Redskins, Cowboys File Arbitration Suit (update page 16, post 237.)

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Haven't I answered that multiple times? The league's warning might have been informal, but it should have been respected.

Oh. Well, obviously I just disagree about that. The league has the ability to control many things, but cap issues are governed by the CBA and the CBA alone. There's no reason to respect its pronouncements on the issue, and that's why there's an arbitration process.

The Competition Committee was the body that warned teams about not doing the restructures prior to the uncapped year. They also held up the declaration of the 2012 cap figure until the penalties(and the cap figures) were decided.

OK, I guess I had misinformed myself about that. Of course, that doesn't mean the competition committee is right.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

For the 20th time at least: there's nothing in what the skins or boys did which directly effected salaries upwards. Thus, there's no way it was collusion to keep salaries down in penalizing them. And if the league wanted to penalize teams for jumping up salaries in the uncapped year, there's teams who did drive up salaries in 2010 and they weren't targeted.

If that's true, then what are the other owners peeved about again?

It doesn't take some grand conspiracy theory to draw the conclusion that the owners wanted to keep salaries down and present a unified front for the upcoming labor dispute. Jones and Snyder told the other 30 to go jump in a lake.....and here we are.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by Keino

If that's true, then what are the other owners peeved about again?

It doesn't take some grand conspiracy theory to draw the conclusion that the owners wanted to keep salaries down and present a unified front for the upcoming labor dispute. Jones and Snyder told the other 30 to go jump in a lake.....and here we are.

This. I don't see why it's so outlandish to suggest that the owners would take collective action to save money. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public." It's just in the nature of things. Of course, it's equally in the nature of things that a minority of owners would cheat on the deal to gain a competitive advantage (which is why such deals tend to fail).

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

1. Actually the IRS can apply tax changes retroactively. Its rare, but it does happen.
2. the skins/boys have redress to dispute the demands like a tax payer has. The NFL is saying that they lack standing, but the skins/boys still have options.

Applying penalties/taxes retroactively is not exactly the same as changing a rule and then applying that rule to previous years. A taxpayer is bound to only follow the rules and regs of that tax year for which they are filing the informational return. It does happen on occasion that tax rules are changed mid-year and retroactive penalties and tax liability are charged up to 3 years after the return has been filed, but if the taxpayer can show they filed the return prior to the IRS changing the rule or acted on the advice of the IRS, they can have those penalties abated (they are still on the hook for the tax liability though).

Yes, the Skins have redress. My point was that in an IRS situation, your redress occurs before any dollars have to leave your account.

[bergiemoore]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

By that standard anything agreed-to would constitute collusion.

Collusion is more than just "anything agreed to".

...an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.

What the league tried to do by warning teams not to go crazy with spending in 2010 was a violation of the 2006 CBA, which designated 2010 as an uncapped year. The NFLPA filed a collusion claim against the NFL in January of 2011, which also went before Stephen Burbank, who is the System Arbitrator under the current CBA. The collusion claim was waived by the NFLPA as part of the negotiated 2011 CBA.

This type of collusion is very similar to baseball's collusion in the mid 80's.

Still, it isn't the main question, here. Did the league have the authority under the current CBA to alter the salary cap for the Skins and Cowboys in order to maintain competitive balance, and not as a punishment for a violation.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by Keino

It does happen on occasion that tax rules are changed mid-year and retroactive penalties and tax liability are charged up to 3 years after the return has been filed, but if the taxpayer can show they filed the return prior to the IRS changing the rule or acted on the advice of the IRS, they can have those penalties abated (they are still on the hook for the tax liability though).

This is actually an important point: Just as officials can't order you around beyond the bounds of their authority, they also often can't excuse you from a legal obligation just by their say-so. Just because an IRS agent tells you something's OK doesn't mean you can't get dinged for it later.

Basically, never rely on official interpretations of the rules unless they are made by a binding authority. Find a good lawyer and trust his or her independent advice.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

O]
OK, I guess I had misinformed myself about that. Of course, that doesn't mean the competition committee is right.

At some point, its the Redskins/Boys against the entire rest of the league. Which is more plausible:
1-The entire rest of the league(to varying degreeing) are conspiring to screw two teams who didn't make the playoffs(and to be totally honest, two teams with a rep for stupid wild spending in free agency, to the point where if I wanted to "keep them down" I would make sure that they had extra cash to spend in free agency lol)
or
2-The skins/boys gambled that the cap would disappear forever(or at least until after they could dump Austin, Haynesworth and Hall's contracts) and lost.

