Why didn't Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder fight the cap penalty harder?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Originally Posted by bkight13

The CBA has to do with the players vs the owners. The League's dealings with individual teams, which technically they are the parent company of, is entirely different. Each franchise operates within the rules set up by the league, including punishment for violations. Was there a specific rule for Spygate or Bountygate? No, but the league has the power to adjudicate those types of cases because the owners have set it up that way.

I am not going to go through Brown vs the NFL etc as has been discussed several times. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has told the NFL in no uncertain terms that attempting to control player salaries through collusion without the existence of a CBA was illegal.

The court has also stated that things that are required to have a game to play such as having rules against cheating in the actual game is a different story.

The NFL agreed with the players to not to do that and the Cowboys and Redskins as well as the other teams listed honored the ruling of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS has voiced displeasure at having the exact same put into different forms put in front of them before. Specifically the semantic games that the NFL tries to play. People act like Doty has been rogue towards the NFL because people are not very intelligent in general and buy markteting but all he has done is reiterate what the high court has decreed.

The NFL has been ordered by the Supreme Court to not act as a trust in respect to player contracts without a CBA. I do not know how to make it any more clear than that.

[slaga]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

THERE

WAS

NO

CBA

TO

DICTATE

CONTRACT

TERMS

OR

PARAMETERS.

Who cares what contracts they made? They broke no rules.

Actually the CBA was still intact. The CBA, signed by the players association and the owners, dictated that the final year of the CBA would not have a salary cap. That "no salary cap clause" was there to get the owners to the negotiating table before the CBA expired.

I agree the Redskins and Cowboys broke no rules and worked well within the confines of the rules of both the NFL and the CBA.

[December90]

What seems to be lost in the discussion here is why the uncapped year was in the CBA to begin with.

Does anyone understand the concept of a "poison pill" provision that provides for an undisireable situation to default into action in order to incentivise negotiations to hammer out a new deal BEFORE the old deal expires.

The NFL Owners did not want an uncapped year; the Players did. The reason it was in ther was so that the owners would have an unpleasant (to most) position of "no cap on spending" if they couldn't come to an agreement in time to avert it.

Why should the players beleive any concessions like this in the future? Haven't the Owners effectively come out and said that they did not bargain the CBA in good faith.

The ONLY poetry that I MUST see out of this is for either the Skins or the Boys to go into Mara's New Jersey house next season and take home another Lombardi trophy.

[SilverStarCowboy]

Jerry just re-greased the monkey....behind closed doors.

[bkight13]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I am not going to go through Brown vs the NFL etc as has been discussed several times. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has told the NFL in no uncertain terms that attempting to control player salaries through collusion without the existence of a CBA was illegal.

The court has also stated that things that are required to have a game to play such as having rules against cheating in the actual game is a different story.

The NFL agreed with the players to not to do that and the Cowboys and Redskins as well as the other teams listed honored the ruling of the Supreme Court.

[View Full Quote]SCOTUS has voiced displeasure at having the exact same put into different forms put in front of them before. Specifically the semantic games that the NFL tries to play. People act like Doty has been rogue towards the NFL because people are not very intelligent in general and buy markteting but all he has done is reiterate what the high court has decreed.

The NFL has been ordered by the Supreme Court to not act as a trust in respect to player contracts without a CBA. I do not know how to make it any more clear than that.

The League DIDN'T punish the teams for spending money and the warnings were not about not spending money. They were about how the contracts were written and how the money was dispersed. The teams knew, like the rest of the league that a salary cap was coming back and not to disperse the money in a way that would give them an unfair advantage. It had nothing to do with HOW MUCH money was given.

The Redskins and Cowboys were free to spend $200M on salaries that year. But they knew that those contracts were going to come back to bite them later. The Boys chose to finagle Austin's deal and the Skins used it as an opportunity to shed some terrible contracts. They broke the rules and got a slap on the wrist for it.

[slaga]

Originally Posted by bkight13

The League DIDN'T punish the teams for spending money and the warnings were not about not spending money. They were about how the contracts were written and how the money was dispersed. The teams knew, like the rest of the league that a salary cap was coming back and not to disperse the money in a way that would give them an unfair advantage. It had nothing to do with HOW MUCH money was given.

The Redskins and Cowboys were free to spend $200M on salaries that year. But they knew that those contracts were going to come back to bite them later. The Boys chose to finagle Austin's deal and the Skins used it as an opportunity to shed some terrible contracts. They broke the rules and got a slap on the wrist for it.

I am interested to hear what rule the Skins or Cowboys broke? The NFL signed off on the contracts both teams submitted because they met every rule, CBA agreement, etc. the NFL and the NFLPA signed off on. The contracts were accepted by the NFL because they had no legal grounds for rejecting them.

This was not even a loophole, as Mara would like us ordinary idiots to think. The uncapped year was intentionally put into the CBA by the NFLPA to get the the owners to the bargaining table before the end of the CBA. I guarantee you the players gave up something to get the uncapped year into the CBA.

Any admission to holding players salaries down by any other means, other than the CBA, is admitting to illegal collusion.

Also if a rule was broke by these teams, why wait 2 years before puniishing them? The NFL waited 2 years because they had to find a way to get the NFLPA to sign off on the punishment and they had D. Smith over a barrel trying to get a contract extention.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

IT was collusion but if Jerruh and Snyder took it to court there was a decent chance the whole thing could unravel; I mean the CBA, the League, everything.

So in the end they decided not to

Like a stopped clock, every so often, Burm is correct

[SkinsFan28]

Originally Posted by bkight13

The League DIDN'T punish the teams for spending money and the warnings were not about not spending money. They were about how the contracts were written and how the money was dispersed. The teams knew, like the rest of the league that a salary cap was coming back and not to disperse the money in a way that would give them an unfair advantage. It had nothing to do with HOW MUCH money was given.

