NFLPA collusion law suit overturned by appeal (salary cap)

Today the 8th circuit of appeals overturned Judge Doty's decision that the NFLPA waited too long to file the collusion report and the new CBA nullified the collusion case.

I have a few questions on this result:
1) What are the chances this gets to the discovery phase forcing the NFL to release internal communication.
2) Will the teams only be able to go after financial compensation, or will the be able to fight for competitive compensation (extra cap room, draft picks, etc.)
3) The article says this goes back to Judge Doty's courtroom? Why wouldn't you bring a new judge into the equation. This wasn't a jury trial, thus Doty may have more of an agenda then a fresh judge.

Appeals court reinstates collusion case | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/20/appeals-court-reinstates-collusion-case/)

Edit: reformatted and added a question.

As for 1 and 2-
I'm willing to bet the League's interest is in not having to disclose anything on the public record, under oath. The Redskins have the negotiating power at this point - so maybe they can get some just compensation for the whole thing. Draft picks, cap space, whatever. Personally - I'd rather have draft picks, I think it's a better long-term benefit provided the people making the picks are competent :)

As for #3...

I had the same question, however a buddy of mine has pointed out that Doty's ruling was simply on the timing and not the actual merits of either side's case. Therefore there's no reason to believe he has any favoritism towards one side or the other; or against one side or the other. He didn't comment on merits - simply on timing. I suppose the appeals court feels that simply overruling him on timing does not mean he's not capable of actually hearing the case?

Don't know... this stuff is so far over my head...

edit: I'm also not sure the Redskins have anything to do with it at this point? Maybe it's just the NFL PA? In that case my response to questions 1&2 is irrelevant and wrong.

I think the NFLPA is the plantiff in this case, but on behalf of the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders and whoever else... Broncos maybe. Either way, I will be disappointed if this goes to court, the NFL PA wins, and we get a financial settlement rather than a competitive one.

I believe appeals courts often send cases back to the court with the original jurisdiction, but they give them additional guidance or limits to force the judge(s) to reevaluate the law.


This won't affect the Skins salary cap at all. This only allows the NFLPA to go forward with arguments and pushing for reopening CBA talks. The Skins are not going to side with the NFLPA on this.

I believe appeals courts often send cases back to the court with the original jurisdiction, but they give them additional guidance or limits to force the judge(s) to reevaluate the law.


This won't affect the Skins salary cap at all. This only allows the NFLPA to go forward with arguments and pushing for reopening CBA talks. The Skins are not going to side with the NFLPA on this.

I'm curious if this is your opinion or if this is something that's obvious/clear that I've missed.

If the Redskins are interested in being reimbursed for a penalty they saw to be unfit, why would they root against the NFL PA?

Is it because the NFL PA's sole interest is in invalidating the CBA and getting a better deal?

I ask because I'm curious because I don't know a lot about this.... I actually thought all of this was resolved and had no idea there was a ruling pending by the appeals court still out there...

I don't recall ever hearing the end goals being the CBA being revisited. If that's the end game then I may root against the NFL PA too - they're awful at negotiating and reopening the CBA will just cause more lockouts/problems for a second deal the inevitably screws over the PA anyways. That juice would not be worth the squeeze.

Can someone refresh my memory. Were the sanctions leveled against the Redskins and Cowboys prior to signing the new CBA? I thought the CBA was signed, then the Redskins/Cowboys were told they were being punished. Wouldn't that alone invalidate the terms in the contract keeping the NFLPA from suing?

I'm curious if this is your opinion or if this is something that's obvious/clear that I've missed.

If the Redskins are interested in being reimbursed for a penalty they saw to be unfit, why would they root against the NFL PA?

Is it because the NFL PA's sole interest is in invalidating the CBA and getting a better deal?

I ask because I'm curious because I don't know a lot about this.... I actually thought all of this was resolved and had no idea there was a ruling pending by the appeals court still out there...

I don't recall ever hearing the end goals being the CBA being revisited. If that's the end game then I may root against the NFL PA too - they're awful at negotiating and reopening the CBA will just cause more lockouts/problems for a second deal the inevitably screws over the PA anyways. That juice would not be worth the squeeze.
If the NFLPA wins a lawsuit that says the NFL is guilty of collusion, it opens the flood gates to invalidating the NFL anti trust exemption. It's in no way beneficial to the Redskins (or Cowboys who also had a smaller penalty) to recoup a "trivial" amount of salary cap space and at the same time undercut the whole basis of the NFL's CBA structure. Mostly, this is my opinion, but it was hashed out in depth in the various salary cap penalty threads and articles that were published at the same time as the original rulings were made.

Put it this way: If you had a business, and due to unfair practices you lost $300 dollars. You would be right to go after the $300, but in order to get it, you would cost yourself $30,000. Would you do that for the sake of being right, or would you right it off, make a mental note, and when the time is right get the $300 back in other ways.

That's the ratio the Redskins are looking at with the salary cap, and siding with the NFLPA in a collusion case.

Understood.

Though I thought when everything broke the whole threat from the Redskins was to 'go nuclear' - would that not be what this is? Or maybe the correct view is.... hey, it's over, time to move on.

The 'nuclear option' always seemed like a bluff to me anyways... due to exactly what you just said. While the penalty had a real impact on the team for 2 years, there's no long run impact to the owners of the teams...

Understood.

Though I thought when everything broke the whole threat from the Redskins was to 'go nuclear' - would that not be what this is? Or maybe the correct view is.... hey, it's over, time to move on.

The 'nuclear option' always seemed like a bluff to me anyways... due to exactly what you just said. While the penalty had a real impact on the team for 2 years, there's no long run impact to the owners of the teams...

Yeah, I don't think the Redskins ever talked about going nuclear, as far as I remember it was mostly the fans calling for that, and the media explaining what it would be.

Just to be clear...both the redskins and cowboys are part of the defendant in thus case. Let that marinate. The two teams punished for not colluding are getting sued for collusion.