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

[E-Dog Night]

So what you are saying is that without teams like the Skins supporting and supplementing the other teams, they would nt be able to compete, and in some cases survive? And then to have those same teams that would not be able to compete/survive ***** slap us?

Makes you want to say 'huh?'.

I'm saying it's a symbiotic relationship. The revenue sharing makes the league more popular. The overall popularity of the league increases interest in individual teams.

But I agree with your sentiment completely. The rest of the NFL should be grateful that teams like the Redskins and the Cowboys are able to put more money in their pockets every year than they would get on their own. By a long shot. You think they would have been a little less vindictive, ya know?

[rick7423]

I'm saying it's a symbiotic relationship. The revenue sharing makes the league more popular. The overall popularity of the league increases interest in individual teams.

But I agree with your sentiment completely. The rest of the NFL should be grateful that teams like the Redskins and the Cowboys are able to put more money in their pockets every year than they would get on their own. By a long shot. You think they would have been a little less vindictive, ya know?

It just seems like they could have taken other steps to get the same results. Maybe they tried and this was the last straw. Whatever, these are grown men and their actions are reprehensible.

[2cents]

Goodell said it was to maintain a "competitive balance"

But his partner in crime Mara said it was because of the salary cap. Goodell lied. Plain and simple.

[PeterMP]

I know that it's possible to include wording in a signed contract that is superseded by existing law. I know this is common in terms of use agreements for use of a product, and also in non-disclosure/non-compete sections of termination agreements when someone is laid off. A lot of terms of use agreements have buyers sign contracts that waive their rights to sue if the product turns out to be harmful to them, and a lot of companies lay off employees and have them agree that they will not work for competing companies. But both are actually invalid in court. It doesn't matter if you waived your right to sue for damages, or waived your right seek employment with a competing company. You still have the right the right to sue a company for the way their product has harmed you, and you still have the right to seek employment with competing companies. These clauses are just strong arm tactics, in hopes that the person who signed the agreement doesn't know that these are rights that can not be waved. You still have them regardless of what you signed.

Something makes me wonder if this "you can't sue us for colluding" falls into the same category. And if so, I'd imagine it can actually work against the NFL, because the fact that they would include this in the new CBA seems like a way of saying, "We may have colluded in the season leading up to the lockout, so we better cover our asses in the new CBA. Why not throw something in there about how they can't sue us for collusion?"

The language with respect to not suing goes in both directions.

The league, owners and associated entities can't sue the players, the NFLPA, or associated entities.

And the NFLPA, players, and associated entities can't sue the league, the owners, or the associated entities.

I don't know if that will hold up in court (but everybody I've read that actually seems like they are knowledgable of the situation doesn't seem to think it is likely the players would win a anti-trust suit), but it certainly isn't uni-directional that would suggest ONLY the league did things that were wrong.

[cphil006]

seems pretty easy to prove there was a secret salary cap since that's why the Redskins were penalized by the NFL (for breaking the secret cap).

[paloosa]

It seems to be a pretty easy case to make especially with John Mara's comments and the explanation they gave. How can a team or teams violate the spirit of the salary cap if there is none? Why did they approve the moves if they knew that the Redskins and Cowboys were violating the "spirit of the salary cap?"

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It seems to be a pretty easy case to make especially with John Mara's comments and the explanation they gave. How can a team or teams violate the spirit of the salary cap if there is none? Why did they approve the moves if they knew that the Redskins and Cowboys were violating the "spirit of the salary cap?"

Here's a question I haven't seen asked before:

If there WAS an actual salary cap in 2010 and the Skins submitted the same contracts to the NFL...would they have still been approved?

And another one:

Have there ever been any contracts NOT approved due to them causing an "unfair competitive balance"?...

[A_SKIN_OR_DIE]

I posted this in the other related thread.

