• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Salary Cap Hearing Set For May

The hearing continues to go on. Nearly three hours and counting. Make of that what you will.

And biting my tongue.

Hope you are having a good day.
 
Come on BB.....spill it if you got it. Inquiring minds and all. I promise I won't tell. :D

Do we get to go forward or do we hang Burbank in effigy?

OR.........are they in the process of cutting a deal?
 
Last edited:
The Sgt. Schultz in me is strong today - and that is the honest truth.
 
I figure they've settled on the dollar amount. (full refund)

Now they're finalizing our compensatory draft picks. ;)
 
Ax said:
Damn! I wasn't drooling was I?
Click to expand...

At least the puddle wasn't as big as last time. ;)

4091651700_9a1d555f63_o.jpg
 
According to WP Insider, the hearing is over but no news yet as to any rulings.

The suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts. ;)

i-hope-it-will-last.gif
 
Looks like the motion to dismiss will go forward. We lose. Are the courts next? Not sure. We'll see.
 
Do you know something we don't Schultz, er.....BB? This just says he's taking the motion to dismiss under advisement. Seems pretty commonplace.
 
Per a source with knowledge of the hearing, the NFL argued that the union’s agreement to the cap penalties prevents the grievance. The NFL also argued that the Commissioner possesses the full and complete ability to adopt any measures aimed at ensuring competitive balance.

As to the latter argument, that’s a strong statement. And it would be interesting to know how many owners believe that the Commissioner indeed has such broad, sweeping powers. Especially since those powers, if they exist, can be used against any of the other owners, pretty much at any time.
Click to expand...

Tammany Hall is alive and well with "Boss Tweed" Goodell at the helm. :mad:
 
Sounds like the makings of a big ole crock of ****.

I'll be pissed if Snyder and Jones don't go to the mattresses.

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

Either that, or just tattoo Hier Goodell on all the owners and players wrists and be done with it.
 
Sounds like BB is suggesting there's reason to believe that Burbank will find that the agreement b/w the Executive Committee and the NFLPA on the salary cap reduction supersedes (or perhaps is incorporated into) the 2011 CBA such that no challenge under the CBA can be brought. That result would surprise (but not shock) me. And I don't really see a plausible basis to foreclose challenges to procedural irregularities in the cap reducation agreement (even assuming the agreement forecloses substantive challenges to the propriety of the reduction under the CBA).

It's not easy to believe that Burbank will just dismiss the grievance--that would effectively mean that the Executive Committee and NFLPA could agree to anything (make the Skins play a game with 10 players on the field at a time) and it would be unreviewable. We don't know how the cap reducation agreement was worded, which may be key; maybe the NFL's attorneys put in language intended to result in the reduction supplanting (or becoming incorporated into) the CBA, thus putting a large roadblock in the way of a challenge.

Assuming Burbank dismisses our grievance, I'd think our next move would be to appeal to the Appeals Panel (i.e., not yet go to court) to buy time. We could attempt to leverage a settlement as that process unfolds. And I disagree to a fair extent with tshile about whether filing suit means control is no longer in our hands and a judge might do anything; we could always agree to dismiss the suit, only seek certain discovery, etc., if things seemed to be getting out of hand. It would certainly deeply alienate the rest of the league, no small issue. But if an antitrust suit succeeded, the NFL's parity would likely fade, and the league as a whole might well be less profitable--but the Skins and Cowboys might well still win in such a scenario, turning into the Yankees and Red Sox of the NFL (getting a significantly larger slice of a somewhat smaller pie).

Another possible route would be to submit a contract to the league that would put us over the cap, then have the NFL reject it, then if we file a grievance challenging that decision, the burden of proof would shift from a heavy burden on us (as it was in this proceeding) to a heavy burden on the NFL. The problem with this approach, assuming the motion to dismiss is granted, is that the jurisidictional issue of whether we have any right to challenge the reduction is a threshold, legal issue that likely isn't affected by the burden of proof.
 
Thanks Romberjo. Always a pleasure to see your take on this mess, even if I can only understand about half of it. ;)

I've never been more frustrated with the NFL than I have with this fiasco. :mad:
 
Horse ****. So basically, this clown is saying the NFL can do whatever the hell it wants, in the name of competitive balance.

Bull crap!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top