Redskins/Cowboys file grievance against NFL

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
########
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:54 am
Location: The other Washington

Postby Scottskins » Wed May 09, 2012 1:34 pm

The union cannot currently go after the owners for collusion(per the new cba). Since the union is a defendant, if collusion is shown in the arbitration, the union would then be able to go after the owners for collusion. Thats my understanding anyway. And the figure i saw said the nfl would have to pay the players union 178 million.
Death to the EGO! RIP 21

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5166
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Wed May 09, 2012 1:47 pm

Scottskins wrote:The union cannot currently go after the owners for collusion(per the new cba). Since the union is a defendant, if collusion is shown in the arbitration, the union would then be able to go after the owners for collusion. Thats my understanding anyway. And the figure i saw said the nfl would have to pay the players union 178 million.


I understand what you are saying. But I think this is true only if the Redskins filed an actual lawsuit in court - not a grievance via arbitration.

If they had filed a lawsuit, this collusion problem would have come back on both them and the Cowboys as well as the rest of the NFL. They avoided that by going through arbitration.

Maybe one of the legal minded guys here can confirm.

~~~~~~
Posts: 10209
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Redskin in Canada » Thu May 10, 2012 7:43 am

riggofan wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:A settlement is likely BECAUSE this situation HURTS both the teams and the NFL as a whole.

Mara and his gang got Goodell in trouble and they are trying to save face on all sides, which is difficult if you really think about it


I agree with your comments, except I don't see how this makes a settlement LIKELY. As you pointed out, its a difficult, complex situation. That seems like it would make a settlement hard to negotiate.

Also if there is a settlement where the skins/boys get their cap space back, isn't that the same as the NFL basically LOSING? What do they win in that scenario? I don't see why the NFL wouldn't just go through arbitration where they at least have some chance of winning.


I said that it was LIKELY but I did not say that it would be EASY.

It is LIKELY because the process is becoming an indictment of the NFL and, in particular, the Committee led by Mara.

It is DIFFICULT because the terms of the settlement do not allow both parties to save face and, having taken an action that ALREADY was used by several teams, it will be next to impossible to rectify. This was the reason for a delay and even potentially not reaching an agreement up to now.

IF the settlement is not reached before they meet with the arbitrator at the U of Pennsylvania today, both sides will re-assess their positions vis-a-vis the settlement for future negotiations. It all depends how they feel after today's exchange.

BUT this situation HURTS the image of the NFL. Not a good idea to start a battle between the two most profitable franchises and the Mara group.

The rest of them, the other owners not included in the Mara Committee and the NFLPA are there only for the ride. Kudos to Tampa for having the courage and vision to avoid supporting this mess.

The only KO which can occur is if the arbitrator declares today that he has no jurisdiction to hear this case because the owners already voted. That would be a disaster for us. Any other outcome is mostly favourable to us.

Please read carefully Jerry's words about the hearing today:

"I can't, and won't, address the specifics and certainly wouldn't dare try to predict what the resolution would be," he said. "I'm glad we've got an opportunity to present it under the labor agreement to a mediator, and that's what (Thursday) is all about. ... It won't resolve the issue, but it will help decide whether or not we can go before a mediator."

HTTR
Last edited by Redskin in Canada on Thu May 10, 2012 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

~~~~~~
Posts: 10209
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Redskin in Canada » Thu May 10, 2012 7:59 am

Countertrey wrote:If I'm Danny and Jerruh, I'm pushing this, until I get some equity... all of my cap, plus some... to equal the advantage that other teams recieved by conspiring against our teams. Only THEN would I entertain real discussion about a settlement.

Not so fast.

The NFL is placing a bet that the Arbitrator may declare today that he has no authority to continue this process as an arbitrator. In other words, the NFL is betting that the Arbitrator may declare that with the vote taken by the owners 29 in favour - 2 against - 1 abstention, there is no case to arbitrate.

It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.

