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

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

You weren't correct. You said the NFL was correct. All we know now is they covered their butts legally and the arbitrator decided he had no place in the fight.

Most of us still are convinced that the teams would win in a court of law but, as has also been noted, it is the nuclear option they are opting to not take.

I think the Skins are smart not to pursue this matter any further. Any win in a court of law is likely to be Pyrrhic, because it will probably be followed by some severe penalty (e.g. forfeiting draft picks) from the NFL over the "bounty" scandal. I don't think there is much doubt that Greg Williams had a "bounty" system here in Wash as well. I am guessing that Goodell is holding that card over the Redskins to be played if and only if they take further action regarding the cap penalty.

As I see it, I am not even sure that we actually suffered any net cap penalty. Had we not dumped salaries in 2010, our cap situation in the next few years would have been bleak anyhow. So, I think we should just call it even and go on.

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by hail2skins

Here's a point I've been stuck on in this situation. Can DeMaurice Smith agree to something without consulting the player reps? I don't recall reading anywhere where the players actually voted on the sanctions.

Great question. It would be really interesting to read Burbank's disposition of the matter. Presumably it would go into such details.

[Skinzmanforlife]

Originally Posted by HanburgerBum

I think the Skins are smart not to pursue this matter any further. Any win in a court of law is likely to be Pyrrhic, because it will probably be followed by some severe penalty (e.g. forfeiting draft picks) from the NFL over the "bounty" scandal. I don't think there is much doubt that Greg Williams had a "bounty" system here in Wash as well. I am guessing that Goodell is holding that card over the Redskins to be played if and only if they take further action regarding the cap penalty.

As I see it, I am not even sure that we actually suffered any net cap penalty. Had we not dumped salaries in 2010, our cap situation in the next few years would have been bleak anyhow. So, I think we should just call it even and go on.

Goodell cant hold that card over our heads to be honest. The penalty to the Saints was never about having a bounty program in the past. It was about continuing the bounty program once the NFL said the practice of bounties must stop. The Redskins (and multiple other teams) stopped, the Saints didnt. Lets not forget that if hes going after bounty programs from the past, every team where Williams was a HC or DC would have to lose picks. If Goodell goes after the Skins for that while not hitting Buffalo and the Titans, he has pretty much proven that this is about Mara and the NFC East instead of bounty program/spirit of the cap issues.

Here's a point I've been stuck on in this situation. Can DeMaurice Smith agree to something without consulting the player reps? I don't recall reading anywhere where the players actually voted on the sanctions.

If its not specifically in the CBA that the Union must operate that way, Burbank gets out of that by saying the designated Union Representative agreed which is an agreement by the Union. The CBA is far reaching, but it doesnt tell the union how it must operate. Seems to me that if a grievance is filed for that specific thing, that would be a grievance of the players against its own union for not operating according to the union bylaws. I would assume that Union bylaws also have a clause about Union Officials having some form of leeway to agree to some things without a vote for the reason of expediency when necessary.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by Skinzmanforlife

Goodell cant hold that card over our heads to be honest. The penalty to the Saints was never about having a bounty program in the past. It was about continuing the bounty program once the NFL said the practice of bounties must stop. The Redskins (and multiple other teams) stopped, the Saints didnt. Lets not forget that if hes going after bounty programs from the past, every team where Williams was a HC or DC would have to lose picks. If Goodell goes after the Skins for that while not hitting Buffalo and the Titans, he has pretty much proven that this is about Mara and the NFC East instead of bounty program/spirit of the cap issues.



If its not specifically in the CBA that the Union must operate that way, Burbank gets out of that by saying the designated Union Representative agreed which is an agreement by the Union. The CBA is far reaching, but it doesnt tell the union how it must operate. Seems to me that if a grievance is filed for that specific thing, that would be a grievance of the players against its own union for not operating according to the union bylaws. I would assume that Union bylaws also have a clause about Union Officials having some form of leeway to agree to some things without a vote for the reason of expediency when necessary.

As we have seen how the cap penalty unfolded and how the League got the arbitrator to dismiss the grievance, it is clear Goodell holds a lot of unfettered power over NFL teams and players and he doesn't seem to be constrained by laws or rules.