Maybe its me or I watch to much TV. lol In the TV show the Firm (episode 16) it seems to be in close relation to what the Redskins are going through. In court Mr Kevin Stack's lawyer girlfriend gets incriminating evidence on a disk drive thrown out off court. Then Mr Kevin Stack SOA agent takes the stand and starts to have diarrhea of the month. The counsel ask to approach the bench after Kevin admits to being a part of this SOA group. The Judge overrules to admit the contents of the drive. Basically John Mara statements and fine is evidence enough for NFLPA to file claim. If they win which they should if it goes to court then we should get back our $36 million. Does the NFL=32 NFL Teams? Who signed off on the NFLPA agreement the NFL or each Team? If the NFL is not = and signed the agreement with the NFLPA then why would you fine us! If we get a fine then the NFLPA should be able to sue for damages. I am no Lawyer but this is how i see it.

[1972FAN]

Could care less about the NFLPA, screw-em! I hope they lose. They are all Spineless back stabbers

[DogofWar1]

Could care less about the NFLPA, screw-em! I hope they lose. They are all Spineless back stabbers

Don't be too quick to hate on them. The NFLPA hasn't really done amazing of late, but on this issue we have yet to see whether we're playing the long game with them or not.

The worst case scenario right now would be the case getting thrown out of court. It would validate Goodell's and Mara's power grab and make them nigh untouchable.

If they do get to court but lose, it's almost as bad, but it would help in the future in terms of clauses about who can sue who, when.

If they win and get money from everyone, including us, then yes, they'd be backstabbing us, but considering how rich Snyder is, it could be much worse. At least if this happens Goodell doesn't get his power grab. We're in a much better position to pay out money than most teams.

The ideal situation, which is somewhat implied by points 2 and 3 of the Nature of Proceedings section in the lawsuit, is that the PA wins, but we're exempt from paying damages.

Furthermore, if the NFLPA wins and proves collusion, I have to imagine we'd have some new recourse for getting our cap space back, especially if we can show that the "competitive balance" argument was a cover and directly link our punishments to the phantom cap.

TLDR:

- NFL wins, we are screwed, and Goodell gets most if not all of his power grab.

- NFLPA wins, we might be screwed, might not, but at least Goodell isn't invincible.

[Roblowsta]

I hope the giants get swept by not only the skins, but every team in the division. Smith is a gutless punk and needs to get that horrible underbite fixed before I can watch any of his interviews. And..Goodell...oh Lord...is there any way he can be replaced? Man I miss Tagliabue. Thank you ES for letting me vent.

[brettstr]

I hope the giants get swept by not only the skins, but every team in the division. Smith is a gutless punk and needs to get that horrible underbite fixed before I can watch any of his interviews. And..Goodell...oh Lord...is there any way he can be replaced? Man I miss Tagliabue. Thank you ES for letting me vent.

Us sweeping them is good, but i hope they win just enough to get a miserable draft slot in 2013, we embarass them for the third time when we beat them in the playoffs lets say 52-3.

[Roblowsta]

I like that idea.lol.

[isle-hawg]

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.

The reason we lost the grievance as I understand it was because the arbitrator saw this as a ratified collective bargaining agreement since the NFLPA signed off on CAP penalties during the uncapped year. Had the NFLPA filed this grievance when given the choice to penalize the Redskins & pukes or accept the lower salary CAP they should have won IMO without doubt. But since Smith apparently has no backbone, he went and singed up to penalize the Skins and Pukes therefore being a part of the collusion himself To go back now and sue after the NFLPA AGREED to cap penalties during an uncapped year seems to me like a move just out of desperation to save face for Smith. I can't see how the union wins this considering what just happened to our team, but like you I am not a lawyer so who knows?

[paloosa]

Here's a question I haven't seen asked before:

If there WAS an actual salary cap in 2010 and the Skins submitted the same contracts to the NFL...would they have still been approved?

And another one:

Have there ever been any contracts NOT approved due to them causing an "unfair competitive balance"?...

That is a good question. It probably would not but the problem is that the Cowboys and Redskins were dumping big contracts so they didn't have to carry Fat Alberts contract. That was smart business and since there was no cap in 2010 they were within their rights to do that. It is John Mara's words that will ultimately be the downfall of the NFL's case because violating "the spirit of the salary cap" is only valid if there is one. So the NFLPA has a legitimate argument because assessing those penalties just means that there was a secret cap that the NFLPA was unaware of. Mara is the one that violated the "spirit of the salary cap" because it prevented two of the teams in his division from gaining a competitive advantage that he didn't think about. He knew that they would acquire some good pieces that would put his team behind the eight ball. I hope that things go wrong for the owners that would allow the Redskins and Cowboys to get some of their money back even if they had to pay a penalty. The owners that took the extra money to use for their cap this year will have to pay out for the $3B tab plus the money that was taken from the Redskins and Cowboys.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

That is a good question. It probably would not but the problem is that the Cowboys and Redskins were dumping big contracts so they didn't have to carry Fat Alberts contract.

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone here, actually) know what the Raiders did to get punished (as in, not receive the extra cap space)?...

The owners that took the extra money to use for their cap this year will have to pay out for the $3B tab plus the money that was taken from the Redskins and Cowboys.

Yep :yes:...and if they do have to, they won't be looking at Snyder or Jerruh...they'll be looking at Goodell and Mara (although they should be looking at themselves as well).

---------- Post added May-26th-2012 at 08:15 PM ----------

The reason we lost the grievance as I understand it was because the arbitrator saw this as a ratified collective bargaining agreement since the NFLPA signed off on CAP penalties during the uncapped year. Had the NFLPA filed this grievance when given the choice to penalize the Redskins & pukes or accept the lower salary CAP they should have won IMO without doubt. But since Smith apparently has no backbone, he went and singed up to penalize the Skins and Pukes therefore being a part of the collusion himself To go back now and sue after the NFLPA AGREED to cap penalties during an uncapped year seems to me like a move just out of desperation to save face for Smith. I can't see how the union wins this considering what just happened to our team, but like you I am not a lawyer so who knows?

The only real obstacle to the NFLPA winning this suit is whether or not it's determined that the union can indeed sue.

They will still have to present evidence of collusion but there's all sorts of possibilities as far as that's concerned.

[1972FAN]

Don't be too quick to hate on them. The NFLPA hasn't really done amazing of late, but on this issue we have yet to see whether we're playing the long game with them or not.

The worst case scenario right now would be the case getting thrown out of court. It would validate Goodell's and Mara's power grab and make them nigh untouchable.

If they do get to court but lose, it's almost as bad, but it would help in the future in terms of clauses about who can sue who, when.

If they win and get money from everyone, including us, then yes, they'd be backstabbing us, but considering how rich Snyder is, it could be much worse. At least if this happens Goodell doesn't get his power grab. We're in a much better position to pay out money than most teams.

The ideal situation, which is somewhat implied by points 2 and 3 of the Nature of Proceedings section in the lawsuit, is that the PA wins, but we're exempt from paying damages.

Furthermore, if the NFLPA wins and proves collusion, I have to imagine we'd have some new recourse for getting our cap space back, especially if we can show that the "competitive balance" argument was a cover and directly link our punishments to the phantom cap.

TLDR:

- NFL wins, we are screwed, and Goodell gets most if not all of his power grab.

- NFLPA wins, we might be screwed, might not, but at least Goodell isn't invincible.

Sorry I have lost faith in both sides and don't trust them. Both sides threw us to the wolves so they can get there's. I'm really not concerned in any way how it turns out.

[Win4us]

Sorry I have lost faith in both sides and don't trust them. Both sides threw us to the wolves so they can get there's. I'm really not concerned in any way how it turns out.

Yeah i agree in that both sides "knew" what was happening and are in it for themselves. I do however hope that this thing gets rightedfor the skins in some way, gonna be hard to take otherwise.

In a case that would seem we've been wronged to everybody and their brother it's just so damn bizarre how the hell it was allowed to happen and continue at that.

I suppose it's gonna take something very similar to happen to the other teams for them to realize wth they did here. Karma's a *****.

[paloosa]

The problem with this whole mess is that Smith and NFLPA signed off on the penalty because they thought they violated some rule that was in placein the old CBA. So yes he wanted to stick it to the Skins and Boys so he could be viewed as a leader but instead got stabbed in the back by the NFL for allowing them to fool him. So to save face he is suing the NFL for collusion charges based on the premise that the NFL owners had a secret cap of $123 Million dollars that they had secretly agreed upon to keep a competitive balance in the NFL until they got the new CBA in place. Well that premise is blown out of the water based on the four teams that violated the rule with only the Redskins and Cowboys being punished monetarily. The other two were just not given any of the money that was taken from the Skins and Boys. But it also strengthens their case because how could these teams violate, according to NFL Competition Committee Chairman and NFL New York Giants owner John Mara, "the spirit of the salary cap" when there was none during the 2010 season?

John Mara also made some statements that make everyone believe that their was some secret rule. He said that these teams violated the "spirit of the salary cap" and that they tried to "gain a competitive advantage by using a loophole in the rule." What is the rule that they violated? What loophole did they use to get around the rule? Why did the NFL sign off on these contract restructuring? Why not just deny them and tell them the reason that it was denied because it violated this rule or that rule? I think that Mara, Goodell and the rest of the owners saw an opportunity to penalize two of the biggest money making teams for doing it and in return the other teams would get a slice of the penalty except the other two teams that also violated the secret rule wouldn't get their share. It also provided Mara an opportunity to keep two teams in his division from spending money in FA that would improve both teams. So if the NFLPA can prove their case then the NFL and their owners will take a big hit in their credibility status except the Redskins and Cowboys, which will gain back some respect and possibly a competitive advantage that will knock the Giants and some of the other elite teams from their pedastals.

[Larry]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, the league has admitted that there was a cap, the instant that they decided to punish people for breaking the rule that they claim wasn't there.

IMO, the Union is going to have a much tougher time getting around the "we agreed not to sue" contract.

(Although, the thought does occur to me. The Union agreed not to sue over anything that happened in 11. But the league's punishment of the Skins happened in 12. The Union could sue over the reduced caps for the Skins and Cowboys. That reduced cap in 12, means that Union employees can't get paid as much as they could get, otherwise.)

(The thought also occurs to me that, while maybe the Union can't sue over collusion, there's nothing that says that, say, the Virginia State Attorney can't. Somehow I suspect that conspiracy to keep labor wages artificially depressed is criminal.)

(And we've all seen that various state's AGs (including Virginia's) are perfectly willing to go to court over publicity stunts that have a lot less legs to them than this one.)

[Rpredskins]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, the league has admitted that there was a cap, the instant that they decided to punish people for breaking the rule that they claim wasn't there.

Not necessarily. That is the logical deduction to make, but it's not automatically true. It's kind of like playing a game with a jerk kid who makes up rules on the fly and retroactively applies them to hurt you or help himself.

[HeluCopter29]

Not necessarily. That is the logical deduction to make, but it's not automatically true. It's kind of like playing a game with a jerk kid who makes up rules on the fly and retroactively applies them to hurt you or help himself.

I guess I don't see how it's not true (that the league had a cap). John Mara punished two teams for violating the "spirit of the cap" when there was no cap and thus no real spirit of the cap. So how could those 4 teams have done anything wrong?

Not to compare this to murder, but this sounds kind of like the OJ Simpson case to me. Did OJ do it? Yeah, he probably did. But yet he got away because there wasn't "sufficient" evidence as the US sees it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Check this out:

The NFL claims that the Skins and Cowboys gained an "unfair competitive advantage" in 2010...

From 2010:

The NFL may not have a salary cap this season. The Pittsburgh Steelers will.

The Steelers, one of the league's most popular and successful franchises, plan to follow a self-imposed cap in 2010 and won't take advantage of the lack of a collective bargaining agreement to add more quality free agents than usual.

Director of football operations Kevin Colbert acknowledged the Steelers could be at a competitive disadvantage, especially if big-revenue teams decide to spend freely.

Steelers take 'common sense' approach

So the Steelers' Director of football operations acknowledges that they were putting THEMSELVES at a competitive disadvantage--not that other teams were doing it TO them--by adhering to a "salary cap" during the uncapped year...yet the Steelers' owner votes to punish other teams for having that same "competitive advantage" they themselves acknowledged they COULD have had back then if they wanted to.

