JohnC 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. Due to the termination of the old CBA it was an uncapped year. There was no cap limit, up or down. With respect to the Skins they weren't spending money, they were eating contracts in a year in which there were no cap rules, at least on paper. You insist that the Skins and Cowboys skirted the system. What system? Nothig was in place, at least in writing. There was a tacit agreement (collusion/illegal) among the owners to behave in a certain way. In other words there was an unofficial agreement that wasn't official. That type of argument usually doesn't work very well in a courtroom. 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 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. RIGHT. i get that. and ANY agreement is dollars out of players pockets. whether those are shuffled dollars or not. in an uncapped year, having rules on how you can spend on players is detrimental to players and collusion. i get why THE OWNERS wanted it but it was not fair to the players as it limited their abilities to maximize their own earning potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 23, 2012 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. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82949448/article/nflpa-files-collusion-suit-against-nfl-over-2010-season-?module=HP11_headline_stack What a freaking mess. Now I understand why Snyder and Jones decided not to pursue their claim in court. If they did they would be buttressing the legal position of the union and arguing against the owners. Loyalty is important in the mafia and NFL ownership club. Sometimes behaving ethically is much simpler than behaving unethically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO 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. No, I grasped completely the bolded part. Posters are taking this as an opportunity to whip out their "hate" of Snyder and Jones---no matter the merits of their case. I linke a decent review of the case and the decision by the arbitrator on the previous page. There are many more you can find yourself if you have 30 free seconds. But essentially, those two did not take advntage of the other owners--not in any sense at all. They took advantage of what everyone knew was an uncapped year (an what that means) to move money away from future uncapped years. The other owners didn't want teams to do this, but to force them not to is collusion (fixing prices/salaries without an CBA that permits them to do so). Snyder and Jones didn't want to abide by the nonbinding wishes of the other owners. That's what this case was about. You can pretend otherwise to feel your argument makes more sense, but this is why they went to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 An interesting twist that I've yet to hear discussed is the nfl argues this CBA ended any previous discipline/consequence but is still chasing the saints for 2009 conduct. This offseason is a mess for the nfl office. 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. Speaking to point 1- could players argue that punishments doled out this year are continued collusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Due to the termination of the old CBA it was an uncapped year. There was no cap limit, up or down. With respect to the Skins they weren't spending money, they were eating contracts in a year in which there were no cap rules, at least on paper. You insist that the Skins and Cowboys skirted the system. What system? Nothig was in place, at least in writing. There was a tacit agreement (collusion/illegal) among the owners to behave in a certain way. In other words there was an unofficial agreement that wasn't official. That type of argument usually doesn't work very well in a courtroom. The "system" was the basic warning that teams should not use the single uncapped year as a loophole to benefit themselves in future capped years. (No, it was not legally binding) The 2 major cheating teams did use the loophole, and got a deserved punishment for it. It's a business, and 32 franchises decide what's best for business. 4 of the franchises decided to put themselves as individuals ahead of the business as a whole, and the other 28 owners chose to smack them back into place. No one team is above the league. Jerry and Danny-boy just learned a very expensive lesson that this is how things are run. An interesting twist that I've yet to hear discussed is the nfl argues this CBA ended any previous discipline/consequence but is still chasing the saints for 2009 conduct. This offseason is a mess for the nfl office. Speaking to point 1- could players argue that punishments doled out this year are continued collusion? If you read JohnC's quote from a few posts back, this was in the article. And overall, I'm not necessarily arguing what the owners did was right, just that the cowboys and redskins rightfully deserved the punishments they recevied. The 2006 CBA has nothing to do with bounty gate, that's why its being brought up. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded to the players' claims with a comment: "The filing of these claims is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement and separately by an agreement signed by the players' attorneys last August. The claims have absolutely no merit and we fully expect them to be dismissed. On multiple occasions, the players and their representatives specifically dismissed all claims, known or unknown, whether pending or not, regarding alleged violations of the 2006 CBA and the related settlement agreement. We continue to look forward to focusing on the future of the game rather than grievances of a prior era that have already been resolved." Edited May 24, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) The "system" was the basic warning that teams should not use the single uncapped year as a loophole to benefit themselves in future capped years. (No, it was not legally binding) The 2 major cheating teams did use the loophole, and got a deserved punishment for it. It's a business, and 32 franchises decide what's best for business. 4 of the franchises decided to put themselves as individuals ahead of the business as a whole, and the other 28 owners chose to smack them back into place. No one team is above the league. Jerry and Danny-boy just learned a very expensive lesson that this is how things are run. If you read JohnC's quote from a few posts back, this was in the article. And overall, I'm not necessarily arguing what the owners did was right, just that the cowboys and redskins rightfully deserved the punishments they recevied. The 2006 CBA has nothing to do with bounty gate, that's why its being brought up. Again, without a CBA in place the 32 teams can't arbitrarily decide what's best for the game in regards to pay for players. Theres a reason this cap wasn't announced. Its not legal. That year was an open and free market. If there's not a rule in place you can't punish. It's just plain not fair to anyone. Giving the owners arbitrary power to punish anyone that does something that a majority doesn't like is an awful precedent. Support it now if you want but it's absolutely inappropriate and when it happens to us I'm sure we will see a melt down on here. Further, the nflpa is arguing that the waiver doesn't stand per an order from judge doty at the time of signing. The verbiage included in the document was essentially altered from what the nfl is parroting right now. So even though signatures were on the page, the page is, according to the nflpa argument, not worth the paper it's written on. And bounty gate has a ton to do with this as both sides essentially said they'd wipe the slate clean for better or worse. The nfl is trying to have the best of both worlds: hold players accountable pre-CBA but not the owners. I promise the nflpa does see a connection even if you don't. I don't doubt that the nfl coming down so hard on the players has something to do what the change of tune here, atleast