2010 Owners Collusion on Salary Cap

[cowboycolors]

I'm talking about the fact that a "solution" was already negotiated. There is no grounds for a lawsuit when the situation was already negotiated and handled.

Oh yea the union signed off on not bringing a lawsuit and then changed their mind.

But is that not why we have all these bright legal minds to move and twist the legal issues to the benefit of their clients. Not saying its right just what they are paid to do

If everything was black or white we would not need any attorneys would we

 

[Manster7588]

I'm talking about the fact that a "solution" was already negotiated. There is no grounds for a lawsuit when the situation was already negotiated and handled.

With league offering to raise the cap for a season IF they accept the punishment of teams who didn't play by the illegal cap is akin to a bribe. I could file collusion, extortion, and bribery charges against the NFL.

 

[jarntt]

giving 99% of the work force less money isn't that collusion.

Where did you read this? I have yet to see one player that got less money because of collusion. I'm not saying none did, but I haven't seen any...certainly not 99% though, right?

 

[Manster7588]

Where did you read this? I have yet to see one player that got less money because of collusion. I'm not saying none did, but I haven't seen any...certainly not 99% though, right?

OK, I pulled the 99% number out of my ass but since only 5 teams are said to have violated the agreed upon contract rules with only two teams being so far out of the agreed rules to be punished I figure no more than 8 or do players were given great sums of money and the rest or the 1700 players were screwed. Hell it's possible 99% is a low estimate.

 

[JDM]

With league offering to raise the cap for a season IF they accept the punishment of teams who didn't play by the illegal cap is akin to a bribe. I could file collusion, extortion, and bribery charges against the NFL.

You don't know anything about the law. You would be literally laughed at by a judge.

 

[Manster7588]

You don't know anything about the law. You would be literally laughed at by a judge.

Never said I'd win the case but would you be so kind and tell me your definition of extortion?

 

[JDM]

Extortion is using illegal means to pressure someone to do something you want.

There were no illegal means.

 

[Manster7588]

Extortion is using illegal means to pressure someone to do something you want.

There were no illegal means.

So by threatening 3 other teams with financial penalties if they stand in the way of punishing two others is not illegal? Like I said I may not win in court against NFL Lawyers, but it could be argued. Now if you and I we're arguing the case I'd like my chances.

 

[jarntt]

OK, I pulled the 99% number out of my ass but since only 5 teams are said to have violated the agreed upon contract rules with only two teams being so far out of the agreed rules to be punished I figure no more than 8 or do players were given great sums of money and the rest or the 1700 players were screwed. Hell it's possible 99% is a low estimate.

But this is the thing you guys are missing. Why does a team that chose not to overspend what the cap would have been automatically make them an example of screwing players? A lot of teams never spend the cap allocation. Also even if teams gave out big contracts because they could, they know in the future the cap will be back and those contracts could bite them then. Not every team is interested in throwing money around like the Cowboys and Redskins.

 

[JDM]

So by threatening 3 other teams with financial penalties if they stand in the way of punishing two others is not illegal? Like I said I may not win in court against NFL Lawyers, but it could be argued. Now if you and I we're arguing the case I'd like my chances.

You would be laughed out of court. Ignoring that you have no evidence for your claim, making a deal more beneficial to someone to get them to support it is a normal negotiating tactic. It is not extortion; it is not illegal. The other lawyer could literally rest on the spot and you would be laughed away.

 

[Manster7588]

But this is the thing you guys are missing. Why does a team that chose not to overspend what the cap would have been automatically make them an example of screwing players? A lot of teams never spend the cap allocation. Also even if teams gave out big contracts because they could, they know in the future the cap will be back and those contracts could bite them then. Not every team is interested in throwing money around like the Cowboys and Redskins.

I don't have issues if 28 other teams chose not to overspend. I have issues with the league punishing teams that chose to spend what ever they thought what was best for their team when their was no cap. I don't care if a team spent 200M as long as they were under the cap when the new deal is reached. That's just my opinion, doesn't mean my ideas are better or worse than the next.

The reason I think the union has gone back on their accepting the deal not to pursue collusion charges is the league basically said they will increase the cap for two years to return to the players the money they fined Dallas and Washington. At the time it happened I questioned the union agreeing to the deal because I knew many of the teams would never need to touch the extra cash. They will stay 10M under regardless. The players never got back what they lost.

And now as I sit here thinking about teams having an unfair advantage didn't this give 30 teams an unfair advantage considering Dallas and Washington broke no CBA rules?

