Skins & Cows File Complaint Against NFL & NFLPA

[Huckleberry1]

When people know they shouldn't be doing something but do it anyways hoping to skate by on a technicality then they deserve to get called up short for it. There are written rules and there is the spirit of those rules, and it's pretty clear these teams tried to skirt the rules on a technicality. I'm not a fan of Goodell but when he is right he should be given credit for it and people should put their biases away in favor of seeing what is right done. Good for Goodell, the Cowboys and Skins got what they deserved. If this were the Jets the same people ripping Goodell for the decision would be accusing him of favoritism.

 

[Ring 6]

I wouldn't expect a public announcement, but I would expect documentation of warnings that had the possibility of enormous repercussions. Wouldn't you?

Not really, but my understanding is that they did put this in writing at least 6 times. Verbal, or written, I don't think it really matters.

I also would have expected news of these warnings to come to light during the lawsuit.

What 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?

You do not understand the issue. It has nothing to do with how much they spent.
It has to do with trying to charge money that has always been amortized to future years all to one year.
Austin is the best example. You may want to google Miles Austin salary cap to get an understanding. Basically they gave him a signing bonus that they called an 18mill 2010 salary, and the league is saying it should be treated as a signing bonus, not salary. There is no nefarious attempt to hold down payroll or enforce a silent cap.
And there were actually 4 teams, the Saints and Raiders violated to a lesser extend.

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?

I don't think you understand what collusion is.
By your definition having a draft, advertising, hiring officials, or having rules of playing the game is collusion.
There was never any question that contracts signed during the uncapped year would be calculated in the cap in future years if there was a cap in future years.
You are trying to find conspiracy where none exists.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

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.

What they did is clearly a gray area, and while they may very well have skated just close enough to the edge without actually falling in it still seems pretty questionable to me. I'm not a fan of what the herders and skins did, but if the rest of their partners/the league wanted to prevent it they needed to get a new deal done before this loophole was opened. If this is simply a matter of how the uncapped year was going to be accounted for it should have been spelled out in the new CBA in the same way that the loopholes that freed some "lucky" teams from cap hell were.

I don't believe that at the time of these warnings that the PA agreed to allow the NFL to apply money spent during the uncapped season to future capped seasons.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What they did is clearly a gray area, and while they may very well have skated just close enough to the edge without actually falling in it still seems pretty questionable to me. I'm not a fan of what the herders and skins did, but if the rest of their partners/the league wanted to prevent it they needed to get a new deal done before this loophole was opened. If this is simply a matter of how the uncapped year was going to be accounted for it should have been spelled out in the new CBA in the same way that the loopholes that freed some "lucky" teams from cap hell were.

I don't believe that at the time of these warnings that the PA agreed to allow the NFL to apply money spent during the uncapped season to future capped seasons.

It's a moot point because the PA has agreed since. They've agreed. 29 owners have agreed (well in excess of the 75% necessary to change any ownership rules).

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Not really, but my understanding is that they did put this in writing at least 6 times. Verbal, or written, I don't think it really matters.



What lawsuit?


You do not understand the issue. It has nothing to do with how much they spent.
It has to do with trying to charge money that has always been amortized to future years all to one year.
Austin is the best example. You may want to google Miles Austin salary cap to get an understanding. Basically they gave him a signing bonus that they called an 18mill 2010 salary, and the league is saying it should be treated as a signing bonus, not salary. There is no nefarious attempt to hold down payroll or enforce a silent cap.
And there were actually 4 teams, the Saints and Raiders violated to a lesser extend.


I don't think you understand what collusion is.
By your definition having a draft, advertising, hiring officials, or having rules of playing the game is collusion.
There was never any question that contracts signed during the uncapped year would be calculated in the cap in future years if there was a cap in future years.
You are trying to find conspiracy where none exists.

You seriously don't understand that there's a difference between verbal and written warnings/agreements/etc?

Lawsuit

I understand what they did and why they did it. The boys didn't pretty much do anything... they gave him a $17M base salary. What I don't understand is why after I describe exactly what these teams did you continue to say I don't. I'll say it again... They purposely pushed forward salary to the uncapped year in order to circumvent a likely future cap. I'm not confused at all about what those teams, and yes 2 other teams to a lesser extent, did.