Originally Posted by Keino

If that's true, then what are the other owners peeved about again?

Circumventing the cap in 2011/2.

Originally Posted by Keino

It doesn't take some grand conspiracy theory to draw the conclusion that the owners wanted to keep salaries down and present a unified front for the upcoming labor dispute. Jones and Snyder told the other 30 to go jump in a lake.....and here we are.

28. The Raiders and Saints also did this(but weren't fined because it wasn't nearly as much). And if they wanted to punish teams for jacking up salaries, they should have punished the teams who actually jacked up salaries in the uncapped year. Neither the skins or boys did.

Originally Posted by Keino

Yes, the Skins have redress. My point was that in an IRS situation, your redress occurs before any dollars have to leave your account.

Cap dollars dont actually exist in the real world lol. This analogy makes more sense if the skins/boys were forced to write large checks to the league. The skins/boys can get their fantasy money back if the arbitrator rules in their favor(and they win on appeal).

Originally Posted by bergiemoore

Collusion is more than just "anything agreed to".

What the league tried to do by warning teams not to go crazy with spending in 2010 was a violation of the 2006 CBA, which designated 2010 as an uncapped year. The NFLPA filed a collusion claim against the NFL in January of 2011, which also went before Stephen Burbank, who is the System Arbitrator under the current CBA. The collusion claim was waived by the NFLPA as part of the negotiated 2011 CBA.

This type of collusion is very similar to baseball's collusion in the mid 80's.

Still, it isn't the main question, here. Did the league have the authority under the current CBA to alter the salary cap for the Skins and Cowboys in order to maintain competitive balance, and not as a punishment for a violation.

Believe whatever you want to. I have no desire to keep repeating myself just to get a new rationale in response for why its supposedly collusion. Collusion arguments are losers on the face of it here because labor and management are in agreement. You want to claim its because of blackmail, but labor could change it mind at any time.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Circumventing the cap in 2011/2.

Ahh yes, the one not in place yet.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

28. The Raiders and Saints also did this(but weren't fined because it wasn't nearly as much). And if they wanted to punish teams for jacking up salaries, they should have punished the teams who actually jacked up salaries in the uncapped year. Neither the skins or boys did.

Okay. The number of teams they told to Eff off doesn't change my point at all.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Cap dollars dont actually exist in the real world lol. This analogy makes more sense if the skins/boys were forced to write large checks to the league. The skins/boys can get their fantasy money back if the arbitrator rules in their favor(and they win on appeal).

Cap dollars do exist in the real world of the NFL because the cap exists and governs what teams can spend. To have that money stripped is akin to, using your IRS analogy, not mine, to paying the IRS penalty before your redress is heard and considered by the IRS. I am well aware that when Burbank rules that there was no violation under the then in-place CBA and that the cap penalty is not authorized under the current CBA that the Skins will be made whole.

[bergiemoore]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Believe whatever you want to. I have no desire to keep repeating myself just to get a new rationale in response for why its supposedly collusion. Collusion arguments are losers on the face of it here because labor and management are in agreement. You want to claim its because of blackmail, but labor could change it mind at any time.

Labor waived the collusion claim as part of the negotiation of the 2011 CBA. The NFLPA cannot change its mind about the collusion claim at this point.

And I'm not arguing that collusion is the question or answer for this arbitration, just trying to explain what it is.

Again, the real question is whether or not the league has the authority under the current CBA to alter the salary cap for 2 teams in order to maintain competitive balance. The league has admitted that neither club has committed any violations of the CBA, and all contracts were approved.

The biggest stumbling block for the 2 clubs is whether or not they have standing to bring this claim against the NFL. The NFL has asked the arbitrator to dismiss the grievance based on the notion that since the NFL and NFLPA are in agreement, the aggrieved clubs have no standing. This is what the arbitrator is considering at today's hearing.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

At some point, its the Redskins/Boys against the entire rest of the league. Which is more plausible:
1-The entire rest of the league(to varying degreeing) are conspiring to screw two teams who didn't make the playoffs(and to be totally honest, two teams with a rep for stupid wild spending in free agency, to the point where if I wanted to "keep them down" I would make sure that they had extra cash to spend in free agency lol)
or
2-The skins/boys gambled that the cap would disappear forever(or at least until after they could dump Austin, Haynesworth and Hall's contracts) and lost.

