed on the Raiders and Saints, but those teams were barred from participating in the reallocated cap space that had been stripped from the Redskins and Cowboys.)

The petition alleges actual damages of “up to $1 billion, if not substantially more,” and the NFLPA contends that treble damages are in order, putting the potential bill at more than $3 billion.

In support of the claims, the NFLPA cites comments from Giants co-owner John Mara (who said the issue “came up several times in [ownership-level] meetings,” that the teams in question “attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks,” and that the teams knew “full well there would be consequences”), quotes from Commissioner Roger Goodell (who said, “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear”), and even a PFT report that teams were warned “at least six times” against dumping cap dollars into the uncapped year. (Maybe I’ll finally get to refuse to identify a source on the witness stand and go to jail . . . and get shanked.)

The point for now is that, if the NFL simply hadn’t gone after the Redskins and Cowboys, the NFL wouldn’t currently be dealing with the present claim, which makes abundantly clear that the next nine years of labor peace will entail plenty of labor but not much peace.

Moreover, the fact that the Cowboys and Redskins aggressively fought the penalties served only to highlight the story and generate many of the quotes the NFLPA is now using against the league. And while the NFLPA doesn’t explain how it knows that a secret $123 million per-team cap applied in 2010, it’s not a major stretch to conclude that someone from the Cowboys or the Redskins made that disclosure to the union in a fit of frustration and/or rage in discussions that occurred after the cap penalties hit the fan.

Of course, the bigger question is whether the NFLPA has the ability to make these claims, in light of the settlement agreement and the later agreement to impose the cap penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins. We’ll address that issue separately.

 

[Marvelous]

More from Mike Florio at PFT:

NFLPA contends Article 3 of new CBA doesn’t apply to collusion case

Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2012, 5:21 PM EDT

Wednesday’s conference call regarding the NFLPA collusion suit against the NFL touched on many issues regarding the case. One important wrinkle appears in the new CBA, at Article 3, Section 3(a).

Here’s the full, unedited language of the provision:

“The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (‘TR’) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.”

The lawyers in the crowd instantly will recognize this as standard language that releases claims. It’s always written broadly to ensure that all claims are encompassed — including any claims that were asserted and any claims that weren’t asserted but that could have been asserted. In this case, the release specifically covers all claims made in the White and Brady antitrust lawsuit, along with “any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement.”

During Wednesday’s conference call, NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler explained that, in his view, the new collusion claim based on an allegedly secret $123 million salary cap in 2010 couldn’t have been made in the White or Brady case because the NFLPA didn’t know about it. Kessler also contended that the case law on controversies of this nature will support his position.

The NFL undoubtedly will argue that the phrase “could have been asserted” doesn’t require actual knowledge of the facts on which a claim that wasn’t asserted could have been based. The league will claim that a collusion claim based on overall team spending in the uncapped year of 2010 “could have been asserted,” and that the claim therefore was waived as part of the new CBA.

It’s another threshold issue about which the parties surely will fight in front of Judge David Doty, with all appeals funneled to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which has a reputation for being conservative and pro-business.

This is clearly down to the minutia that lawyers haggle over. My original postion still stands: no matter how this plays out, Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are looking like baffoons here. I still see little upside for the NFL to penalizing the Redskins and Cowboys while airing all the collusion dirty laundry for everyone to see.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The NFL has already responded by saying that they expect the lawsuit to be immediately dismissed since not only does the current CBA specifically dismiss all past and present claims and any right to make claims based on the past, but the players' lawyers specifically signed a separate agreement forfeiting those rights as well. Lastly, the NFLPA signed off on the league penalizing the Cowboys and Redskins. In doing so, they essentially waived their rights in this matter as well.This will be tossed out very quickly.The only possible remedy left for Snyder and Jones is to sue the NFL themselves alleging collusion. In the end, that's a high stakes game of chicken whose end result would be the NFLPA destroying the owners in the next CBA.

The Cowboy's and Redskins have no standing for a collusion suit.

Why's that? The NFLPA seems to think otherwise....now if they have the right to make that claim is a different matter. The TEAMS, though, as far as I know still have that right "outside" of the CBA according to the Burbank report.

