409 replies to this topic

[Maithanet]

The NFLPA is suing the NFL about the secret $123 million salary cap.  One day after the Redskins/Cowboys case was dismissed, primarily on the grounds that the NFLPA signed off on it.  That's for the hand guys, here's your knife back.

From the article:

Quote

According to the union, the complaint details a conspiracy in which the NFL imposed “a secret $123 million per-Club salary cap for that uncapped 2010 season.” The claim was filed with the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, which means Judge David Doty -- certainly not a favorite of the NFL -- likely would oversee the claim.


In the NFLPA release, the union says the complaint also cites Giants owner John Mara's words when discussing the penalties of the Redskins and Cowboys, saying, “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole … full well knowing there would be consequences.” Also, since the NFL approved those Cowboys and Redskins contracts in the first place, the NFLPA says the NFL is punishing those teams for breaking the unwritten salary cap.

I have no idea if they have a case.  I thought the Redskins/Cowboys case was very solid, and it was dismissed pre-trial, so obviously a sports lawyer I am not.  But it sucks to get hung out to dry like this, and you'd think that the NFLPA would at least owe Jones/Snyder something for constantly driving player salaries up.

In other news, Gronkowski traded?!

Edited by Maithanet, 23 May 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Jaime L]

Maithanet, on 23 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

The NFLPA is suing the NFL about the secret $123 million salary cap. One day after the Redskins/Cowboys case was dismissed, primarily on the grounds that the NFLPA signed off on it. That's for the hand guys, here's your knife back.

Sweet suffering fuck. Is the NFLPA functionally retarded or something?

If they were going to sue the NFL for collusion why did they originally agree to the punishment levied on the Cowboys and Redskins for not taking part in the collusion? Did they not consider the ramifications of what they were agreeing to or did they not read what they were signing?

Either way, welcome guys, to 3 months ago. Try not to spill your coffee all over yourselves.

Edited by Jaime Bollocks, 23 May 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Maithanet]

Jaime Bollocks, on 23 May 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

If they were going to sue the NFL for collusion why did they originally agree to the punishment levied on the Cowboys and Redskins for not taking part in the collusion? Did they not consider the ramifications of what they were agreeing to or did they not read what they were signing?

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.

[Jaime L]

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.

Maybe. Maybe there's a procedural method to the madness. But it makes the NFLPA look either like hypocrites or incompetent to first agree to the salary cap penalties levied on the Skins/Cowboys, thereby cutting both teams off at the knees as they try to fight it, and then after both teams lose in their arbitration hearing come back later and say "oh wait, those teams were right. You can't winkwinknudgenudge enforce a salary cap in a collectively bargained uncapped year". Really - So what'd you think the penalties were about in the first place?

But I agree with you the NFL is still likely to win because they always win regardless of how faulty their logic is.

Edited by Jaime Bollocks, 23 May 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[Maithanet]

Jaime Bollocks, on 23 May 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

But I agree with you the NFL is still likely to win because they always win regardless of how faulty their logic is.

It was funny seeing one of the 30 in 30 ESPN films about the Raiders and it talked about Al Davis successfully suing the NFL several times.  Can't really imagine that now, he'd probably have trouble with standing.

[Trebla]

Here's a good article about the Cowboys/Redskins case and the NFLPA's lawsuit. It answers some on why the Boys and Skins lost and why the NFLPA thinks it MIGHT have a chance.  http://espn.go.com/b...-case-continues

Quote

Q: Why is the union doing this now? Didn't they sign off on the cap penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys when the league decided to impose them?

A: Technically, yes, but they weren't happy about it. The NFLPA believes the NFL strong-armed them into agreeing to those penalties by threatening to reduce the 2012 salary cap by about $7 million per team if they did not agree. Faced with that alternative, the union believes it chose the lesser of two evils by agreeing that two teams lose $46 million over the next two years (and have that money redistributed to the other teams) rather than have more than $220 million taken out of the overall pool, which is what a $7 million-per-team cap reduction would have meant. As I've written several times, this was not a shining moment for the union, and they're angry that the NFL forced them into that decision. This may well be revenge for that tactic.

Q: Can they win?

