You want action? Kraft has a PLAN

AzPatsFan · Aug 1, 2015

The biggest fear the owners have is that the NEXT CBA comes to resemble the baseball system, and that the legitimate needs and perquisites for a Commissioner are curbed, due to these excesses.

There is plenty of precedent for the people in charge to quietly force the sacrifice of a few underlings to take the blame. In football, how often as a Head Coach fired one of his Coordinators as a way to deflect criticism from himself? It's done every year.

Goodell harnessed by newly imposed budget or other restrictions and/or considerations and forced to fire/sacrifice Kensil, Pash, Gardi and Vincent would likely be a lot less troublesome.

When his contract is finished 2019, he can choose to resign/retire/be replaced. Ex Commissioner Tagliabue's criticism is devastating here.

A NFL Front Office house cleaning is what is wanted to clear the Air, and to help out in the next CBA negotiations, and that is accomplished.

Unfortunately that solves nothing for Brady. Personal Defamation suits by Brady/(Kraft) on these clowns would suffice to bleed their bank accounts; and perhaps bankrupt them, even if they were not convicted. Who has the deeper pockets counts here. It's backdoor Justice; but Justice it is.

Ring 6 · Aug 1, 2015

TruthSeeker said:
I think it's worth pointing out the Kraft has astonished us twice in the past few days. (What was your reaction during Kraft's press conference statement and then again when you read the email exchange with the league?)

- on Wednesday, he effectively said that he had no confidence in the league or its integrity
- on Friday, he instituted an attack on the league (using the truth) on the fairness of the league

I think it's very reasonable that there are more arrows in the quiver. From my perspective, the obvious next step is what this thread is all about - convincing the other owners that a fair, impartial investigation of the league's practices is needed.

This is not going away. If this doesn't get addressed in the near future, it will still be an issue 6 months or 6 years from now. If the owners don't do something now, maybe they'll be willing to do something a year from now. I don't see Bob Kraft backing off this issue; he looks totally committed to me. But who knows, I've been wrong before.

Unless he follows up with action all Kraft did Wednesday was bs the fans into not hating him.
Its like the guy who backs down from a fight then when there are people in between says "yeah i would have kicked your ass you want no part of me' as soon as he knows there cant be a fight.

flasox27 · Aug 1, 2015

robertweathers said:
He has legal options still. Not sure he has the guts.

He can't sue the League directly so any actions must be through surrogates. I would hope that he funds or supports a defamation law suit by McNally concerning the Kelly Naqi false store against ESPN and the NFL. If he did that I would consider it an action backing up his words. Otherwise, all he has done is trying to BS the fans into forgiving him.

Jlaff · Aug 1, 2015

XLIX said:
As much as it sickens me to come to the defense of the league, no one screwed over Jerry Jones (or Daniel Snyder) in that situation. When the uncapped year hit, teams were basically told "you can spend whatever you want this year, but any signing bonuses you give to players this year will hit the cap in future years like normal. Furthermore, you can not front-load a long term contract so heavily so that you are using 2010 salary in lieu of a signing bonus. If you do that, then we will consider that salary to be a signing bonus once the cap is back in place."

So what did the Cowboys do? They gave Miles Austin a 7 year, $54M contract, which was really a 4 year, $25M contract. Of that $25 million, $17 million was fully guaranteed on signing to be paid in his first year salary (there was no signing bonus).

Once the salary cap returned, the Cowboys were penalized a cap hit of $10 million, which is roughly what the year 2, 3, and 4 cap hit of the Austin contract would have been if that was your typical contract with a signing bonus.

TL;DR version: F Jerry Jones. He pulled a fast one and had a salary cap hit which he would have had anyway. He should shut up because the Patriots did nothing wrong here.

Jones should have just kept his mouth shut in this current mess.

But personally I have no big problem with teams gaming the salary cap; I don't see the cap as anything more than another challenge for teams to overcome. If they want to look at the plain language of rules and find a way to work with those rules to their benefit, well good for them. If the NFL doesn't like it, define the rules and what constitutes a break of them more clearly next time.

Fencer · Aug 1, 2015

upstater1 said:
I think the reverse may be true. Behind the scenes, owners may think that Goodell has poisoned the next CBA negotiation so badly that he has already cost them future billions.

It really does mean something that Paul Tagliabue would so heavily criticize Goodell in public. It means a lot.

The natural course is for the owners to try to turn the lemon of Goodell hatred into negotiating lemonade.

I.e., in the next CBA they WILL agree to rein in Goodell's disciplinary powers, but they'll want the players to cave on other things in return.

Fencer · Aug 1, 2015

robertweathers said:
Jerry and Snyder were guilty.

They weren't guilty of anything except that they refused to engage in illegal collusion with the other owners.

RobertWeathers · Aug 1, 2015

Fencer said:
They weren't guilty of anything except that they refused to engage in illegal collusion with the other owners.

I wouldn't characterise it as illegal or collusion.

Fencer · Aug 1, 2015

robertweathers said:
I wouldn't characterise it as illegal or collusion.

Restraint of trade.

RobertWeathers · Aug 1, 2015

Fencer said:
Restraint of trade.

There were 32 understandings that spending would remain the same. Two teams dumped dead money. Nothing illegal here.

Fencer · Aug 1, 2015

robertweathers said:
There were 32 understandings that spending would remain the same.

You're claiming that the teams egregiously violated anti-trust laws, and you may well be correct. But if you are, that doesn't make it legal to punish the cartel members who violated the illegal agreement.

RobertWeathers · Aug 2, 2015

Fencer said:
You're claiming that the teams egregiously violated anti-trust laws, and you may well be correct. But if you are, that doesn't make it legal to punish the cartel members who violated the illegal agreement.

No Fencer, you are saying that it was illegal. I am not.

Fencer · Aug 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
No Fencer, you are saying that it was illegal. I am not.

I get that.

But I haven't a clue why you think it's legal to collude to fix salaries in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that says it's OK to do so.

RobertWeathers · Aug 2, 2015

Fencer said:
I get that.

But I haven't a clue why you think it's legal to collude to fix salaries in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that says it's OK to do so.

How did they fix salaries? They agreed to keep salary spending at $123m.

The players agreed with the owners in their industry and defined what "collusion" is in the CBA.

I'm aware of the 8th District ruling.

RelocatedPatFan · Aug 2, 2015

Fencer said:
I get that.

But I haven't a clue why you think it's legal to collude to fix salaries in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that says it's OK to do so.

I really don't care one way or another. but, I could see how the NFL wold look at the total compensation paid to a player and how it ties into the life of a contract. Now, if all these players were on just a 1 year contract for the off-year, then there might be a case.

Otherwise, if the contract extends into the covered years, then they don't have a solid position (but that's getting far too lawyerly for me). and there was some form of warning about overspending before expiration of the CBA.

Fencer · Aug 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
How did they fix salaries? They agreed to keep salary spending at $123m.

The latter is clearly an anti-trust violation, unless there's some identifiable reason that it isn't.

What reason have you identified?

RobertWeathers · Aug 2, 2015

Fencer said:
The latter is clearly an anti-trust violation, unless there's some identifiable reason that it isn't.

What reason have you identified?

Reason for what? Sorry...still working on coffee

The CBA has language that defines for the NFL and NFLPA what collusion is/isn't in their industry. IIRC, Doty ruled on favor for the NFL. The 8th District issued a discovery to take a closer look. Who knows..

I just don't think it's a clear cut case of collusion as the NFL kept spending the same. It's not like the MLB collusion case where owners conspired to not pay x for y players (although the Bryant/Thomas signings are very curious...)

Make sense?

Fencer · Aug 2, 2015

robertweathers said:
Reason for what? Sorry...still working on coffee

The CBA has language that defines for the NFL and NFLPA what collusion is/isn't in their industry. IIRC, Doty ruled on favor for the NFL. The 8th District issued a discovery to take a closer look. Who knows..

I just don't think it's a clear cut case of collusion as the NFL kept spending the same. It's not like the MLB collusion case where owners conspired to not pay x for y players (although the Bryant/Thomas signings are very curious...)

Make sense?

It makes sense, except for one fact -- unless I'm wrong, there wasn't a CBA in place for that season.

If I'm wrong, then the CBA was in place but said there was no cap for that season, and it's collusion anyway.

RobertWeathers · Aug 2, 2015

Fencer said:
It makes sense, except for one fact -- unless I'm wrong, there wasn't a CBA in place for that season.

If I'm wrong, then the CBA was in place but said there was no cap for that season, and it's collusion anyway.

You are right but it seems the two sides agreed to abide by certain aspects of the agreement like cap, etc. So confusing.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/07/collusion-case-moves-closer-to-end-of-the-line/

In the end, at it seems we agree to disagree my point is that collusion in one industry is different than another and these two sides had an understanding that the NFLPA was trying to invalidate.

You want action? Kraft has a PLAN

AzPatsFan

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Supporter

flasox27

In the Starting Line-Up

Jlaff

Early Bird Specials

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

RelocatedPatFan

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Fencer

Pro Bowl Player

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Similar threads