Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=FRPLG;918329]Uggg...what a bunch of donkey idiots the owners are. Unless they get off on the language of the CBA waiving rights on these claims they're likely going to get their ass handed to them.

Jones and Snyder then are going to have to pay on both ends...for not colluding...and for their ass-hat partners actually colluding. Ain't that rich!

How in the world these guys thought they could do this, strike that...

How in the world these guys thought they could publicly punish two teams for this and that it wasn't openly admitting collusion is seriously baffling. I have to think their lawyers must not have been seriously consulted. I can't even think that Goodell thought this was a good idea. It justs reeks of a couple owners, dumb ones at that, deciding to seek revenge against other owners and openly poking the NFPLA in the eye with a stick in doing so. Epic stupidity.[/quote]

Agree with part of this - completely stupid to strongarm the NFLPA into modifying the salary cap to punish two teams. Best case, they waste political capital that would be better used somewhere else. Worst case, it devolves into this.

My opinion is that DeMaurice Smith got clowned one too many times and is now NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. Would have been better to make him look good every once in a while and keep him in the League's pocket.

As for whether this was Goodell's idea, I suspect he didn't think this was a good idea but was forced to take this line by the owners. I think that's why Mara was out front and center on this instead of Goodell (untill Mara got really stupid with his wording.)

As for the collusion, they may or may not have been (probably were, imo) - but I still haven't seen any evidence that has any chance of holding up in court.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918338]Okay - I think it comes down to a balancing of two legal concepts: (1) settlements are settlements; versus (2) bad faith can't triumph.

[I][U]The procedural background:[/U][/I] In the early 90's Reggie White and the NFLPA sue the NFL and the 32 clubs (the "Defendants") in order to become a free agent. Long story short, in 1993, the Defendants settle the suit and, as part of that settlement agreement, agrees to institute a free agency system through negotiations with the NFLPA. As a result, each CBA agreement is incorporated into the terms of the 1993 Settlement [I]and[/I] is considered an amendment of that Settlement.

[I][U]Each Sides Arguments:[/U][/I] The NFLPA is now asserting that the owners actions in 2010 were collusive and constituted a breach of the 1993 Settlement as it was amended by the 2006 CBA. As such, they are asking the Court that presided over the 1993 settlement to reopen the case for the specific purpose of determining awarding damages for the alleged breach.

Based on the NFL's attorney's statements, the NFL will counter that the 1993 Settlement was amended [I]again[/I] in 2011 and, as part of that amendment and as a precondition for it, the NFLPA specifically waived any claims for collusion - [I]whether known or unknown to the NFLPA[/I]. As such, even if collusion occurred in breach of the 2006 Amendment, the NFLPA waived their rights to sue for such breaches in the 2011 Amendment.

[I][U]My Off The Cuff, Free Of Charge To Fellow Warpathers Analysis:[/U][/I] As I said at the beginning, two legal concepts appear to be in conflict. On one hand you have the principle that "settlement are meant to settle" versus the age old "liars never prosper".

The phrase "forego all claims known or unknown" is common in settlements and is meant to prohibit folks from coming back and nitpicking a settlement. People enter into settlements in order to resolve their differences and finally put an end to matters. One of the benefits of a settlement is that it is just what its name implies - a settlement so that parties can move on and not worry about old issues being constantly trotted out over and over again. Accordingly, courts tend to put the burden on those trying to reopen settlements and, usually, saying "gosh jeepers, I didnt realize all of the results" is not justification for reopening an agreed upon settlement. If you didn't do your due diligence or didn't fully realize the ramifications of your actions, well, too bad, so sad for you - should've thunk of that before signing your John Hancock.

ON THE OTHER HAND - and believe it or not - the law does not like liars. Operating in bad faith and working to deprive a party of facts and knowledge generally has ramifications. Settlements are contract negotions and, implicit in all such negotions, is the duty of good faith. Contracts entered into in bad faith will not be enforceable by the party exercising bad faith.

