SI.com: Proving that NFL teams agreed to a secret salary cap will not be easy (long but excellent read)

[Momma There Goes That Man]

How many other teams "restructured" contracts that year besides us and Dallas? I know Chicago signed Peppers and dropped him like $34million into 2010 as did other teams. Could the NFL's argument against collusion be that they didn't punish teams that signed players and ended up over the cap but only punished us for the restructructing that we were "warned" against. I'm sure they can go the competitive balance route there and then it doesn't really matter what Mara said.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The problem is whether the NFLPA relinquished their rights to challenge the NFL on these matters, which they did.

I'm not a legal expert (I only play one on ES) but how can the NFLPA relinquish their rights to challenge on matters they didn't know existed. If there was collusion (and it seems that there was) and the owners hid that collusion from the NFLPA during the collective bargaining period and then had the NFLPA give up their rights to challenge via law suit things done previously (which is the way this story is shaping up) then it would seem to me that the CBA is in jeopardy because it was negotiated in bad faith.

---------- Post added May-24th-2012 at 10:26 AM ----------

How many other teams "restructured" contracts that year besides us and Dallas? I know Chicago signed Peppers and dropped him like $34million into 2010 as did other teams. Could the NFL's argument against collusion be that they didn't punish teams that signed players and ended up over the cap but only punished us for the restructructing that we were "warned" against. I'm sure they can go the competitive balance route there and then it doesn't really matter what Mara said.

As far as it would affect us, then yes, it wouldn't matter, but as far as the NFLPA is concerned it still very much matters that there was collusion.

[wrecker]

I wish we could merge the two threads.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I wish we could merge the two threads.

Why?...I get tired of informative articles getting lost in the mega-threads. Someone makes a comment in a post, and you have to go back and search the last 28 pages to see WTF they were referring to.

[MattFancy]

I don't get the argument in the article that the NFLPA waited. So did the NFL. If these moves violated "the competitiveness of the league" then why did the NFL wait until now to move on the Skins/Cowboys? Why not in 2011? Why not in 2010 when the league approved those deals? The league waited until the clause was added into the CBA that the NFLPA couldn't come after them for collusion.

[wrecker]

Why?...I get tired of informative articles getting lost in the mega-threads. Someone makes a comment in a post, and you have to go back and search the last 28 pages to see WTF they were referring to.

Because the same points are being made in both threads mixed with new points.

[santanathegreat]

I'm not a legal expert (I only play one on ES) but how can the NFLPA relinquish their rights to challenge on matters they didn't know existed. If there was collusion (and it seems that there was) and the owners hid that collusion from the NFLPA during the collective bargaining period and then had the NFLPA give up their rights to challenge via law suit things done previously (which is the way this story is shaping up) then it would seem to me that the CBA is in jeopardy because it was negotiated in bad faith.

---------- Post added May-24th-2012 at 10:26 AM ----------

As far as it would affect us, then yes, it wouldn't matter, but as far as the NFLPA is concerned it still very much matters that there was collusion.

Here's the thing. From what I've heard, the language in the CBA (and this is going off memory so bear with me) specifically states that no lawsuit could be brought up concerning charges of collusion. The NFL specifically put that in the CBA. At that point, if you were a rep for the NFLPA, wouldn't that raise a red flag? Why would the NFL go out of its way to put this specific language in the CBA? I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but if I saw that language, I would absolutely, positively address it in some form. The fact that the NFLPA went ahead and agreed to the provision shows that either (a) the NFLPA saw it, acknowledged it, and thought it was more important to get the CBA done then address the issue or ( the NFLPA is incompetent and didn't address it because they thought it was a non-issue. I think it's a little bit of both to be honest.

I hate using metaphors and real life examples, but if someone offered to sell you a house, and in the contract it says you can't sue the seller for not disclosing information pertaining to the property being built on top of an decommissioned a-bomb test site, and you go ahead and buy the house, only to realize a year later there's toxic levels of radiation in your home, you can't blame that on the seller IMO.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here's the thing. From what I've heard, the language in the CBA (and this is going off memory so bear with me) specifically states that no lawsuit could be brought up concerning charges of collusion. The NFL specifically put that in the CBA. At that point, if you were a rep for the NFLPA, wouldn't that raise a red flag? Why would the NFL go out of its way to put this specific language in the CBA?

That's pretty standard...it in and of itself wouldn't raise red flags.

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but if I saw that language, I would absolutely, positively address it in some form.

If you were a lawyer, you'd probably be expecting to see that language in there lol :yes:...

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's the thing. From what I've heard, the language in the CBA (and this is going off memory so bear with me) specifically states that no lawsuit could be brought up concerning charges of collusion. The NFL specifically put that in the CBA. At that point, if you were a rep for the NFLPA, wouldn't that raise a red flag? Why would the NFL go out of its way to put this specific language in the CBA? I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but if I saw that language, I would absolutely, positively address it in some form. The fact that the NFLPA went ahead and agreed to the provision shows that either (a) the NFLPA saw it, acknowledged it, and thought it was more important to get the CBA done then address the issue or ( the NFLPA is incompetent and didn't address it because they thought it was a non-issue. I think it's a little bit of both to be honest.