#1 is much more plausible. The other owners wanted to punish the Redskins and Cowboys for failing to follow the league's unwritten orders on spending. Those orders were designed to reduce salaries in the uncapped year.

As for #2, all reporting suggests the other owners were pushing for this. Not the coaches or the league office. Since #2 does absolutely nothing to explain why the owners would want to do so, I don't think it's plausible at all.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

Ahh yes, the one not in place yet.

And if it never came back, there would have been no circumvention.

Originally Posted by Keino

Cap dollars do exist in the real world of the NFL because the cap exists and governs what teams can spend.

Not really because bonus money is prorated, so a team in theory could spend way over the cap as long as they follow the rules.

Originally Posted by Keino

To have that money stripped is akin to, using your IRS analogy, not mine, to paying the IRS penalty before your redress is heard and considered by the IRS. I am well aware that when Burbank rules that there was no violation under the then in-place CBA and that the cap penalty is not authorized under the current CBA that the Skins will be made whole.

You probably should use if/when, not when lol.

Originally Posted by justinskins

#1 is much more plausible.

lmao. I should have seen that coming.

Originally Posted by justinskins

The other owners wanted to punish the Redskins and Cowboys for failing to follow the league's unwritten orders on spending. Those orders were designed to reduce salaries in the uncapped year.

So, for the 25th time: why didn't they punish the franchises that actually boosted spending with ridiculous contracts given out in the uncapped year(or ate millions in dead cap money that year)? Nothing that the skins/cowboys did boosted spending.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

So, for the 25th time: why didn't they punish the franchises that actually boosted spending with ridiculous contracts given out in the uncapped year(or ate millions in dead cap money that year)? Nothing that the skins/cowboys did boosted spending.

Dunno, but it's still more plausible than the non-explanation you've proposed.

[skinsfaninva]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Not really because bonus money is prorated, so a team in theory could spend way over the cap as long as they follow the rules.

So again. What rule did the teams not follow? The answer is none! You talk in circles to avoid admitting that the Skins and Boys are in the right on this matter. You just admitted that you can spend way over the cap as long as they follow the rules. Well guess what, the rules in 2010 said there was no cap. So they followed the rules in place! End of discussion and story.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And if it never came back, there would have been no circumvention.

It didn't exist at the time which also means no circumvention.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Not really because bonus money is prorated, so a team in theory could spend way over the cap as long as they follow the rules.

Just because there are mechanisms in-place with the cap that allow for "creative accounting" doesn't mean that the $18 million stripped this season and next aren't "real" dollars. We are talking about 2 teams who spend their cap allotments pretty consistently.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

You probably should use if/when, not when lol.

I am pretty comfortable with the language I used there.

Originally Posted by akhhorus

So, for the 25th time: why didn't they punish the franchises that actually boosted spending with ridiculous contracts given out in the uncapped year(or ate millions in dead cap money that year)? Nothing that the skins/cowboys did boosted spending.

Because those teams bought in to the program. Simple as that.

If this were about competetive advantage, as has been pointed out, the Bucs, who ironically are the ones who signed V Jax away from SD, among others would have been hit with cap penalties as well.

The idea that a bunch of teams did it, but not to the extent of the Skins/Boys is an arguement that holds no water when taken together with the language of the CBA.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

It didn't exist at the time which also means no circumvention.

For the 100th time: they weren't penalized for circumventing the non-existent cap in 2010.

Originally Posted by Keino

Just because there are mechanisms in-place with the cap that allow for "creative accounting" doesn't mean that the $18 million stripped this season and next aren't "real" dollars. We are talking about 2 teams who spend their cap allotments pretty consistently.

And to be honest, all reports were that the skins were planning a Snyderatto-esque spending spree this offseason.

Originally Posted by Keino

I am pretty comfortable with the language I used there.

Do you want to lose more booze to me? lol

Originally Posted by Keino

Because those teams bought in to the program. Simple as that.

Or "followed the rules."

Originally Posted by Keino

If this were about competetive advantage, as has been pointed out, the Bucs, who ironically are the ones who signed V Jax away from SD, among others would have been hit with cap penalties as well.

Well, the cap floor won't go into effect until 2013, so any teams in violation of it will be sanctioned also.

Originally Posted by Keino

The idea that a bunch of teams did it, but not to the extent of the Skins/Boys is an arguement that holds no water when taken together with the language of the CBA.

I didn't say that. I said many other teams spent wildly during the uncapped year, and if this was about punishing teams for not pushing down salaries in the uncapped year, there were other teams that should have been sanctioned.