PDA

View Full Version : More NFLPA vs NFL


DBroncos4life
05-23-2012, 11:04 AM
The contentious relationship between the NFL and the NFL Players Association continued Wednesday when the union filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the league and its owners conspired in collusion to establish a "secret $123 million salary cap" in 2010, which under the previous labor agreement was designated as an uncapped year of spending.

The NFLPA filed its collusion complaint in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claiming that it falls under the supervision and oversight of Judge David Doty, who presided over the 1993 settlement of the Reggie White litigation case.

That settlement led to an unprecedented stretch of labor peace that lasted through 2010, which was designated as an uncapped year in which teams would not be restricted in their spending on players' salaries.

Instead, the NFLPA claims that it learned on or about March 12 of this year that four teams -- the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints -- did not abide by the NFL's secret rules that effectively advised teams to operate in 2010 under a $123 million salary cap.

The NFL in March penalized the Redskins and Cowboys in cap spending at $36 million and $10 million sums, respectively, during the next two years, a decision that was recently upheld by Special Master Stephen Burbank's ruling, citing the NFLPA's agreement to an arrangement that would redistribute the money to other teams for cap spending.

An NFLPA source said that the union was "strong-armed" into the agreement because the cap would have been set at a league-wide $113 million per team, instead of $120 million.

The union is seeking $1 billion in actual damages for players primarily in the 2010 free-agent class and $3 billion in damages as violation of the 1993 White agreement.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7963260

peacepipe
05-23-2012, 11:23 AM
surprised it took this long for the lawsuit to be filed. collusion was pretty obvious once they levied that punishment on the cowboys & redskins.

gyldenlove
05-23-2012, 11:43 AM
The NFL will undoubtedly argue that the circumvention was for the 2011 league year as the contracts negotiated in 2010 circumvented the salary cap in 2011 by paying money up front for services to be rendered in future years.

Garcia Bronco
05-23-2012, 12:04 PM
1 billion? LOL

houghtam
05-23-2012, 12:10 PM
The contentious relationship between the NFL and the NFL Players Association continued Wednesday when the union filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the league and its owners conspired in collusion to establish a "secret $123 million salary cap" in 2010, which under the previous labor agreement was designated as an uncapped year of spending.

The NFLPA filed its collusion complaint in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claiming that it falls under the supervision and oversight of Judge David Doty, who presided over the 1993 settlement of the Reggie White litigation case.

That settlement led to an unprecedented stretch of labor peace that lasted through 2010, which was designated as an uncapped year in which teams would not be restricted in their spending on players' salaries.

Instead, the NFLPA claims that it learned on or about March 12 of this year that four teams -- the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints -- did not abide by the NFL's secret rules that effectively advised teams to operate in 2010 under a $123 million salary cap.

The NFL in March penalized the Redskins and Cowboys in cap spending at $36 million and $10 million sums, respectively, during the next two years, a decision that was recently upheld by Special Master Stephen Burbank's ruling, citing the NFLPA's agreement to an arrangement that would redistribute the money to other teams for cap spending.

An NFLPA source said that the union was "strong-armed" into the agreement because the cap would have been set at a league-wide $113 million per team, instead of $120 million.

The union is seeking $1 billion in actual damages for players primarily in the 2010 free-agent class and $3 billion in damages as violation of the 1993 White agreement.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7963260

Am I missing something here? Big deal if you were "strong armed" into it...you still signed the deal, right? It's not the NFL's fault that that NFLPA signed a deal that was bad for their clients.

I must be missing something.

peacepipe
05-23-2012, 12:27 PM
Am I missing something here? Big deal if you were "strong armed" into it...you still signed the deal, right? It's not the NFL's fault that that NFLPA signed a deal that was bad for their clients.

I must be missing something.

being strong-armed can make a contract void.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 12:28 PM
The NFLPA has a pretty strong case for collusion IMHO. It was supposed to be an uncapped year so teams could spend as much money on contracts as they want (or as little as they want I'm guessing). So a few teams spent more $ and then got penalized for it. A lot of money was left on the table that could have gone into the players pocket if all the teams negotiated contracts in good faith, knowing full well that it was an uncapped year. Instead, teams like Dallas and Washington spent more money on contracts and then got hammered by the other owners for "breaking the rules" even though there were no "rules" because it was an uncapped year?

So in essence the NFL was not negotiating in good faith with the NFLPA when they signed the new contract.

Garcia Bronco
05-23-2012, 12:29 PM
The NFLPA has a pretty strong case for collusion IMHO. It was supposed to be an uncapped year so teams could spend as much money on contracts as they want (or as little as they want I'm guessing). So a few teams spent more $ and then got penalized for it. A lot of money was left on the table that could have gone into the players pocket if all the teams negotiated contracts in good faith, knowing full well that it was an uncapped year. Instead, teams like Dallas and Washington spent more money on contracts and then got hammered by the other owners for "breaking the rules" even though there were no "rules" because it was an uncapped year?

So in essence the NFL was not negotiating in good faith with the NFLPA when they signed the new contract.

I still don't see how NFL teams colluded with each other to spend less or more.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 12:32 PM
I still don't see how NFL teams colluded with each other to spend less or more.

The burden of proof will be on the NFLPA to show collusion no doubt but the fact that Dallas and Washington were financially penalized for breaking a rule that should not have existed to begin with is a little strange.

gyldenlove
05-23-2012, 12:35 PM
I still don't see how NFL teams colluded with each other to spend less or more.

4 teams were punished for spending too much money in a year with no salary cap - that sounds like collusion.

spdirty
05-23-2012, 12:50 PM
4 teams were punished for spending too much money in a year with no salary cap - that sounds like collusion.

That's how I see it. I really am still pretty amazed that Goodell/The NFL got away with penalizing the Redskins and Cowboys for that.

I don't like Goodell at all. He isn't at Stern territory yet on my hate meter but he really does make me miss Paul Tagliabue.

Beantown Bronco
05-23-2012, 12:56 PM
By definition, the league should not be able to win both the Skins/Cowboys case and this new case. It's an either/or scenario. Since they already won the Skins/Cowboys case, they SHOULD lose this one based off the "facts", but I'm sure they'll pay off the necessary parties to avoid it.

Garcia Bronco
05-23-2012, 12:56 PM
4 teams were punished for spending too much money in a year with no salary cap - that sounds like collusion.

The league did instruct teams to not do what they did.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-23-2012, 12:59 PM
Courtroom football.

Gone are the days where it was just smash mouth football.