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

[bergiemoore]

I believe the Redskins' and Cowboys' claim originates from this section of Article 14 in the 2011 CBA:

Section 3. System Arbitrator Proceeding: Any individual player or the NFLP A acting
on that player's or any number of players' behalf, the NFL, and any Club may bring a
proceeding before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Article 7, Article 12,
Article 13 or Article 14, Section 2 of this Agreement. Issues of relief and liability shall be
determined in the same proceeding. Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining
party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence
that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.

Article 13, Section 1 states:

Section 1. Calculation of the Salary Cap: The amount of the Salary Cap for any
League Year shall be determined in accordance with Article 12. The Salary Cap is the
same amount for each Club.

The way I see it, if Arbitration determines that the 2 clubs do have the grounds to attack the Skins and Cowboys cap adjustment as described by Article 14, Section 3, then Article 13, Section 1 is pretty clear. There's nothing that I see in the current CBA that addresses the notion of competitive imbalance.

[shally]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

If the skins win(which I still doubt they will), all they can get is the cap room restored after the appeals process. There's no way that they'll get draft picks. They could lose draft picks if Burbank rules that the punishment was wrong but the skins did circumvent the cap.

disagree. if the Skins lose, they have already lost as much as they can

now, the league could be emboldened to take away draft picks for OTHER offenses (bounty issues ??), but having their position validated is probably as much as they can get out of these proceedings

the Skins/Boys are going to win this one, IMHO, in one way or the other.. what they will get is another matter

[hockeygoalie29]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

I think that the NFL wins that argument, especially since that they and the Union agreed on a modification of the CBA to include this retroactive penalty specifically.

I won't get into the rest of the debate since it's just rehashing the same points we made when this first came to light, but I wanted to point out that the Union never voted on the CBA modification and therefore could not have approved it. This was the grounds I expected the suit to attack on, that the owners and players never voted on the CBA change the competition committee and Union leadership pushed through and therefore the CBA modification was made illegally.

After the suit was filed, the owners did vote on the issue and got the 2/3 majority they needed, so they closed off that avenue but the players never held a vote of their own. Unless they do, and more than 50% of the players vote in favor of the change, any change to the CBA is invalid and unenforceable.

[akhhorus]

We're going in circles on this issue again:

And if the cap went away, there was nothing to penalize over. The teams were warned(several times) about not doing this during the uncapped year(it came up in blogs/articles during the uncapped year that the skins risked penalties in the future for the restructure). The cap came back and the skins/boys were sanctioned for using the uncapped year to circumvent the cap in 2011 and 2012. That was the cap they were charged with circumventing. They knew it was on the table if they did those restructures before the uncapped year. Whether or not there was a cap in 2010 is still irrelevant: both teams moved money from future cap charges to the 2010 salary charge specifically to avoid ever having to pay it against the cap. If they had just done what other teams did(convert the future money into signing bonuses), none of this would have happened.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

We're going in circles on this issue again:

And if the cap went away, there was nothing to penalize over. The teams were warned(several times) about not doing this during the uncapped year(it came up in blogs/articles during the uncapped year that the skins risked penalties in the future for the restructure). The cap came back and the skins/boys were sanctioned for using the uncapped year to circumvent the cap in 2011 and 2012. That was the cap they were charged with circumventing. They knew it was on the table if they did those restructures before the uncapped year. Whether or not there was a cap in 2010 is still irrelevant: both teams moved money from future cap charges to the 2010 salary charge specifically to avoid ever having to pay it against the cap. If they had just done what other teams did(convert the future money into signing bonuses), none of this would have happened.

You still have the issue of 10 cba wholly governing the uncapped year. They can warn, memo, blot etc etc etc., but at the end of the day any penalties etc. Are provided by the 10 cba.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

You still have the issue of 10 cba wholly governing the uncapped year. They can warn, memo, blot etc etc etc., but at the end of the day any penalties etc. Are provided by the 10 cba.

Good thing for the NFL that the Skins/boys were penalized for circumventing the 2010 cap then lol.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by bergiemoore

I believe teams are allowed to carry over any unused cap space from year-to-year. Restoration of 2012 cap-space could be used to renegotiate back-loaded contracts, or left alone and carried over to 2013.

