OT: Union collusion case against the NFL

[Phrazbit]

This seems to be about as open and shut a case of blatant collusion as you can get.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7...aurice-smith-says-collusion-claim-stand-court

The NFL ownership has proven to be a very unsympathetic group in these labor disputes. Between this blatant collusion, the TV contract that was setup as a revenue stream during their, now obviously, planned lock-out, their plans to push for a longer season... while at the same time professing player safety.

I hope they get clobbered in this case.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

This seems to be about as open and shut a case of blatant collusion as you can get.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7...aurice-smith-says-collusion-claim-stand-court

The NFL ownership has proven to be a very unsympathetic group in these labor disputes. Between this blatant collusion, the TV contract that was setup as a revenue stream during their, now obviously, planned lock-out, their plans to push for a longer season... while at the same time professing player safety.

I hope they get clobbered in this case.

Yeah, me too!

Can't wait for my Sunday Ticket to go up 30 percent or so.. Not to mention game tickets, concession prices, hats, jerseys etc...

 

[Phrazbit]

Yeah, me too!

Can't wait for my Sunday Ticket to go up 30 percent or so.. Not to mention game tickets, concession prices, hats, jerseys etc...

The owners dont need to raise any prices to still haul in billions in profits. But, no doubt those classy guys will use the exact kind of hikes you're talking about to get leverage and defend their blatant violation of labor agreements.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I doubt it goes anywhere. The players signed the CBA and included in the agreement was that they couldn't sue for any season 2011 and prior. The only thing I don't get is why the NFL punished Wash and Dall for over spending when there was no cap. They didn't fine TB for being a zillion dollars below a perceived cap.

 

[Goldfield]

It wasn't for only being over the cap. They strategicly went way over on a no cap year to lower their cap numbers for the future capped years.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

It wasn't for only being over the cap. They strategicly went way over on a no cap year to lower their cap numbers for the future capped years.

But is that worse than what TB did? They way under spent and had the cap space to sign all those big money FA's this year. Didn't that give them a competitive advantage this year by doing the opposite of Dallas and Wash?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

The owners dont need to raise any prices to still haul in billions in profits. But, no doubt those classy guys will use the exact kind of hikes you're talking about to get leverage and defend their blatant violation of labor agreements.

Having been part of legal teams negotiating private and public sector labour contracts, I can tell you that both parties sign a 'stipulation of dismissal' as part of the final deal. Simply means that both agree that any and all litigation for issues known or unknown are moot. To invalidate this document is to invalidate the signed contract. I know of no court that has done this and not been overturned on appeal.

 

[JeffGollin]

I'm not sure why, but the NFLPA action really p*sses me off. (I have no dog in the fight on either side, so I'm not sure why I feel so bummed out, but here goes (excuse me if I ramble.

1. DeM Smith is right, the NFL is a cartel. It's a single organization with each of the 32 teams representing a "division" of the corporation. While this normally would be considered an anti-trust violation, the NFL has received an exemption from the federal government - presumably to sustain competitive fairness among the 32 teams.

2. The NFLPA has apparently accepted this (as have, incidently, the media nets) and has been willing to work within these legal paremeters to negotiate a a comprehensive labor agreement with the NFL.

3. If the NFLPA had a problem with any aspect of the new CBA, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

4. To try to undo the CBA "after the fact" would be difficult to justify legally - unless the NFLPA can prove that they were somehow misled by the NFL causing them to sign the agreement under false pretenses (I don't think they can prove this).

5. The issue seems to boil down to "the influence of the uncapped year on enforcement of the following one or two legitimate capped years" - i.e "Can the NFL legitimately regulate actions within the uncapped year in order to preserve the integrity of the capped years that follow?"

6. The League will probably argue that (a) they weren't attempting to establish & regulate some sort of 2011 cap, but instead (b) were policing actions by teams in 2011 in order to prevent circumvention of the cap structure in 2012, 2013 etc. (nothing wrong with that).

7. I think the NFLPA knows this, and are just using it as a wedge to gain leverage on other matters (most notably, the suspension of NO players, power of the commissioner and what they consider to be an uneven-handedness treatment of coaches and management vs. those of the players).

Not that the League and its owners are angels, but I think what bugs me is that the NFLPA is "playing cute" instead of addressing their grievances in a more straightforward and case-specific manner. We have a ton of football to play. There comes a point where both sides agree "a deal's a deal" and move onward. (I thought that's what was supposed to happen when the contract was signed).

 

[Phrazbit]

I doubt it goes anywhere. The players signed the CBA and included in the agreement was that they couldn't sue for any season 2011 and prior. The only thing I don't get is why the NFL punished Wash and Dall for over spending when there was no cap. They didn't fine TB for being a zillion dollars below a perceived cap.