What I don't understand is how you think the league planning to and alerting the owners that they plan to retroactively apply money spent during the uncapped year doesn't hold down payroll. If this was just a warning about something they planned on working into the new CBA and they'd actually incorporated it in the CBA I'd be okay with it.

I don't think you understand what collusion is since the draft would be collusion without the CBA in place...

 

[Ring 6]

You seriously don't understand that there's a difference between verbal and written warnings/agreements/etc?

Of course I do, you seem to misunderstand their application and necessity.

Lawsuit

Yeah, this has nothing to do with that.

I understand what they did and why they did it. The boys didn't pretty much do anything... they gave him a $17M base salary. What I don't understand is why after I describe exactly what these teams did you continue to say I don't. I'll say it again... They purposely pushed forward salary to the uncapped year in order to circumvent a likely future cap. I'm not confused at all about what those teams, and yes 2 other teams to a lesser extent, did.

This is what you said to indicate you don't understand the circumstances.
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?

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?

It is not about spending money in the uncapped year, it is about the ACCOUNTING of the cap charges for that money.

What I don't understand is how you think the league planning to and alerting the owners that they plan to retroactively apply money spent during the uncapped year doesn't hold down payroll.

They are not retroactively applying anything. They simply explained how contracts signed during that season would be accounted for if a cap returns. There has to be a rule. This one is no more restrictive than any other would have been.

If this was just a warning about something they planned on working into the new CBA and they'd actually incorporated it in the CBA I'd be okay with it.

There is nothing to work into the CBA. Its an accounting issue. The NFLPA has already agreed to the action.

I don't think you understand what collusion is since the draft would be collusion without the CBA in place...

I don't think you understand there was a CBA in place when this happened.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Of course I do, you seem to misunderstand their application and necessity.


Yeah, this has nothing to do with that.



This is what you said to indicate you don't understand the circumstances.
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?

It is not about spending money in the uncapped year, it is about the ACCOUNTING of the cap charges for that money.


They are not retroactively applying anything. They simply explained how contracts signed during that season would be accounted for if a cap returns. There has to be a rule. This one is no more restrictive than any other would have been.



There is nothing to work into the CBA. Its an accounting issue. The NFLPA has already agreed to the action.


I don't think you understand there was a CBA in place when this happened.

So you think something that has the possibility of millions of dollars in repercussions isn't worthy of being put in writing? If so then at what point does putting something in writing become necessary in your world?

Well since you've deemed an anti-trust lawsuit having nothing to do with collusion that must be the case...

Wait are you now asking me the question I've been asking you? I have no clue "How is that not the league acting like there was a cap in place?" that is the argument your making not I. Contrary to what you believe the idea that only two teams choose to take full advantage of the uncapped season isn't that hard to grasp.

Again... How is accounting for money spent during an uncapped year under the current cap not acting like there was a cap in place? You haven't once even tried to answer this and now all the sudden it seems like you're pretending that you were making that argument.

Fine they weren't retroactively doing anything... How does explaining that they're going to handle contracts signed during the the uncapped season the way they have not hold down payroll during the uncapped season? You say there has to be a rule in place for this, but there wasn't actually one at the time.

So the CBA doesn't spell out how money payed to players as bonuses/salary/etc. gets accounted for against the cap since that's just an accounting issue?

So there was a draft, I pointed out that said draft would actually be illegal without the CBA, and you use this to somehow decide that I don't think there was a CBA in place? I guess this is line with the rest of your points.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

It's a moot point because the PA has agreed since. They've agreed. 29 owners have agreed (well in excess of the 75% necessary to change any ownership rules).

Agreed. Sorry if I got sidetracked to somehow arguing that the Skins and Boys actually have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Ring 6]

So you think something that has the possibility of millions of dollars in repercussions isn't worthy of being put in writing? If so then at what point does putting something in writing become necessary in your world?

