NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners

^^ This.

The thing that pisses me off about all of this is the blatant cherry picking and what would seem to be targeting division rivals.

See obviously we all know the Redskins structured contracts so they could get out of them after the uncapped year. The Cowboys on their end signed Miles Austin to a new contract that was very front loaded. And maybe the NFL would have a case if that was the issue.

However we've all seen the chart that showed other teams structuring contracts to favorably reflect the uncapped year, most prominent example being the Bears giving Julius Peppers $35 million in the first year.

Of course you can't get a majority vote to punish something when almost half the teams did it in some way shape or form.

The Redskins and Cowboys were singled out for their spending not their structuring of contracts. It's absolutely pathetic. The power trip has to end.

Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/)
Surprise surprise the top cash spenders in 2010.

Redskins: $178.2 million.

Cowboys: $166.5 million.

Saints: $145.0 million.

The curve-ball is the Raiders at 8 but nevertheless it's still an abuse of power.

Anyway here's the best article I've read on the situation
NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html)

Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/)
Surprise surprise the top cash spenders in 2010.

Redskins: $178.2 million.

Cowboys: $166.5 million.

Saints: $145.0 million.

The curve-ball is the Raiders at 8 but nevertheless it's still an abuse of power.

Anyway here's the best article I've read on the situation
NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html)

According to that list, 16 of 32 teams were over the "secret cap" of $123m. Also, punishing #1, #2, #3, and #8 seems less than systematic.

and then there is this arguement..... why did it take 2 yrs to find collusion.


Anyone in their right mind could guess the owners were colluding even we fans knew something was up since teams were not going out buying up FA's like candy and spending $$$, but all that is just assumptions. There was no real substantial proof of any collusion until the NFL came out and said we are punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for their violating the spirit of the CAP. < What CAP? There was no CAP. There can be no violation if there was no CAP. So by punishing the two teams the NFL has admitted there was some form of agreement (spirit) and some form of CAP to which the two teams violated which in reality they didn't cause there was also a "SPIRIT OF THE UNCAPPED YEAR" which was technically violated by 28 teams. No, those 28 teams didn't have to spend a lot, but by punishing two teams that did is in violation of the "spirit of the uncapped" year.

So because of the punishment (in 2012) there is finally some form of proof there was collusion. The NFLPA didn't wait 2 yrs after they had proof they maybe waited 2 months to get their ducks in a row and file the right arguement as well as somewhat wait to see what info they could did up from the appeal.

The only problem with that is that the NFLPA's complaint says they signed the salary cap reallocation agreement on March 11, but claims they only learned of the collusion on March 12...and their "new" evidence of collusion is the press / blogger reaction to the announcement of the salary cap reallocation.

Yes, their complaint essentially says that the salary cap reallocation wasn't evidence of collusion, but that the press release announcing it and the press / blogger reaction to it was new evidence of collusion.

Read that again.

The only problem with that is that the NFLPA's complaint says they signed the salary cap reallocation agreement on March 11, but claims they only learned of the collusion on March 12...and their "new" evidence of collusion is the press / blogger reaction to the announcement of the salary cap reallocation.

Yes, their complaint essentially says that the salary cap reallocation wasn't evidence of collusion, but that the press release announcing it and the press / blogger reaction to it was new evidence of collusion.

Read that again.
Well if you read the complaint, the NFL didn't justify the reductions they just used hard negotiating tactics to get the NFLPA to agree. It was not until Goodwill and more specifically Mara made statements regarding the underlying reason for the reallocation that the NFLPA had concrete comments and linkages to what they already suspected, that the NFL and several teams secretly agreed to work within a salary cap framework even in the uncapped year.

Well if you read the complaint, the NFL didn't justify the reductions they just used hard negotiating tactics to get the NFLPA to agree. It was not until Goodwill and more specifically Mara made statements regarding the underlying reason for the reallocation that the NFLPA had concrete comments and linkages to what they already suspected, that the NFL and several teams secretly agreed to work within a salary cap framework even in the uncapped year.

I understand what they're claiming. I just don't find it believable.

The only problem with that is that the NFLPA's complaint says they signed the salary cap reallocation agreement on March 11, but claims they only learned of the collusion on March 12...and their "new" evidence of collusion is the press / blogger reaction to the announcement of the salary cap reallocation.

Yes, their complaint essentially says that the salary cap reallocation wasn't evidence of collusion, but that the press release announcing it and the press / blogger reaction to it was new evidence of collusion.

Read that again.


Oh I agree with you no different then the NFL saying the punishment for the two teams had nothing to do with their spending. You know and I know that's BS, the "competitive advantage" all stemmed from the two teams spending.

I understand what they're claiming. I just don't find it believable.

I think there was a point they knew there was collusion but didn't have the proof (which was before March 11), and a point in which they had proof (during the meeting on March 11) and with the blackmailing decided to agree cause now they also had proof of blackmail, and a point where they wanted to let everything play out in order to collect as much information as possible (after March 12).

Nothing in the rules says they had to not agree with the NFL, they now had evidence of blackmail, and nothing in the rules says they had to file their paperwork March 11 or March 12. So who cares that they took their time getting their paperwork together and collecting as much hard evidence as they could.

Remember the Skins named the NFLPA in their appeal which kinda put them on the wrong side of the equation and sorta made them defendants and by filing their law suit who knows how the outcome would have turned out for them plus they probably didn't want the NFL to see their evidence they had at that point when both sides were co defendants. Now that the appeal is over is it not interesting that the NFLPA has named the two teams punished in their law suit? It essentially now makes the two teams and the NFL co defendants, unless the NFLPA is going to use the two teams at some point to speak out about the collusion. At that point either the two teams are hostile witnesses and being forced to testify or the NFLPA has worked something out with the two teams behind closed doors hat for their help they will seek relief for the two teams at sentencing.

I think there was a point they knew there was collusion but didn't have the proof (which was before March 11), and a point in which they had proof (during the meeting on March 11) and with the blackmailing decided to agree cause now they also had proof of blackmail, and a point where they wanted to let everything play out in order to collect as much information as possible (after March 12).

Nothing in the rules says they had to not agree with the NFL, they now had evidence of blackmail, and nothing in the rules says they had to file their paperwork March 11 or March 12. So who cares that they took their time getting their paperwork together and collecting as much hard evidence as they could.

Remember the Skins named the NFLPA in their appeal which kinda put them on the wrong side of the equation and sorta made them defendants and by filing their law suit who knows how the outcome would have turned out for them plus they probably didn't want the NFL to see their evidence they had at that point when both sides were co defendants. Now that the appeal is over is it not interesting that the NFLPA has named the two teams punished in their law suit? It essentially now makes the two teams and the NFL co defendants, unless the NFLPA is going to use the two teams at some point to speak out about the collusion. At that point either the two teams are hostile witnesses and being forced to testify or the NFLPA has worked something out with the two teams behind closed doors hat for their help they will seek relief for the two teams at sentencing.

There is ZERO chance the Redskins and Cowboys do anything to help the NFLPA here. They're the League as far as this is concerned.

Even if they wanted to help, I believe the League bylaws prevent them from voluntarily participating in a suit against the League. They could testify if legally compelled, but not voluntarily.