So what was "unfair" about it in the owner's eyes when their Front Office leaders are already acknowledging competitive disadvantage possibilities before the Skins and Cowboys did anything whatsoever.

Gives me the impression that the owners knew about the "secret cap" but none of the front office personnel knew.

Then, NFLPA claims that in 2010 a "secret cap" of $123 million was in place behind the scenes.

Colber said the Steelers were gonna come up with their own “salary cap” in 2010, just as some sort of guiding principal…just some sort of guesstimate as to an amount to use for a make-believe salary cap.

Hmm, let’s see what they came up with:

The 'Rule of 51' stipulates that only the top 51 player salaries for a team count against the salary cap in the offseason. During the season, all player salaries count toward the salary cap.

Updated: 3/9/10 to reflect the Arnaz Battle, Will Allen and Jonathan Scott contracts. Rule of 51 total at $114,072,000.00. Ryan Clark and Antwaan Randle El contract number still coming in.

Updated: 3/10/10 to reflect the Ryan Clark and Antwaan Randle El contracts. Rule of 51 total at $118,197,000.00 with 68 players accounted for.

Updated: 3/15/10 to reflect the signing of Larry Foote to a 3 year contract. Rule of 51 total at $121,702,000.00 with 69 players accounted for.

Updated: 4/8/10 to reflect the signing of Charlie Batch to a 2 year contract and Nick Eason to a 1 year contract. Rule of 51 total at $122,553,000.00 with 71 players accounted for

Updated: 6/15/10 to reflect the signings of undrafted free agents and draft picks signed. Rule of 51 total at $121,960,338.00 with 80 players accounted for under contract and Limas Sweed on injured reserve.

Steelers 2010 Salary Cap & State Of The Roster

Would ya look at that…they went RIGHT up to $123 milion…just the amount the NFLPA claimed the "secret cap" amount was in 2010. Then the Steelers backed down. Quite the coincidence, don’t you think?

By the way...the final salary cap figure for the Steelers in 2010? $122.9 million.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Let's say every year nine of my buddies and I pool our money together and pitch on for a trip to Vegas. Everyone pitches in evenly, always. We're pretty good about everyone always putting in a percent of their paycheck, that way no one is being stiffed when we share the money for our yearly trip in the summer.

However, this winter the redskins make the playoffs, and we are ALL die hard fans. As a group, we all get together and decide not to spend "too much" and not to "over do it" on memorabilia celebrating our boys. We understand that, especially if we make a deep run, extra has to be spent on tailgates and barbecues and maybe even a new jersey for this year's star performer. However, we are NOT sacrificing our Vegas trip just because the skins make a good run.

Well, two of my buddies cave and by tickets to the NFC championship game (it was against Dallas in fairness). When the summer roles around, the other 8 of us tell them that they can't have their tenth of the pot for the trip; they can only have a fifteenth and the remainder of their tenths gets split amongst the other 8 of us. We feel a little bad because they're our buddies, but they violated the spirit of our Vegas pool. If we had ALL caved and gone to that championship game then there wouldn't be a trip at all.

My point to this long winded story is that just because the NATURAL ASSUMPTION is that the punishment proves the secret cap, this is not the case. In my scenario above, my buddies and I never agreed what was "too much" or what was "over spending". We never put a dollar value on it, we just all agree that they went over. It's a little crappy because it's arbitrary, but it was agreed upon by the other 8 of us and by all of our wives (who, like it or not, have a financial say in our trip).

I personally believe there was a secret salary cap. I vehemently believe this. But if I were judge and jury for the case I could not accept "why are they punishing the redskins if not because of a secret agreement" as proof. They could be punishing the redskins for going over a variable and arbitrary amount that was never defined. IF this is the case, then there's not much to be done considering everyone else agreed to it.

[Byebye]

I personally believe there was a secret salary cap. I vehemently believe this. But if I were judge and jury for the case I could not accept "why are they punishing the redskins if not because of a secret agreement" as proof. They could be punishing the redskins for going over a variable and arbitrary amount that was never defined. IF this is the case, then there's not much to be done considering everyone else agreed to it.

So in an uncapped year, the owners can have an ambiguous cap that can lead to punishments if not followed?