I don't believe for one second that Goodell couldn't initiate further investigation into the "bounty" practice of all teams where Greg Williams had coached. And, I don't believe for one second that Goodell could not deliver arbitrary, uneven punishments to the teams involved as he sees fit. If I am Dan Snyder, I would choose to break off the skirmish with Goodell. Sometimes, it just isn't smart to poke the bear.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Great question. It would be really interesting to read Burbank's disposition of the matter. Presumably it would go into such details.

To me, that is the only way the NFLPA suit has a chance. If a court finds that Smith did not have the authority to bind the union to an Amendment of the CBA without a vote of union membership.

[Skinzmanforlife]

Originally Posted by HanburgerBum

As we have seen how the cap penalty unfolded and how the League got the arbitrator to dismiss the grievance, it is clear Goodell holds a lot of unfettered power over NFL teams and players and he doesn't seem to be constrained by laws or rules.

I don't believe for one second that Goodell couldn't initiate further investigation into the "bounty" practice of all teams where Greg Williams had coached. And, I don't believe for one second that Goodell could not deliver arbitrary, uneven punishments to the teams involved as he sees fit. If I am Dan Snyder, I would choose to break off the skirmish with Goodell. Sometimes, it just isn't smart to poke the bear.

Like the ruling or not by Burbank, there is clearly some legality to that ruling. D. smith saw an opportunity to get re-elected and jumped all over it. He never cared that the two richest owners wouldnt be leading the spending because of the cap floor (not an individual team salary cap floor, but there is guaranteed money that has to be spent or the owners reimburse the players at the end of the year). The players get paid whether the owners spend or not in the first two years.

While I dont disagree with you about Goodell, he also has to be careful himself. He has already let the cheap skate owners get the NFL into collusion dealings with the league. You gotta be careful about poking the bear, but the bear can also be shot as well. There comes a point and time where Snyder and Jones just call BS on Mara and Goodell and thats not good for Goodell either. He starts dishing out uneven punishments for things that happened 5 years ago and he runs the risk of his china shop all of a sudden having some bulls running through it. There is an inherent risk in claiming in front of the world that the punishment for the Saints is for not stopping a specific action after being told to, then coming back after the fact and hitting an owner that isnt popular just because he isnt popular.

Snyder and Jones have dropped this from what I can tell, and it benefits Goodell to leave it dropped. I think Goodell has gone power hungry, but im not convinced hes completely lost his mind and thinks he can get away with everything he wants just because of the puppet owners in his back pocket. Push Snyder and Jones to far and hes opening up a can of worms.

We should let the 36 mil go at this point, I agree there as well (as has been pointed out, we are still way ahead of the game even with that penalty due to the mass amounts of bad contracts dumped). While my emotions want Snyder to go nuclear, my brain tells me Snyder and Jones need to drop anything with the other owners and unite with them against the collusion charges.

[Farmer Ted]

I doubt Snyder and Jones are the two richest owners. That douche in Seattle is pretty loaded. I'm sure there are others that have more than Snyder and Jones as well.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Farmer Ted

I doubt Snyder and Jones are the two richest owners. That douche in Seattle is pretty loaded. I'm sure there are others that have more than Snyder and Jones as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu..._in_nfl_090211

1. Paul Allen, Seattle Seahawks – Net Worth: $13 billion
2. Stephen Ross, Miami Dolphins – Net Worth: $3.1 billion
3. Stan Kroenke, St. Louis Rams – Net Worth: $2.6 billion
4. Malcolm Glazer, Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Net Worth: $2.6 billion
5. Jerry Jones, Dallas Cowboys – Net Worth: $2 billion

Basically Paul Allen could break the rest of the owners over his knee. Snyder's "wealth"(such as it is, he's heavily in debt over buying the skins) was estimated in 2010 to be 1.1 billion.

[Skinzmanforlife]

Originally Posted by Farmer Ted

I doubt Snyder and Jones are the two richest owners. That douche in Seattle is pretty loaded. I'm sure there are others that have more than Snyder and Jones as well.

When I say richest, I should be saying most profitable franchises (or at the very least, would be without all the excess spending on cap control). Should have explained it better. The owners look at their teams as a business first and want to profit off of them. I think that also includes Snyder and Jones. Allen can outspend them all if he wants, but he doesnt want to. He wants the team to be self sufficient, as a business is.