Thats precisely why the players have a strong case. Dallas, Oakland and Washington are being punished for their roster spending in a supposedly "uncapped" year. The owners clearly had an unspoken deal with eachother to limit spending and all they cared about was their end. Tampa Bay's low spending may be against the current agreement but it did not violate the owners unwritten rule.

 

[Phrazbit]

Having been part of legal teams negotiating private and public sector labour contracts, I can tell you that both parties sign a 'stipulation of dismissal' as part of the final deal. Simply means that both agree that any and all litigation for issues known or unknown are moot. To invalidate this document is to invalidate the signed contract. I know of no court that has done this and not been overturned on appeal.

I'm not sure why, but the NFLPA action really p*sses me off. (I have no dog in the fight on either side, so I'm not sure why I feel so bummed out, but here goes (excuse me if I ramble.

1. DeM Smith is right, the NFL is a cartel. It's a single organization with each of the 32 teams representing a "division" of the corporation. While this normally would be considered an anti-trust violation, the NFL has received an exemption from the federal government - presumably to sustain competitive fairness among the 32 teams.

2. The NFLPA has apparently accepted this (as have, incidently, the media nets) and has been willing to work within these legal paremeters to negotiate a a comprehensive labor agreement with the NFL.

3. If the NFLPA had a problem with any aspect of the new CBA, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

4. To try to undo the CBA "after the fact" would be difficult to justify legally - unless the NFLPA can prove that they were somehow misled by the NFL causing them to sign the agreement under false pretenses (I don't think they can prove this).

5. The issue seems to boil down to "the influence of the uncapped year on enforcement of the following one or two legitimate capped years" - i.e "Can the NFL legitimately regulate actions within the uncapped year in order to preserve the integrity of the capped years that follow?"

6. The League will probably argue that (a) they weren't attempting to establish & regulate some sort of 2011 cap, but instead (b) were policing actions by teams in 2011 in order to prevent circumvention of the cap structure in 2012, 2013 etc. (nothing wrong with that).

7. I think the NFLPA knows this, and are just using it as a wedge to gain leverage on other matters (most notably, the suspension of NO players, power of the commissioner and what they consider to be an uneven-handedness treatment of coaches and management vs. those of the players).

Not that the League and its owners are angels, but I think what bugs me is that the NFLPA is "playing cute" instead of addressing their grievances in a more straightforward and case-specific manner. We have a ton of football to play. There comes a point where both sides agree "a deal's a deal" and move onward. (I thought that's what was supposed to happen when the contract was signed).

This is not about the new CBA though. This is about a violation of the terms agreed under the OLD CBA and how the cap would work in 2010. After the new CBA was agreed to the owners went back and retroactively punished the Cowboys, Redskins and Raiders for going beyond an artificial "cap" that the owners had given themselves. Which is blatant collusion.

The argument that the players cannot dispute old issues under the new CBA is rendered moot when its exactly what the OWNERS did when they punished the previously mentioned teams and lowered their spending levels (further depriving the players of agreed salary levels) for current seasons under the new CBA based on unwritten violations of the old one.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

This is not about the new CBA though. This is about a violation of the terms agreed under the OLD CBA and how the cap would work in 2010. After the new CBA was agreed to the owners went back and retroactively punished the Cowboys, Redskins and Raiders for going beyond an artificial "cap" that the owners had given themselves. Which is blatant collusion.

The argument that the players cannot dispute old issues under the new CBA is rendered moot when its exactly what the OWNERS did when they punished the previously mentioned teams and lowered their spending levels (further depriving the players of agreed salary levels) for current seasons under the new CBA based on unwritten violations of the old one.

The old CBA does not exist in Law as it was superseded by the new agreement and the sign off on all outstanding issues past. It's black letter contract law. Beyond the threat of walking away from the new CBA in some sort of protest, I have a hard time seeing any outcome that will be anything more than some language that soothes the NFLPA's ego. They can certainly make arguments similar to yours and even get a lower court judge to make a decision they favour, but in the end it will not stand through the Appeal process.

 

[Phrazbit]

The old CBA does not exist in Law as it was superseded by the new agreement and the sign off on all outstanding issues past. It's black letter contract law. Beyond the threat of walking away from the new CBA in some sort of protest, I have a hard time seeing any outcome that will be anything more than some language that soothes the NFLPA's ego. They can certainly make arguments similar to yours and even get a lower court judge to make a decision they favour, but in the end it will not stand through the Appeal process.