tangentially. I know hating on goodell is popular but in my opinion Jeffrey pash is a big part of what's wrong with football in the average fans mind (even if they don't know who he is) Edited May 24, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I know hating on goodell is popular but in my opinion Jeffrey pash is a big part of what's wrong with football in the average fans mind (even if they don't know who he is) Jeffrey Pash represents the collective mind-set of the owners: Predatory corporate power steam-rolling the opposition. For them the concept of partnership doesn't exist. It is the boss and subordinate paradigm. I'm surprised he doesn't work for Bain. He is a hired gun who is not afraid to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Jeffrey Pash represents the collective mind-set of the owners: Predatory corporate power steam-rolling the opposition. For them the concept of partnership doesn't exist. It is the boss and subordinate paradigm. I'm surprised he doesn't work for Bain. He is a hired gun who is not afraid to shoot. Unfortunately I think goodell has put too much faith in a man that has little incentive to keep things peaceful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Again, without a CBA in place the 32 teams can't arbitrarily decide what's best for the game in regards to pay for players. Theres a reason this cap wasn't announced. Its not legal. That year was an open and free market. If there's not a rule in place you can't punish. It's just plain not fair to anyone. Giving the owners arbitrary power to punish anyone that does something that a majority doesn't like is an awful precedent. Support it now if you want but it's absolutely inappropriate and when it happens to us I'm sure we will see a melt down on here. This nicely sums it up for those who still don't understand what is being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Unfortunately I think goodell has put too much faith in a man that has little incentive to keep things peaceful It was not a secret what Pash stood for and how he operated. The owners knew exactly what they were getting when they hired him. His methodology was well known by those who hired him. Pash's style has never been about diplomacy; it is about steamrolling the opposition. It doesn't really matter what Goodell thinks. Goodell works for the owners. That was very evident during the CBA negotiatins. Is Pash still working for the league or has he moved on to the next battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 It was not a secret what Pash stood for and how he operated. The owners knew exactly what they were getting when they hired him. His methodology was well known by those who hired him. Pash's style has never been about diplomacy; it is about steamrolling the opposition. It doesn't really matter what Goodell thinks. Goodell works for the owners. That was very evident during the CBA negotiatins. Is Pash still working for the league or has he moved on to the next battle? Last I knew, still the nfl. Maybe I'm giving too much credit but I feel like at somepoint the owners and goodell have more motivation to do for the good of the game than pash. Granted your point is VERY valid. I just feel like what should have been easy wins for the league are going to court due to arrogant legal advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Last I knew, still the nfl. Maybe I'm giving too much credit but I feel like at somepoint the owners and goodell have more motivation to do for the good of the game than pash. Granted your point is VERY valid. I just feel like what should have been easy wins for the league are going to court due to arrogant legal advice If you are talking about the collusion issue I have a different angle from your position. My take is that the owners got themselves into a potential legal imbroglio over the collusion quicksand not because of the legal advice they were given (which might be the case) but because of their very enlarged egos. The owners, as individuals, are very strong-willed and stubborn people who are used to getting their way. When some members of the club decided to go against the club they were incensed. The Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder combo were not and have not been team players. They were lone-wolf operators who very often went against the more gentile pack. The backdrop to the owners acting imprudently originated from a long term seething against these independent owners who weren't seen as team players. The owners felt they had an opportunity to cut down the renegades, so they lashed out. They didn't act on a basis of cold-blooded business and legal calculation. They acted on the basis of their animosity for the outliers whose perspective is about the individual good instead of the collective good. If you think of the ownership group as a mafia you will understand the mentality I am referring to. When members act outside the collective authority and the unwritten rules of the game then it is not surprising that the revengeful discipline is administered. Edited May 24, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If you are talking about the collusion issue I have a different angle from your position. My take is that the owners got themselves into a potential legal imbroglio over the collusion quicksand not because of the legal advice they were given (which might be the case) but because of their very enlarged egos. The owners, as individuals, are for the most part very strong-willed people who are used to getting their way. When some members of the club decided to go against the club they were incensed. The Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder combo were not and have not been team players. They were lone-wolf operators who very often went against the more gentile pack. The backdrop to the owners acting imprudently originated from a long term seething against these independent owners who weren't seen as team players. The owners felt they had an opportunity to cut down the renegades, so they lashed out. They didn't act on a basis of cold-blooded business and legal calculation. They acted on the basis of their animosity for the outliers whose perspective is about the individual good instead of the collective good. If you think of the ownership group as a mafia you will understand the mentality I am referring to. When members act outside the collective authority and rules of the game then it is not surprising that the revengeful discipline is administered. i was talking about an overreaching theme the last year or so. that there seems to be no one in legal to check those egos when they sprout up. instead they get the green light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) i was talking about an overreaching theme the last year or so. that there seems to be no one in legal to check those egos when they sprout up. instead they get the green light. A certain class of people don't bother themselves with the red lights. That is for the little people. Royalty goes by different rules, their own rules. There is nothing unusual about lawyers justifying the whims of their clients. Or that clients dismiss the concerns of their attorneys because they want to do what they want to do. What it comes down to is that the owners are driving the bus wherever they want it to go. Edited May 24, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 A certain class of people don't bother themselves with the red lights. That is for the little people. Royalty goes by different rules, their own rules. There is nothing unusual about lawyers justifying the whims of their clients. Or that clients dismiss the concerns of their attorneys because they want to do what they want to do. What it comes down to is that the owners are driving the bus wherever they want it to go. true enough. and i suppose they found someone willing to go down that road. its just been especially belligerent this year it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts