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

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Reverend Conehead, Feb 10, 2013.

  1. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,871 Messages
    12,957 Likes Received
    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.
  2. slaga

    slaga Member

    221 Messages
    6 Likes Received
    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.
  3. December90

    December90 New Member

    18 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  4. SilverStarCowboy

    SilverStarCowboy The Actualist

    10,221 Messages
    1,819 Likes Received
    Jerry just re-greased the monkey....behind closed doors.
  5. bkight13

    bkight13 Capologist

    17,422 Messages
    13,305 Likes Received
    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.
  6. slaga

    slaga Member

    221 Messages
    6 Likes Received
    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.
  7. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Benched

    28,786 Messages
    3,314 Likes Received
    Like a stopped clock, every so often, Burm is correct
  8. SkinsFan28

    SkinsFan28 Well-Known Member

    1,035 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    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.
  9. Redball Express

    Redball Express All Aboard!!!

    5,342 Messages
    1,902 Likes Received
    ..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.


    :starspin RedBaLL ExPreSS:starspin
  10. Beast_from_East

    Beast_from_East Well-Known Member

    19,956 Messages
    9,296 Likes Received
    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.:)
  11. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,871 Messages
    12,957 Likes Received
    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.
  12. SkinsFan28

    SkinsFan28 Well-Known Member

    1,035 Messages
    39 Likes Received

    Posted from Cowboyszone.com App for Android
  13. 5Stars

    5Stars Here comes the Sun...

    28,548 Messages
    3,301 Likes Received
    Leave it to a Skins fan...forgot what they were going to say!

  14. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,871 Messages
    12,957 Likes Received
    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.
  15. bracey

    bracey Well-Known Member

    1,002 Messages
    57 Likes Received
    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.
  16. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    25,871 Messages
    12,957 Likes Received
    Maybe, maybe not. Any damage to the Cowboys and Redskins would not be direct but rather some ancillary side effect.

    The case would be a civil case as only the attorney general can bring a criminal suit and the Cowboys and Redskins can pursue whatever damages they want.

    It endangers the NFL brand no doubt but Jones and Snyder are private business owners and had every right to sign players to the mutual benefit of both without trade restrictions enforced by collusion amongst contemporaries.
  17. muck4doo

    muck4doo Least-Known Member

    3,739 Messages
    1,924 Likes Received
    As much as i hate the Skins they have every right to be pissed, as well as we do. We didn't do anything wrong, and neither did the Skins. This was straight up collusion, and I am surprised to see Cowboys fans supporting Mara and his illegal actions. Yes, maybe we get another SB at the death star, but for what? So the Gnats can play there with their scumbag owner?
  18. SkinsFan28

    SkinsFan28 Well-Known Member

    1,035 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    But, remember the court arguments during the last CBA. If the NFLPA had a court case where the NFL was found guily of collusion, separate from the CBA with the NFLPA, several possibilities could happen, all bad for the NFL, and the golden goose:
    1) at the least the next CBA would be fought substantially on the players terms, because at the mere appearance of collusive acts the NFLPA would be trotting the judgement out in every and any court that would hear it.

    2) If the NFLPA was aggressive (which they have been so far) they could go to the courts with the findings and say that the current CBA should be voided due to clear bad faith violations.

    3) In the middle of it, the NFLPA would be able to use it any time they wanted to attack a provision of the current CBA, such as Goodells authority (the argument would be along the lines of "such and such court already found Goodell has acted in ways that were injurious to the players, and thus can't be expected to be a fair judge and arbitrator")

    I am sure there are more ways than that. But bottom line a court challenge to the penalties would most likely cost far more than a couple years of paper money shifting.
  19. bkight13

    bkight13 Capologist

    17,422 Messages
    13,305 Likes Received
    I'm not capable of arguing SCOTUS level contract law. What I am saying is that the "gentleman's agreement" between all of the owners and the league is what's in play. JJ and Snyder know the value of the league as a whole and the value of their franchises cannot be separated. They broke unwritten rules that were in play, not to punish players, but to keep guys like Snyder and JJ that can't help themselves in check. They both pushed the envelope and got a smack.

    It would be like taking your mother or father to jail for spanking you. Yes you might be technically correct, but in your heart you know you deserved the punishment and why blow up your family for such a minor incident. As a sign of good faith the league may very well reduce the punishment this year because they understand how Pandora's Box can work, but they might also give JJ another SB and let the Redskins keep their name instead.
  20. junk

    junk I've got moxie

    9,294 Messages
    247 Likes Received
    The problem is that this "gentleman's agreement" isn't legal.

    And those unwritten rules did in fact punish players. Colluding to keep costs down impacted their pay.

Share This Page