Interesting stuff that really goes to the heart of whether Prof. Burbank, the Arbitrator, is really impartial or he is under the influence of Goodell and the Mara group. He has a great reputation as a competent and impartial arbitrator. Let's see how it works.
Last edited by Redskin in Canada on Thu May 10, 2012 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

~~~~~~
Posts: 10209
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Redskin in Canada » Thu May 10, 2012 8:13 am

You ask:

Who is STEPHEN B. BURBANK?

Image

and his curriculum vitae.

Please note:

REPRESENTATIVE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Special Master, National Football League (2002-11); Acting System Arbitrator, NFL (2011- )

Special Master? Did you know that such position existed before? :hmm:
I didn't. Apparently, this is a position appointed by a Federal Court and designed to resolve "certain categories" of disputes between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA.

And he became NFL arbitrator just last year over the negotiation of the agreement with the NFLPA. He has a long and prestigious career as an arbitrator.

This is an interesting test for him. He certainly has the professional experience and reputation to hold that job. I am confident he will do the right thing. [-o<
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14842
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Thu May 10, 2012 9:14 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Countertrey wrote:If I'm Danny and Jerruh, I'm pushing this, until I get some equity... all of my cap, plus some... to equal the advantage that other teams recieved by conspiring against our teams. Only THEN would I entertain real discussion about a settlement.

Not so fast.

The NFL is placing a bet that the Arbitrator may declare today that he has no authority to continue this process as an arbitrator. In other words, the NFL is betting that the Arbitrator may declare that with the vote taken by the owners 29 in favour - 2 against - 1 abstention, there is no case to arbitrate.
Not likely, as there was tangible gain to each team that voted to affirm the commitee's stand... in effect, their vote was purchased, tainting it's value as a measure of the legitimacy of the vote. That one team abstained, OTOH, speaks volumes...

It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.
... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

Interesting stuff that really goes to the heart of whether Prof. Burbank, the Arbitrator, is really impartial or he is under the influence of Goodell and the Mara group. He has a great reputation as a competent and impartial arbitrator. Let's see how it works.
Absolutely valid. I hope that Professor Burbank will rise to his reputation, and box the NFL, but good. There's no real way to fix this without cutting up the NFL's baby... good luck with that, King Solomon...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

~~~~~~
Posts: 10209
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Redskin in Canada » Thu May 10, 2012 2:16 pm

Countertrey wrote:
It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.
... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

The counter-argument to that by the NFL (not mine) is that ALL teams were warned AGAINST such practices during the uncapped year. SOME argue that they followed that agreement and thus the "unfair advantage".

It was, they say, an unofficial "gentleman's agreement".

Interesting question is: What is the legal validity of such non-contractual agreement in the event that it might have really existed. Does that "spoken agreement" if it existed amounted to a legal obligation?

Complex case.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu May 10, 2012 2:59 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
It is a complex case, more so than people feel BECAUSE the arbitrator must decide early on what latitude does the NFL have to evaluate and enforce through penaltiess the term "unfair competitive advantage" when not a single rule was broken and the NFL itself approved those contracts.
... obviously, the counter claim would be that this rule did not exist, and, therefore, this avenue of relief was available to each and every team in the league. That being the case, there was no unfair advantage gained...

The counter-argument to that by the NFL (not mine) is that ALL teams were warned AGAINST such practices during the uncapped year. SOME argue that they followed that agreement and thus the "unfair advantage".

It was, they say, an unofficial "gentleman's agreement".

Interesting question is: What is the legal validity of such non-contractual agreement in the event that it might have really existed. Does that "spoken agreement" if it existed amounted to a legal obligation?

Complex case.

Not sure if it's binding, but I do know that such a gentleman's agreement constitutes collusion. The players union should be suing them for that admission alone.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

the 'mudge
Posts: 14842
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Thu May 10, 2012 3:07 pm

^ Hence the rub... and the reason the NFL should do whatever is necessary to make this go away...