Are you sure that a team is allowed to carry-over unused cap space from year to year? If you are right, what's to prevent a team from actually having something like 50 mil over the regular cap limit for a particular year?

[justinskins]

Originally Posted by Keino

You still have the issue of 10 cba wholly governing the uncapped year. They can warn, memo, blot etc etc etc., but at the end of the day any penalties etc. Are provided by the 10 cba.

There are really two questions:
1) Was there a violation of the old CBA?
2) Is the penalty authorized by the current CBA?

So far as I can tell, the answers are "no" and "no." No to the first because an uncapped final league year was explicitly excluded from the 30% rules designed to prevent circumvention. The CBA's general circumvention provision pretty clearly says you can't circumvent by doing anything allowed by the rules. What we did was allowed. No to second because the current CBA says each team must have the same cap and it does not authorize changes to the cap as punishment.

The standing issue is interesting, but ultimately every team is bound by the CBA and I believe the CBA explicitly allows teams to file grievances. So I don't think it is going to fly.

The real issue is whether Burbank will recognize the NFLPA's authorization of this punishment. I hope not, but who knows.

Of course, the league could always invoke the Commissioner's rather broad power to punish teams for affecting the competitiveness of the game under the NFL Constitution, not the CBA. He can't change the cap number in that way, but he can take away draft picks etc. However, I can't see him doing that if he loses this arbitration. That would be pretty brazen even by Goodell standard.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by shally

Mara isnt running the show at this point.. it is in the hands of the NFL lawyers and lawyers for the teams and NFLPA.. as far as i know, he doesnt have veto power over this kind of thing..F Him !!!

Mara may no longer be calling the shots, but it wouldn't surprise me if he has a lot of influence among the pack of owner-crooks who have seen fit to punish the Skins/Cowboys, despite the fact it was they themselves who colluded to ignore the uncapped year provided by the old CBA.

[padraic]

Is there any word on when a verdict is expected?

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by padraic

Is there any word on when a verdict is expected?

something is suppose to happen 0n 5/10/2012

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by padraic

Is there any word on when a verdict is expected?

this was in todays post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...JzBU_blog.html

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by warpaint

this was in todays post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...JzBU_blog.html

Sounds like it'll be awhile before there's a decision.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by shally

disagree. if the Skins lose, they have already lost as much as they can

now, the league could be emboldened to take away draft picks for OTHER offenses (bounty issues ??), but having their position validated is probably as much as they can get out of these proceedings

the Skins/Boys are going to win this one, IMHO, in one way or the other.. what they will get is another matter

I don't profess to understand all the legal issues involved (standing, authorization, collusion, affirmation, old CBA, new CBA, etc), but I am at a loss how the good guys (Skins/Cowboys) may be on the hook for forfeiting draft picks and the bad guys (Mara and his band of owner crooks) can go unscathed.

Did not the old CBA provide as a price to allow the owners to terminate the old CBA an uncapped 2010 season? Normally an uncapped season would see salaries rise to the benefit of the players and the detriment of the owners.

Did not most of the owners (apparently under the leadership of John Mara and Commissioner Goddell) circulate memos exhorting all the owners to ignore the uncapped year and treat it like a capped year under the threat of future penalties for not playing along? Was this not a clear case of unlawful collusion and a violation of the old CBA?

Yes, these owners were able to get the NFLPA to retroactively sanction this illegal collusion. But, why should two teams who refuse to go along with the original illegal collusion be subject to punishement? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Having said all that, I realized that the Skins still have to live and do business with these other owner-crooks. That is why I was not particularly keen about filing this grievance/arbitration in the first place. I still worry that the NFL can come down hard on the Skins over the bounty issue.

[bergiemoore]

Originally Posted by HanburgerBum

Are you sure that a team is allowed to carry-over unused cap space from year to year? If you are right, what's to prevent a team from actually having something like 50 mil over the regular cap limit for a particular year?

Originally Posted by CBA, Article 13, Section 6

Carrying Over Room. A Club may "carry over" Room from one
League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the
owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (1 4) days prior to the start of the next League
Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The
NFL shall prompdy provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLP A. The amount of
Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after
the year-end reconciliation

Nothing prevents the scenario you mentioned, so long as teams spend up to the salary floor in any given season.