A: I don't think so, since as a condition of the end of the lockout last year, the players agreed to drop all pending litigation against the league, and the league claims the agreement clearly covered litigation for offenses both "known and unknown." The union will argue that the impositions of the penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys brought previously unknown information to light, and that they never agreed not to sue over this specific behavior. But if that "known and unknown" clause is legit, it's hard to see how they have acase. One point to note, however: This suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, under the jurisdiction of Judge David Doty, who has leaned so heavily in favor of the players in past disputes that the owners made it a point to remove arbitration matters from his jurisdiction in the new collective bargaining agreement. It was arbitrator Stephen Burbank, historically more friendly to the owners, who threw out the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint Tuesday.

Q: Will this help the Redskins and Cowboys get their money back?

A: I can't imagine how. The teams agreed to abide by Burbank's ruling Tuesday, and if the union were to succeed here, the players would be awarded damages. It's possible, if it's determined that there was collusion and the Redskins and Cowboys did not engage in it, that those two teams could be exempted somehow from having to pay the damages. But I don't see how they get their cap money back as a result of this.

I'll keep on top of this as far as it affects the division, but as you can see by the last answer there, the part about which most Redskins and Cowboys fans care is almost certainly settled. As always, I welcome any questions you have on this on Twitter, in the mailbag or in the weekly chat, and I'll do the best I can to help you understand it as far as I do myself

eta: edited for quote tags

Edited by Trebla, 23 May 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[DanteGabriel]

Maithanet, on 23 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

In other news, Gronkowski traded?!

That wasn't cool.

[Maithanet]

Hakeem Nicks out 12 weeks.  He should be back to full speed by the start of the season, but nonetheless it's worrisome for the defending champs.

DanteGabriel, on 23 May 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

That wasn't cool.

Says the guy in the devil suit.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

[Bronn Stone]

If FLOW is correct and the Cowboys and Racialslurs were front-loading contracts during the uncapped year, I hope the owners prevail.  If they were just spending a lot, I hope the teams prevail.

[Maithanet]

Бронн Камінь, on 29 May 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

If FLOW is correct and the Cowboys and Racialslurs were front-loading contracts during the uncapped year, I hope the owners prevail.  If they were just spending a lot, I hope the teams prevail.

The owners already have prevailed, so who to root for is moot.

As for front-loading contracts, that is true to some extent, but to me that is a distinction without a difference.  Teams modify contracts constantly, it's not like anyone thinks that year 5 of a five year contract is actually going to happen.  To assume that any modification to change the years and amounts in a given cap year is somehow illegal, at a time when there was no salary cap, strikes me as absurd.  The Redskins knew that they were probably going to cut Haynesworth, so they spent the money they owed him in the uncapped year.  I see no difference between this and say, signing Julius Peppers to a one year, 30 million dollar contract, in the hope that we can just buy the Super Bowl.  In fact, I would say that example would be more egregious, because you would actually be making a huge impact on the competitive balance in a single year, rather than just housekeeping on some bad contracts when the rules are no longer in place to prevent that.

[Jaime L]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 29 May 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

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 only way the NFL has a leg to stand on is if there was language in the previous CBA strictly forbidding the kind of contracts the Cowboys and Redskins drew up in 2010. They can warn teams all they want - the CBA ultimately determines what teams can and cannot do because that's what the player's union agreed to. Of course there is no such language in the previous CBA which is why the NFL approved every contract the Skins and Cowboys drew up and why they're forced to warn teams and talk about affronts to the spirit of the rules. Because no rule was actually broken and if they didn't want that behavior the owners shouldn't have allowed an uncapped year in the previous CBA.

But just because the NFL can later strongarm the union into agreeing to sanctions on the two teams that did not collude in 2010 by threatening not to raise the cap in future years, it doesn't undo the fact that the NFL is very much in the wrong on this issue. When owners talk about the Skins and Cowboys "gaming" the system, what they're really pissed off about is that the two teams didn't toe the company line and fall in line with the gentleman's agreement to collude.

Edited by Jaime Bollocks, 29 May 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[Space Bandito]

Hard Knocks is going to Miami. Funny as it sounds as a Patriots fan I think I could actually stomach watching that. I had trouble watching it last season.  As we all know HBO (with a little help) can create a good story line or two.

[Prince of the North]

FLOW and Jaime have encapsulated this issue quite well.  Now, the only thing that remains to be seen is just how much import will be given to the fact that the NFLPA waived it's right to sue, etc. (which, of course, did not happen by accident)?  Remember, I don't know who said it but you'll have to look far and wide to find a truer statement than (paraphrasing) "The reason the NFL has been so successful is because a bunch of capitalists chose to behave like socialists".

