Skins & Cows File Complaint Against NFL & NFLPA

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

It really wasn't. The agreement was about accounting. And basically said if you try to throw future money into the 2010 cap with atypical manuevers, they will not allow it, and recast it to the future years it was truly intended for. Thats not collusion, and there was zero impact on player compensation.




They were told IIRC 6 separate times that this would happen.

If you take them at their word since they opted not to put any of these completely legal, definitely not collusion warnings to paper.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly.

How is this less bad than filming from the wrong spot in a stadium?

But they aren't really being punished, they are just charging the money to the cap the way it would have been if they didn't avert it.
The 'adjustment' is to make it right, not to punish.

 

[Ring 6]

If you take them at their word since they opted not to put any of these completely legal, definitely not collusion warnings to paper.

I do not know whether they did or did not put it on paper. I'm not sure I see the significance though. It wasn't hidden.

Can you explain what you think is collusive about this?

 

[shmessy]

But they aren't really being punished, they are just charging the money to the cap the way it would have been if they didn't avert it.
The 'adjustment' is to make it right, not to punish.

In your own words, they ignored six specific warnings.

 

[Ring 6]

In your own words, they ignored six specific warnings.

Correct, but its not really a punishment, it is just setting it right. The cap room taken away is exactly what the charges for 2011 on would have been that they buried.

 

[shmessy]

Correct, but its not really a punishment, it is just setting it right. The cap room taken away is exactly what the charges for 2011 on would have been that they buried.

I understand. What I am saying is that they SHOULD be punished as well.

They are getting off lightly for a clearly conscious and pre-meditated action.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand. What I am saying is that they SHOULD be punished as well.

They are getting off lightly for a clearly conscious and pre-meditated action.

Yeah, but I'm OK with just setting it right, because that way they never benefitted from it.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I do not know whether they did or did not put it on paper. I'm not sure I see the significance though. It wasn't hidden.

Can you explain what you think is collusive about this?

I'm pretty certain it wasn't put in writing. If this information about holding teams accountable for money spent during the the uncapped season was made public I missed it. I can't imagine the league would just accidentally forget to formalize a warning that could have 8-9 figure monetary ramifications. As far as I know the league is only allowed to operate outside of the collusion laws because of the CBA and are limited to the terms under the CBA. Since there was no cap in place under the CBA for that season operating as if there was seems like collusion to me.

Now I understand that the league and players came to an agreement since, which nullifies the issues that seem apparent to me with what the teams were doing that season. It doesn't change the fact that what they were doing doesn't appear to be above board to me. If I find out that at the time this virtual cap was common, documented knowledge I'll change my tune. Until then it appears to me that most of the owners agreed to operate as if there was a cap and the league warned the owners that weren't operating as such, or at least not operating as they wanted. All of this was going on outside of public knowledge and with no documentation to me that seems like collusion.

If this were truly about punishing teams that were using the uncapped season to gain a competitive advantage they'd also be going after those that went way under the pre-existing floor to save some cash and grab good draft picks. Those teams did just as much to hurt parity that season and gained a competitive advantage during future seasons.

 

[BTTA]

I'm not sure why it wouldn't. The NFL is allowed to dictate rules to it teams.

Yes, but Goodell isn't. Think of him as a Governor, and the owners (that write and vote on the rules) as the Legislature. Goodell doesn't get to send out a memo that changes the meaning of a rule just because that's what he believes it should say. My understanding of this situation is that the rules passed by the owners expressly make this a valid act on the part of the Redskins and Cowboys. Goodell and the League office decided to try and stopgap a loophole with a memo. That isn't how law is done. And this is about contract law.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm pretty certain it wasn't put in writing. If this information about holding teams accountable for money spent during the the uncapped season was made public I missed it. I can't imagine the league would just accidentally forget to formalize a warning that could have 8-9 figure monetary ramifications. As far as I know the league is only allowed to operate outside of the collusion laws because of the CBA and are limited to the terms under the CBA. Since there was no cap in place under the CBA for that season operating as if there was seems like collusion to me.

Why would you expect a public announcement?
They didn't 'act like a cap was in place'. They looked at contracts signed that year and determined how they will be charged to the cap.
There is no collusion, just a league dealing with the issue of how to handle and accounting practice.

Now I understand that the league and players came to an agreement since, which nullifies the issues that seem apparent to me with what the teams were doing that season. It doesn't change the fact that what they were doing doesn't appear to be above board to me. If I find out that at the time this virtual cap was common, documented knowledge I'll change my tune.

It isn't about pretending cap was in place.
The issue is simply about how to amortize monehy paid in 2010 for long term reasons.

Until then it appears to me that most of the owners agreed to operate as if there was a cap and the league warned the owners that weren't operating as such, or at least not operating as they wanted. All of this was going on outside of public knowledge and with no documentation to me that seems like collusion.

What exact action makes you keep saying they acted like there was a cap?
The whole concept started with someone misunderstanding what they are making the adjustment for, decided to dub it collusion, so now people are making up what the collusion must have been. Its all assbackwards.

If this were truly about punishing teams that were using the uncapped season to gain a competitive advantage they'd also be going after those that went way under the pre-existing floor to save some cash and grab good draft picks. Those teams did just as much to hurt parity that season and gained a competitive advantage during future seasons.

