Redskins/Cowboys file grievance against NFL

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu May 10, 2012 10:14 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Countertrey wrote:If I'm Danny and Jerruh, I'm pushing this, until I get some equity... all of my cap, plus some... to equal the advantage that other teams recieved by conspiring against our teams. Only THEN would I entertain real discussion about a settlement.

Not so fast.

The NFL is placing a bet that the Arbitrator may declare today that he has no authority to continue this process as an arbitrator. In other words, the NFL is betting that the Arbitrator may declare that with the vote taken by the owners 29 in favour - 2 against - 1 abstention, there is no case to arbitrate.

Not likely, as there was tangible gain to each team that voted to affirm the commitee's stand... in effect, their vote was purchased, tainting it's value as a measure of the legitimacy of the vote. That one team abstained, OTOH, speaks volumes...

It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.

... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

Interesting stuff that really goes to the heart of whether Prof. Burbank, the Arbitrator, is really impartial or he is under the influence of Goodell and the Mara group. He has a great reputation as a competent and impartial arbitrator. Let's see how it works.

Absolutely valid. I hope that Professor Burbank will rise to his reputation, and box the NFL, but good. There's no real way to fix this without cutting up the NFL's baby... good luck with that, King Solomon...

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu May 10, 2012 3:16 pm

Countertrey wrote:
It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.
... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

The counter-argument to that by the NFL (not mine) is that ALL teams were warned AGAINST such practices during the uncapped year. SOME argue that they followed that agreement and thus the "unfair advantage".

It was, they say, an unofficial "gentleman's agreement".

Interesting question is: What is the legal validity of such non-contractual agreement in the event that it might have really existed. Does that "spoken agreement" if it existed amounted to a legal obligation?

Complex case.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu May 10, 2012 3:59 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.
... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

The counter-argument to that by the NFL (not mine) is that ALL teams were warned AGAINST such practices during the uncapped year. SOME argue that they followed that agreement and thus the "unfair advantage".

It was, they say, an unofficial "gentleman's agreement".

Interesting question is: What is the legal validity of such non-contractual agreement in the event that it might have really existed. Does that "spoken agreement" if it existed amounted to a legal obligation?

Complex case.

Not sure if it's binding, but I do know that such a gentleman's agreement constitutes collusion. The players union should be suing them for that admission alone.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu May 10, 2012 4:07 pm

^ Hence the rub... and the reason the NFL should do whatever is necessary to make this go away...

Who blinks first?

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Thu May 10, 2012 4:16 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:I said that it was LIKELY but I did not say that it would be EASY.

It is LIKELY because the process is becoming an indictment of the NFL and, in particular, the Committee led by Mara.

IF the settlement is not reached before they meet with the arbitrator at the U of Pennsylvania today, both sides will re-assess their positions vis-a-vis the settlement for future negotiations. It all depends how they feel after today's exchange.

Still not sure I agree with your reason for a settlement being likely (An indictment of the NFL? When did the most popular sport in the US last care about public opinion?), but I agree with most of what you wrote.

I think you're right about both sides re-assessing their position after today. If the arbitrator allows this to continue, the NFL may decide to negotiate a settlement themselves rather than risk the arbitrator making a decision for them.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:11 am

So, not much to report from yesterday, but that was to be expected. The power that Goodell claims to have is frightening. Are all the other owners happy with the power they seem to have voluntarily vested in him, or are they just all on board because they weren't the ones who got clobbered this time?

I get the impression they're all like little children, smiling at the bully because he's just beaten up the kid that none of them like. So they're all patting him on the back right now but, in the back of their minds, they must be thinking "when is he going to come after me?". And, if he does, who the hell is going to stop him? Well, don't expect Dan and Jerry to come riding over the horizon on white horses to save you!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... dvisement/

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri May 11, 2012 10:31 am

Redskins argue against cut to cap

“We got to present some of our issues, and the league presented some of their issues, and we’ll leave it at that,” general manager Bruce Allen said Tuesday evening. “I think we just have to let the process play out. We wanted to present our case, and we were able to present.”

The NFL declined to comment. Proceedings are confidential until a decision is finalized, as stipulated by the collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players union.

"Funny" statement:

“I thought the penalties imposed were proper,” John Mara, New York Giants owner and chairman of the NFL Management Committee, told reporters at the NFL annual meetings in late March. “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks.”

I hope the Arbitrator teaches him a lesson. ;furious;

The NFL SPIN on the hearing.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Fri May 11, 2012 10:56 am

UK Skins Fan wrote:So, not much to report from yesterday, but that was to be expected. The power that Goodell claims to have is frightening. Are all the other owners happy with the power they seem to have voluntarily vested in him, or are they just all on board because they weren't the ones who got clobbered this time?