Who blinks first?
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5166
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Thu May 10, 2012 3:16 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:I said that it was LIKELY but I did not say that it would be EASY.

It is LIKELY because the process is becoming an indictment of the NFL and, in particular, the Committee led by Mara.

IF the settlement is not reached before they meet with the arbitrator at the U of Pennsylvania today, both sides will re-assess their positions vis-a-vis the settlement for future negotiations. It all depends how they feel after today's exchange.


Still not sure I agree with your reason for a settlement being likely (An indictment of the NFL? When did the most popular sport in the US last care about public opinion?), but I agree with most of what you wrote.

I think you're right about both sides re-assessing their position after today. If the arbitrator allows this to continue, the NFL may decide to negotiate a settlement themselves rather than risk the arbitrator making a decision for them.

|||||||
Posts: 4566
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Somewhere, out there.

Postby UK Skins Fan » Fri May 11, 2012 6:11 am

So, not much to report from yesterday, but that was to be expected. The power that Goodell claims to have is frightening. Are all the other owners happy with the power they seem to have voluntarily vested in him, or are they just all on board because they weren't the ones who got clobbered this time?

I get the impression they're all like little children, smiling at the bully because he's just beaten up the kid that none of them like. So they're all patting him on the back right now but, in the back of their minds, they must be thinking "when is he going to come after me?". And, if he does, who the hell is going to stop him? Well, don't expect Dan and Jerry to come riding over the horizon on white horses to save you!


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... dvisement/
Also available on Twitter @UKSkinsFan

~~~~~~
Posts: 10209
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:59 am
Location: Canada

Postby Redskin in Canada » Fri May 11, 2012 9:31 am

Redskins argue against cut to cap

“We got to present some of our issues, and the league presented some of their issues, and we’ll leave it at that,” general manager Bruce Allen said Tuesday evening. “I think we just have to let the process play out. We wanted to present our case, and we were able to present.”

The NFL declined to comment. Proceedings are confidential until a decision is finalized, as stipulated by the collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players union.


"Funny" statement:

“I thought the penalties imposed were proper,” John Mara, New York Giants owner and chairman of the NFL Management Committee, told reporters at the NFL annual meetings in late March. “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks.”


I hope the Arbitrator teaches him a lesson. ;furious; ;furious; ;furious;

The NFL SPIN on the hearing.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5166
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Fri May 11, 2012 9:56 am

UK Skins Fan wrote:So, not much to report from yesterday, but that was to be expected. The power that Goodell claims to have is frightening. Are all the other owners happy with the power they seem to have voluntarily vested in him, or are they just all on board because they weren't the ones who got clobbered this time?

I get the impression they're all like little children, smiling at the bully because he's just beaten up the kid that none of them like. So they're all patting him on the back right now but, in the back of their minds, they must be thinking "when is he going to come after me?". And, if he does, who the hell is going to stop him? Well, don't expect Dan and Jerry to come riding over the horizon on white horses to save you!


Great post, man - exactly right. And you're especially right about the other owners. What is Goodell claiming exactly? That because he is the commissioner, none of the rules apply to him??? Its insane(ly stupid).

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Fri May 11, 2012 9:56 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:Redskins argue against cut to cap

“We got to present some of our issues, and the league presented some of their issues, and we’ll leave it at that,” general manager Bruce Allen said Tuesday evening. “I think we just have to let the process play out. We wanted to present our case, and we were able to present.”

Nice editing there. :roll:
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

08 Champ
Posts: 13932
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: New England

Postby SkinsJock » Fri May 11, 2012 10:47 am

OK - that's done - thanks for the links - appreciated

Does anyone have any idea on what sort of time it might take for this guy to decide ..... anything?

is it just a day or 2 or does this drag out?



Mara is clearly showing himself to be a class A hater :roll:
The Redskins need to change to improve - we need a better GM and we need to do a better job of who we bring in to coach and play here - players and coaches need to be held accountable when they do not do their jobs well

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football