Redskins' and Cowboys' Salary Cap Challenge Dismissed

So, rather than summarize, you would doom our fellow forum mates to wading through that morass of a thread? You cold, heartless bastard.

No, not just cold and heartless, evil and cruel as well

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090808145457/villains/images/6/62/Mr_burns.gif

Sort of - - Burbank will say that the Skins and Cowboys failed to state a prima facie case for going forward. The NFL had nothing to prove - their argument was simply that Washington and Dallas hadn't made their case. Burbank agreed.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2012/05/22/nfl2012teamsalaryreallocations.pdf


Cliff notes by the end of the day please, and don't forget the cover sheet for the TPS report. :cheeky-sm

Simple - I am betting that Burbank's decision reads like some version of this:

1. Parties to the 2012 CBA = NFL & NFLPA;
2. Players & NFL agreed to the restructured salary cap for 2012, 2013;
3. Individual clubs have no standing to in this forum to challenge the agreement between the NFL & NFLPA.

Just read Hoophead's discussion in the old closed thread. I am betting the arbitrator pretty much followed the same line of reasoning.

Haven't read the actual decision, but here is a key section from a WaPo article on the decision:

Burbank, in a 10-page decision, wrote that a March 11 “reallocation” letter from the league and players’ union to the two teams informing them of the salary cap reductions, along with a March 27 vote by almost all NFL teams to affirm the cap reductions, represented a proper amending of the sport’s collective bargaining agreement.

The objections by the Redskins and Cowboys “all must fail as a matter of law if the reallocation letter, as originally executed or as ratified by the March 27 resolution, constitutes a valid amendment of the CBA,” Burbank wrote.

Later in the decision, he added: “The CBA and valid amendments thereto are binding on the clubs.”

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2012/05/22/nfl2012teamsalaryreallocations.pdf


Cliff notes by the end of the day please, and don't forget the cover sheet for the TPS report. :cheeky-sm

I read it and, after careful legal analysis, have concluded that my careful legal analysis is correct.

Burbank ruled that the CBA was amended properly. We basically only made the argument that the amending was improper. Which as has been pointed was very likely our weakest argument.

Burbank did not rule as to whether the amendment was a load of crap though. Which it was. But that is, as has also been pointed out, irrelevant.

Here's the crux of it:

The Clubs’ contentions that the Reallocation Letter violates Article 12, Section 6(c)(v) of the CBA (which prescribes the method for determining the Salary Cap), Article 13, Section 1 (which provides that the “Salary Cap is the same amount for each Club”), Article 14, Section 2 (which proscribes agreements and other transactions that include terms designed to defeat or circumvent the parties’ intent as reflected by the CBA), and Article 17, Section 1 (which proscribes collusion to restrict or limit individual Club decisionmaking concerning designated matters) all must fail as a matter of law if the Reallocation Letter, as originally executed or as ratified by the March 27 Resolution, constitutes a valid amendment of the CBA.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2012/05/22/nfl2012teamsalaryreallocations.pdf at page 3.

I read it and, after careful legal analysis, have concluded that my careful legal analysis is correct.

I have read it now as well...and after careful analysis, have concluded that your careful analysis that my careful analysis in the other thread was correct is correct.

It's funny that Snyder won't sue the NFL now(just on principle), but did sue the city paper for saying mean things about him.

I'm still a huge skins fan, but this whole thing has affected my view of the NFL.

So, rather than summarize, you would doom our fellow forum mates to wading through that morass of a thread? You cold, heartless bastard.

To be fair, that thread has the same few points summarised in about 87 different places. Reading any two pages at random will give you the same (nicely bulleted imo) points.
:cheeky-sm

Rules aren't made to be broken. Every team restructures contracts. But because it was done during an uncapped year, it was a big deal. There's nothing left to do but move on. At least we were able to get impact players in free agency this off season.