Skins and (Cowgirls) To Lose Millions In Cap Space??

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by fent

You realize lawyers and parties do stuff all the time knowing that it violates contracts, simply because they think they're "right" or that the other party won't fight it, right? That's day 1 of contracts as a 1L. Don't assume that because it's on the piece of paper and was signed that it's binding or going to save your neck.

Most lawyers and parties don't have billions of dollars at stake to supposedly screw up two franchises over. At the end of the day, why would Goodell, the owners, the union and the comp committee go to war with the skins/boys over something that wouldn't survive a lawsuit as easily as people want to claim? Especially after losing in the first round of court on the CBA and based on comments from the appeals court wouldn't get a clean win on appeal(at best).

Originally Posted by fent

And what pundits predict means absolutely nothing. A., they're not lawyers, and B. they're getting their information from who? If they're predicting the same penalties that the league handed out 2 years later, do you really think it was a balanced report or simply the league's way of laying the ground work to attempt to get teams to go along with it?

Thats giving the NFL far more credit then they deserve lol.

[fent]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Here's what the CBA's Article 14 has to say about "circumvention":

Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.

The previous CBA had a very similar provision (art. XXV, section 2).

This is a very strange provision. What seems clear, however, is that the final sentence provides a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The 2010 agreement provided for an uncapped year. Everything we did was within the letter of the rules. Therefore, I fail to see how it could be considered a cap violation.

This is essentially the response that every league had to the Joe Smith problem. No under the table agreements to take less now to max out in the future. That last sentence is going to absolutely destroy the league on this one.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Most lawyers and parties don't have billions of dollars at stake to supposedly screw up two franchises over. At the end of the day, why would Goodell, the owners, the union and the comp committee go to war with the skins/boys over something that wouldn't survive a lawsuit as easily as people want to claim? Especially after losing in the first round of court on the CBA and based on comments from the appeals court wouldn't get a clean win on appeal

Because the other option was telling the players and teams the cap was going down. They chose to screw two teams over the other 30 and the players.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

So they didn't circumvent a cap less cap in 2010, they circumvented a non-existent cap in 2011. My imaginary friend is livid over this.

Okay, this was just funny and you deserve to be recognized for the comic relief breaking up the legal debate.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by fent

Legal based on what? What the commissioner decided was a permissible interpretation of the "uncapped year" and how loading money into said uncapped year affects future competitive balances?

The league could have rejected the new contracts at the time(or sanctioned after the fact). They didn't and I still don't see where the league has to approve a restructure.

Originally Posted by justinskins

Here's what the CBA's Article 14 has to say about "circumvention":

Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.

The previous CBA had a very similar provision (art. XXV, section 2).

This is a very strange provision. What seems clear, however, is that the final sentence provides a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The 2010 agreement provided for an uncapped year. Everything we did was within the letter of the rules. Therefore, I fail to see how it could be considered a cap violation.

"Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties"

Sounds like the Skins/boys moves would violate this. They agreed with their players to restructure their contracts to avoid dealing with cap charges in the future. They entered into a transaction designed to circumvent future cap figures.

[fent]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Most lawyers and parties don't have billions of dollars at stake to supposedly screw up two franchises over. At the end of the day, why would Goodell, the owners, the union and the comp committee go to war with the skins/boys over something that wouldn't survive a lawsuit as easily as people want to claim? Especially after losing in the first round of court on the CBA and based on comments from the appeals court wouldn't get a clean win on appeal(at best).

Actually, the professor that warns us the most, and admits to doing it, represented several of the largest hotel chains in the world and the negotiations she used as an example were with other equally as large organizations. Just because someone's rich doesn't mean they're not inclined to be dumb or be a bully. And that's precisely what's going on here. All indications are that it was other owners, not Goodell, that pushed this. And the league's have a history of doing this that dates back over half a century. They think they're the big bad bully on the block who can't be challenged. This really isn't that uncommon a situation, especially in sports.

Thats giving the NFL far more credit then they deserve lol.[/quote]

So on the one hand the NFL is smart enough not to pick a losing fight (which it's done in the past), but not smart enough to start early trying to win a PR battle?

[silverspring]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

So they didn't circumvent a cap less cap in 2010, they circumvented a non-existent cap in 2011. My imaginary friend is livid over this.

lollllllllllllllllllll

Originally Posted by justinskins

The League can bring in evidence of warnings, but what does that prove? The warnings were not part of the CBA.

Also, aren't these warnings essentially illegal for the league to give in context of the fact that they represent collusion and have no binding power if they violate the very rules the league is enforcing. Would the league really want to even bring in this evidence, doesn't it just hang themselves?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by fent

Actually, the professor that warns us the most, and admits to doing it, represented several of the largest hotel chains in the world and the negotiations she used as an example were with other equally as large organizations. Just because someone's rich doesn't mean they're not inclined to be dumb or be a bully. And that's precisely what's going on here. All indications are that it was other owners, not Goodell, that pushed this. And the league's have a history of doing this that dates back over half a century. They think they're the big bad bully on the block who can't be challenged. This really isn't that uncommon a situation, especially in sports.

As I said: why didn't losing in the CBA fight(in the first round) and being warned about an unsatisfactory appeal ruling disabuse the NFL(especially the owners) on this notion that they're not bulletproof in court.