The NFLPA has standing to sue for collusion, not Dallas or Washington.

 

[renesauz]

I'm still not convinced what the NFL did is actually collusion in a legal sense. My understanding is that the fines were for dumping salary into the uncapped year as a way of manipulating the caps in other years...not for blowing past an imaginary cap in 2010.

I do believe Goodel et al. went too far....under the circumstances, the penalties should have been limited to the actual $$$ dumped without any "fines", and that $$ doesn't come close to approaching the value of the penalties imposed. (IE: It should have been a more realistic cap adjustment, not a "penalty" per se.)

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm still not convinced what the NFL did is actually collusion in a legal sense. My understanding is that the fines were for dumping salary into the uncapped year as a way of manipulating the caps in other years...not for blowing past an imaginary cap in 2010.

I do believe Goodel et al. went too far....under the circumstances, the penalties should have been limited to the actual $$$ dumped without any "fines", and that $$ doesn't come close to approaching the value of the penalties imposed. (IE: It should have been a more realistic cap adjustment, not a "penalty" per se.)

Dumping salaries into the uncapped year was allowed, under the old CBA. That is the definition of "uncapped" year. 1-There was no cap, so they could spend as much money as they wanted in that year.

2-It is/has been common practice for teams to "re-structure" salaries, moving money paid from 1 year to another, to get under the cap.

3-There was nothing in the old CBA saying "dumping salary" into the uncapped year was not allowed.

By punishing these 2 teams for "dumping" money into the un-capped year, the NFL is admitting that there was an understanding among the other owners not to do so, despite the fact that this was illegal. That IS collusion.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

 

[renesauz]

I'm still not convinced what the NFL did is actually collusion in a legal sense. My understanding is that the fines were for dumping salary into the uncapped year as a way of manipulating the caps in other years...not for blowing past an imaginary cap in 2010.

I do believe Goodel et al. went too far....under the circumstances, the penalties should have been limited to the actual $$$ dumped without any "fines", and that $$ doesn't come close to approaching the value of the penalties imposed. (IE: It should have been a more realistic cap adjustment, not a "penalty" per se.)

Dumping salaries into the uncapped year was allowed, under the old CBA. That is the definition of "uncapped" year. 1-There was no cap, so they could spend as much money as they wanted in that year.

2-It is/has been common practice for teams to "re-structure" salaries, moving money paid from 1 year to another, to get under the cap.

3-There was nothing in the old CBA saying "dumping salary" into the uncapped year was not allowed.

By punishing these 2 teams for "dumping" money into the un-capped year, the NFL is admitting that there was an understanding among the other owners not to do so, despite the fact that this was illegal. That IS collusion.

No....when teams restructured...the $$$ was STILL ACCOUNTED FOR SOMEWHERE under a cap. More importantly...there was still a CBA. The NFL couldn't tell teams how much to pay players, but it could still demand that contracts be structured in certain ways. Legally, "collusion" occurs OUTSIDE A CBA....there WAS a CBA.As to point 3...the NFL warned teams not to use the uncapped year to circumvent future caps. It warned that if teams did so, they could be punished in the future if and WHEN the caps returned. It was a safe assumption...caps returned. The punishments are NOT for paying player X Y amount of dollars for playing in 2010....it's for paying player X Y dollars in 2010 when under normal circumstances those dollars would have counted against a 2011 or 2012 cap.

I think the attitude that uncapped = no limits at all is too simplistic.

AS I've already said though....I do think the punishments out of line in this scenario...any charges should be limited to the actual $$$ diverted from the future caps....which is far less than the 30some million they charged the SKins.

 

[renesauz]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

 

[Todd Andrews]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

That IS collusion.

Had it been collusion then Dallas and the Redskins wouldn't have been able to spend so much, but they did.In fact several teams went above the imagine collusioned cap.

In fact, I recall the Steelers front office flatly stating they would proceed as if a cap was still in place, because they are always "responsible" in their decision making and had deemed it irresponsible to not act according to their own view on the situation going forward.

 

[renesauz]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That IS collusion.

Had it been collusion then Dallas and the Redskins wouldn't have been able to spend so much, but they did.In fact several teams went above the imagine collusioned cap.

In fact, I recall the Steelers front office flatly stating they would proceed as if a cap was still in place, because they are always "responsible" in their decision making and had deemed it irresponsible to not act according to their own view on the situation going forward.

And the tooth fairy rides a unicorn I bet?It's hard to enforce collusion in the middle of a negotiation with a union when there's no CBA. Much better to wait until after everyone's signed an agreement preventing them from suing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

Exactly. I don't understand how that's even up for debate. If player and team agree to a contract and the contract does not violate the CBA or any other league rules that are in place, the contract is acceptable and there should be no punishment. End of analysis.

 

[RUSF18]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

Exactly. I don't understand how that's even up for debate. If player and team agree to a contract and the contract does not violate the CBA or any other league rules that are in place, the contract is acceptable and there should be no punishment. End of analysis.

Personally, I see the contract being "acceptable" and how it is applied from a cap basis to be completely separate issues. No one is saying that the contract needs to be voided.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

Exactly. I don't understand how that's even up for debate. If player and team agree to a contract and the contract does not violate the CBA or any other league rules that are in place, the contract is acceptable and there should be no punishment. End of analysis.

Personally, I see the contract being "acceptable" and how it is applied from a cap basis to be completely separate issues. No one is saying that the contract needs to be voided.

OK. So how should a contract in an uncapped year that was contemplated in the CBA previously approved by the owners be applied from a cap basis? There's no cap. What's the basis?

 

[renesauz]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

Exactly. I don't understand how that's even up for debate. If player and team agree to a contract and the contract does not violate the CBA or any other league rules that are in place, the contract is acceptable and there should be no punishment. End of analysis.

The problem is that demanding contracts be STRUCTURED similarly to capped years is NOT the equivalent of placing and enforcing a cap. This is a subtle, but very important and distinct differance that almost everybody seems to be missing.

 

[GregR]

...

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.

Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

In the bolded and italicized, both of those are examples of collusion.Collusion is explicitly identified in both the 2006 and 2011 CBA. Teams are not allowed to work collectively to restrict, beyond the terms of the CBA, what contract terms can be offered to a player.

Here is the text from the 2011 CBA. The 2006 version is virtually identical, but my PDF for 2006 is from a scan so I can't cut and paste out of it:

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;

(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;

(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;

(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or

(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

(b) Any approval or disapproval of a player’s contract by the Commissioner, or any communication thereof, timely notice of which is provided to the NFLPA cannot be the basis of any claim of collusion. The NFLPA or the affected Player shall have the right to appeal the Commissioner’s disapproval of such player contract to the System Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 15 and Article 14.

So imposing a cap restricts the terms that can be offered and is by definition collusion. But teams agreeing to structure contracts like there was a cap also restricts the terms that can be offered. So also is collusion. This is the collusion that the player can likely easily prove given the reports about the NFL warning teams 6 times not to treat 2010 like there was no cap.

Though it's probably still moot what they can prove since they waived their rights to do anything about it. I've read the latest on the NFLPA's claims why the suit will succeed. Not a lawyer but I'll be shocked if it holds up.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The problem is that demanding contracts be STRUCTURED similarly to capped years is NOT the equivalent of placing and enforcing a cap. This is a subtle, but very important and distinct differance that almost everybody seems to be missing.

You're right, they're not exactly the same. So what? I can come up with lots of different non-existent rules. Limiting player deals to $2 million in AAV is also not the equivalent of placing and enforcing a cap ... does that mean that a bunch of the owners could have gotten together and decided to limit all new contracts to $2 million in AAV and then punished anyone who didn't obey with the loss of salary cap space? Would you be OK with that? After all it's not the same as placing and enforcing a cap, right?Bottom line: neither restriction could be found in the applicable rules for 2010 player contracts. End of analysis. It's incredibly unfair to punish teams for violating a rule that does not exist.

 

[Todd Andrews]

That IS collusion.

If Renesauz walked into a room and found Roger Goodell standing over a corpse holding a bloody knife the first words out of his mouth would be, "My god - I think the NFLPA killed someone!"i.e. you're wasting your time with your rock solid logic.

And you're ignoring it I wasn't trying to re-start this part of the argument...but was trying to point out that there is a counter...it's not universally accepted that this represents collusion.

Now...if someone were to prove/testify that the NFL did convey an actual limit/cap to teams...that would be a very differant story. These penalties fall short of that proof.

Its not universally accepted that Jesus didnt ride a dinosaur through the gates of Jerusalem. Just because two people have two differing opinions or beliefs doesnt make them of equal value. Your arguments against this being collusion are simply put: doo doo. And just because you make them or somehow believe them doesnt mean they have value. I know everyone has a high regard for themselves and their own opinions and thoughts, but one sign of maturity is knowing what you dont know and knowing when you are wrong.You dont know and you are wrong. The NFL and the owners obviously had a side agreement and an understood salary cap in the uncapped year and have essentially admitted it in public statements. That is the very definition of collusion in the CBA.

So.....you're saying that it was not possible to use the uncapped year to manipulate cap space for other, capped years? IMPOSSIBLE to do? Or are you saying that since it was uncapped, it must have been OK to do contracts or release players however they pleased? Either way, the NFLPA has to prove an actual cap existed, not that the league required teams to write contracts structured similarly to capped years.Look...the NFL might well have colluded and instituted a cap in 2010, but these fines fall far short of proof. The fines are over the top ridiculous, but the principle behind them is NOT collusion (particularly since there WAS A CBA IN PLACE)

I said nothing of the sort. And the NFLPA doesnt have to prove an "actual cap" existed, whatever that means. Did you pull that out of your lawyer's heinie? The NFLPA has procedural hurdles to overcome and a substantive hurdle in that they released earlier claims, but all they have to prove is collusion, not some made up standard you think should be imposed.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm still not convinced what the NFL did is actually collusion in a legal sense. My understanding is that the fines were for dumping salary into the uncapped year as a way of manipulating the caps in other years...not for blowing past an imaginary cap in 2010.

I do believe Goodel et al. went too far....under the circumstances, the penalties should have been limited to the actual $$$ dumped without any "fines", and that $$ doesn't come close to approaching the value of the penalties imposed. (IE: It should have been a more realistic cap adjustment, not a "penalty" per se.)

Dumping salaries into the uncapped year was allowed, under the old CBA. That is the definition of "uncapped" year. 1-There was no cap, so they could spend as much money as they wanted in that year.

2-It is/has been common practice for teams to "re-structure" salaries, moving money paid from 1 year to another, to get under the cap.

3-There was nothing in the old CBA saying "dumping salary" into the uncapped year was not allowed.

By punishing these 2 teams for "dumping" money into the un-capped year, the NFL is admitting that there was an understanding among the other owners not to do so, despite the fact that this was illegal. That IS collusion.

No....when teams restructured...the $$$ was STILL ACCOUNTED FOR SOMEWHERE under a cap. More importantly...there was still a CBA. The NFL couldn't tell teams how much to pay players, but it could still demand that contracts be structured in certain ways. Legally, "collusion" occurs OUTSIDE A CBA....there WAS a CBA.

You're absolutely right. The NFL couldn't tell teams how much to pay players, but they could still demand that contracts be structured in certain ways. And the NFL did just that, WHEN THEY APPROVED EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT THAT THE 'SKINS AND 'BOYS GAVE TO PLAYERS FOR THAT SEASON! So, the NFL said the contracts were okay, and then decided, after the fact, to penalize them for breaking an "unspoken agreement" that all the other teams agreed to. Thanks for helping prove that this was collusion.

As to point 3...the NFL warned teams not to use the uncapped year to circumvent future caps.

Which is collusion. There was no cap, but the agreed (behind the scenes, in secret) not to circumvent "future caps" that didn't exist at the time. Thanks for providing a second piece of proof that collusion occurred.

I think the attitude that uncapped = no limits at all is too simplistic.

Seriously? A cap is a limit on the amount of money that can be spent. Un-capped means no cap, therefore uncapped means no limit. Do you think that believing the term "dry" means "not wet" is simplistic, too?

 

[cstu]

I seriously can't believe people still aren't accepting that it was collusion.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I seriously can't believe people still aren't accepting that it was collusion.

Well, to be fair, everyone who isnt returded has accepted that it was collusion.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The outrage should be that the Redskins STILL got away with 67+ million off the books despite only being penalized 36 million.