The owners are part of a league. How that league chooses to communicate among its members is irrelevant to me, and this topic. Of course your argument still lacks the additional point that you do not know whether it was in writing.

Well since you've deemed an anti-trust lawsuit having nothing to do with collusion that must be the case...

Because this isn't collusion. The lawsuit brought by the players did not involve the method of calculating the cap charges of contracts alreadey on the books.

Wait are you now asking me the question I've been asking you?

Dude, those are your words quoted in.

I have no clue "How is that not the league acting like there was a cap in place?" that is the argument your making not I. Contrary to what you believe the idea that only two teams choose to take full advantage of the uncapped season isn't that hard to grasp.

I don't know what you are saying here, because you are acting as if your comment that I quoted was mine.
There was no cap in 2010. Contracts signed in 2010 for yeaqrs beyond 2010 get accounted for in those years.

Again... How is accounting for money spent during an uncapped year under the current cap not acting like there was a cap in place? You haven't once even tried to answer this and now all the sudden it seems like you're pretending that you were making that argument.

It sound like you don't understand the cap. Signing bonusses are amortized over the life of the contract. The practice that you are supporting was to lie and call a signing bonus a lump sum salary in year 1, in order to avoid the amortization of that moeny into the years it was intended for.
Every long term contract signed in every season is accounted for in the cap for those seasons.
Teams were fully able to spend as much as they wanted in 2010. What this is saying they couldn't do was bs the system by accelerating charges for the future into 2010.

Fine they weren't retroactively doing anything... How does explaining that they're going to handle contracts signed during the the uncapped season the way they have not hold down payroll during the uncapped season?

You were the one who said retroactively. I have no idea why you thought that.
In what way do you think they held down salaries in the uncapped year? You have not explained that.
What they did was say that if you use a ridiculous unprecedented way to take future money and jam it into 2010, they won't allow it, and will charge it as they always have. There is nothing in that to hold down payroll in the uncapped year.

You say there has to be a rule in place for this, but there wasn't actually one at the time.

There has been a rule about how to calcuate cap charges over a contract since there has been a cap.
What are you suggesting? That there should be no 2012 cap hit for a 5 year contract signed in 2010?

So the CBA doesn't spell out how money payed to players as bonuses/salary/etc. gets accounted for against the cap since that's just an accounting issue?

Of course it does,that is why this is being done.

So there was a draft, I pointed out that said draft would actually be illegal without the CBA, and you use this to somehow decide that I don't think there was a CBA in place? I guess this is line with the rest of your points.

I said that I dont think you understand collusion because by your definition the draft and other things would represent collusion.
You said without a CBA the draft is collusion.
I am pointing out there was a CBA during the time we are discussing, so your collusion argument is weak, since it was done under a CBA. It seemed you didnt realize that the league was operating under a CBA, just in an uncapped year.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The owners are part of a league. How that league chooses to communicate among its members is irrelevant to me, and this topic. Of course your argument still lacks the additional point that you do not know whether it was in writing.


Because this isn't collusion. The lawsuit brought by the players did not involve the method of calculating the cap charges of contracts alreadey on the books.


Dude, those are your words quoted in.


I don't know what you are saying here, because you are acting as if your comment that I quoted was mine.
There was no cap in 2010. Contracts signed in 2010 for yeaqrs beyond 2010 get accounted for in those years.


It sound like you don't understand the cap. Signing bonusses are amortized over the life of the contract. The practice that you are supporting was to lie and call a signing bonus a lump sum salary in year 1, in order to avoid the amortization of that moeny into the years it was intended for.
Every long term contract signed in every season is accounted for in the cap for those seasons.
Teams were fully able to spend as much as they wanted in 2010. What this is saying they couldn't do was bs the system by accelerating charges for the future into 2010.


You were the one who said retroactively. I have no idea why you thought that.
In what way do you think they held down salaries in the uncapped year? You have not explained that.
What they did was say that if you use a ridiculous unprecedented way to take future money and jam it into 2010, they won't allow it, and will charge it as they always have. There is nothing in that to hold down payroll in the uncapped year.



