NFL takes cap space from Redskins and Cowboys

[N51_rob]

Oh and they lost.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/79...appeals-denied

Quote:

The Washington Redskins' and Dallas Cowboys' appeals of their salary-cap losses was dismissed by special master Stephen Burbank, NFL executive vice president and general counsel Jeff Pash announced Tuesday at the at owners' meetings in Atlanta. Burbank, who is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, met with representatives of the league, players' union and the two teams on May 10. The NFC East rivals were penalized for overloading contracts in the 2010 uncapped season despite league warnings. The Redskins lost $36 million over two years and the Cowboys $10 million.

[mestevo]

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt:
Am told by league source that Cowboys and Redskins are issuing a joint statement saying they accept the decision. Case closed.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Players Association accuses league of collusion

Quote:

The NFL Players Assn. is accusing league owners of secretly -- and illegally -- agreeing to put a salary cap in place in the uncapped 2010 season. The union filed a complaint in federal court Wednesday, alleging the owners colluded to impose a $123-million salary cap on teams, when they did not have the authority to do so. The league has since penalized Washington and Dallas for overspending in 2010, reducing the future salary caps of the Redskins and Cowboys by a combined $46 million over the next two seasons.

Snap.

[mestevo]

Yeah, that doesn't appear to be going anywhere. It's even IN THE CBA that they NFLPA can't sue for collusion... and also approved the cap penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys.

best part of via PFT's breakdown: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...tined-to-fail/

Quote:

Regardless of what the NFLPA knew or should have known before finalizing the current CBA and related legal documents, the paperwork seems to slam the door on any collusion claims relating to conduct in 2010. As the CBA state at Article 3, Section 3(a) plainly states: “The NFLPA on behalf of itself, its members, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns, releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any suit or proceeding (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or the Prior Agreement) against the NFL or any NFL Club or any NFL Affiliate with respect to any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation . . . collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011.” Even if the 2011 CBA didn’t slam the door on a collusion claim arising from the uncapped year of 2010, the amendment to the CBA that resulted in the league and the NFLPA agreeing to the imposition of cap penalties on the Redskins and Cowboys in exchange for an increase in the salary cap operates, in essence, as a ratification of the release of collusion claims. Indeed, the NFLPA should have realized, the moment the NFL asked the union to agree to take $46 million in cap space from the Redskins and Cowboys for treating the term “uncapped year” too literally, that the Redskins and Cowboys were being punished for refusing to collude. By signing off on the cap penalties, the NFLPA reaffirmed its waiver of the collusion claims, since the mere request to strip cap space from the teams in question proved that collusion indeed occurred. So why did the NFLPA go along with the cap penalties? Because the NFL agreed to tinker with the salary cap formula in order to push the per-team limit higher in 2012 than it was in 2011. If the salary cap had dropped during the first year of the new CBA, there’s a good chance that the contract of NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith wouldn’t have been renewed at annual meetings that began only a week or two after the new cap numbers were disclosed. Thus, at first blush it appears that the NFLPA is trying to have it both ways.

[N51_rob]

Beat me too it. But let me say this. **** the NFLPA, if you has such a problem with this, then why the **** did you sign off on the penalties....Because you wanted more cap room. Your argument might be a little more convincing in court if you said "The NFL also kept the 2012 salary cap lower because we didn't agree with the penalties for those those two teams."

I was behind the players during the labor strife, but I'm sick of D. Smith. He is a clown.

[mestevo]

No surprise NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler is driving this, he's the one that repeatedly blew up CBA negotiations.

From Twitter:

Kessler on NFLPA conference call: not a collusion issue until NFL executives "spilled their guts" to the media.

Kessler: NFLPA agreed to Wash/Dall penalties because they were forced to in order to not have a low Cap number. Hmmm.

[wwharton]

So, reading between the lines, did they agree to making sure the punishment for the Skins and Boys would stick to increase a position against a collusion case like this?

The mighty empire is certainly cracking. These last couple of years have been crazy.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

So, reading between the lines, did they agree to making sure the punishment for the Skins and Boys would stick to increase a position against a collusion case like this? The mighty empire is certainly cracking. These last couple of years have been crazy.

Kessler insists this being filed the day after it was dismissed is a coincidence.

The language in the CBA against suing... even specifically about collusion... makes for a pretty strong defense as-is, not sure much else is really needed.