2010 Owners Collusion on Salary Cap

[cowboycolors]

While many of thought this subject was dead the NFLPA has other thoughts and is getting a court hearing 1-14-2014 before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Representatives from the NFL and NFLPA will each have 20 minutes to argue their points before the 3 judge panel.

The NFLPA is appealing the ruling of U.S. District Judge David Doty's rejection of the Union's attempt to reopen the Reggie White Lawsuit that has served as the basis for NFL labor matters from 1993 to 2011.

The NFLPA alleges the Owners had a covert cap to hold down salaries in the uncapped year of 2010.

The above paraphrased from the DMN sports page.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014, BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M.
BEFORE JUDGES RILEY, WOLLMAN, SHEPHERD
JPP
[FONT=Book Antiqua,Book Antiqua][FONT=Book Antiqua,Book Antiqua] 1. 13-1251MN Reggie White, et al. v. National Football
League, et al.
13-1480MN Reggie White, et al. v. National Football
League, et al. 20
2. ( from the court docket )
[/FONT][/FONT]
This should be a slam dunk for the NFLPA with the sanctions imposed on the Cowboys and Redskins as the smoking gun.

Anybody think John Mara is kicking himself in the ASS for being a prick about the sanctions on the Cowboys and Redskins ?

Just wondering if the Union wins how that will affect football as we know it ?


thought y'all might want to know what was going on

 

[PDay8810]

Kinda been watching this as well colors.
maybe this hasn't been sweep under the rug afterall

 

[Manster7588]

I doubt anything comes out of this, but it would be great if the two teams are given cap relief equal to their punishment. It would enable Dallas to get out of cap hell without multiple restructures. Of course we all know Jerry would do the wise thing.

 

[PDay8810]

I think something could very well come from this and most likely not a dime towards Dallas or Washington for any cap relief. The NFLPA isn't fighting any battle for the boys or skins here. This is pure labor matters and as colors said.....John Mara will sure look the fool part if this implodes on the league

 

[fordman84]

I doubt Dallas gains anything directly from this, but anything that puts that asshole Mara in a negative light is fine by me.

I can't honestly see what good will come of this though. All I see happening is the NFL saying "ok, it might have appeared that way and we won't do it again".

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

I am wondering if we will see more of this in the future. I noticed that some of the older free agents are not getting huge offers like they were getting. That possibly could be because of Snyders cap penalty though

 

[R.J. MacReady]

What I don't understand is how Mara can be is such a position that is the walking, talking definition of a conflict of interest. How can he be in a position to impose sanctions on teams in his own division?

 

[JDM]

The issue wasn't spending in the uncapped year, if I remember correctly. It was abusing the uncapped year to take the cap hits of long term contracts so they had extra cap space when the cap returned.

 

[fordman84]

The issue wasn't spending in the uncapped year, if I remember correctly. It was abusing the uncapped year to take the cap hits of long term contracts so they had extra cap space when the cap returned.

which is abuse how? If the year is "uncapped" then they can write as much money into those contracts as possible. Then of course the NFL signed off on the contracts. Then the NFL punished those contracts (they signed off on) afterwards.

Would be like a cop directing traffic telling you to go even though the light is red, then pulling you over for running the red light.

 

[Manster7588]

The issue wasn't spending in the uncapped year, if I remember correctly. It was abusing the uncapped year to take the cap hits of long term contracts so they had extra cap space when the cap returned.

With no cap teams by LAW should be able to do anything they want salary wise. Now considering you don't know too much about your own team I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Also, as Ford stated. The NFL signed off on the contracts, then bowed down to Mara.

 

[jarntt]

I don't know the facts of this case, but I'm not sure that the penalty against Dallas and Washington is germane in this matter. The argument of not allowing a team to structure contracts to abuse the "cap" in that particular year is different from teams colluding to keep player salaries lower. Think about it this way, a team through collusion can get a player to sign for 20% below his market value, but still structure the contract so that it would result in a penalty from the league similar to what Washington or Dallas received for abusing the cap.

 

[fordman84]

Didn't Chicago also abuse the noncap year? I think it was Peppers they front loaded a FA contract for perhaps?

Guess if they were in the NFCEast they too would have been penalized.