There has been a rule about how to calcuate cap charges over a contract since there has been a cap.
What are you suggesting? That there should be no 2012 cap hit for a 5 year contract signed in 2010?


Of course it does,that is why this is being done.


I said that I dont think you understand collusion because by your definition the draft and other things would represent collusion.
You said without a CBA the draft is collusion.
I am pointing out there was a CBA during the time we are discussing, so your collusion argument is weak, since it was done under a CBA. It seemed you didnt realize that the league was operating under a CBA, just in an uncapped year.

I have my doubts that the league communicates almost entirely verbally especially since we've heard of memos being sent out in the past... It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so if you want to cling to the fact that I don't know for sure that written warnings didn't exist go nuts. However I haven't found one bit of evidence that there were written warnings and this article NFL -- League sends signal with penalties for Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins - ESPN seems pretty sure that they didn't exist. Not that any of that matters since you've already decided that it's immaterial and that the league operates mostly by word of mouth.

My point has never been that what the league is doing now is collusion. How they're accounting for the money spent during the uncapped season is completely within their rights since the PA has signed off on it.

Maybe if you spent more time forming a singular point rather than breaking every post into single sentences and then arguing completely irrelevant things like verbiage you wouldn't be posting quotes as part of your post. I acted like you posted it because you did...

Since teams were free to spend as much as they wanted during the uncapped season can you please outline a strategy a team could have used to do just that without sabotaging their teams chances of success long term?

Just because you don't like or agree with what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't understand something. These teams did exactly what you're saying. I'm not arguing that nor denying it. What I'm arguing is that the league's lack of real action at the time seems odd. Why not shoot down the contracts for having the uber salaries during the uncapped season and force them to make them bonuses? Also I may be mistaken, but they aren't amortizing these bonuses over the term of the contract, but charging the teams a one time cap hit either for this season only or over the next two, which is being redistributed to the other teams (well besides two...).

I said retroactively, but the terminology I used wasn't important so I wasn't going to argue with you on that. Apparently you aren't going to let me off that easily and want to argue how I conceded the point?

I've repeatedly explained how I think they held down salaries during the uncapped season, but I'll do it again... The league warned teams that money spent during the uncapped season would be accounted for during future capped seasons. This prevented teams from spending much above and beyond what they expected the future cap to be because doing so would force them to jettison much of their roster in the future. As far as I can tell the teams in question tried to take advantage of the only loophole in how the cap is calculated in order to shift money to the uncapped season. However they were apparently warned repeatedly that this money would be accounted for. I however am still waiting for you to explain how a team could spend freely during the uncapped season.

Yes when there's a cap there are rules in place for how cap hits are calculated. There was no cap in 2010, so no rules on how the cap hit would be calculated. I'm suggesting that the 2012 cap hit for a contract signed in 2010 be calculated based on the rules and the contract. That is not what the league is doing however, hence why this is a story.

Just because there's a CBA doesn't mean the teams can do whatever they want. They're bound to the terms of the CBA except when they and the PA agree to something outside the terms of it. At the time the league was warning teams about spending money during the uncapped season there was nothing in the CBA allowing them to control the salary of individual teams. If you want to misconstrue the concept that the league was going beyond the terms of the CBA without the PA signing off on their actions as there being no CBA in place that's on you.

 

[VinnyPatrollie]

What I don't understand, and I haven't seen anything written about it, is why do people accept that Goodell acts like he can enact a new "rule" in the NFL just by writing a memo and declaring it so. It's my understanding that all rule changes must be voted on and approved by 25 of the 32 owners? Just because he says, this is now the rule, doesn't make it so.

That is why I always thought Kraft and Bill did Goodell a solid not fighting Spygate, as there was never a rule that said one couldn't tape signals, only where that filming could take place, the infamous memo, notwithstanding.

Same deal here.

 

[mgteich]

Goodell's penalties against NO and Dallas was brought to a vote. The owners supported Goodell 29-2-1.

What I don't understand, and I haven't seen anything written about it, is why do people accept that Goodell acts like he can enact a new "rule" in the NFL just by writing a memo and declaring it so. It's my understanding that all rule changes must be voted on and approved by 25 of the 32 owners? Just because he says, this is now the rule, doesn't make it so.

That is why I always thought Kraft and Bill did Goodell a solid not fighting Spygate, as there was never a rule that said one couldn't tape signals, only where that filming could take place, the infamous memo, notwithstanding.

Same deal here.

 

[Ring 6]

I have my doubts that the league communicates almost entirely verbally especially since we've heard of memos being sent out in the past... It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so if you want to cling to the fact that I don't know for sure that written warnings didn't exist go nuts. However I haven't foundone bit of evidence that there were written warnings and this article NFL -- League sends signal with penalties for Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins - ESPN seems pretty sure that they didn't exist. Not that any of that matters since you've already decided that it's immaterial and that the league operates mostly by word of mouth.

My point has never been that what the league is doing now is collusion. How they're accounting for the money spent during the uncapped season is completely within their rights since the PA has signed off on it.

Maybe if you spent more time forming a singular point rather than breaking every post into single sentences and then arguing completely irrelevant things like verbiage you wouldn't be posting quotes as part of your post. I acted like you posted it because you did...

Since teams were free to spend as much as they wanted during the uncapped season can you please outline a strategy a team could have used to do just that without sabotaging their teams chances of success long term?

Just because you don't like or agree with what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't understand something. These teams did exactly what you're saying. I'm not arguing that nor denying it. What I'm arguing is that the league's lack of real action at the time seems odd. Why not shoot down the contracts for having the uber salaries during the uncapped season and force them to make them bonuses? Also I may be mistaken, but they aren't amortizing these bonuses over the term of the contract, but charging the teams a one time cap hit either for this season only or over the next two, which is being redistributed to the other teams (well besides two...).

I said retroactively, but the terminology I used wasn't important so I wasn't going to argue with you on that. Apparently you aren't going to let me off that easily and want to argue how I conceded the point?

I've repeatedly explained how I think they held down salaries during the uncapped season, but I'll do it again... The league warned teams that money spent during the uncapped season would be accounted for during future capped seasons. This prevented teams from spending much above and beyond what they expected the future cap to be because doing so would force them to jettison much of their roster in the future. As far as I can tell the teams in question tried to take advantage of the only loophole in how the cap is calculated in order to shift money to the uncapped season. However they were apparently warned repeatedly that this money would be accounted for. I however am still waiting for you to explain how a team could spend freely during the uncapped season.

Yes when there's a cap there are rules in place for how cap hits are calculated. There was no cap in 2010, so no rules on how the cap hit would be calculated. I'm suggesting that the 2012 cap hit for a contract signed in 2010 be calculated based on the rules and the contract. That is not what the league is doing however, hence why this is a story.

Just because there's a CBA doesn't mean the teams can do whatever they want. They're bound to the terms of the CBA except when they and the PA agree to something outside the terms of it. At the time the league was warning teams about spending money during the uncapped season there was nothing in the CBA allowing them to control the salary of individual teams. If you want to misconstrue the concept that the league was going beyond the terms of the CBA without the PA signing off on their actions as there being no CBA in place that's on you.

It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Teams could spend whatever they wanted in the uncapped year. There was no current or future cap charge until a cap was reinstated.
All that is being done is to calculate the future cap hits of the money paid in those years as it would have been before and after.
The actual result of this move had no impact on what they could spend in 2010, biut what they can spend in 2012, and that money will be paid to the players by redistibuting it to other teams.
These moves were not a means to spend more money in 2010, they were a means to cheat by forcing future money into to 2010.

I would say its time to move on, because you have said the same thing over and over and have not change my opinion at all. I am sure you would say the same, so it seems pointless to continue going back and forth.

 

[pork3]

Goodell's penalties against NO and Dallas was brought to a vote. The owners supported Goodell 29-2-1.

I wonder who that 1 was that effectively abstained from voting for either side...
I know in the past that Oakland often did that, but that was during the Al Davis days.