IN THIS CASE - the question to me seems to be, when settling collusion claims shouldn't you expect that the alleged collusion involved secrecy and, as such, by giving up your rights to allege collusion aren't you giving up your right to assert that the collusive parties acted secretly? [I]Or[/I] is the underlying lie in this case beyond the pale of reasonable expectations and, as such, something the NFLPA could not be deemed to reasonably have waived.

I really don't know how the court will read the waiver - it is dependent on the governing law and the specific facts. I have no doubt that is where the lawyers who make the big bucks will be generating their fees.

Disclaimer: All of the above is stream of conscience written analysis based on reading the complaint, no legal research, working only from memory, about 10 minutes of analytical thought and minimalist editing.[/quote]

Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918361]I'll try not to incite any riots.

I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?

Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.

Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.

They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?

Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.

Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.[/quote]

In your complaint, you only need to allege facts - which if true - prove your case. In a considering a Motion to Dismiss, the judge must assume the facts alleged as true. If the facts as alleged are legally sufficient to constitute a breach of the 1993 Settlement Agreement - [I]then[/I] the NFL's motion to dismiss will be denied and the NFLPA can proceed to the discovery phase and obtain the NFL's documents, depose all the owners, etc., etc. And of course, there is always Mara's statement which seems to me [I]primae facie[/I] proof of collusion.

While I agree the NFLPA's assertion that they had no idea the reallocation was intended to punish teams for not colluding sounds a bit like Captain Renault's declaration that he was "shocked to find gambling is going on here!!". For the purposes of preventing the NFLPA from getting discovery, however, it is assumed to be true.

To me, unless the NFL wins its waiver argument, the NFLPA is going have a lot of fun airing out the owners dirty laundry. At the same time, the waiver argument is not just pissing in the wind.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918371]Thanks for this - interesting reading. That seems to be the first hurdle. The second is whether they have any reasonable proof to show there was a secret number of $123m. The third is whether blog posts after the fact constitute valid evidence of an illegal conspiracy.[/quote]

If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.

Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”

I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918377]If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.

Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”

I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.[/quote]

If an agreement is illegal (as would be the case with collusion) wouldn't any agreement meant to prevent the NFLPA from suing be irrelevant?

For example in this case:
[quote]NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded to the players' claims with a comment: "The filing of these claims is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement and separately by an agreement signed by the players' attorneys last August.[/quote]

IE would the clause in the CBA preventing the NFLPA from filing suit be irrelevant in the case of the NFL Owners breaking the law as it's my limited understanding that the law is above any such clause

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918361]I'll try not to incite any riots.

I read the claim, and it seems pretty silly to me. They're quoting Mike Florio and Dan Graziano as proof that the NFL colluded, for goodness' sake. That's worth discussion on a message board, but to sue for $1B with that as your proof? Really?

Would be more interesting if they provided some proof, or even hinted as to what the proof might be that the "secret number" was $123m.

Also think it's laughable that they're arguing that they agreed to the salary cap redistribution on March 11, but were SHOCKED to learn on March 12 that it was designed to punish 4 teams for not sticking to the secret agreement.

They signed off on the penalties on March 11, without knowing what the penalties were for? Really?

Then they only realised what was going on when they read ESPN.com and Profootballtalk.com on March 12? Really?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the chief value in this complaint is PR. I'm guessing DeMaurice Smith is tired of hearing about how he gave in to the League by agreeing to the Skins / Cowboys cap re-allocations, and he's tired of the League making him look silly in the bounty penalty discussion, and is trying to show his constituency that he's standing up for them.

Unless they have some proof not laid out in the complaint, I don't see how this has any chance of winning. I'm guessing it's a big hurdle just to show they have the ability to sue here.[/quote]

#1- any good lawyer knows you don't give up all your evidence up front.

#2- anyone reviewing this case can see the NFLPA really didn't have a choice. In other words the choice was not made with out duress. The NFLPA was going to get screwed either way.

