Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

Someone should have hurled a Docker.

Hahaha now that you say that, it reminds me of the footage of bush's speech a few years back when someone hurled that shoe at him lol.

I am not an anti-trust lawyer and that is one of those arcane areas that requires expertise in areas I just don't have to evaluate. I would agree, of course, getting a home Court judge is a big thing. Hell, not sure of the make-up of the VA Bench, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that one or two judges appointed by Bruce's brother are still sitting.

Redskins outside counsel: Fred "Flagellant" Davis

Also I doubt the NFL would file a counter suit because I'm sure they feel pretty confortable that they have won each time the issue has come to court. Dotty is not pro player he is contract friendly and owner friendly. Which is why the Skins lost their appeal, and why the NFLPA lost their case.

Sorry, this is just wrong. Doty has historically been very player friendly and it has long been one of the owners' goals to get him removed from hearing appeals on CBA issues. It is why he was written out of the new CBA.

God forbid he rule against the owners and what then? would he have to face the fact the owners negotiated in bad faith and the whole CBA is null and void? Then the two sides would have to start over in regards to a new CBA tying him up for long hours and meeting and more negotiations?

No. He ruled against them because that was what the law required. As a matter of law, The NFLPA the players had waived their claims - known and unknown - of collusion for anything that occurred prior to the new CBA being signed.

Heck no it's easier to simply side with the owners and ignore the facts: the owners colluded, negotiated in bad faith, black mailed the NFLPA, and punished two teams for not violating any CBA.

Everything you say is true. The owners colluded and negotiated in bad faith - but then the NFLPA affirmatively waived their claims against the owners for all claims when they signed the new CBA. If they believed that more claims were out there, they shouldn't have waived them. They did so as part of a settlement. Once you say, "Okay, I am done suing you." You can't go back and say "Well, except for this."

As for "blackmailing" the NFLPA, I would suggest it was more of a quid pro quo. The NFLPA came to them first and said "Hey, can we make an arrgangement to get more cap space this year??" to which the NFL said "Sure .... just sign here and let us punish these two teams who refused to join in this, heretofore, unknown collusion against you and you may have some extra cap space this year."

As for the acts before the new CBA, they were fully and legally waived. As for the bad acts afterwords, the penalties were imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (per the arbiter) and were arrived at through a quid pro quo bargain with the union.

The key was the waiver. Without it, the NFL had no leg to stand on. With it the union and Snyder, as far as any appeals concerning violations of the CBA, are legally without remedy.

Also, the NFLPA could have said "Nope, we won't sign off on this. These two teams will spend their money on players and taking cap space away from them harms players." The NFLPA leadership did not do this and simply caved so that they would look better in front of their constituents.

While the owners played hard ball all throughout, I would suggest that the players were ultimately ill served by their leadership. The players gave up a lot of legal issues that seemed like small potatoes at the time but that have come back to haunt them (the Commissioner's authority on sanctions, the waiver) in order to get a shortened work year.

Someone should have hurled a Docker.

LOL, this is not a third world country....Docker? you might as well have said a Crock. lol. No they should be throwing Timberlands. lol. Boot would be better anyway.

LOL, this is not a third world country....Docker? you might as well have said a Crock. lol. No they should be throwing Timberlands. lol. Boot would be better anyway.

:rofl: a crock!!!

Sorry, this is just wrong. Doty has historically been very player friendly and it has long been one of the owners' goals to get him removed from hearing appeals on CBA issues. It is why he was written out of the new CBA.



No. He ruled against them because that was what the law required. As a matter of law, The NFLPA the players had waived their claims - known and unknown - of collusion for anything that occurred prior to the new CBA being signed.



Everything you say is true. The owners colluded and negotiated in bad faith - but then the NFLPA affirmatively waived their claims against the owners for all claims when they signed the new CBA. If they believed that more claims were out there, they shouldn't have waived them. They did so as part of a settlement. Once you say, "Okay, I am done suing you." You can't go back and say "Well, except for this."

As for "blackmailing" the NFLPA, I would suggest it was more of a quid pro quo. The NFLPA came to them first and said "Hey, can we make an arrgangement to get more cap space this year??" to which the NFL said "Sure .... just sign here and let us punish these two teams who refused to join in this, heretofore, unknown collusion against you and you may have some extra cap space this year."

As for the acts before the new CBA, they were fully and legally waived. As for the bad acts afterwords, the penalties were imposed in a procedurally correct fashion (per the arbiter) and were arrived at through a quid pro quo bargain with the union.

The key was the waiver. Without it, the NFL had no leg to stand on. With it the union and Snyder, as far as any appeals concerning violations of the CBA, are legally without remedy.

Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."

I am sure the owners don't want that happening either. Further, I am pretty certain I can predict how a jury would rule if any one ever finds a legal issue that actually states a claim upon which a recovery could be based.

That, however, is the crux of it right now - Crafting a legal argument that sets forth the breach of a contract or duty that will withstand a motion to dismiss. If the Skins have one, it is not jumping out at me - they, however, are convinced they do.

Snakes.

Dallas Cowboys won't join prospective Washington Redskins suit -- source - ESPN Dallas (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/8990626/dallas-cowboys-join-prospective-washington-redskins-suit-source)

Although I'll agree your probably right with the Dotty issue, I'm not sure any of us really know the full facts regarding the meeting over the punishment. I could very easily see the NFL going to the NFLPA and suggesting that there is a problem and they need to meet. Then suggesting that it looked like the CAP would have to be lowered for whatever reason. Remember this came relatively soon after (6 months) the CBA had been signed. Why would the NFL not already know prior to the number crunching and during the CBA talks that there was a problem regarding the CAP? Instead they come up with some story and present it. Then while trying to figure something out the NFL suggests they will keep the CAP at where it is if the NFLPA will give up their rights to sue and allow the NFL to punish two of their own.

But thats my opinion since I don't know the facts either. But I doubt the owners would want for the NFLPA to stand in court and tell how they felt black mailed in order to get proof of collusion, lied to, and not have agreed on the punishment in advance ie; prior to the old CBA ending, and they wouldn't want for two teams to stand up and say "yes, the owners had an agreement to keep costs down against the players, and we felt that was not fair."

There is no dispute of the facts as it pertains to the cap going down. It was going down for one reason, the players percentage of the overall revenues went down in the new CBA. The owners knew the cap was dropping, and the NFLPA knew the cap was dropping. It was going down, completely legally, that is not in question.

The NFLPA went to the NFL and asked for money to be moved forward from future years to keep the cap stable. The new TV agreements are already negotiated and they come with a fair amount more money than the current ones, but the dont go into effect for a couple more years. The NFLPA asked to have some of that TV money moved from the future into current years to keep the cap stable until those new TV contracts go into effect.

The NFL offered the union a choice. Take the lowered salary cap that everyone knows will happen (due to reasons already explained) or allow us to sanction the teams we want. We (The NFL) will allow future money to be pulled from those TV contracts and put into the years until those TV contracts go into effect to keep the cap stable. The union chose to sign off on the punishment and have the money moved forward and keep the cap stable.

Snakes.

Dallas Cowboys won't join prospective Washington Redskins suit -- source - ESPN Dallas (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/8990626/dallas-cowboys-join-prospective-washington-redskins-suit-source)

Not surprising. Carrying a $5M penalty just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme. The risk reward ratio isn't there for the Cowboys.

Carrying $18M though is very significant, so clearly we're in a different position, one where at least threatening action makes some sense.