Huh?
The issue is about subverting signing bonusses and accelerating future money into 2010. There was nothing collusive about it, there was nothing having anything to do with competitive advantage or with imposing a phony cap.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, but Goodell isn't. Think of him as a Governor, and the owners (that write and vote on the rules) as the Legislature. Goodell doesn't get to send out a memo that changes the meaning of a rule just because that's what he believes it should say. My understanding of this situation is that the rules passed by the owners expressly make this a valid act on the part of the Redskins and Cowboys. Goodell and the League office decided to try and stopgap a loophole with a memo. That isn't how law is done. And this is about contract law.

Goodell represnets the owners, and he does have decision making authority.
I know of no rule that made this acceptable, and it is the Executive Committee that is acting here, not Goodell.

 

[Reckedtrek]

Is there a way to phuckup Jones, Snyder, AND God-dell? I vote for that option.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Legally Goodell has little to stand on as the 'agreement' among owners was collusion. However I'm sure these self absorbed billionaires have alienated their peer group fellow owners with this blatant FU approach to the collective process that the vast majority followed. Not that either of these arrogant bastids care.

Actually, Goodell and the owners have a lot to stand on because the union has already agreed that any potential collusion issues were resolved by the new labor agreement. There's nothing in the way to prevent the owners from making whatever rules they want to make.

 

[captain stone]

He's 100 times a better human being than Dan Snyder.

Keep it in perspective.

I find that hard to believe.

I'm not saying that the Omissioner is a worse human bean than Snyder,
just that I seriously doubt that he's 100x better than him.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Why would you expect a public announcement?
They didn't 'act like a cap was in place'. They looked at contracts signed that year and determined how they will be charged to the cap.
There is no collusion, just a league dealing with the issue of how to handle and accounting practice.


It isn't about pretending cap was in place.
The issue is simply about how to amortize monehy paid in 2010 for long term reasons.


What exact action makes you keep saying they acted like there was a cap?
The whole concept started with someone misunderstanding what they are making the adjustment for, decided to dub it collusion, so now people are making up what the collusion must have been. Its all assbackwards.


Huh?
The issue is about subverting signing bonusses and accelerating future money into 2010. There was nothing collusive about it, there was nothing having anything to do with competitive advantage or with imposing a phony cap.

I wouldn't expect a public announcement, but I would expect documentation of warnings that had the possibility of enormous repercussions. Wouldn't you? I also would have expected news of these warnings to come to light during the lawsuit.

Only two teams spent a ton of money during the uncapped season and are now being held accountable for the money spent during that season under the current cap. How is that not the league acting like there was a cap in place?

Collusion has nothing to do with what they're doing now. It has to do with the fact that these teams were warned at the time that such actions may take place against them. This indicates that the majority of the owners had agreed that money spent during the uncapped year would have future ramifications. How is that not collusion?

 

[shmessy]

I find that hard to believe.

I'm not saying that the Omissioner is a worse human bean than Snyder,
just that I seriously doubt that he's 100x better than him.

The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide To Dan Snyder

Trust me, I live down here.

 

[captain stone]

I feel your pain (I have in-laws in Charlottesville VA, and my Pats fan bro-in-law keeps me abreast of the Deadskins' gossip), but Booger God-dell is just scum.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Apparently Jones and Snyder got their shot at addressing the other 30 owners this AM and then were asked to leave the room while the others mulled over what they heard. They have decided to let it go to arbitration, so I guess they agreed with the action that was taken. Now Stephen Burbank will hear the case with no date yet set. He actually tended to rule in favor of the league more often than not, only to be overturned by Judge Doty in the past. Doty is no longer in the mix. Owners must like their chances in front of the Special Master, especially since the union signed off on the penalty.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I wouldn't expect a public announcement, but I would expect documentation of warnings that had the possibility of enormous repercussions. Wouldn't you? I also would have expected news of these warnings to come to light during the lawsuit.

Only two teams spent a ton of money during the uncapped season and are now being held accountable for the money spent during that season under the current cap. How is that not the league acting like there was a cap in place?

Collusion has nothing to do with what they're doing now. It has to do with the fact that these teams were warned at the time that such actions may take place against them. This indicates that the majority of the owners had agreed that money spent during the uncapped year would have future ramifications. How is that not collusion?

They aren't claiming they were not free to spend the money, just that they were warned repeatedly that it would be accounted for as it had historically been under a new CBA. These two did things in the uncapped year that they have not done before or since... Collusion would be a warning not to spend money. They were not warned not to spend it. This was a warning about how it would be treated for future accounting purposes. And there were actually 4 teams who violated the warning, and the other two were penalized and they are not appealing.

Lots of things can happen outside the realm of a CBA provided both sides sign off on it. This year's cap is just one example. It's $4M higher than the calculation agreed to in the CBA determined it should be under the CBA. And a similar accommodation will likely have to be reached in 2013. Believe me, that money will be accounted for down the road - and is likely part of the reason Kraft is cautioning those who envision 2014 as the cap pot of gold that gets you out of cap purgatory to be prepared for future growth to be steady and not dramatic in year 1 of the new TV deals.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Andrew Brandt weights in:

Andrew Brandt‏@adbrandt

Not sure if collusion charge accurate. Collusion is agreement not to spend; this sounds like agreement not to "account" a certain way..

Redskins/Cowboys issue is less a spending issue; more an accounting issue. Less about new contracts; more about rejiggering old ones.