 

[jarntt]

You would be laughed out of court. Ignoring that you have no evidence for your claim, making a deal more beneficial to someone to get them to support it is a normal negotiating tactic. It is not extortion; it is not illegal. The other lawyer could literally rest on the spot and you would be laughed away.

I don't know what did or didn't happen and i tend to think that scenario didn't exactly happen, but are you saying a judge wouldn't find issue with the NFL telling a team that they would be fined if they didn't vote a particular way? Say you don't think it happened, but don't say that it wouldn't become a huge issue if it was proven that it did. You can't threaten a party with financial penalties unless they vote your way, especially when your way is a financial penalty against another party. If this does end up in court (I don't think it will) and if the owners lose (they won't) that would seriously impact any fine that could ultimately be held against the league if they lose. That is in no way whatsoever akin to making a deal more beneficial to someone.

 

[Manster7588]

You would be laughed out of court. Ignoring that you have no evidence for your claim, making a deal more beneficial to someone to get them to support it is a normal negotiating tactic. It is not extortion; it is not illegal. The other lawyer could literally rest on the spot and you would be laughed away.

I'd just have to place Mara, Goodell, along with the Saints and Raiders ownership on the stand. It has already been in print that the NFL offered to cut them a break if they didn't interfere with the fine. Like I said I may lose the case but I have enough evidence to bring it to court. As said earlier I'd probably lose to the NFL lawyers but I'd kick your so called superior mind. I've long considered you a joke now your just proving it.

 

[JDM]

I don't know what did or didn't happen and i tend to think that scenario didn't exactly happen, but are you saying a judge wouldn't find issue with the NFL telling a team that they would be fined if they didn't vote a particular way? Say you don't think it happened, but don't say that it wouldn't become a huge issue if it was proven that it did. You can't threaten a party with financial penalties unless they vote your way, especially when your way is a financial penalty against another party. If this does end up in court (I don't think it will) and if the owners lose (they won't) that would seriously impact any fine that could ultimately be held against the league if they lose. That is in no way whatsoever akin to making a deal more beneficial to someone.

There were multiple potential deals. Some had everyone who front loaded face cap penalties, some had only those who frontloaded a lot face penalties. That is not threatening anyone; it is simply part of the negotiation process.

 

[JDM]

I'd just have to place Mara, Goodell, along with the Saints and Raiders ownership on the stand. It has already been in print that the NFL offered to cut them a break if they didn't interfere with the fine. Like I said I may lose the case but I have enough evidence to bring it to court. As said earlier I'd probably lose to the NFL lawyers but I'd kick your so called superior mind. I've long considered you a joke now your just proving it.

No, you wouldn't. You'd never get anywhere remotely resembling a trial. Literally anyone who can legally practice law would trash you with no effort whatsoever.

 

[tw1st3d]

No, you wouldn't. You'd never get anywhere remotely resembling a trial. Literally anyone who can legally practice law would trash you with no effort whatsoever.

you can defend ignorance.... and prolong the battle........ but you aint going to win

 

[Manster7588]

I don't know what did or didn't happen and i tend to think that scenario didn't exactly happen, but are you saying a judge wouldn't find issue with the NFL telling a team that they would be fined if they didn't vote a particular way? Say you don't think it happened, but don't say that it wouldn't become a huge issue if it was proven that it did. You can't threaten a party with financial penalties unless they vote your way, especially when your way is a financial penalty against another party. If this does end up in court (I don't think it will) and if the owners lose (they won't) that would seriously impact any fine that could ultimately be held against the league if they lose. That is in no way whatsoever akin to making a deal more beneficial to someone.

I have no issues with this stance. If you don't think a deal was made that's your right. If it went to court it would be the plaintiffs job to prove it. Now I do think my side could win.

 

[Manster7588]

There were multiple potential deals. Some had everyone who front loaded face cap penalties, some had only those who frontloaded a lot face penalties. That is not threatening anyone; it is simply part of the negotiation process.

So now you are saying the league DID tell teams not to overspend in the NON capped year. I guess instead of Mara and Goodall on the stand I'll use an idiot who will say something like this as he's arguing against collusion. Like I said a lawyer may tear me to shreds but I'd kick your ass in that courtroom.

 

[jarntt]

There were multiple potential deals. Some had everyone who front loaded face cap penalties, some had only those who frontloaded a lot face penalties. That is not threatening anyone; it is simply part of the negotiation process.

Your response doesn't seem to have any correlation to what was just said.

 

[JDM]

Your response doesn't seem to have any correlation to what was just said.

He says "threatening to fine teams" is extortion. I say different options on the table for how to handle abuse of the uncapped year is negotiation.