Joint Statement From Redskins/Cowboys

[Elephant]

Again, the NFLPA is claiming they did not have all the facts going into the final agreement, thus they are filing suit.

And Goal, if mud all over Goodell and Mara's faces is all we get, so be it. Like Lanky and others have mentioned, we prepared for the worst and swung for the fences. We are now in a position to handle the cap hit, half already being accounted for.

Everyone was excited for the amount of cap space we had this year prior to the penalty thinking we could sign a bunch of free agents, I have to wonder if the clearing of all that space was not intentional for the potential hit we ended up taking.

Although I was excited to see us potentially go after a big name or two, it would have flown in the face of what we had begun to do...get our hands on as many younger, affordable players as we could through the draft and 2nd and 3rd tier free agents.

Who knows? I just hope this goes viral enough to sting Mara and Goodell!

 

[Jimbo]

Who knows? I just hope this goes viral enough to sting Mara and Goodell!

AMEN to that!

This whole thing appears to me to be an end run by the NFLPA to have their cake and eat it too. I'm sure they were pissed off by the NFL's threat at setting the cap at $120M instead of $113M IF they agreed to the removal of cap space against the Skins and Boys.

What the NFLPA wants is that $120M salary cap AND for the Skins and Boys to have their cap space back so they can spend even MORE money on players. I have a feeling they would probably settle for us and Dallas getting our cap space back in order to drop the suit. It's not what I would prefer but the NFLPA is all about lining players pockets and this would, at the very least, accomplish that. Anything more would be icing on the cake.

That said, I'm sure Goodell will break out the blackmail photos of DeMaurice Smith and Jerry Sandusky or something of the sort and get the whole thing erased once again.

I STILL want that SOB exiled to Elba.

 

[Smoot Point]

I tweeted my opinion about this earlier, and I'm sure it's nothing others here haven't been talking about. I think the NFLPA is just going to look dumb in the end. They agreed to the 2011 CBA and it is pretty clear that they agreed not to sue the NFL for collusion prior to the 2011 season (Section 3(a))... I think DSmith has been a huge failure for the NFLPA and this was probably prompted by some of the smarter and more curious players asking good questions. I wouldn't pin hopes on the case, but I suppose there is always a miniscule chance they can convince Judge Doty to make it entertaining for a while.

 

[Elephant]

I wouldn't pin hopes on the case, but I suppose there is always a miniscule chance they can convince Judge Doty to make it entertaining for a while.

And this is about where I am...entertain it long enough for more than just NFL junkies like us to see.

The more exposure this story gets, the collusion and all, the more I think a 3rd party steps in...DOJ? I mean, how can they get away with breaking the law? It doesn't matter if the NFLPA signs off on it, it's still against the law!

 

[Jimbo]

Florio chimes in

NFLPA contends Article 3 of new CBA doesn’t apply to collusion case

When you see the mention of "collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011" you think the NFLPA can't possible win this, however here is what a guy who claims to be an attorney says in the responses at the bottom of Florio's article:

jakek2 says:
May 23, 2012 6:32 PM
As an attorney, I won on the EXACT issue that the NFLPA will be arguing.

The operative words in a release such as this are “waiver of claims now known OR UNKNOWN”. I don’t see the “OR UNKNOWN” part in the clause.

The fact that this language is not in there but the NFLPA waived a crap load of other claims would lead a reasonable reader to fairly presume that the NFLPA intended to only release those claims that are specifically enumerated. In fact, with the months of bargaining that took place, it’s also fair to presume that the NFLPA expressly kept their “unknown” collusion claim. As long as they can prove the claim was “unknown”, they will succeed. Surely, they will survive summary judgment and the case will proceed through discovery which the NFL MUST AVOID!

What also supports the NFLPA is that there were teams of lawyers on both sides that prepared the agreement. If the NFL wanted unknown claims waived, it would have inserted that language and the NFL cannot now claim, “well…that’s what we meant”.

There Judge Doty….I just saved you 4 months worth of work. To the pro-owner yahoos….sorry to whizz in your corn flakes.

 

[Smoot Point]

The more exposure this story gets, the collusion and all, the more I think a 3rd party steps in...DOJ? I mean, how can they get away with breaking the law? It doesn't matter if the NFLPA signs off on it, it's still against the law!

I'm not sure if this was quoted earlier, but here is what I think is the important section of the 2011 CBA:

Section 3. Releases and Covenants Not to Sue:
(a) The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the 7
Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Bra4J v. NFL, including, without limitation, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues ("TR") or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 201 1 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Bra4J related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.

Looks to me like they can't sue or even help someone else sue... So, I'm not sure why they are suing. Just PR, but I wonder if the NFL could counter-sue in such a situation.

Here is a Link to the whole document (for those bored): CBA Download from NFLPlayers.com

 

[Smoot Point]

Missed your statement, Jimbo... I concur that it doesn't say "unknown", but it's pretty specific with regard to collusion. When I heard the NFL reps say "known or unknown" in the statement, I thought that wouldn't stand up in court. However, specifically calling out (used enumerating inappropriately) collusion would lead a normal person (not a judge) to believe there was suspected collusion and both sides agreed to move forward instead of fighting that battle.

 

[Smoot Point]

It's almost like some players asked the NFLPA why they weren't fighting this battle, so they decided to fight it and in their doctor evil voice said "4 Billion Dollars" and that got everyone's attention. Now they save face with the smarter, but maybe a bit gullible players, and look like they at least tried. In reality, they negotiated a lesser deal than they probably could've (had the owners not locked the players out... the lockout would've been broken had the collusion been identified then) and they also negotiated away a lot of their own leverage. I don't see the NFLPA looking good.

 

[Lump Beefrock]

I'm at the point now where I just don't care.... mainly because there is nothing I, personally, can do. But I would love to see this NFLPA suit be the beginning of the end of Goodell. He's such a slime ball. I hope Vilma wins too.

What I'd REALLY like is for the federal government to get hard enough evidence to file a criminal suit for collusion.... seeing as it's a felonious act and all.

A boy can dream.

 

[Goaldeje]

Interesting tweets from Andrew Brandt this morning:

Re Collusion, NFLPA earlier signed off on stripping $46M of Cap room from Redskins/Cowboys. Now saying were coerced to do so.

Cowboys/Redskins case dismissed in part due to NFLPA agreeing to make them collateral damage to getting their 120M Cap number.

NFLPA stance against litigation being barred by CBA appears to be "We didn't know about this until John Mara spoke to the media."

And from Mort (by way of M&M):

Mike & Mike‏@MikeAndMike

#NFL insider @mortreport on NFL and NFLPA relationship: This is getting to be a real brass knuckles fight again.

 

[Goaldeje]

Here we go again. On the day following dismissal of claims made by the Redskins and Cowboys that they were unfairly docked $46 million of cap room, the NFLPA has taken up the charge, filing a collusion claim against the NFL.

As background, the previous CBA required that in its last year -- 2010 -- there would be no salary cap in exchange for certain restrictions on players. One such restriction required six years of service time for free agency instead of four, resulting in more than 200 players being relegated to restricted free-agent (RFA) status. Interestingly, the NFLPA previously filed a collusion claim regarding the lack of RFA activity in 2010, a claim settled as part of the overall 2011 CBA settlement.

Although the uncapped year did not result in unfettered cash spending by the Redskins and Cowboys, there was abnormally high cap spending by the two, taking advantage of maneuvers to roll future cap amounts into the uncapped year.

The penalties levied on the Redskins and Cowboys for these maneuvers appeared to have the approval of NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith, a fact noted in the dismissal of their grievance by arbitrator Stephen Burbank on Tuesday. However, that consent was allegedly forced and is one of the main points of Wednesday's litigation. Let's examine:


Secret cap


The NFLPA claims the NFL and its owners conspired and agreed to a "secret cap" during the uncapped year complete with "rules" such as (1) a $123 million-per-team spending limit, and (2) "serious consequences" for over-spenders. The union contends that 28 teams -- excluding the Cowboys, Redskins, Raiders and Saints -- honored this conspiracy, violating the stipulation and settlement agreement (SSA) from the 2006 CBA.