I get the impression they're all like little children, smiling at the bully because he's just beaten up the kid that none of them like. So they're all patting him on the back right now but, in the back of their minds, they must be thinking "when is he going to come after me?". And, if he does, who the hell is going to stop him? Well, don't expect Dan and Jerry to come riding over the horizon on white horses to save you!

Great post, man - exactly right. And you're especially right about the other owners. What is Goodell claiming exactly? That because he is the commissioner, none of the rules apply to him??? Its insane(ly stupid).

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri May 11, 2012 10:56 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:Redskins argue against cut to cap

“We got to present some of our issues, and the league presented some of their issues, and we’ll leave it at that,” general manager Bruce Allen said Tuesday evening. “I think we just have to let the process play out. We wanted to present our case, and we were able to present.”

Nice editing there. :roll:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri May 11, 2012 11:47 am

OK - that's done - thanks for the links - appreciated

Does anyone have any idea on what sort of time it might take for this guy to decide ..... anything?

is it just a day or 2 or does this drag out?

Mara is clearly showing himself to be a class A hater :roll:

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Fri May 11, 2012 12:20 pm

Jock: I trust the opinion of Rich Tandler on a lot of matters. His view (and it's only his opinion) is that we shouldn't expect a ruling until well into June. Any quick ruling would probably be bad for the Redskins, as it would probably be a ruling that the case can't be heard by the arbitrator.

The bizarre thing at this time is that it doesn't even appear to be clear whether this was the first hearing, or the only hearing. That is, it's not clear whether Burbank will rule based on what he heard yesterday, or whether this was just opening statements, after which he may call the parties back to submit further statements or "evidence".

Given the fact that we still don't have much understanding HOW this process is supposed to work, I don't think we can have any idea HOW LONG either!

If I was you, I'd expect a ruling any time between now and next March! And if the ruling goes against the NFL, expect an appeal that will not be resolved until 2014!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri May 11, 2012 1:57 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Mara is clearly showing himself to be a class A hater

He made those statements a couple of months ago, but yes, it is all his doing.

rick301 · Post by **rick301** » Mon May 21, 2012 7:46 am

It's been awfully quiet on this topic in the press.

Anyone hear any rumors?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon May 21, 2012 7:57 am

I would think that if the arbitrator was going to dismiss the case, as the NFL wants, then he would have made that ruling already. No news is good news for us, I would think.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:00 pm

Just reported on sirius nfl radio that the arbitrator, Burbank, ruled in favor of the NFL and approved the NFL's motion to dismiss the arbitration.

The Skins and Cowboys are stuck!!!

Mara and GoDaHell got away with Grand Larceny and extortion and collusion!

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:01 pm

This is incredible.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:02 pm

Here is the blurb from profootballtalk:

The Cowboys and Redskins have lost at least one battle in their attempt to get back the combined $46 million in salary cap space that the NFL took away from them.

NFL general counsel Jeff Pash told Judy Battista of the New York Times that Special Master Stephen Burbank dismissed the grievance filed by the Cowboys and the Redskins.

Dallas lost $10 million in cap space and Washington lost $36 million in cap space, to be divided between this season and next season, after the NFL — with the backing of the other owners — found that they violated the spirit of the rules in their spending during the uncapped year. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Redskins owner Dan Snyder argue that they didn’t violate anything because the lack of a salary cap meant there were no rules — in letter or in spirit — restricting how much money NFL teams could spend.

But Burbank has sided with the league on this one.

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:28 pm

So what options are left for the Redskins?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:51 pm

Well, that sucks.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue May 22, 2012 1:09 pm

GoSkins wrote:So what options are left for the Redskins?

Go to court, or at least threaten to and settle the case. Cowboys indicate they likely wouldn't go that route. But, who case what they do.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Tue May 22, 2012 1:16 pm

The Good Old Boys Network of old money and old school NFL owners have successfully spanked the new money and new school owners. This is an outrage but I would bet the Redskins let it drop now.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Tue May 22, 2012 1:25 pm

Couldn't post my feelings outside smack.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue May 22, 2012 1:26 pm

nothing else will come of this, i think they'll drop it.

cowboykillerzRGiii · Post by **cowboykillerzRGiii** » Tue May 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Threaten with a lawsuit and settle on no cap penalty next year.. they already got 18 freakn million call it good.
This arbitrator guy must be a real puppet of godahells and a complete tool.
What a crock

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue May 22, 2012 2:10 pm

Horrible. There is no justice when Goodell gets involved. Mara must be loving this.