Maithanet, on 23 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:
Given the timing of it, I have to assume that somehow that NFLPA thought they would have a better case for collusion if the NFL first had to present their case in this lawsuit against the Redskins/Cowboys. The Rooney quote and the vote on punishment seems like pretty damning evidence that there was indeed an agreed upon salary cap, and that violating that cap had real penalties.
I can't imagine the NFL having lawyers actually argue that the sanctions against Washington and Dallas are justified, while simultaneously arguing that there was no collusion towards an agreed upon cap. But since the former has already been thrown out, it wouldn't surprise me if the NFL somehow managed to get this one thrown out too, and therefore avoid having to defend either one of these ridiculous positions.
I think the NFL has a pretty strong argument here. The issue wasn't trying to impose a cap in the uncapped year. The issue was preventing teams from gaming the cap for subsequent
years once an agreement was reached.
What the NFL was worried about was that teams would take currently existing contracts, modify them to pay most of the money only in the uncapped year, and then be way under the cap in subsequent years. That was the very particularized set of "gaming" facts the NFL warned teams against. But if a team wanted to go way over the cap in the uncapped year, that wouldn't be a problem in itself, as long as they weren't rewriting contracts to game things.
The union knew all about this, so trying to claim now that this case is all based on new facts is pretty ridiculous. Plus, they pretty clearly waived their right to file suit.
Having Judge Doty helps the union, but not as much as usual. In prior cases, the numbers at stake have been huge, and pretty open-ended. The amount at issue here will be more defined, and the verdict would be one for damages only, not any sort of injunctive relief. So there won't be a timing issue requiring the case to be resolved quickly, and any ruling Doty makes would be subject to challenge on appeal.
Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 29 May 2012 - 10:33 AM.