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

[Nova]

Fine, my only point is there is no good guy in this fight. The NFL was wrong and the Cowboys and Commanders went along and just hoped that their stepping out would go unnoticed.

If not 'unnoticed' the Cowboys and Commanders sure hoped that the NFL and competition committee's hands would be tied.

And with good reason. The NFL/ Comp Committee acted and it appears it may have drawn the attention of higher powers.

 

[Nova]

I don't see what Dallas, Washington, Oakland or New Orleans did that was shady. The uncapped year was intentionally wrote into the previous CBA by the NFLPA to get the owners to the bargaining table in good faith before that CBA expired. The owners agreed to an uncapped year. What was shady was the collusion and the "Spirit of the Cap" that Mara was talking about. Those 4 teams worked within the CBA agreed upon by both the NFLPA and the NFL.

It wasn't just because they overspent. It's because they gained an advantage for future years as well.

An oversimplified and exaggerated example


Sign player X for 1 year 100MM for the uncapped year-- that's fine.

Sign Player X for 6 years 100MM, with 90% of the salary hit in the uncapped year-- most uncool.

 

[slaga]

It wasn't just because they overspent. It's because they gained an advantage for future years as well.

An oversimplified and exaggerated example


Sign player X for 1 year 100MM for the uncapped year-- that's fine.

Sign Player X for 6 years 100MM, with 90% of the salary hit in the uncapped year-- most uncool.

But that was within the rules that the owners and NFLPA agreed to under the CBA for that year. Why is doing something completely legal, that everyone on both sides, owners and players association, agreed to in writing "shady"? Every one of the 32 teams had the same opportunity. The NFLPA had to give some concessions to get that uncapped year written into that CBA. The players right to earn more money in the uncapped year was bargained for by the NFLPA.

Why weren't the teams that were just as flagrant at going below the nonexistent salary floor (uncapped maximum and minimum) not penalized? I already know the answer. It was because penalizing them did not fit the agenda the owners were after.

 

[slaga]

It wasn't just because they overspent. It's because they gained an advantage for future years as well.

An oversimplified and exaggerated example


Sign player X for 1 year 100MM for the uncapped year-- that's fine.

Sign Player X for 6 years 100MM, with 90% of the salary hit in the uncapped year-- most uncool.

I never said anything about overspending, but since you brought it up, how can you overspend in a year that had no cap? I cannot follow this argument. The owners agreed in the CBA that there would be no cap in 2010 if another CBA was not ratified. The owners are having their cake and eating it too.

 

[Nova]

But that was within the rules that the owners and NFLPA agreed to under the CBA for that year. Why is doing something completely legal, that everyone on both sides, owners and players association, agreed to in writing "shady"? Every one of the 32 teams had the same opportunity. The NFLPA had to give some concessions to get that uncapped year written into that CBA. The players right to earn more money in the uncapped year was bargained for by the NFLPA.

Why weren't the teams that were just as flagrant at going below the nonexistent salary floor (uncapped maximum and minimum) not penalized? I already know the answer. It was because penalizing them did not fit the agenda the owners were after.

That's true, but you also have to remember they got strongarmed the NFLPA into cooperation.

 

[Nova]

How can you overspend in a year that had no cap? I cannot follow this argument. The owners agreed in the CBA that there would be no cap in 2010 if another CBA was not ratified.

I couldn't follow the argument either at first. But then I just kind of got over the cap hits and dug some more, tried to look at it from the opposite perspective.

Again, it wasn't about overspending. I think 12 or 13 teams spent beyond a normal cap limit. It was the dumping of Salaries that got us into trouble.

It was the effect it had on future years and the way the Commanders used the capless year to absolve themselves of their mistakes in previous CBA covered years that got the competition committee's attention.

And as part of the NFL, we essentially agree to abide by whatever vague rules are in the CBA, and the vaguest of rules imaginable "competitive balance" allowed for the CTC to balance out what we did to get ahead in 2010. Is it fair? No, but I don't think anyone is clearly wrong here. Both used underhanded tactics to get what they want, and now we all may feel the consequences.

 

[Nova]

Basically it boils down to this.

"Competitive Balance" is a vague notion that gives the competition committee the authority to do quite a bit for the sake of the game's integrity.

You have to admit, us gaining an advantage over the rest of the league is something that they should be able to try to correct based on their purpose for existence.

"You have an unfair advantage, we will correct that."

And then they got the NFLPA to sign off on it and the overwhelming majority of other owners voted in favor of the cap hits (although that was after action had been taken).

Unfair, but if we bit the hand that feeds us and it smacked us back down.

 

[slaga]

That's true, but you also have to remember they got strongarmed the NFLPA into cooperation.

You cannot argue Dallas / Washingtong were penalized for gaining a competitive advantage because the spent too mu

I couldn't follow the argument either at first. But then I just kind of got over the cap hits and dug some more, tried to look at it from the opposite perspective.

Again, it wasn't about overspending. I think 12 or 13 teams spent beyond a normal cap limit. It was the dumping of Salaries that got us into trouble.

It was the effect it had on future years and the way the Commanders used the capless year to absolve themselves of their mistakes in previous CBA covered years that got the competition committee's attention.

And as part of the NFL, we essentially agree to abide by whatever vague rules are in the CBA, and the vaguest of rules imaginable "competitive balance" allowed for the CTC to balance out what we did to get ahead in 2010. Is it fair? No, but I don't think anyone is clearly wrong here. Both used underhanded tactics to get what they want, and now we all may feel the consequences.

The rules were not vague in the least. They are written in black and white... And the owners (NFL) as a whole are clearly and completely wrong. They signed a contract with the NFLPA that governs the minimum and maximum salaries paid to players. Then colluded to artificially keep salaries down in an uncapped year that they agreed to in writing. They OK'd the contracts in question because they had absolutely no leg to stand on to deny them because they were within the guidelines they agreed to in the CBA. They came back 2 years after the fact when they had an opportunity to strong arm the NFLPA into agreeing to sanctions and penalized teams for the contracts that were approved by the NFL under the guise of "competitive balance". All the while ignoring the teams that also gained a competitive advantage by underspending and setting themselves up with lots of cap dollars when the new CBA was put in place. This whole things reeks of billionaires making shady (illegal) deals in back rooms.

There were no clauses that said teams could not dump salaries (old or new contracts) in the uncapped year. Dallas and Washington gained a competitive advantage within the framework of the rules agreed to by both the NFL and the NFLPA. That is exactly what better Front offices do. I am not saying that Washington and Dallas have the better front offices in the League but they worked the system like they should have. The best front offices work within the rules to field, coach, prepare, etc. their teams so they have the best competitive advantage they can come game day.

 

[slaga]

Basically it boils down to this.

"Competitive Balance" is a vague notion that gives the competition committee the authority to do quite a bit for the sake of the game's integrity.

You have to admit, us gaining an advantage over the rest of the league is something that they should be able to try to correct based on their purpose for existence.

"You have an unfair advantage, we will correct that."

And then they got the NFLPA to sign off on it and the overwhelming majority of other owners voted in favor of the cap hits (although that was after action had been taken).

Unfair, but if we bit the hand that feeds us and it smacked us back down.

No I don't. The front offices did what they should have done. They worked within the rules of the CBA to legally gain the best advantage they could. Where do you draw the line of an unfair advantage. By definition, unfair advantage would imply that you gained an advantage through unfair means. What unfair means did Dallas and Washington have that other teams did not? Do you penalize the Patriots for finding a franchise QB in the 6th round? No, because they drafted him through a fair process that all teams agreed to.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I don't see what Dallas, Washington, Oakland or New Orleans did that was shady. The uncapped year was intentionally wrote into the previous CBA by the NFLPA to get the owners to the bargaining table in good faith before that CBA expired. The owners agreed to an uncapped year. What was shady was the collusion and the "Spirit of the Cap" that Mara was talking about. Those 4 teams worked within the CBA agreed upon by both the NFLPA and the NFL.

I don't see it either. The rest of the ownership essentially came out later and said, yes that is what we agreed to but that isn't exactly what we meant. Sorry but you can't change the way you interpet after the fact like that IMO.

 

[Nova]

You cannot argue Dallas / Washingtong were penalized for gaining a competitive advantage because the spent too mu


The rules were not vague in the least. They are written in black and white... And the owners (NFL) as a whole are clearly and completely wrong. They signed a contract with the NFLPA that governs the minimum and maximum salaries paid to players. Then colluded to artificially keep salaries down in an uncapped year that they agreed to in writing. They OK'd the contracts in question because they had absolutely no leg to stand on to deny them because they were within the guidelines they agreed to in the CBA. They came back 2 years after the fact when they had an opportunity to strong arm the NFLPA into agreeing to sanctions and penalized teams for the contracts that were approved by the NFL under the guise of "competitive balance". All the while ignoring the teams that also gained a competitive advantage by underspending and setting themselves up with lots of cap dollars when the new CBA was put in place. This whole things reeks of billionaires making shady (illegal) deals in back rooms.

There were no clauses that said teams could not dump salaries (old or new contracts) in the uncapped year. Dallas and Washington gained a competitive advantage within the framework of the rules agreed to by both the NFL and the NFLPA. That is exactly what better Front offices do. I am not saying that Washington and Dallas have the better front offices in the League but they worked the system like they should have. The best front offices work within the rules to field, coach, prepare, etc. their teams so they have the best competitive advantage they can come game day.

You have to stop thinking of the cap hits as punishments handed out for breaking some non existent law.

You have to start thinking of the cap hits as restoring competitive balance, and re-setting the competitive advantage

At least that's the angle that the NFL competition committee is going to play up. And honestly, I cannot say that's absolutely wrong either.

Why? Because we did gain a competitive advantage that carried into years that were covered by the CBA. Whether or not those rules were in place already is irrelevant. If we wanted to be players in the NFL going forward, we have to abide by agreed upon rules... meaning we are at the mercy of the competition committee's rules.It's really that simple.

I mean, really... why should our advantage be grandfathered in an agreed upon playing field?

And the competition committee met all necessary requirements and took all the necessary steps to dock our cap space.

Were there methods underhand? Sure. So were our's because we were told that the specifics of the way we were using our cap space could come back to bite us.

In the end everything balanced out, and the only people it didn't balance out for were the players. But DeMaurice Smith of the NFLPA signed off on it and gave the okay.

 

[Nova]

No I don't. The front offices did what they should have done. They worked within the rules of the CBA to legally gain the best advantage they could. Where do you draw the line of an unfair advantage. By definition, unfair advantage would imply that you gained an advantage through unfair means. What unfair means did Dallas and Washington have that other teams did not? Do you penalize the Patriots for finding a franchise QB in the 6th round? No, because they drafted him through a fair process that all teams agreed to.

Ok fine. And the Competition Committee took the proper routes to docking our cap space to eliminate the competitive advantage that we definitely, no doubt about it, gained.

If everyone else had done the same thing we did, our cap space would not have been docked because we'd all be on the same level playing field.

That's not what happened though.

 

[Nova]

I don't see it either. The rest of the ownership essentially came out later and said, yes that is what we agreed to but that isn't exactly what we meant. Sorry but you can't change the way you interpet after the fact like that IMO.

You can if everyone but two parties agree to it.

Again, this is why it's being re-examined. There are truths to both sides masking a ton of agendas.

 

[Califan007]

Overall it's hard to deny what we did was excessive and clearly an attempt to get a leg up on the league in future years.

1) In an uncapped year, the word "excessive" doesn't exist.

2) Every single team, every single year, in the entire history of the NFL, tries to get a "leg up on the league" in future years. Every owner and GM of every team tries to gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the league every single offseason. There was nothing "unfair" about the advantage that the Commanders, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints gained in 2010.

 

[Nova]

1) In an uncapped year, the word "excessive" doesn't exist.

2) Every single team, every single year, in the entire history of the NFL, tries to get a "leg up on the league" in future years. Every owner and GM of every team tries to gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the league every single offseason. There was nothing "unfair" about the advantage that the Commanders, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints gained in 2010.

1.) Excessive in the sense that we tried to carry over the uncapped year into capped years.

2.) Name another example that's along the same lines as these.

 

[theogt]

Has anyone seen a link to the opinion?

 

[theogt]

1) In an uncapped year, the word "excessive" doesn't exist.

2) Every single team, every single year, in the entire history of the NFL, tries to get a "leg up on the league" in future years. Every owner and GM of every team tries to gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the league every single offseason. There was nothing "unfair" about the advantage that the Commanders, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints gained in 2010.

If the other teams thought the activity was excessive, they should have negotiated a different deal in 2006.

 

[slaga]

1.) Excessive in the sense that we tried to carry over the uncapped year into capped years.

2.) Name another example that's along the same lines as these.

1) Completely false. Not a single team tried to carry over the uncapped year into capped years. Just a handful of teams tried to treat the uncapped year as an uncapped year.

2) Drafting the best players available and hitting on a 6th round franchise QB in Tom Brady. Hiring the best coaches, scouts, staff, etc. Working cap friendly contracts with existing and new players. Every thing they do should be an effort to gain a competitive advantage over their piers and as long as everyone has the same set of rules, it should be fair. In 2010, the rules were set in black and white. They were not ambiguous in any way. The Commanders, Cowboys, Raiders and Saints may have gained a competitive advantage but if they did, they did so within the rules that every single team had to follow.

If the government intentionally wrote a tax break into the IRS forms that allowed you to save $10,000 that year and that year only, would you take advantage of it? What if 2 years later they rescind the tax break from 2 years prior but they do not say anything until the night before the your taxes are due. On the eve of your taxes being due, they send you an email that says you have to cut them a check for 1/2 of that $10,000 this year and another $5,000 next year even though the tax break was legit. Not only was the penalty unfair, but the way it was implemented was malicious.

 

[Craig]

This is about embarassing the NFL its not going to court and neither the Cowboys, Skins, nor the players are getting anything.

 

[burmafrd]

1.) Excessive in the sense that we tried to carry over the uncapped year into capped years.

2.) Name another example that's along the same lines as these.

you would make a good defense attorney; you know how to get people off when they are guilty.