Originally Posted by fent

So on the one hand the NFL is smart enough not to pick a losing fight (which it's done in the past), but not smart enough to start early trying to win a PR battle?

If they were laying the groundwork for future sanctions, wouldn't leaking it far more publicly then just where football nerds like us would see lol. All over ESPN, NFP, PFT, etc.

[fent]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Sounds like the Skins/boys moves would violate this. They agreed with their players to restructure their contracts to avoid dealing with cap charges in the future. They entered into a transaction designed to circumvent future cap figures.

There was no existing cap figure in the future. And, again, the same logic - circumventing future cap figures - has to apply to ALL agreements entered into in the 2010 league year.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by fent

There was no existing cap figure in the future. And, again, the same logic - circumventing future cap figures - has to apply to ALL agreements entered into in the 2010 league year.

If there wasn't a cap in 2011 and 2012, no sanctions could have been applied because there wasn't a cap to circumvent. LIke JJ Halsell said in 2010: maybe the skins know more then us about the future of the cap(paraphrase).

[KMDeMuth]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

"Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties"

Sounds like the Skins/boys moves would violate this. They agreed with their players to restructure their contracts to avoid dealing with cap charges in the future. They entered into a transaction designed to circumvent future cap figures.

Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.

The sentenced continued, pertaining to that CBA that was in the end game stages without a cap to circumvent. The last sentence is also very interesting...

[fent]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

As I said: why didn't losing in the CBA fight(in the first round) and being warned about an unsatisfactory appeal ruling disabuse the NFL(especially the owners) on this notion that they're not bulletproof in court.

And as I said, the leagues have had the same attitude in the face of losing major labor battles in court and arbitration for over 50 years. They're all billionaires...they think they make the rules and that they are Goliath. It's a mentality that doesn't change on one "loss," especially after Goodell and his lawyers spent all summer assuring the owners that the loss wasn't actually a loss, but a bad decision.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If they were laying the groundwork for future sanctions, wouldn't leaking it far more publicly then just where football nerds like us would see lol. All over ESPN, NFP, PFT, etc.

Florio actually linked to his article earlier today where he said this exact thing in 2010.

Both teams run the risk that the new CBA will include some type of reallocation provision aimed at reversing the effects of contracts engineered to take full advantage of the uncapped year,” we wrote at the time. “Though Jones and Snyder may regard such an outcome as unfair, two votes wouldn’t be enough to block the move.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...vious-in-2010/

[fent]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If there wasn't a cap in 2011 and 2012, no sanctions could have been applied because there wasn't a cap to circumvent. LIke JJ Halsell said in 2010: maybe the skins know more then us about the future of the cap(paraphrase).

When did this action take place, when did the then-existing CBA expire, what did that CBA say about capping 2011 and 2012, and when was this CBA creating said cap created? The answer to those questions cannot be answered in such a way as to legitimately and legally argue that any team violated a cap in 2011 and 2012 (or 2013-2021 for that matter) by taking action in 2010 under the then-existing CBA. The cap is not the norm that must be undone. The cap is the aberration that must be agreed to. There is no law on the books or created by the common law saying that wages are capped at X.XX per industry. Simply put, a handful of teams acted legally under the existing agreement and are now being "punished" by the owners that got their panties in a bunch because they didn't play along.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by fent

And as I said, the leagues have had the same attitude in the face of losing major labor battles in court and arbitration for over 50 years. They're all billionaires...they think they make the rules and that they are Goliath. It's a mentality that doesn't change on one "loss," especially after Goodell and his lawyers spent all summer assuring the owners that the loss wasn't actually a loss, but a bad decision.




Florio actually linked to his article earlier today where he said this exact thing in 2010.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...vious-in-2010/

Exactly. It seems like some of the owners wanted such a provision, and (apparently) didn't get it. Or at least, I can't find it in the CBA if it's there.

I also found this interesting tidbit in the old CBA's Article XXIV:

Section 8. 30% Rules:
(a) No NFL Player Contract entered into in an Uncapped Year prior to the Final League Year may provide for an annual decrease in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section (b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary of the first League Year of the contract per year. This rule shall not apply in any Capped Year to any Player Contract that was signed in the 1993 League Year or earlier.

Basically, the old CBA to some degree anticipated this problem of teams shoving contract money into an uncapped year. However, the CBA explicitly excluded the final league year from this rule. Since the NFL had terminated the agreement, 2010 was the final league year by the CBA's definition. This tells me that the Redskins' behavior was implicitly allowed by the agreement. This is BS!

[KMDeMuth]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If there wasn't a cap in 2011 and 2012, no sanctions could have been applied because there wasn't a cap to circumvent. LIke JJ Halsell said in 2010: maybe the skins know more then us about the future of the cap(paraphrase).

Still not seeing the legal grounds (anti-trust exemptions or not) that allows them to force the terms of a new agreement onto actions made under the previous agreement. When the previous agreement states it was legal and inside the rules, but looked down upon by management.

The argument being they are now breaking present rules with contracts in place, when they are not. The supposed infractions took place prior, in Haynesworth case he was not even employed the the Redskins after the ratification of the new CBA that they are supposedly now breaking with that contract... He was traded and employed by the patriots (in camp) before the CBA was finalized and ratified in full...