Malazan Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 They weren't innocent or unaware in all of this. They tried to take advantage of a situation and screw over the rest of the league. The rest of the league said, 'No'. That's all their is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) They weren't innocent or unaware in all of this. They tried to take advantage of a situation and screw over the rest of the league. The rest of the league said, 'No'. That's all their is to it. actually, they followed the rules, and the rest of the league tried to screw over the players by not following the rules together... they instead did everything inside the rules to win, instead of letting the desire to screw the players illegally get in the way of putting what they thought was the best product on the field. fun for all of us, is that they totally wasted the money and were garbage. disappointing is the nfl trying to enforce made up rules with huge penalties. Edited May 23, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 actually, they followed the rules, and the rest of the league tried to screw over the players by not following the rules together... they instead did everything inside the rules to win, instead of letting the desire to screw the players illegally get in the way of putting what they thought was the best product on the field. fun for all of us, is that they totally wasted the money and were garbage. disappointing is the nfl trying to enforce made up rules with huge penalties. Good luck getting your point across NoSaint. It's amazing so many are commenting who simply don't know the concept and details of the case being discussed. Oh, wait...no I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Good luck getting your point across NoSaint. It's amazing so many are commenting who simply don't know the concept and details of the case being discussed. Oh, wait...no I'm not. If you're saying, you're familiar with the legal intricacies involved in the case, I'm going to go with you may be overestimating your knowledge of the intricacies of how the law and the rules of the NFL impact this situation. You've also failed to grasp that most people are not commenting on 'the case' as much as the owners of those teams knew they were taking advantage of the situation and screwing over their business partners. Their business partners then used their powers to rebuff the actions they took when it was possible. actually, they followed the rules, and the rest of the league tried to screw over the players by not following the rules together... they instead did everything inside the rules to win, instead of letting the desire to screw the players illegally get in the way of putting what they thought was the best product on the field. Please convey the specific rule that they followed that you are referencing. Please provide any relevant legal citation and appropriate articles from NFL regulations. Edited May 23, 2012 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If you're saying, you're familiar with the legal intricacies involved in the case, I'm going to go with you may be overestimating your knowledge of the intricacies of how the law and the rules of the NFL impact this situation. You've also failed to grasp that most people are not commenting on 'the case' as much as the owners of those teams knew they were taking advantage of the situation and screwing over their business partners. Their business partners then used their powers to rebuff the actions they took when it was possible. Please convey the specific rule that they followed that you are referencing. Please provide any relevant legal citation and appropriate articles from NFL regulations. It was an uncapped year. They could spend freely. The other teams made a back room deal that they wouldn't spend which without the mutually agreed upon CBA is collusion. You can't go up to 31 other businesses in your field and say "hey guys - lets not pay more than 55k a year for this job to make sure we all keep costs down" and then punish those that say screw that. Where in the world do you think owners acquired the right to unilaterally impose a salary cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 No, that's my point -- in THIS one particular situation they decided they didn't want to collude and are crying foul. There was a tacit agreement (purposely not written) among the owners that they would collude on the "uncapped" year. That is illegal. It is blatant collusion. That is why there was so much pontifcating about the "spirit" of the rules as opposed to the specifics of the rule (which didn't exist). The Skins ate a lot of contracts in the uncapped year so that they would be in a good position when a new CBA was signed. What makes this situation very odd is that all contracts have to be approved in advance by the league office before they go into effect. It the Skins or the Cowboys were doing something that was unacceptable then why didn't the league office put a stop to the way the contracts were handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 There was a tacit agreement (purposely not written) among the owners that they would collude on the "uncapped" year. That is illegal. It is blatant collusion. That is why there was so much pontifcating about the "spirit" of the rules as opposed to the specifics of the rule (which didn't exist). The Skins ate a lot of contracts in the uncapped year so that they would be in a good position when a new CBA was signed. What makes this situation very odd is that all contracts have to be approved in advance by the league office before they go into effect. It the Skins or the Cowboys were doing something that was unacceptable then why didn't the league office put a stop to the way the contracts were handled. John, you and WEO are missing my point. I don't dispute the specific facts of THIS situation, but the problem is the owners pick and choose when they do or don't want the "legality" of their actions to impact them. That's why I have no sympathy for Snyder and Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 There was a tacit agreement (purposely not written) among the owners that they would collude on the "uncapped" year. That is illegal. It is blatant collusion. That is why there was so much pontifcating about the "spirit" of the rules as opposed to the specifics of the rule (which didn't exist). The Skins ate a lot of contracts in the uncapped year so that they would be in a good position when a new CBA was signed. What makes this situation very odd is that all contracts have to be approved in advance by the league office before they go into effect. It the Skins or the Cowboys were doing something that was unacceptable then why didn't the league office put a stop to the way the contracts were handled. Because they waited for the CBA to be signed including a clause that players couldn't sue for this very behavior that they had - once signed they decided to nail people that didn't agree to the secret arrangement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I am surprised NFLPA did not file a "friend of plaintiffs" letter saying that Dallass* and Redsuck* saying what the team was doing was right - finding another way to give more money to players who according to them deserve all of it. Note: Neither team was heavily involved in trying to settle labor dispute before uncapped year occurred or after, no coincidence I think since both though uncapped year was way to dump some of salary cap and would not mind in more 'competitive' baseball style cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I am surprised NFLPA did not file a "friend of plaintiffs" letter saying that Dallass* and Redsuck* saying what the team was doing was right - finding another way to give more money to players who according to them deserve all of it. Note: Neither team was heavily involved in trying to settle labor dispute before uncapped year occurred or after, no coincidence I think since both though uncapped year was way to dump some of salary cap and would not mind in more 'competitive' baseball style cap. The union went along with the judgment because the cap money taken away from the two teams was still added to the revenue pot from which the CAP is based on. If the CAP money taken away from the two teams was subtracted from the revenue base then the union would not have allowed the punishment to be adminsitered, at least not without a fight. The union's stance is that as long as it didn't impact the revenue shared by the players then it wasn't their concern, it was simply an owner squabble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 So...the NFL made a secret arrangement to commit a crime? They then punished the teams who refused to go along with it? And they did it publicly???? Yep...that makes total sense. I highly doubt the billionaire owners & attorneys are that stupid. The only fact in this case is that the Cowboys & Skins were docked salary cap space. If it was because of anything close to Collusion the owners know they are protected. The NFLPA's case won't even make the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 John, you and WEO are missing my point. I don't dispute the specific facts of THIS situation, but the problem is the owners pick and choose when they do or don't want the "legality" of their actions to impact them. That's why I have no sympathy for Snyder and Jones. Whether Jones or Snyder are terrific people or scoundrels really isn't material. I've concluded that based on the facts in this particular case they were treated unfairly. The arbitrator made a ruling upholding the ruling not on the facts which he really didn't even consider but based his decision on the process. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are very aggressive owners who sometimes are not inclined to go along with the consensus of the staid group. Because of that they are resented, especially by the old guard. The backdrop for this cap issue has as much to do with an accumulated resentment as it does with a particular incident. In my view even upopular and unlikeable people deserve a fair consideration in a quasi judicial setting. I don't think they got it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Because they waited for the CBA to be signed including a clause that players couldn't sue for this very behavior that they had - once signed they decided to nail people that didn't agree to the secret arrangement The union never had an interest in suing in this type of setting. They lost nothing from the owner squabble. The cap money taken away from the two teams was still applied to the total revenue base. If the cap money would have been subtracted from the revenue pot the union would be back in court. Both the Skins and Cowboys do have a good claim if they decided to take this matter to court. Both parties decided to not legally pursue the matter. That was a business decision and not a legal decision. Just think if Ralph Wilson was punished for a violation that resulted in cap space being taken away from him. I don't think he would be very unhappy for being compelled not to spend money. He just might be ecstatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) The union never had an interest in suing in this type of setting. They lost nothing from the owner squabble. The cap money taken away from the two teams was still applied to the total revenue base. If the cap money would have been subtracted from the revenue pot the union would be back in court. Both the Skins and Cowboys do have a good claim if they decided to take this matter to court. Both parties decided to not legally pursue the matter. That was a business decision and not a legal decision. Just think if Ralph Wilson was punished for a violation that resulted in cap space being taken away from him. I don't think he would be very unhappy for being compelled not to spend money. He just might be ecstatic. missed the real point - if the players could prove and still sue that nfl owners colluded to keep salaries down they could sue for the damages - clearly some teams were willing to spend over the 123m mark that season, and without this "deal" in place, how many more would have potentially? i get that they dont really care how 2012s pool is split up, but the fact that 2010 was a limited pool is damaging to them. the nfl waited until they had signed a document waiving the right to sue for those damages before publicly acknowledging this, or else they could have just voided the moves when they happened. voiding the moves at the time would have left them open to a lawsuit. further, it still may end up in court. both sides have agreed they will abide by the ruling