-Jamman

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Teams could spend whatever they wanted in the uncapped year. There was no current or future cap charge until a cap was reinstated.
All that is being done is to calculate the future cap hits of the money paid in those years as it would have been before and after.
The actual result of this move had no impact on what they could spend in 2010, biut what they can spend in 2012, and that money will be paid to the players by redistibuting it to other teams.
These moves were not a means to spend more money in 2010, they were a means to cheat by forcing future money into to 2010.

I would say its time to move on, because you have said the same thing over and over and have not change my opinion at all. I am sure you would say the same, so it seems pointless to continue going back and forth.

There could be some arguing for arguments sake here, but the main driving force is trying to get you to directly answer two questions:

What evidence is there that makes you think that the warnings were not hidden?

With the warnings and how we now know they planned on accounting for the money spent during the uncapped year how would a team actually be able to spend freely without sabotaging their future?

To these questions I've received nothing but statements of facts with no evidence backing them and vagueness. I'm not trying to convince you of anything I'm trying to understand what makes you so sure of your stance.

 

[Ring 6]

There could be some arguing for arguments sake here, but the main driving force is trying to get you to directly answer two questions:

What evidence is there that makes you think that the warnings were not hidden?

The league (Executive committee, I think) has said they were informed a number of times. I'm not sure who you are saying they were hidden from.

With the warnings and how we now know they planned on accounting for the money spent during the uncapped year how would a team actually be able to spend freely without sabotaging their future?

2010 was uncapped. That didnt mean forever was uncapped. No matter how things were handled, there still may have been a cap in the future that they had to be concerned about.
I am sure that the liklihood of a future cap certainly held down payrolls, but that isn't collusion that is anticipating the future.

To these questions I've received nothing but statements of facts with no evidence backing them and vagueness. I'm not trying to convince you of anything I'm trying to understand what makes you so sure of your stance.

On item 1 I simply am not looking for a conspiracy theory. I see no sense in assuming the league says they told them when they didn't.
On item 2 it is the specter of a future cap, not how the spending in 2010 would be accounted to one that would have an impact.

 

[BTTA]

It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Teams could spend whatever they wanted in the uncapped year. There was no current or future cap charge until a cap was reinstated.
All that is being done is to calculate the future cap hits of the money paid in those years as it would have been before and after.
The actual result of this move had no impact on what they could spend in 2010, biut what they can spend in 2012, and that money will be paid to the players by redistibuting it to other teams.
These moves were not a means to spend more money in 2010, they were a means to cheat by forcing future money into to 2010.

I would say its time to move on, because you have said the same thing over and over and have not change my opinion at all. I am sure you would say the same, so it seems pointless to continue going back and forth.

You could have had your wish by just not responding. But that's not your wish. You measure your satisfaction here by inches.

 

[Ring 6]

You could have had your wish by just not responding. But that's not your wish. You measure your satisfaction here by inches.

I responded because you posted a respectful reply asking me to answer 2 questions, which I did. Not sure why you have an issue with that.

 

[BTTA]

I responded because you posted a respectful reply asking me to answer 2 questions, which I did. Not sure why you have an issue with that.

Can you link me to this post? I don't recall doing such a thing. Could you be so eager to engage in Point-Counterpoint argument that you pulled the trigger too quickly here?

 

[BTTA]

Goodell's penalties against NO and Dallas was brought to a vote. The owners supported Goodell 29-2-1.

Yes, that's been cited. But the question remains: was it a vote for a rule change, or just a vote that they supported Goodell's desire to punish these two teams for violating a memo?

I must be missing something here.

Even if it was a vote for a rule change, did the fact that it was essentially retro-active make it invalid? I suspect that may be what the Redskins and Cowboys lawyers push when they take it to court.

The owners can vote all they want to do all kinds of things, but unless they create a rule (in effect, a law they will be governed by), they don't have the right to sanction each other just because one of them did something that pissed the rest of them off, or Goodell.

Let's say Goodell puts out a memo that says to the Pats: "you are warned not to continue to win the AFC East." And the Pats decide to ignore it and do so again. Goodell sanctions them by suspending the coach. The owners vote to uphold it. What's the difference from this situation? There's still a question of due process here.