The NFL opened the door when they punished Dallas, Washington and Oakland for violating (apparently colluded agreements in) the old CBA. The league cant have it both ways. Punishing its teams for salary behaviors previous to this CBA but immune to the same treatment from its players.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

The NFL opened the door when they punished Dallas, Washington and Oakland for violating (apparently colluded agreements in) the old CBA. The league cant have it both ways. Punishing its teams for salary behaviors previous to this CBA but immune to the same treatment from its players.

In the end it's a point of Law not debate. And the precedence favours the owners. In law the old CBA is voided by he new agreement and the all-important signing of a stipulation of dismissal'.

P.S. The NfLPA signed off on those penalties. The cash was distributed to other teams and thus part of raising a projected $113M CAP in in 2012 to over $120M.

 

[AntSports Steve]

The NFL is punishing DAL and WAS for structuring contracts abnormally to take advantage of the 1 uncapped year. The NFL warned all teams ahead of time that structuring contracts with the intent of gaining an unfair advantage for future capped years would not be acceptable.

If teams wanted to sign lots of players to 1 year contracts and have a huge payroll during that uncapped year, that would have been fine. Instead, DAL and WAS took future money and pushed it into the uncapped year, which gives them an unfair advantage for the current capped years. The NFL is just trying to keep the league fair and DAL and WAS cheated.

There was no collusion about CAP space during the uncapped year, just an agreement on how contracts could be structured.

 

[CardLogic]

Dallas, Oakland and Washington are being punished for their roster spending in a supposedly "uncapped" year. The owners clearly had an unspoken deal with eachother to limit spending and all they cared about was their end. Tampa Bay's low spending may be against the current agreement but it did not violate the owners unwritten rule.

As I heard it, according to the league office, the teams mentioned are not being penalized for overspending in an uncapped year, but rather using that uncapped year to circumvent the cap in subsequent years governed by the CBA, i.e.- they would have been over in 2011 and 2012 given existing committments. They didn't supercede the cap in 2010 by signing new talent, but rather by moving money already committed for other years into 2010.

Edit: Ant beat me to it - and did a better job of explaining it!

 

[Phrazbit]

The NFL is punishing DAL and WAS for structuring contracts abnormally to take advantage of the 1 uncapped year. The NFL warned all teams ahead of time that structuring contracts with the intent of gaining an unfair advantage for future capped years would not be acceptable.

If teams wanted to sign lots of players to 1 year contracts and have a huge payroll during that uncapped year, that would have been fine. Instead, DAL and WAS took future money and pushed it into the uncapped year, which gives them an unfair advantage for the current capped years. The NFL is just trying to keep the league fair and DAL and WAS cheated.

There was no collusion about CAP space during the uncapped year, just an agreement on how contracts could be structured.

Aaaahh, now that makes much more legal sense than the "We can retroactively punish teams for violating a non-existent agreement" that is being presented in most articles.

 

[JS22]

There was never an official agreement. Just collusion between the owners. Dallas, Washington, and Oakland decided not to be a part of the collusion and structure their contracts to take advantage of an uncapped year. The NFL approved the deals, only to penalize them later when the colluding owners whined about them.

 

[40yearfan]

This season’s salary cap is $120.6 million per team. A person familiar with the union’s views previously said the cap would have been set around $115 million per team if the union had not agreed to the reductions for the Redskins and Cowboys, a figure that would have reduced money available to players throughout the league.

The lawsuit comes at a tense time between the NFL and its players’ union, which have been at odds over a variety of issues. They include the league’s suspensions of four players in the New Orleans Saints bounty case; league efforts to crack down on blows to players’ heads and most recently, the owners’ vote Tuesday to require players to wear knee and thigh pads during games beginning in 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-players-union-sues-the-league-alleging-collusion-on-salaries-in-2010/2012/05/23/gJQA9opclU_story.html

 

[Gee!]

I'm taking the NFLs side here. Any time the Cowboys get punished is good with me.

 

[Lorenzo]

the dallas/wash thing is BS. you(the nfl) basically broke the rules, they(dallas/wash) broke the rules, and now the NFLPA is basically choosing to break the rules that they agreed to. However, the NFLPA i think is doing the right thing. it was dirty of the NFL to make a unspoken rule and then basically blatently break their own rule and then punish 2 teams for an illegal rule break? this is ridiculous. the NFL is getting out of control.

 

[JeffGollin]

I'm guessing that, in the past, both the League and the NFLPA have probably gotten away with a host of of weasely things that went unpunished.

So I say - "Have at it. Enjoy a summer of ill-will. Make the lawyers richer. Make nice speeches on NFLN and ESPN."

(Just so long as the rest of us have football).