Page 8 of 15
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:06 pm
by The Hogster
riggofan wrote:The Hogster wrote:The arbitrator for matters involving the NFL is generally determined by the CBA. I don't know Burbank. But, he's a colleague of Andrew Brandt--who is definitely not an NFL puppet. Roger Kaplan has also been fair, and I'd expect Burbank to be the same.
Is it unusual that we still don't have a date set for arbitration? Seems like this is kind of a time sensitive issue.
Given the nature of this, I would have expected it to occur before the NFL Draft. But, NFLPA arbitration cases have been notoriously slow to occur. The consequences are unique here though. If I'm representing the teams, I'd have pushed for a swift hearing.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:31 pm
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:He could just say with both sides signing off it's a deal.
When did both sides sign off?
You know what I'm referring to. Why don't you say what you disagree with instead of saying duh, what do you mean?
Honestly, I haven't a clue what you were talking about... and still don't.
PS On Redskins matters (and a lot more than you realize in other areas too), you and I tend to agree. Don't be so quick to judge my posts in other forums as adversarial.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:08 pm
by riggofan
Countertrey wrote:riggofan wrote:Just read somewhere this morning that arbitration may not happen until the summer. Damage done. Well done, Mara.
This, of course, wouldn't be of any help THIS year... but it could prove a huge benefit NEXT year, especially if the arbitor finds for the Redskins AND assigns damages.
OTOH, he could leave all as it is, and it makes no difference at all...
The "assigns damages" is the key part though, isn't it? What if he just decides the penalty was unfair and removes the penalty? I'm not sure that would mean the entire $36m in cap space carries over to next year. Couldn't we find ourselves in August suddenly with $18m in extra cap space that we can't really use anymore?
I know there are some guys on here who really understand the cap, maybe they could take a stab at dissecting what that would mean.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:10 pm
by riggofan
The Hogster wrote:riggofan wrote:The Hogster wrote:The arbitrator for matters involving the NFL is generally determined by the CBA. I don't know Burbank. But, he's a colleague of Andrew Brandt--who is definitely not an NFL puppet. Roger Kaplan has also been fair, and I'd expect Burbank to be the same.
Is it unusual that we still don't have a date set for arbitration? Seems like this is kind of a time sensitive issue.
Given the nature of this, I would have expected it to occur before the NFL Draft. But, NFLPA arbitration cases have been notoriously slow to occur. The consequences are unique here though. If I'm representing the teams, I'd have pushed for a swift hearing.
That was my thought exactly. I'm really surprised they haven't fast tracked that somehow.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:20 pm
by 1niksder
riggofan wrote:Countertrey wrote:riggofan wrote:Just read somewhere this morning that arbitration may not happen until the summer. Damage done. Well done, Mara.
This, of course, wouldn't be of any help THIS year... but it could prove a huge benefit NEXT year, especially if the arbitor finds for the Redskins AND assigns damages.
OTOH, he could leave all as it is, and it makes no difference at all...
The "assigns damages" is the key part though, isn't it? What if he just decides the penalty was unfair and removes the penalty? I'm not sure that would mean the entire $36m in cap space carries over to next year. Couldn't we find ourselves in August suddenly with $18m in extra cap space that we can't really use anymore?
I know there are some guys on here who really understand the cap, maybe they could take a stab at dissecting what that would mean.
Any space not used can be carried over to the next year under the new CBA... the Redskins carried over $13M+ this season then lost $18.4M in "Capgate" for a net lost of $4.6M, throwing other credits the new CBA provided and that net lost dropped to around $2.9M in 2012. If it's a wash and they simply get the space back thay can use it all either next year or re-work current contracts to lock up players that only got 1 or 2 year deals.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:25 pm
by riggofan
1niksder wrote:riggofan wrote:Countertrey wrote:riggofan wrote:Just read somewhere this morning that arbitration may not happen until the summer. Damage done. Well done, Mara.
This, of course, wouldn't be of any help THIS year... but it could prove a huge benefit NEXT year, especially if the arbitor finds for the Redskins AND assigns damages.
OTOH, he could leave all as it is, and it makes no difference at all...
The "assigns damages" is the key part though, isn't it? What if he just decides the penalty was unfair and removes the penalty? I'm not sure that would mean the entire $36m in cap space carries over to next year. Couldn't we find ourselves in August suddenly with $18m in extra cap space that we can't really use anymore?
I know there are some guys on here who really understand the cap, maybe they could take a stab at dissecting what that would mean.
Any space not used can be carried over to the next year under the new CBA... the Redskins carried over $13M+ this season then lost $18.4M in "Capgate" for a net lost of $4.6M, throwing other credits the new CBA provided and that net lost dropped to around $2.9M in 2012. If it's a wash and they simply get the space back thay can use it all either next year or re-work current contracts to lock up players that only got 1 or 2 year deals.
Thanks for clarifying. I knew about the carry over thing from last year, just wasn't sure if that number could keep carrying over year after year.
That's a great point too about re-working some contracts this year too if the money is free'd up.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:32 pm
by 1niksder
A lot of Vet Min and 5 year deals voiding after two years were offered and signed because of "Capgate".... It's like Bruce told the players "we'll deal with this when we get our money back, if not the cap will jump in 2014 when those contracts void
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:10 am
by rick301
KazooSkinsFan wrote:rick301 wrote:Maybe he has already decided - but is trying to work out a proper settlement/compensations.
I can dream can't I?
I think you're counting on too much. We may well lose. He could just say with both sides signing off it's a deal. Don't set yourself up for disappointment.
I'm a realist. We don't know what we don't know. Per the information released to date, it sure seems that the Redskins and Boys were singled out - despite other teams doing the same. Is there more to this situation that is not being released? The delay could be in part that the Skins are taking their time to build a stronger case. In many cases, time lets cooler and wiser heads to prevail. I hope that is the case here, and it in the Skins favor. Its just so darn frustrating waiting for the decision while lamenting what we could have done in acquisitions with the additional CAP space.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:28 am
by KazooSkinsFan
rick301 wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:rick301 wrote:Maybe he has already decided - but is trying to work out a proper settlement/compensations.
I can dream can't I?
I think you're counting on too much. We may well lose. He could just say with both sides signing off it's a deal. Don't set yourself up for disappointment.
I'm a realist. We don't know what we don't know. Per the information released to date, it sure seems that the Redskins and Boys were singled out - despite other teams doing the same. Is there more to this situation that is not being released? The delay could be in part that the Skins are taking their time to build a stronger case. In many cases, time lets cooler and wiser heads to prevail. I hope that is the case here, and it in the Skins favor. Its just so darn frustrating waiting for the decision while lamenting what we could have done in acquisitions with the additional CAP space.
In a process of "fair" you are right that we'd win, hands down. We followed the rules (of no rules) and other teams did what we did. That would be easy. But we're not talking about "fair" we're talking about the law and there is very little that one has to do with the other.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:40 am
by SkinsJock
Kaz is right - this is not about "fair"
the NFL has it's 'own' rules - the arbitrator will have his work cut out for him trying to use common sense when it is accepted that the NFL's management is for the good of the majority of the NFL OR those that can manipulate it best, as it appears Mara did this time
There is no such thing as common sense when the NFL has it's own rules and it's actions and decisions are not bound IN ANY WAY by society OR the legal system's accepted way of doing things
this whole thing stinks but especially the timing of it - good luck to the arbitrator trying to come up with an equitable solution
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:04 am
by riggofan
Finally:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... grievance/
Plenty of you have asked in recent days for an update on the status of the grievance filed by the Redskins and Cowboys after the removal of $46 million in total cap space from the two teams by the NFL.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, a hearing will be held in May.
The grievance will be handled by Special Master Stephen Burbank, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The league contends that the Cowboys and Redskins violated the “spirit” of the salary cap during the uncapped year of 2010, even though the NFL approved all contracts submitted by the teams containing payments in 2010. The circumstances suggest that the NFL tried to impose restrictions on spending that didn’t exist in the labor deal, which would constitute collusion in the uncapped year.
The move has prompted a significant outcry from Cowboys and Redskins games, creating an unholy alliance between two arch rivals that could confirm the accuracy of the Mayan calendar.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:14 am
by SkinsJock
there is no way that the stupid pukes or the Redskins will put the NFL at risk here
however .....
I still hold out hope that the arbitrator finds a way to make retribution in some way
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:26 am
by Chris Luva Luva
SkinsJock wrote:there is no way that the stupid pukes or the Redskins will put the NFL at risk here
however .....
I still hold out hope that the arbitrator finds a way to make retribution in some way
They already have, so why stop now?
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:17 pm
by SkinsJock
Chris Luva Luva wrote:SkinsJock wrote:there is no way that the stupid pukes or the Redskins will put the NFL at risk here
however .....
I still hold out hope that the arbitrator finds a way to make retribution in some way
They already have, so why stop now?
there is no way that the pukes or the Redskins will be responsible for losing the anti trust protection the NFL has - NO WAY
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:00 pm
by rick301
"A hearing has been scheduled for May 10 in the challenge by the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys to salary cap reductions ordered by the NFL.
The hearing is scheduled to take place before Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who is the sport’s system arbitrator, a league spokesman said.
It is not clear when Burbank will rule."
Finally .... some movement
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/arbitration-hearing-scheduled-in-redskins-cowboys-salary-cap-case/2012/04/18/gIQAH7i5QT_blog.html#pagebreak
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:38 pm
by Deadskins
Where have you been, rick? You're about seven hours late.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:30 pm
by Deadskins
Care to scoop this one, Tribe?
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:43 pm
by SkinsJock
I understand there was a meeting today that basically removes any 'threat' of the NFL owners getting in trouble regarding collusion
can someone clarify this
I also heard (Pat Kirwan on Sirius) - he thinks the Redskins & pukes will win some concession here but it may just be no further penalty ...
I am hoping for more than that
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:15 pm
by skinsfan#33
SkinsJock wrote:I also heard (Pat Kirwan on Sirius) - he thinks the Redskins & pukes will win some concession here but it may just be no further penalty ...
I am hoping for more than that
So does that mean they will get no further penalty, meaning the Skins are out the $18M for this year but not next? If that is the case I would tell the arbitrator to stick in his ear and tell the NFL they will see them in court!
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:10 pm
by Deadskins
I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:09 pm
by skinsfan#33
Deadskins wrote:I think agreeing to settle this before the arbitrator means there is no taking it to court.
Nope
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:47 pm
by Deadskins
Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Look back through the links in the beginning of this thread.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:50 pm
by The Hogster
Deadskins wrote:Pretty sure I read that somewhere. Look back through the links in the beginning of this thread.
They could still go to court. Arbitration does not prevent that.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:54 pm
by Deadskins
It does if it's binding arbitration.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:09 pm
by The Hogster
Deadskins wrote:It does if it's binding arbitration.
I'm telling you, they can file an antitrust lawsuit if they do not like the result of this arbitration. Possible, but unlikely.