The Redskins and Cowboys were free to spend $200M on salaries that year. But they knew that those contracts were going to come back to bite them later. The Boys chose to finagle Austin's deal and the Skins used it as an opportunity to shed some terrible contracts. They broke the rules and got a slap on the wrist for it.

This is my problem. Sure everyone expected a salary cap but guess what, the players for a long time said if it's gone it's gone, so to say with 100% certainty that the salary cap was coming back, in the middle of the vagaries of the negotiations is wrong, and in fact, the very fact that the league through secret methods kept "the spirit of the cap" alive goes against the good faith bargaining the CBA's uncapped year called for.

If the Skins and Cowboys wanted to blow up the league, they certainly could have, but they don't want to so they won't. But it's wrong (imo) to argue the point that what was done was fairplay.

[Redball Express]

Originally Posted by Reverend Conehead

When the totally unjust cap penalty was levied against the Cowboys and the Redskins, I thought Jerry and Dan would unleash hellfire fighting it. It was so absurd. Somehow we violated the salary cap in a CAPLESS year. Both Jerry and Dan have a lot of financial resources. They could have hired the best lawyers available. They're both highly successful business men who are used to getting their way. They could have made clear to Goodell that this would not stand and if he didn't reverse his absurd penalty, they would drag the NFL through the courts and eventually win. Instead, it seems they gave up and walked away with a whimper.

And now we're tight under the cap and struggling to fill needed positions.

..of the plan. Don't you get it..?

Jones wants to make a statement by NOT over-reacting about it. He's guilty as charged and so is Snyder.

After seeing how the Commish destroyed the Saints last year with their penalties and banishments for illegal payola to players for hits..

..I'm sure Jones and Snyder thought the better of protesting and decided it was better just playing thru it.

For Jones, it's just business as usual, we'll just go 8-8 again or worst and he'll say Garrett's job is ok.

As for the Redskins, beating Dallas twice in a season is going to carry them for the next decade at least with RGIII.

So why worry....next thing you know, Jones will call a press conference and give Garrett a 10 yr. extension and claim it's moving in the right direction.

Whatever.

RedBaLL ExPreSS

[Beast_from_East]

Guys, at this point it is like closing the barn door after the horse has already got out.


Yea, the whole thing was BS but for whatever reason the Boys and Skins decided not to pursue it any further.


So thats the end of the story and look for Jerry to get another SB in the next 5 years, just a hunch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Originally Posted by bkight13

The League DIDN'T punish the teams for spending money and the warnings were not about not spending money. They were about how the contracts were written and how the money was dispersed. The teams knew, like the rest of the league that a salary cap was coming back and not to disperse the money in a way that would give them an unfair advantage. It had nothing to do with HOW MUCH money was given.

The Redskins and Cowboys were free to spend $200M on salaries that year. But they knew that those contracts were going to come back to bite them later. The Boys chose to finagle Austin's deal and the Skins used it as an opportunity to shed some terrible contracts. They broke the rules and got a slap on the wrist for it.

You are doing the same thing that the NFL does when they go to court with the semantic tap dancing. 'We did not punish them for spending money. We punished them for the structure of their contract.'

The SCOTUS has rejected this exact line of thinking not just once but three times that I can think of most recently with their case against their old uniform manufacturer.

SCOTUS does not care what you call something when it is outside of contract law. Again in this case their was no legal contract between any of the parties involved. As such they look at what something actually does.

There are several per se violations to Sherman Antitrust Act in what they did. Price fixing, artificial contract parameters, and horizontal market actions amongst independent firms is a big big no-no.

It's widely held that if Snyder or Jones at any points seeks the authority of the court in this matter for assistance that the NFL would be handed it's on a silver platter. Various federal judges have espoused on the NFL's blatant contempt towards their rulings.

I still hold out hope that Snyder will got that route. I would love to see Goodell and Mara censured by the high court for the public to see. That is precisely why Jones and Snyder have not acted as it would undermine the NFL brand.

What they did was nonetheless illegal and the DoJ if they so chose could bring suit and would easily win if they chose to intervene. The NFL had absolutely no right to do what they did.

What will be interesting is that the NFLPA has brought suit over this matter and the court has already thrown out the NFL's attempt to assert the contract language that absolves them of former collusion. It was pretty clear the the CBA was made under duress with the NFL acting in bad faith.

We may yet see Mara and Goodell shamed.

[SkinsFan28]

Originally Posted by Beast_from_East

Guys, at this point it is like closing the barn door after the horse has already got out.


Yea, the whole thing was BS but for whatever reason the Boys and Skins decided not to pursue it any further.


So thats the end of the story and look for Jerry to get another SB in the next 5 years, just a hunch.

Posted from Cowboyszone.com App for Android

[5Stars]

Originally Posted by SkinsFan28

Posted from Cowboyszone.com App for Android

Leave it to a Skins fan...forgot what they were going to say!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also do not see this as the horse leaving the barn. If we were to win then it would make sense that:

1) the lost cap dollars would be returned especially in light of how the CBA now allows you to push cap space forward.

2) Mara would no longer be able to use his position to undermine his division opponents.

To me both are worthwhile reasons to want them to do something.

[bracey]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I also do not see this as the horse leaving the barn. If we were to win then it would make sense that:

1) the lost cap dollars would be returned especially in light of how the CBA now allows you to push cap space forward.

2) Mara would no longer be able to use his position to undermine his division opponents.

To me both are worthwhile reasons to want them to do something.

The downsides of which could result in substantial penalties against NFL owners including Jones and Snyder. Which is why, as much as I would like to see the NFL get put in its place, I don't think we'll see them challenge this further.