#3- I think almost all of us could guess the NFL was colluding but it was not admitted to by the NFL until after the meeting with the NFLPA and the two teams were punished.

I think now that the NFLPA has evidence of collusion and the fact they were forced to agree to what the NFL wanted to do should entitle them to have it brought before a judge to be heard. Honestly I think the NFLPA might win this. Possibly to the detriment to all the owners but again I doubt it gets that far. I foresee some form of settlement between the NFL and NFLPA. But I have been wrong before. Would it make the whole 2011 CBA null and void forcing both sides to start over again? This would give the NFLPA a huge advantage in negotiations.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

I love this....

[QUOTE]The agreement reads that the "parties stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims, known and unknown, whether pending or not" including "asserted collusion with respect to the 2010 league year," and was signed by Kessler. Kessler said on the NFLPA's conference call on Wednesday that a Minnesota court rejected the stipulation.

On Aug. 11, 2011, Judge David Doty "ordered that all claims pending regarding the stipulation and settlement agreement are dismissed. All other outstanding motions are dismissed," according to a court order. Kessler said Doty's specification on "pending" cases[B] left the door open for cases that were not pending[/B], such as the current collusion case
[/QUOTE]

Who knows the judge might have helped them in this case. lol.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoption a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918414]@ Dirtbag - The NFLPA is not alleging that the collusion is criminal or prohibited by some statute (at least not in their complaint) and, thus, illegal. Rather they are saying the collusion violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA and the implied covenant of good faith. I don't know if there is a statutory prohibition but, since it's a very, very strong legal position, I would have expected to see it in the complaint if it existed.

While the collusion may have been in violation of the 2006 Agreement, I don't see anything to indicate it was in violation of a statute.

@SBXVII - The quote you cite seems to be pretty strong indication that Judge Doty did not accept a stipulation about "unknown claims". If so, he may have been recognizing the principle that courts won't sanction through adoptio
n a party's bad faith dealings. Do you have a cite to the article from which you got it? In addition to the stipulation, however, there is supposedly a separate waiver by the NFLPA. I suspect, however, if the judge doesn't recognize one waiver, he won't recognize another.[/quote]

Basically I went to the NFL.com's site and found it finally there. I can't post the link right now it can later.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

I can see the case now.....

NFLPA: "We would like to call our first witness, the Redskins."
Skins: "What do we recall about any agreed CAP limit?"
NFL: "We'd like to take a recess your honor".

NFL to Skins: "ok, we'll give you all your CAP back."

Skins: "your honor, we really don't recall any set limit mentioned".


LOL.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7964386/nfl-many-layers-nflpa-collusion-case]NFL - Many layers to NFLPA collusion case - ESPN[/url]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

The mere notion that either the Skins or Cowboys will rat in open court about this is silly. The NFLPA is suing for 1 BILLION dollars and asking for treble damages which could mean 3 BILLION dollars. That's money that will come straight out of JJ's and DS's pockets. Aint gonna happen.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Giantone;918434]Just a question for Joe or Hoop,I thought the NFLPA waived their right to sue in the recent CBA?[/quote]

Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918445]Well, that is the crux of the issue - did they or didn't they. See my earlier post or read the article cited by SS which <ahem> says essentially what my earlier post does.[/quote]

I'll defer to JoeRedskin on this one. His input is clearly more valuable than any guesses I could offer here.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

All these lawsuits are getting annoying.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=skinsfan69;918448]All these lawsuits are getting annoying.[/quote]

?

What other law suits are you talking about. The whole mess is getting annoying ...yes. I agree. But I think its funny. This is like understanding all the behind the scene's going ons with WWE. lol. One big soap opera.