I meant that since the Redskins generate more money than the Seahawks, they can spend more money and still stay profitable. I just got lazy with the argument and threw out richest owners.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by Skinzmanforlife

Like the ruling or not by Burbank, there is clearly some legality to that ruling. D. smith saw an opportunity to get re-elected and jumped all over it. He never cared that the two richest owners wouldnt be leading the spending because of the cap floor (not an individual team salary cap floor, but there is guaranteed money that has to be spent or the owners reimburse the players at the end of the year). The players get paid whether the owners spend or not in the first two years.

While I dont disagree with you about Goodell, he also has to be careful himself. He has already let the cheap skate owners get the NFL into collusion dealings with the league. You gotta be careful about poking the bear, but the bear can also be shot as well. There comes a point and time where Snyder and Jones just call BS on Mara and Goodell and thats not good for Goodell either. He starts dishing out uneven punishments for things that happened 5 years ago and he runs the risk of his china shop all of a sudden having some bulls running through it. There is an inherent risk in claiming in front of the world that the punishment for the Saints is for not stopping a specific action after being told to, then coming back after the fact and hitting an owner that isnt popular just because he isnt popular.

Snyder and Jones have dropped this from what I can tell, and it benefits Goodell to leave it dropped. I think Goodell has gone power hungry, but im not convinced hes completely lost his mind and thinks he can get away with everything he wants just because of the puppet owners in his back pocket. Push Snyder and Jones to far and hes opening up a can of worms.

We should let the 36 mil go at this point, I agree there as well (as has been pointed out, we are still way ahead of the game even with that penalty due to the mass amounts of bad contracts dumped). While my emotions want Snyder to go nuclear, my brain tells me Snyder and Jones need to drop anything with the other owners and unite with them against the collusion charges.

Your points are well-taken. Right now, it is like a stalemate between Snyder/Jones and Goodell/other owners. The most prudent course of action, then, is probably for both sides just to walk away.

In regard to the latest collusion suit by the NFLPA, I think it has virtually no chance of succeeding. In ratifying the new CBA, the union agreed to forgo legal action on all prior matters both "known and unknown". So, as I see it, it is irrelevant whether the NFLPA knew about the owners' collusion in 2010 to treat that uncapped season as a capped season or not.

I think DeMaurice Smith is under some pressure from his members because he apparently led them into a deal that sold out the right to sue too cheaply. He is just acting aggressively trying to show the players how tough he is.

As an interesting side note, if the collusion suit does somehow succeed, Dan Snyder may actually be exempt from that suit because of the actions he took in 2010 defying the NFL and the other owners.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by HanburgerBum

As an interesting side note, if the collusion suit does somehow succeed, Dan Snyder may actually be exempt from that suit because of the actions he took in 2010 defying the NFL and the other owners.

That would be hilarious, but I don't see how that can happen. At this point, the owners, including Jones and Snyder have to stick together on this issue. A Judgment of collusion against the NFL hurts all of them, not just the 28 teams that participated in the capping of the uncapped year.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

That would be hilarious, but I don't see how that can happen. At this point, the owners, including Jones and Snyder have to stick together on this issue. A Judgment of collusion against the NFL hurts all of them, not just the 28 teams that participated in the capping of the uncapped year.

The Union has said that both the Skins and Cowboys are defendants in the suit. So they're with the league whether they like it or not.

[skinsfaninva]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

The Union has said that both the Skins and Cowboys are defendants in the suit. So they're with the league whether they like it or not.

Yes but I believe that I read somewhere that D Smith said that if any team was found to have not colluded they could be taken off the lawsuit.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by Keino

That would be hilarious, but I don't see how that can happen. At this point, the owners, including Jones and Snyder have to stick together on this issue. A Judgment of collusion against the NFL hurts all of them, not just the 28 teams that participated in the capping of the uncapped year.

I read the same thing Skinsfaninva read. DeMaurice Smith has said that the issue which team(s) would be exempt from the latest lawsuit would be taken up at a later time. I would find it difficult to believe that Wash would not be exempt in as much as Snyder defied the other owners and refused to go along with the collusion. But, the whole matter is likely moot since the suit has very little chance of succeeding.

Nevertheless, there is a part of me that wishes the suit would be successful with the Redskins being exempt. That would be what John Mara and his cohorts deserve.