Redskins' and Cowboys' Salary Cap Challenge Dismissed

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Except we both basically referenced the subject as thoroughly discussed in the old thread. Now if you want to imply other Warpathers are unable to search threads and find the full discussion you certainly can maintain your disdain for them. I will continue to believe all of us are savvy web users.

Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using Tapatalk 2

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In fairytale land this works. Not in the real world. They aren't going to risk their cash cow over this. Snyder loves the Redskins, but he loves money much much more.



On that note.


John Keim ‏@john_keim

RT @adbrandt Am told by league source that #Cowboys and #Redskins are issuing a joint statement saying they accept the decision. Case closed

Good.

Time to move on.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by mooby

Right, because everytime a judge rules against someone or something you are rooting for, it means they took a bribe.

Excuse me, I'm so sorry I forgot I'm not entitled to my own opinion (IMO).

[CrustyRedskin]

What a shocker they gave the skins the shocker. I heard that Stephen Burbank guy acts like Dwight Shrute.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In fairytale land this works. Not in the real world. They aren't going to risk their cash cow over this. Snyder loves the Redskins, but he loves money much much more.



On that note.


John Keim ‏@john_keim

RT @adbrandt Am told by league source that #Cowboys and #Redskins are issuing a joint statement saying they accept the decision. Case closed

Sound the Law & Order chimes and let's move on. DUN DUN

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Good.

Time to move on.

I agree. I think the decision do dismiss was "right" from a "legal" perspective, but i think was "wrong" from a "moral" one.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Good.

Time to move on.

Yea, I've gotten over it.

[MTK]

Burbank suggests that Cowboys, Redskins have other avenues of relief | ProFootballTalk

[MTK]

Cowboys, Redskins say they respect, will abide arbitrator’s decision | ProFootballTalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Excuse me, I'm so sorry I forgot I'm not entitled to my own opinion (IMO).

You are, you're just opening yourself up to the opinions of others when you post them on a public message board.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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/mis...llocations.pdf


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

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.”

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Your mission, should you choose to accept it.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/mis...llocations.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.

[FRPLG]

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.