But in reality there has only been one law suit. The NFLPA vs. NFL. Ours was just an appeal to the punishment, and it really wasn't the punishment but rather the process/proceedure that led to the punishment.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Who knows what will happen. More then likely Judge Dotty will dismiss this case citing the signed agreement to drop all standing in regards to collusion. Maybe all this law suit business is just a front to make it seem like DSmith was not in cahoots with the NFL to the public and all this is just a big waist of time and will get dismissed but it will make some fans sit back and say... oh, maybe the NFL was not taking sides with the NFL and got bamboozled also.

or.... Judge Dotty could say the NFLPA has an arguement here and will want to hear the case. If it gets to this stage I think that Goodell and Mara as well as the other owners should be scared.

On a side note could all this be some sort of way to get Goodell out of office? and push Mara out of his position on the CEC? could it happen through this scenario?

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Perhaps most interesting about all of this is that the NFL and the owners had clearly crossed their legal Ts and doted their legal Is, and seem to be in prime legal position to fight off any challenges from the Skins or Cowboys or from the union. As we have seen, the Skins and Cowboys lost their appeal, and the NFL has a strong position against collusion charges in that (to put it simply, and probably incorrectly) part of the new CBA agreement was that no grievances under the old agreement could be filed. It’s hard not to feel that the NFL has been planning this for years.

But regardless of how secure they feel, it was nonetheless an absolutely asinine move for the owners to pull off. What do they get out of this? Egg on the face of two of the owners they don’t like, and a million and a half extra dollars on their respective teams' cap next year. And what will it cost them? An absolutely acrimonious relationship with the players, the effects of which are going to carry over to the next CBA negotiations and threaten the labor peace the NFL has enjoyed for decades.

Smooth move owners.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Another good article laying out the issues: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html?sct=nfl_wr_a1]NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com[/url]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;918461]Another good article laying out the issues: [URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html?sct=nfl_wr_a1"]NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com[/URL][/quote]

The first arguement for the NFL is one everyone is talking about the signed agreement not to persue collusion. but the second arguement....
[quote]
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]Second, the mere absence of most teams "taking advantage" of an uncapped season does not prove collusion. Teams could have decided, on their own, to refrain from spending an unusually large amount of their owners' money in 2010. By definition, decisions by individual teams do not constitute collusion.
[/quote]

is BS. The arguement would be a good arguement had the Redsksins and Cowboys not been punished. Their arguement would stand pretty good. But why then punish two teams if the low spending was volentary? By punishing two teams for "violating the spirit of the CAP" in which there was no CAP proves in itself there was an agreement (spirit of a CAP).

What should have happened because there was no CAP in place is no punishment to anyone whether they spent below the floor or went over the CAP. When the new CBA and CAP was in place then all teams needed to be below the CAP. The Skins and Boys were. Thus no punishment.

There was a reason for a "uncapped" year. One could argue the NFL violated "the spirit of the uncapped" year. The purpose it was put into the CBA was to force the owners and players to get an agreement prior to it and if it didn't then they new spending $$$ could be fair game. The punishing of two teams for violating the "spirit of the CAP" when there was no cap proves their was some form of agreement between all the owners and they felt the need to punish two teams for their "competative advantage" the other owners failed to take advantage of.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

and then there is this arguement..... why did it take 2 yrs to find collusion.
[QUOTE]
Also in regards to evidence, expect the NFL to wonder why it has taken the NFLPA two years to uncover supposed evidence of a widespread conspiracy among potentially hundreds of persons, many of whom are in regular contact with media.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

If Doty allows the law suit to go on (which I doubt), then If I was the NFLPA although not working directly with the Redskins and Cowboys.... I'd be making them witness #1 and Witness #2. Take the stand please.

If this happens I can see the NFL trying to make the two teams heads a little foggy about details.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918454]?

[B]What other law suits are you talking about[/B]. The whole mess is getting annoying ...yes. I agree. But I think its funny. This is like understanding all the behind the scene's going ons with WWE. lol. One big soap opera.

But in reality there has only been one law suit. The NFLPA vs. NFL. Ours was just an appeal to the punishment, and it really wasn't the punishment but rather the process/proceedure that led to the punishment.[/quote]


All the concussion lawsuits, Vilma, this one....just so tired of it.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=skinsfan69;918448]All these lawsuits are getting annoying.[/quote]


The Goodell Dictatorship with no regard to actual rules is getting annoying.


Don't blame those bringing these lawsuits (except the concussion claimants like Chip Lohmiller)...blame the man who is making these lawsuits absolutely necessary. I think Vilma may have a case. What was done to us and Dallas was completely absurd.

So sick of hearing about us "violating the spirit of the rule" that wasn't even in place at the time. This is like us getting pulled over for 35MPH and ticketed because they're planning on changing the sign to 25MPH next month, so they're getting a head start on catching the speeders.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918465]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 [B]violating the spirit of the CAP[/B].[/quote]

The fact that there was no effort by the NFL to establish and enforce a salary [U]floor[/U] in the uncapped year was also a hint that this whole mess had nothing to do with the NFL's attempts to ensure competitiveness among the teams. As we all know in our hearts, for the NFL it was about keeping down spending on player contracts and forcing the NFLPA to yield. Proving that assertion is entirely another matter.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Monkeydad;918474]The Goodell Dictatorship with no regard to actual rules is getting annoying.


Don't blame those bringing these lawsuits (except the concussion claimants like Chip Lohmiller)...blame the man who is making these lawsuits absolutely necessary. I think Vilma may have a case. What was done to us and Dallas was completely absurd.

So sick of hearing about us "violating the spirit of the rule" that wasn't even in place at the time. This is like us getting pulled over for 35MPH and ticketed because they're planning on changing the sign to 25MPH next month, so they're getting a head start on catching the speeders.[/quote]

I agree. The commish is a first class two faced dick. The owners are greedy bastards for putting in a BS cap in an up capped year. Not all, but a lot of the former players are suing to get their pockets a little fatter cause they see all the money the NFL makes. All the BS crappy calls we see week after week cause of the trickle down concussion awareness. I love the NFL.... but lately, especially this past year, all of this crap is really starting to turn me off.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;918478]The fact that there was no effort by the NFL to establish and enforce a salary [U]floor[/U] in the uncapped year was also a hint that this whole mess had nothing to do with the NFL's attempts to ensure competitiveness among the teams. As we all know in our hearts, for the NFL it was about keeping down spending on player contracts and forcing the NFLPA to yield. Proving that assertion is entirely another matter.[/quote]

I feel it was more about John Mara attempting to gain a competitive edge over 2 divison rivals. We've already been over this, the Cowboys and us weren't the only two teams to take advantage of the uncapped year. We were the only two penalized for it though.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=mooby;918491]I feel it was more about John Mara attempting to gain a competitive edge over 2 divison rivals. We've already been over this, the Cowboys and us weren't the only two teams to take advantage of the uncapped year. We were the only two penalized for it though.[/quote]

Mara just pissed because he thought we had painted ourselves into a financial corner via the cap. Bruce Allen took over and with the help of Mr. Eric Schaffer built an expensive bridge to get us out of that corner. I would be pissed too if i just found out i wasnt as smart as I always thought.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

Good job Mr. Mara, way to f*** up the labor peace :doh:

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

^^ This.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/]Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk[/url]
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
[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html]NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com[/url]

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;918572][url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/]Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk[/url]
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
[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/05/23/nfl/index.html]NFL Players Association lawsuit against NFL could be decided by Judge Doty - Michael McCann - SI.com[/url][/quote]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918465]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.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=HoopheadVII;918575]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;918576]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.[/quote]

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

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918575]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.[/quote]


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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=HoopheadVII;918602]I understand what they're claiming. I just don't find it believable.[/quote]

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.

Re: NFLPA Files Collusion Lawsuit Against NFL, Owners
 

[quote=SBXVII;918605]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.[/quote]

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.