but in the ruling is that each team has the right to take this to a court. neither has openly said "this issue is done." Edited May 23, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The union never had an interest in suing in this type of setting. They lost nothing from the owner squabble. The cap money taken away from the two teams was still applied to the total revenue base. If the cap money would have been subtracted from the revenue pot the union would be back in court. Both the Skins and Cowboys do have a good claim if they decided to take this matter to court. Both parties decided to not legally pursue the matter. That was a business decision and not a legal decision. Just think if Ralph Wilson was punished for a violation that resulted in cap space being taken away from him. I don't think he would be very unhappy for being compelled not to spend money. He just might be ecstatic. The cowboys and redskins weren't compelled NOT to spend money. They were being compelled to not skirt the system in regards to HOW they spent their money. The league wouldn't have cared if the skins and cowpokes paid out tons of money in normal contracts. It simply would have bit them in the ass when the new cap was agreed upon. Instead, both of those teams tried to spend money and not get bit in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) The cowboys and redskins weren't compelled NOT to spend money. They were being compelled to not skirt the system in regards to HOW they spent their money. The league wouldn't have cared if the skins and cowpokes paid out tons of money in normal contracts. It simply would have bit them in the ass when the new cap was agreed upon. Instead, both of those teams tried to spend money and not get bit in the ass. and what legal right does the league have to enforce that rule in an uncapped year? further, how is the punishment not arbitrary that two teams are punished by a set dollar amount that is reflected directly by their actions, while the other two teams were just given a deduction equivalent to not getting their share of those other teams violations. if they had a means of calculating the offense for both the cowboys and redskins, why not do the same for the saints and raiders instead of the fully arbitraty "we just wont give them a cut" Edited May 23, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) missed the real point - if the players could prove and still sue that nfl owners colluded to keep salaries down they could sue for the damages - clearly some teams were willing to spend over the 123m mark that season, and without this "deal" in place, how many more would have potentially? i get that they dont really care how 2012s pool is split up, but the fact that 2010 was a limited pool is damaging to them. the nfl waited until they had signed a document waiving the right to sue for those damages before publicly acknowledging this, or else they could have just voided the moves when they happened. voiding the moves at the time would have left them open to a lawsuit. In the new CBA teams are compelled to pay up to 90% of the cap. What it comes down to is that the salary floor has been raised so owners such as Wilson and Brown could no longer get away with spending less. Thus, why would the union go to court in a costly fight for an old salary battle in an uncapped year when under the new CBA the revenues increased. From the union's standpoint it isn't an issue of fighting a wrong as whether it was worth it to them. They calculated it wasn't. further, it still may end up in court. both sides have agreed they will abide by the ruling but in the ruling is that each team has the right to take this to a court. neither has openly said "this issue is done." Both the Skins and Cowboys stated that they won't pursue the matter in court. They are going to abide by the ruling with no further action. Edited May 23, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) In the new CBA teams are compelled to pay up to 90% of the cap. What it comes down to is that the salary floor has been raised so owners such as Wilson and Brown could no longer away with spending less. Thus, why would the union go to court to intermally fight an old salary battle in an uncapped year when under the new CBA the revenues increased. From the union's standpoint it isn't an issue of fighting a wrong as whether it was worth it to them. They calculated it wasn't. Both the Skins and Cowboys stated that they won't pursue the matter in court. They are going to abide by the ruling with no further action. the nflpa has stated today that they as a union may pursue the matter still. players certainly suffered damages if there was a secret cap. the debate now is if they have the right to sue, given the agreements in the new cba. i believe we will end up hearing names like judge doty with this soon. Edited May 23, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) the nflpa has stated today that they as a union may pursue the matter still. players certainly suffered damages if there was a secret cap. the debate now is if they have the right to sue, given the agreements in the new cba. i believe we will end up hearing names like judge doty with this soon. 1. The players agreed (in the new CBA) that they could not pursue any litigation involving the previous CBA. Their claim will likely get thrown out on these grounds. 2. Again, you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this. There was no collusion for a secret HARD CAP. The collusion was to not structure contracts so that teams could take advantage of the uncapped year to help themselves gain an advantage in the capped years after a new CBA was agreed upon. This was more about accounting and cooking the books as opposed to out and out spending. The NFL didn't want teams to shuffle huge cap hits (be it from cuts or new contracts) into the uncapped year so they coudl take less of a cap hit in the following capped years. Edited May 23, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 the nflpa has stated today that they as a union may pursue the matter still. players certainly suffered damages if there was a secret cap. the debate now is if they have the right to sue, given the agreements in the new cba. i believe we will end up hearing names like judge doty with this soon. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts