U.S. Court of Appeals overturns Judge Doty on 2012 collusion case

[burmafrd]

the NFL attorneys would have a hard time explaining to a jury why a contract APPROVED by the league is suddenly NOT good a year later. I think that would be the key argument is proving something under the table was going on; and once you do that its all over for the NFL.

 

[Nightman]

the NFL attorneys would have a hard time explaining to a jury why a contract APPROVED by the league is suddenly NOT good a year later. I think that would be the key argument is proving something under the table was going on; and once you do that its all over for the NFL.

The contracts were fine. The dollar amounts and lengths did not change. What they are arguing about is the way it was accounted for. I don't see collusion when the amount of money spent stayed the same and even went up. They have always had rules about the way the contracts are structured and sometimes you can't anticipate what a team may do in the future at the time a contract is signed, based on roster bonuses, restructures and such.

Dallas and Washington tried to get cute and got called on it. No big deal. The league just set things back to way they should've been in the first place. It wasn't a penalty, just a change on the balance sheet. The League even took the next step of giving the rest of the teams MORE money to spend, when real money spent never decreased.

Fuzzy keeps claiming duress as the end all, but the Players didn't have to agree. They got more money in return, so that sounds like a negotiation, not a one-sided hammering. If the deal wasn't good enough for the Players, that is on their leadership for getting a bad deal. It happens all the time in CBAs.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think anyone is arguing with this point



This is where I disagree. I think the Cowboys and Commanders, went along for the most part, but tried to take advantage with the Austin/Hayensworth/Hall contracts. Again, if I'm Jones and I truly don't care, I convert like 50% of future base salaries to 2010 base salries to make everyone more affordable going forward.

You don't agree because you see no problems with firms behaving with a trust. If there was some form of agreement the Cowboys made with the other clubs to act like there was a cap in an uncapped year then that is illegal. I am not talking about good faith in that capacity. I am talking about good faith with their employees.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The contracts were fine. The dollar amounts and lengths did not change. What they are arguing about is the way it was accounted for. I don't see collusion when the amount of money spent stayed the same and even went up. They have always had rules about the way the contracts are structured and sometimes you can't anticipate what a team may do in the future at the time a contract is signed, based on roster bonuses, restructures and such.

Dallas and Washington tried to get cute and got called on it. No big deal. The league just set things back to way they should've been in the first place. It wasn't a penalty, just a change on the balance sheet. The League even took the next step of giving the rest of the teams MORE money to spend, when real money spent never decreased.

Fuzzy keeps claiming duress as the end all, but the Players didn't have to agree. They got more money in return, so that sounds like a negotiation, not a one-sided hammering. If the deal wasn't good enough for the Players, that is on their leadership for getting a bad deal. It happens all the time in CBAs.

Don't deign to characterize my arguments. My 'end all' is Mara's comments revealing the actions of a trust and the appeals court standard of 'misrepresentation' and 'misconduct' in their ruling.

The rules 'they always had' were negotiated with the players through a CBA. When you cut out the players and start making going by rules they do not approve of then it is the very definition of collusion.

 

[Nightman]

Don't deign to characterize my arguments. My 'end all' is Mara's comments revealing the actions of a trust and the appeals court standard of 'misrepresentation' and 'misconduct' in their ruling.

The rules 'they always had' were negotiated with the players through a CBA. When you cut out the players and start making going by rules they do not approve of then it is the very definition of collusion.

Lighten up Francis. I'll make all the characterizations I want. You put your opinion out and other disagree.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lighten up Francis. I'll make all the characterizations I want. You put your opinion out and other disagree.

I am trying to put this discussion into the realm of objective truth. Like for example the legal arguments being made.

You characterize arguments while I am trying to interpret the ones that exist. For example the appellate court said the NFLPA could argue that the 2010 agreement was 'misrepresented' or demonstrated 'misconduct.'

You talk in terms of mount olympus while I point to evidence of collusion only known after the fact such as Mara's comments or the warnings that were sent out by the league.

I don't really demonstrate an opinion besides the character of your arguments. You just aren't on the level.

 

[Nova]

I am trying to put this discussion into the realm of objective truth. Like for example the legal arguments being made.