Agreed, but if it was not clear what the CBA was pointing to then it was not negotiated in good faith. It's basically trying to slip the fact that you screwed over an entire union out of hundreds of millions of dollars and then trying to make it legal. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that seems like grounds to challenge the entire CBA if not at least that section.

I hate using metaphors and real life examples, but if someone offered to sell you a house, and in the contract it says you can't sue the seller for not disclosing information pertaining to the property being built on top of an decommissioned a-bomb test site, and you go ahead and buy the house, only to realize a year later there's toxic levels of radiation in your home, you can't blame that on the seller IMO.

I see what you're saying, and with all metaphors there are inherent weaknesses and this one's is that in order to sell a home certain things must be declared to the potential buyers....like the fact that there are massive levels of radiation in the home.

[dbcooper]

Please correct me if I am wrong or you disagree, but I potentially see a positive outcome for the Skins from this new lawsuit. So hear me out…. This new suit, White v NFL et al is a direct product of the cap penalty situation with the Skins and Cowboys. The fact that the NFL and owners were able to levy the fine against the Skins practically proves the case for the players. The outcomes of the two actions are mutually exclusive. Think of it like two separate lawsuits; Redskins v NFL and White v NFL. The NFL can ONLY win one. Either the levy against the Redskins was legal because of the secret agreement (collusion), or there was no secret agreement and the White case is unfounded. It has to be one or the other. Now let’s consider the exposure they are dealing with: White v NFL is estimated at $1bil to $3bil. Or Skins/Boys cap situation, $46mil. Now is when the NFL can face palm and think “why oh why didn’t we go with the lower exposure and just fold on the Skins”. It seems to me the only way for the NFL to prevail in White is to concede that the levy against the Redskins and Cowboys was invalid. Or risk a billion or more dollars.

However, let us assume that there is no going back now, the penalty against the Redskins stands, the case for White has been made, and judgment has doled out an opinion against the NFL and the owners who participated in collusion. Well, I think we know the teams that DID NOT participate in the collusion….the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc. So if there is a $1bil-$3bil judgment awarded, I think the Redskins completely escape the punishment. And in the end, in the long run, I would rather have a $36mil penalty spread over 2 years than a 1/28th portion of the above judgment. (28 because there are 32 teams, 4 didn’t participate). And if you do the math, 1/28 of $1bil is….drum roll….$36mil each team. If the award is $3bil is $107mil/team.

Who knows, maybe it comes out there was gross negligence on the part of specific owners, and perhaps the judgment is levied heavily against certain parties more than others. If that is a possible outcome, I would have to think Mara is at the top of that list. Maybe there will be justice and the Redskins escape the White judgment altogether, while the Giants are forced to bear the brunt of the award. One can hope.

[TerpSkin]

I know nothing about legal stuff... but the thing that is driving me crazy about this whole mess is the timing. A punishment logically cannot be viewed separately from the action being punished. OK, so the NFLPA agrees in 2011 to let the NFL punish two teams in 2011... but the punishment is for actions in 2010 and it makes no sense to consider these things separately. So in a sense, they are agreeing in 2011 on a rule for the 2010 season... which to me should render the contract void.

But like I said, I know nothing about the law -- I just am trying to follow logic.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok....new drinking game!

Every time someone in this thread or the other thread on the same issue states in some variation "I'm not a lawyer, but" you have to take a shot!

I owe myself two for my own...gonna make it espresso.

[TerpSkin]

In that case, I would be drunk just off of my one post... lol. But I would love to hear from a lawyer on the point I was bringing up, because I haven't seen it addressed anywhere. I've seen a lot of these other points addressed in various places.

[Crazyish]

I know nothing about legal stuff... but the thing that is driving me crazy about this whole mess is the timing. A punishment logically cannot be viewed separately from the action being punished. OK, so the NFLPA agrees in 2011 to let the NFL punish two teams in 2011... but the punishment is for actions in 2010 and it makes no sense to consider these things separately. So in a sense, they are agreeing in 2011 on a rule for the 2010 season... which to me should render the contract void.

But like I said, I know nothing about the law -- I just am trying to follow logic.

Keep in mind that all CBA's now are just considered an extension or amendment to the CBA signed following the White vs NFL case. The 2011 CBA and the CBA prior to that (I think it was 05' or 06') are considered the same document with the only exceptions being what was amended in the most recent CBA. Thats why the NFLPA is going back to the White case for all of this since that is tied to the original CBA that just keeps being amended with each new CBA.

[TerpSkin]

But I think the point still stands -- at the bargaining table in 2011 they in essence agreed to a rule in 2010 evidenced by the fact that a punishment was agreed to for behavior in 2010. It shouldn't matter that the punishment itself was administered after the agreement -- the punishment implies a rule and you should not be able to agree to a rule in the past. That should render the contract void.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In that case, I would be drunk just off of my one post... lol. But I would love to hear from a lawyer on the point I was bringing up, because I haven't seen it addressed anywhere. I've seen a lot of these other points addressed in various places.

