Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 The arbitrator felt the league has the authority to penalize the teams under the guise of "competitive balance" so the case was dismissed. The Redskins and Dallas said they will respect the decision. I don't think that was the case. It wasn't that the arbitrator felt the league had authority to penalize the Skins and Cowboys...it was that he felt since the NFLPA signed off on the punishments that it was agreed to by both sides of the CBA and, thus, he had no real authority TO hear the case. I also thought it was said that the arbitrator said there were other avenues the Skins and Cowboys could take...but that they couldn't take it through him. ---------- Post added May-30th-2012 at 08:53 AM ---------- Oh, and for the record, apparently the Raiders got punished basically for cutting JaMarcus Russell in 2010... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 As reported in another thread,Bruce Allen made a statement last night that the team was still looking into the cap issue.They may be biding their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 As reported in another thread,Bruce Allen made a statement last night that the team was still looking into the cap issue.They may be biding their time. After the NFLPA filed their suit, that was my thinking as well lol :yes:...I think the NFLPA was biding their time when we went to arbitration, and I think the Skins are doing the same while the union deals with their stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 After the NFLPA filed their suit, that was my thinking as well lol :yes:...I think the NFLPA was biding their time when we went to arbitration, and I think the Skins are doing the same while the union deals with their stuff. I am hoping that there is something that they can use or piggyback off of to help in this matter.The Redskins have made a bunch of mistakes in the last several years but I believe they were wrongly accused and punished in this situation.I want to see the NFL hierarchy brought down a couple notches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 That is such a bad explanation and compeletely inaccurate. The real explanation is their case has no standing in front of him (area of the CBA), but may in other arenas. Completely inaccurate? "It appears that Burbank agreed with the NFL’s argument that commissioner Roger Goodell has broad authority to take actions to correct competitive imbalance and that the penalties were legal since the NFLPA signed off on them. The cap space the Redskins and Cowboys were penalized was spread around to 28 of the other 30 NFL teams." http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/05/arbitrator-dismisses-redskins-salary-cap-appeal.html I don't think that was the case.It wasn't that the arbitrator felt the league had authority to penalize the Skins and Cowboys...it was that he felt since the NFLPA signed off on the punishments that it was agreed to by both sides of the CBA and, thus, he had no real authority TO hear the case. I also thought it was said that the arbitrator said there were other avenues the Skins and Cowboys could take...but that they couldn't take it through him. It is true that the arbitrator left it open for them to "pursue other avenues" but he did dismiss their case that was brought before him. The Cowboys and Redskins in a joint statement said they would respect the decision. Whether or not they decide press this further in a different direction remains to be seen. As far as the arbitration case is concerned, which was the question I was trying to answer, it is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 It is true that the arbitrator left it open for them to "pursue other avenues" but he did dismiss their case that was brought before him. The Cowboys and Redskins in a joint statement said they would respect the decision. Whether or not they decide press this further in a different direction remains to be seen. As far as the arbitration case is concerned, which was the question I was trying to answer, it is over. My understanding at the time was that the NFL wanted the case to be dismissed because the NFLPA signed off on the punishments, and thus meant this issue wasn't up for arbitration (or something like that). I didn't think they even got to the point of arguing whether or not Goodell had the power to punish teams. Plus, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were primarily going a procedural route in the arbitration--meaning, Goodell, Mara and the NFL didn't follow correct procedures for handing down the punishments...not that Goodell didn't have the authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 My understanding at the time was that the NFL wanted the case to be dismissed because the NFLPA signed off on the punishments, and thus meant this issue wasn't up for arbitration (or something like that). I didn't think they even got to the point of arguing whether or not Goodell had the power to punish teams. Plus, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were primarily going a procedural route in the arbitration--meaning, Goodell, Mara and the NFL didn't follow correct procedures for handing down the punishments...not that Goodell didn't have the authority.I am not a lawyer and I don't think Rich Tandler is either. I have no idea how far the arbitrator dug before he dismissed the case. In retrospect, I hope I was wrong because if it is correct, Goodell just gained a little more power to wield. I also thought the arbitration case was about the procedural issues but NFL added this to their request for dismissal:"Per a source with knowledge of the hearing, the NFL argued that the union’s agreement to the cap penalties prevents the grievance. The NFL also argued that the Commissioner possesses the full and complete ability to adopt any measures aimed at ensuring competitive balance." Edit below: Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/10/burbank-takes-motion-to-dismiss-cowboys-redskins-grievance-under-advisement/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 I am not a lawyer and I don't think Rich Tandler is either. I have no idea how far the arbitrator dug before he dismissed the case. In retrospect, I hope I was wrong because if it is correct, Goodell just gained a little more power to wield. I also thought the arbitration case was about the procedural issues but NFL added this to their request for dismissal:"Per a source with knowledge of the hearing, the NFL argued that the union’s agreement to the cap penalties prevents the grievance. The NFL also argued that the Commissioner possesses the full and complete ability to adopt any measures aimed at ensuring competitive balance." Edit below: Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/10/burbank-takes-motion-to-dismiss-cowboys-redskins-grievance-under-advisement/ I think it was the first part that got the arbitration case dismissed...and if I'm understanding it right, the first part being true makes the second part irrelevant. Or is it that the first part being true validates the second part lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The agreement was amended into the CBA when the owners voted on it. The arbitrator said it was a valid amendment to the CBA, so it couldn't be challenged under the CBA, regardless of whether it conflicts with the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.