You characterize arguments while I am trying to interpret the ones that exist. For example the appellate court said the NFLPA could argue that the 2010 agreement was 'misrepresented' or demonstrated 'misconduct.'

You talk in terms of mount olympus while I point to evidence of collusion only known after the fact such as Mara's comments or the warnings that were sent out by the league.

I don't really demonstrate an opinion besides the character of your arguments. You just aren't on the level.

Wasn't bkight.

No that was me.

And it wasn't "Mount Olympus". It was Olympus Mons. Translated, yes virtually the same thing. But my metaphor was that the nflpa had a mountain to climb. Not just a mere mountain, but rather Olympus Mons; which for a long time was believed to be the highest peak in the solar system... Because Everest just wouldn't do for my analogy (a third of the size).

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wasn't bkight.

No that was me.

And it wasn't "Mount Olympus". It was Olympus Mons. Translated, yes virtually the same thing. But my metaphor was that the nflpa had a mountain to climb. Not just a mere mountain, but rather Olympus Mons; which for a long time was believed to be the highest peak in the solar system... Because Everest just wouldn't do for my analogy (a third of the size).

You both talk in metaphors while what I argue is in objective truth. It's like you don't understand things so you make up things and act like they are equivalent.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You don't agree because you see no problems with firms behaving with a trust. If there was some form of agreement the Cowboys made with the other clubs to act like there was a cap in an uncapped year then that is illegal. I am not talking about good faith in that capacity. I am talking about good faith with their employees.

I swear none of you guys even read beyond the initial disagreement. What the NFL did was illegal, you'll never hear me say otherwise and you couldn't be more wrong on what I do and do not have problems with.

 

[Nova]

the NFL attorneys would have a hard time explaining to a jury why a contract APPROVED by the league is suddenly NOT good a year later. I think that would be the key argument is proving something under the table was going on; and once you do that its all over for the NFL.

We'd think so, right? But the NFLPA signed away their right to sue over legal matters prior to 2011 when they inked the new CBA (which is why Doty threw the case out in the first place, and the court of appeals agree with despite overturning the case).

Furthermore, even if they still retained the right to sue, the new CBA defines "collusion" very specifically and this instance doesn't really fit the reqs from what we non-legalese people can tell-- if you want to read up on it, it's article 17 of the new CBA. I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong. But the biggest argument to made here is that no one forced the NFLPA to sign off in the cap reallocations and they actually ended up benefiting.That's not duress, it's a contractual agreement that smith made to save his own tail in his election year. At worst, it's Business acumen and a solid checkmate

What they should have done is claimed collusion right then and there when they were presented that compromise. But they didn't.

Elaborating a bit on article 17, the alleged collusion would have to be proven to have affected the PA economically. In the short term that may be easier to prove, but obviously what's good for the owners and league is ultimately good for the NFLPA as well because they are the dependents in this scenario, so how can you definitively say that a false salary cap ultimately wouldn't have been better for the players association if the nfl maintained integrity and profits continued to surge?

So even if the NFLPA can prove collusion, it may not matter because they've gone with the flow so long, signing off on potential collusion and agreeing not to sue on matters concerning years prior to 2011.

Anything short of an anti-trust lawsuit, which I don't think either party would want, doesn't seem like it's going to make much of a difference.

 

[Nova]

You both talk in metaphors while what I argue is in objective truth. It's like you don't understand things so you make up things and act like they are equivalent.

(Apologies @bkight13 because I'm sure you can handle yourself and don't need me answering in your defense)

What are you talking about, Fuzz? Bkight didn't make any metaphor in the post you quoted, and I'm pretty sure I've made just the one.

Is it that hard to admit you just confused the two of us?

 

[Nightman]

(Apologies @bkight13 because I'm sure you can handle yourself and don't need me answering in your defense)

What are you talking about, Fuzz? Bkight didn't make any metaphor in the post you quoted, and I'm pretty sure I've made just the one.

Is it that hard to admit you just confused the two of us?

Not a problem, I was confused by his statement. I've enjoyed the back and forth.

 

[slaga]

No one is saying the Cowboys/Commanders didn't take the proper channels in what their 2010 moves. I'm simply telling you why it wasn't deemed kosher by some, how they took action and why it just doesn't seem to matter.

Teams being penalized for following the letter of the law in every shape, fashion and form is ludicrous to support. Also turning a blind eye to the corrupt and illegal manner in which the owners operated and levied those penalties is just not for me. Just because the NFLPA signed off on not suing for collusion prior to the 2011 League year, doesn't mean a crime did not happen. Much like a battered wife signing a sheet of paper saying she broke her nose and got a black eye when she "fell".

 

[Nova]

Teams being penalized for following the letter of the law in every shape, fashion and form is ludicrous to support. Also turning a blind eye to the corrupt and illegal manner in which the owners operated and levied those penalties is just not for me. Just because the NFLPA signed off on not suing for collusion prior to the 2011 League year, doesn't mean a crime did not happen. Much like a battered wife signing a sheet of paper saying she broke her nose and got a black eye when she "fell".

I personally separate the 2 things.

1.) The cap reallocation was within bounds and totally justifiable for the competition committee to do, if they were really concerned with competitive balance.

2.) The motive behind the cap reallocation started with collusion. I don't know how I feel about that, exactly. But what I do know is the NFL covered all their bases before they revealed their hand, and anything short of a nuclear option just doesn't seem like it's going to make much of a difference.

I enjoy the NFL the way it is now and I think for the most part the owners and NFLPA do too. An anti-trust lawsuit could change quite a bit, and not necessarily for the better of the league or its fans.

 

[MeTed]

NFLPA isn't going to win this. NFLPA signed the CBA and accepted the cap penalties. Pretty cut and dry. Might be a different outcome if Dallas/Washington filed the suit but that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Fredd]

do we get cap space back or not, it's that simple to me....otherwise, this is over and done for me from a cowboys perspective....I hope that the NFL gets slapped on the hand to stop them from doing these things in the future, but if it doesn't positively impact the cowboys cap, then so be it

 

[Nova]

do we get cap space back or not, it's that simple to me....otherwise, this is over and done for me from a cowboys perspective....I hope that the NFL gets slapped on the hand to stop them from doing these things in the future, but if it doesn't positively impact the cowboys cap, then so be it

We won't.

The NFLPA signed off on the cap reallocation, and once Dal/Wsh appealed, all the other owners backed the competition committee's decision. The only ones who want Dal/Wsh to get cap space back is Dal/Wsh, so it's just not going to happen.

 

[slaga]

I personally separate the 2 things.

1.) The cap reallocation was within bounds and totally justifiable for the competition committee to do, if they were really concerned with competitive balance.

2.) The motive behind the cap reallocation started with collusion. I don't know how I feel about that, exactly. But what I do know is the NFL covered all their bases before they revealed their hand, and anything short of a nuclear option just doesn't seem like it's going to make much of a difference.

I enjoy the NFL the way it is now and I think for the most part the owners and NFLPA do too. An anti-trust lawsuit could change quite a bit, and not necessarily for the better of the league or its fans.

From a legal standpoint I can separate them as well, but that does not change the big picture. Too bad DeMuarice Smith failed the NFLPA.

1.) Where is Al Davis when you need him??? I don't really agree with using a generic catch all type of rule, especially in this case. The precedent it sets could very well be a slippery slope.

2.) Outside of knowing how I feel about it, I agree with you.

I am not really a fan of the nuclear option either. If anything does come of this, the owners will have no one to blame but themselves. Just because I do not foresee any cap relief in the future does not mean I have to roll over and be happy about it. (Karma has a way of evening things out...)

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Speak for yourself. I just want to punch him in the face with cactus covered gloves.

I remember hearing that cactus is our friend, but I could be rong.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

(Apologies @bkight13 because I'm sure you can handle yourself and don't need me answering in your defense)

What are you talking about, Fuzz? Bkight didn't make any metaphor in the post you quoted, and I'm pretty sure I've made just the one.

Is it that hard to admit you just confused the two of us?

This is an entire conversation that has gone over a couple of threads some of which was deleted in the NCAA thread. That, work, and the fact that you both have a penchant for oversimplificed groupthink blurs identities a bit.