[kalbear]

Quote

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.

Yeah, I don't see how this matters. The intent of the teams and what they can get away with is really inconsequential since in that year there was no CBA. If they decided to do something different that is absolutely collusion, as there was no contractual agreement with the union to decide that behavior.

I understand why the NFL didn't want this, but you can't make a claim that states that this was perfectly fine because doing otherwise would have violated a nonexistent contract that was going to happen a year later. That's not how things work.

[Bronn Stone]

Actually, I think the Commisioners Office has fairly broad powers to act in the 'best interest of the game' to cover situations not covered by the rules.  If the agreement of the PA to waive their right to sue is upheld, that it wasn't in the CBA is moot.  The office does not often invoke these powers because the deck is so stacked in favor of the owners that they have all they normally want covered in the rules.  Collusion can't be grounds for the owners to sue each other, and if the PA agreed to not sue, and that agreement is upheld, then the issue is over.

Steelers7127, on 29 May 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Alrighty thanks man. I will have to fix the quiet Steelers fan problem.

Where's Wallace?

Steelers are in disarray.  No chance they repeat.

[Howdyphillip]

Prince of the North, on 29 May 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

FLOW and Jaime have encapsulated this issue quite well.  Now, the only thing that remains to be seen is just how much import will be given to the fact that the NFLPA waived it's right to sue, etc. (which, of course, did not happen by accident)?  Remember, I don't know who said it but you'll have to look far and wide to find a truer statement than (paraphrasing) "The reason the NFL has been so successful is because a bunch of capitalists chose to behave like socialists".

I don't think that signing away rights actually take away rights. In other words, If an amusement park makes you sign a statement that says you will not sue them, and then they put you on a roller coaster that breaks down because of bad maintenance, you can still sue the amusement park for negligence. All the signing does is allows the park to tell you that you can't do it. ,

[Steelers7127]

Бронн Камінь, on 29 May 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Where's Wallace?

Steelers are in disarray.  No chance they repeat.

Repeat what? 2nd in the division and wild card loss? I agree with you. Wallace won't hold out forever, and both sides are doing what it takes to get a deal done, it will work itself out, and the 1% chance it doesn't, Brown, Sanders, and Cotchree can get the job done. All the Hayley and Ben not getting along is the media doing what they can to make a story, and Ben has recently said the new offense is starting to click with everyone. 2nd round pick Mike Adams starting at LT, Colon moving to LG which many people believe he will excel at, the best center in the league in Pouncey, 1st round A grade Decastro at RG, and Marcus Gilbert who played well in his rookie season at RT, instantly turns one of the Steelers glaring weaknesses into a potential strength. The Defense who was "getting old" finished first in total yardage last season, and the doubters will still doubt. Keenan Lewis instant upgrade over Gay at CB, and Ike Taylor had his best season until the Bronco game. Not to mention best Safety in the game,Polamalu, with Ryan Clark back their as well. (who couldn't and cant play in Denver big loss). They are a perfect mixture of youth and experience, with young guys already training behind the experienced guys. Chris Rainey, RB from florida, will instantly make an impact as a special team returner, instantly becomes one of the fastest guys in the league, not to mention at RB he can catch the ball out of the backfield and turn it into a big gain. Pittsburgh's defense will continue to do it's thing, and when Hayley's offense comes together, watch out.

[Bronn Stone]

Holafernando Torres, on 29 May 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

I don't think that signing away rights actually take away rights. In other words, If an amusement park makes you sign a statement that says you will not sue them, and then they put you on a roller coaster that breaks down because of bad maintenance, you can still sue the amusement park for negligence. All the signing does is allows the park to tell you that you can't do it. ,

Totally different scenario. A collective bargaining agreement between two groups of high-powered lawyers is much more enforceable than your standard waiver of liability.  The courts will presume you knew exactly what you were doing when you did it.  The NFLPA will contend that the Owners concealed knowledge from them that would have kept them from agreeing, but they did sign a VERY broad waiver, with full advice from counsel.  I'd be surprised to see it go very far, unless the Minnesota judge is truly going to bend over backwards to see it their way.

[Greywolf2375]

League is now claiming they have a ledger of week by week rewards & hit type for the Saints:
http://sports.yahoo....ty-scandal.html