I'd love to hear from an independent lawyer and not one associated with the two sides as when we hear from them all we're hearing is their side's arguments and we aren't hearing the whole objective take on the issue. My guess is that we'll have to wait until this plays out before we get some solid analysis.

[nonniey]

Because the same points are being made in both threads mixed with new points.

The Mega thread needs to be closed. Frankly several related subjects should have had threads to themselves. The Mega thread is just too cluttered and new information gets buried.

[Saqs]

Wait....so if we saved $103 million in 2010 and were only penalized $36 million.....I think we should be happy now that this bit of info is out lol.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I'd love to hear from an independent lawyer and not one associated with the two sides as when we hear from them all we're hearing is their side's arguments and we aren't hearing the whole objective take on the issue.

That's what the OP gives you lol :yes:...The guy who wrote the article linked in the OP:

"Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law."

[TerpSkin]

Yeah, I've seen a fair amount of various legal experts discuss this matter in some fashion or another... but I haven't seen the specific point that I raised addressed by anyone. That doesn't mean it's not out there -- but I haven't seen it.

[Pedro]

They should've had some inkling when the NFL first approached them with the sanctions.

If they'd have claimed collusion when you wanted the NFL would have dropped the penalties to us and the 'girls. Having waited they have Mara saying on TV that we broke the spirit of the cap, then most of the owners voted and agreed we did when eventually asked. I would think the way this has all gone means there must be political interest so this isn't going away any time soon regardless of what the NFL does now. Some of the small market 'poor' teams are going to get stung hard by the c. $100m fine they'll end up paying out (which won't be a reduction in cap of that, just their share of the awarded pay out).

[wrecker]

The Mega thread needs to be closed. Frankly several related subjects should have had threads to themselves. The Mega thread is just too cluttered and new information gets buried.

That would be fine by me as long as I don't have to keep bouncing back and forth between the 2 top threads on the board on the same subject.

[ILoveMySkins]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

Albert writes that, by structuring the contracts of Miles Austin, Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall in such a way as to inflate 2010 base salaries and save money in future years, the Cowboys and Redskins inflated the franchise-player numbers for wide receivers, defensive tackles and cornerbacks. As a result, the Chargers had a hard time keeping Vincent Jackson, the Ravens were handcuffed by the contract they wanted to give Haloti Ngata and the Bengals were unable to keep Johnathan Joseph. For example:

Austin's contract was instrumental in pushing the receiver number from $9.5 million in 2010 to $11.3 million in 2011. San Diego franchised Vincent Jackson at the latter number in 2011. The leverage Jackson gained from having an $11.4 million tender made him difficult to sign to a long-term deal, and the resulting 2012 franchise figure -- by rule, 120 percent of the previous number, which came out to $13.7 million -- made it even harder to tag him again for the club.

So San Diego, which likely would've tagged Jackson again if the number had been more affordable, let Jackson walk. He signed a five-year, $55.6 million contract with the Buccaneers this offseason.

[Jumbo]

People who don't want to post in the mega-thread can stop posting and reading in it. What a concept. I get annoyed at the matter too, but It's a no win, and we may close it at any time or not (as should be obvious). Many people are obviously fine with it and are active in it and have been all along. Some don't like it (or any "mega-thread") because it's "too hard."

Why people who have no say in the matter opine on it anyway has always been odd to me, and is OT as the rules remind--there is a place for feedback.

It may get closed at any minute.

This thread is here to give new info a chance to flourish--and I'd been hoping someone would do it---and because it's based on a new, worthy separable article (such could have been done before). If some of you **** that up by repeating all the same discussion it's on you.

Right now I have an article to add, and I can add it here and start building another cluttered thread, or leave the other one open and follow the pattern to date (and of most such threads) of adding to it. Also, f people were simply smart enough to put links to what they already said/read elsewhere and point out the info in "x" thread on the same specific point, instead of typing out a repeat or a review or any other unneeded clutter, it would help everyone.

In closing, some of you need to go start your own Redskins site for 80, 000 people and run it with a few part-time unpaid folks who have full-time jobs and lives :evilg:

[rick7423]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/38262/cowboysredskins-why-the-nfl-got-mad

I posted this in the other thread but seeing as no one can seem to grasp why anyone would be upset with the Skins and Cowboys I figured I'd post it here too. Whether you agree or not this spells out pretty clearly why teams would have a problem with what took place. It wasn't about going over a cap number according to Albert Breer.

Really, is it our fault that the other teams cannot keep up financially? The Skins and Boys are in the top 5 ( I think) of most profitable sports teams in the WORLD! They must be doing something right. I understand that the other teams may have a beef about the salaries that the Skins and Boys pay, but to gang up on them as they did was just wrong.

The NFLPA and NFL agreed to the terms of the CBA defining how the Franchise Tag was to work. From what I have read , the NFLPA hates the Franchise tag, only the NFL wanted it. It seems as thought the NFL owners are trying to collude again against the Skins and Boys to prevent them from inflating the Franchise Tag.