 

[JDM]

which is abuse how? If the year is "uncapped" then they can write as much money into those contracts as possible. Then of course the NFL signed off on the contracts. Then the NFL punished those contracts (they signed off on) afterwards.

Would be like a cop directing traffic telling you to go even though the light is red, then pulling you over for running the red light.

It was known at the time that any team using the uncapped year to frontload contracts would result in effects on their salary cap down the road. This was regularly announced and reported and everyone, including both owners, was aware of this. They didn't do anything at a time because the specifics were yet to be determined, but both Jerry and Snyder knew roughly what would happen. Neither expected to be treated much differently than they were.

With no cap teams by LAW should be able to do anything they want salary wise. Now considering you don't know too much about your own team I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Also, as Ford stated. The NFL signed off on the contracts, then bowed down to Mara.

By law? There is little law that has impact on this. This is a contractual issue, not a legal dispute.

 

[Manster7588]

It was known at the time that any team using the uncapped year to frontload contracts would result in effects on their salary cap down the road. This was regularly announced and reported and everyone, including both owners, was aware of this. They didn't do anything at a time because the specifics were yet to be determined, but both Jerry and Snyder knew roughly what would happen. Neither expected to be treated much differently than they were.



By law? There is little law that has impact on this. This is a contractual issue, not a legal dispute.

Let try to explain as though you are in the 1st grade. When the league played with no cap teams were allowed to spend what ever they wanted to. For the "League" to have an agreed cap in a non capped is called collision. Collusion is illegal in the business world so therefore what the league did to the players was in fact illegal.

 

[JDM]

I always think it's hilarious when people talk down to their intellectual superiors, but let's ignore that for a minute.

There wasn't an agreed cap. There was the understanding that contracts structured in a way to give teams an unfair advantage when there was a cap would have how they were treated under the new cap negotiated during the handling of the new CBA. This is not collusion. This does not resemble collusion. If you wanted to give a guy a one year 100 million contract, you could have. If you wanted to give a guy a 5 year, 100 million the first year and 1 million the next 4, part of that 100 million would be treated as it would with a normal contract and pro-rated, per whatever was negotiated during CBA discussions.

 

[fordman84]

I always think it's hilarious when people talk down to their intellectual superiors, but let's ignore that for a minute.

There wasn't an agreed cap. There was the understanding that contracts structured in a way to give teams an unfair advantage when there was a cap would have how they were treated under the new cap negotiated during the handling of the new CBA. This is not collusion. This does not resemble collusion. If you wanted to give a guy a one year 100 million contract, you could have. If you wanted to give a guy a 5 year, 100 million the first year and 1 million the next 4, part of that 100 million would be treated as it would with a normal contract and pro-rated, per whatever was negotiated during CBA discussions.

An "understanding" regarding contract amounts...is collusion. There is no way around that.

 

[JDM]

It's not regarding amounts. It's about using the uncapped year to gain an unfair advantage when the cap was returned.

They didn't prevent the teams from doing anything. They simply treated the structure of contracts during the uncapped year in a manner much more similar to the way they would normally be treated. Any actual agreement was determined well after the contracts were completed.

 

[fordman84]

It's not regarding amounts. It's about using the uncapped year to gain an unfair advantage when the cap was returned.

They didn't prevent the teams from doing anything. They simply treated the structure of contracts during the uncapped year in a manner much more similar to the way they would normally be treated. Any actual agreement was determined well after the contracts were completed.

So what you are saying is that they had an unwritten agreement to not front load contracts, even though there was no CBA to put such things into effect?

In essence they were told "don't do this" and then when the new CBA was ratified they wrote out a punishment for those that did what they told them not to do?


How is that not collusion again? Agreements made outside of a contract among all parties is collusion.

 

[JDM]

There didn't have to be an agreement. Just basic logic that front loading contracts provided an unfair advantage and was clearly going to be addressed in the new CBA.

 

[fordman84]

There didn't have to be an agreement. Just basic logic that front loading contracts provided an unfair advantage and was clearly going to be addressed in the new CBA.

So if I get a group of people together, every employer in a field, and imply that it would be best not to hire people for more than minimum wage...that isn't collusion? No agreement, just a promise that paying more than minwage will be addressed at a later date when we do have an actual contract. Not collusion?