As to timing, the NFLPA claims it didn't discover this conspiracy until March 12, 2012, when punishment was meted out to the Cowboys and Redskins. The NFLPA directly cites media statements made by commissioner Roger Goodell and Giants co-owner John Mara acknowledging the implementation of "rules." The NFLPA suggests that these comments not only prove the existence of a cap but a conspiracy to lower player costs.

The union seeks up to $3 billion: $1 billion in actual damages plus a penalty of two times this amount.


He's back


In negotiating the new CBA, the NFL prioritized shedding itself from oversight by player-friendly Judge David Doty.

The NFLPA argues that, since the terms of the 2010 uncapped year fall under the SSA, Judge Doty retains jurisdiction over any action brought pursuant to the settlement. The groans you hear are from the legal department at 345 Park Avenue, seeing a case brought by its least-favorite lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler, in the forum of its least-favorite judge.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7964386/nfl-many-layers-nflpa-collusion-case

 

[Jimbo]

SOOOOOOOOOO.......anyone think there's a possibility of a strike if the NFL doesnt agree to some type of concession? The media would most likely be in support of the players but I'm not so sure about the fans.

REAL fans might support the players but there are probably enough casual fans to support the NFL if they pull in scabs.

It's probably way too early to be thinking about this but I see it as a possibility if the NFL doesnt budge on its idiotic stances.

 

[Ax]

SOOOOOOOOOO.......anyone think there's a possibility of a strike if the NFL doesnt agree to some type of concession? The media would most likely be in support of the players but I'm not so sure about the fans.

http://www.bgobsession.com/showpost.php?p=125166&postcount=77

**** Heir Goodell
**** Mara
**** the season, if needs be.

 

[Henry]

Like I said, sloppy, unprofessional and petty.

We could be facing a strike or worse because Goodell and Mara just HAD to stick it to Snyder and Jones.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Man...at the beginning of this I figured it could get ugly, but a strike? Wow. That's further than I ever thought it would go. I support this as well - we've got to get that a-hole out of the commissioner's office one way or another!

 

[Goaldeje]

The problem with the idea of a strike is that the players would be even more unprepared than they usually are for such an occurance. Even when they know about the liklihood of a lockout, most professional athletes won't save or do what needs to be done to get by without a paycheck for more than a week or two. Giving them practically no warning and then striking seems... implausible to me.

But as Henry says, the NFL handled this about as poorly as they could. The scrutiny and discovery may result in some needed change, which would be just fine by me.

 

[TomE]

I didn't catch all of the show and missed his sources for reference but Sheehan on 980 talked about some of the uncapped year maneuvers by Allen.

Essentially by using contract redo's and player cuts Allen pushed the capless payroll up to well over $200 mil for the year.

Even with the $36 mil cap penalty figured in, the net cap cleared from the books still amounted to over $60 mil.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I didn't catch all of the show and missed his sources for reference but Sheehan on 980 talked about some of the uncapped year maneuvers by Allen.

Essentially by using contract redo's and player cuts Allen pushed the capless payroll up to well over $200 mil for the year.

Even with the $36 mil cap penalty figured in, the net cap cleared from the books still amounted to over $60 mil.

This compounds my point from earlier. Allen knew exactly what he was doing, and what the potential consequences were. Brilliant all around!

 

[Ax]

The problem with the idea of a strike is that the players would be even more unprepared than they usually are for such an occurance. Even when they know about the liklihood of a lockout, most professional athletes won't save or do what needs to be done to get by without a paycheck for more than a week or two. Giving them practically no warning and then striking seems... implausible to me.

But as Henry says, the NFL handled this about as poorly as they could. The scrutiny and discovery may result in some needed change, which would be just fine by me.

The owners aren't as prepared either. Yeah, they will always be on more solid ground, but, they might get sued by TV for failure to honor their contract if a strike were to cost games. And that ain't chump change. My guess is they would be hurt severely by a strike, too.

 

[Ax]

This compounds my point from earlier. Allen knew exactly what he was doing, and what the potential consequences were. Brilliant all around!

Maybe. But don't dismiss the possibility of it being dumb luck either. Besides, this saga has a ways to go yet, it would appear. Final report card may or may not tell the tale.