They got lucky so they aren't complaining as much as they should.

 

[noneother]

Would it be wrong for the union to support these two teams? The hypocrisy for the other 29 teams ( assuming raiders abstain as always) is overwhelming.

 

[GregR]

Would it be wrong for the union to support these two teams? The hypocrisy for the other 29 teams ( assuming raiders abstain as always) is overwhelming.

No, it wouldn't be wrong. It wouldn't be a "right", either. If they wanted to be right they wouldn't have sold those teams down the river for cash in the first place. There is no good side in any of this. The NFL colluded and then essentially bribed the player union leadership to accept the punishment.The punished teams were like thieves stealing from thieves, trying to take advantage that the rest of the thieves wouldn't be willing to go public about their collusion as would be necessary to punish them. The players union leadership claim they had a gun to their head and had to sell those teams down the river for cash, but won't admit the imperative was saving their jobs after negotiating a CBA that put too much money into benefits, causing salaries to drop unless they accepted the NFL's bribe to agree to the punishment.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What Greg said, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the allegedly great smoking gun evidence the union's talking about actually came from either the Redskins or Cowboys.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/25/redskins-considering-nuclear-option-to-restore-cap-space/

Last year, the NFL stripped $36 million in cap space from the Redskins, who along with the Cowboys apparently took the term “uncapped year” too literally in 2010.In response, the Redskins employed half-measures to recover the cap dollars, filing a grievance under the labor deal that did nothing other than stir up a cockeyed collusion claim from the NFLPA.This year, with half of the penalty due to hit the 2013 salary cap, the Redskins could be opting for a more complete assault on the league’s position. Or at least threatening it.According to Mark Maske and Mike Jones of the Washington Post, the Redskins are spreading the word in Indianapolis that they’re considering legal action aimed at delaying the start of free agency while litigation proceeds regarding the question of whether the Redskins’ legal rights were violated. The Redskins are telling agents that any contract talks will be delayed until the situation is resolved.If the Redskins proceed, it would be a big deal. And if they delay the start of free agency until their claims are resolved, it would be a huge deal.

 

[GregR]

Oh, reminds me of something else that happened last week worth mentioning in this thread.The NFLPA had filed a lawsuit to try to get the courts to let the players out of having waived any rights to settlement for past collusion by the NFL. Like the collusion at the heart of the Washington-Cowboys thing.The player lawsuit had 2 different angles it was pursuing. The first was denied the end of December. The second part was denied by Judge Doty last week.

 

[southeastjerome]

Oh, reminds me of something else that happened last week worth mentioning in this thread.The NFLPA had filed a lawsuit to try to get the courts to let the players out of having waived any rights to settlement for past collusion by the NFL. Like the collusion at the heart of the Skins-Cowboys thing.The player lawsuit had 2 different angles it was pursuing. The first was denied the end of December. The second part was denied by Judge Doty last week.

And sadly for Skins fans, this is why despite reports of Snyder filing an injunction aren't likely to amount to any change in the end.Also, it seems the Skins would lose a lot of good will amongst the rest of the league if it got to that point and it delayed free agency.

 

[RGIII HTTR]

Oh, reminds me of something else that happened last week worth mentioning in this thread.The NFLPA had filed a lawsuit to try to get the courts to let the players out of having waived any rights to settlement for past collusion by the NFL. Like the collusion at the heart of the Skins-Cowboys thing.The player lawsuit had 2 different angles it was pursuing. The first was denied the end of December. The second part was denied by Judge Doty last week.

And sadly for Skins fans, this is why despite reports of Snyder filing an injunction aren't likely to amount to any change in the end.Also, it seems the Skins would lose a lot of good will amongst the rest of the league if it got to that point and it delayed free agency.

Yeah, kind of like that good will that was lost when the Giants owner brought this upon two of his inner-division rivals...if that's the good will we are talking about, then they can have it. Al Davis was infamous for going against them and he did fine, other than losing his marbles and drafting everyone based on 40 speeds... My point, business is business and part of the issue of the NFL taking the cap space is very dependent on the awful timing that they decided to act upon it. Anyway, I say fight and who cares...at least the NFL will think twice before pulling a stunt like this on another team.