Will Washington and Dallas get their cap money back?

[Ravenswintitle]

I believe they would have a pretty good chance if they took this to court, but the fallout is just not worth it.

[Ravenswintitle]

I don't know. Sounds like it could get ugly. Jerry Jones implied a couple of weeks ago that he would be willing to sue the NFL over this.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ues-of-relief/

But Burbank hints at what could come next. Near the conclusion of his ruling, Burbank says that, “if the Clubs ‘are dissatisfied with the representation of [their] multi-employer association,’ they retain whatever ‘remedies [they may have] against the association under contract and agency law.’”

In English, this means the Cowboys and Redskins could sue the NFL for violating internal rules and regulations and/or any applicable fiduciary duties that require the league to represent the interests of all teams equally and fairly. Burbank’s ruling seems to suggest that the Cowboys and Redskins tried to push such principles under the CBA, which means that they very well could choose to pursue such arguments in a full-blown lawsuit.

Interesting article. Couldn't help but point out this part:

Speaking of the 2006 CBA, a chance remains that the Cowboys and Redskins will next turn to the expired labor deal, since that’s the labor deal under which the disputed player contracts were negotiated and approved. That avenue has merit, and risk, because the appeal process eventually could land on the desk of Judge David Doty, who likely wouldn’t hesitate to call collusion if he sees it.

And he undoubtedly will see collusion. Because, frankly, there was collusion. The failure of the Cowboys and Redskins to participate in collusion resulted in the cap penalties to which the NFLPA inexplicably agreed.

[GOTA]

Interesting article. Couldn't help but point out this part:

I don't think collusion is an issue unless the NFLPA wants to get involved. They're the party that was hurt by this. They already cut a deal with the NFL and are staying out so there is no one to claim they were hurt from this collusion.

[arnie_uk]

can someone exxplain collision? im assuimg its an unwritten agreement, and its not legally binding? so in this case when it was collusion not to dump money etc in the uncapped year if it went to court the NFL wouldnt have a leg to stand on?

Or is there more to it than that?

[HoustonRaven]

According Mrs. HoustonRaven, who is a labor & employment attorney, the definition on wiki is pretty accurate. It reads:

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

As it pertains to the NFL, if the owners conspire (i.e. collude) to keep salaries down, at a certain level, etc. they could be found guilty of collusion.

It takes more then simply getting together and deciding something. It has to be proven that they did so in a deceiving or misleading manner.

[moose10101]

I've looked around for a legal definition of collusion, and here's the one that seems to make the most sense:

Secret cooperation between two or more people or entities in order to fool, defraud, or gain an unfair advantage over another. Price fixing by companies supposed to be competitors is one example of collusion.

AFAIK, the league didn't conspire to keep the instructions to the teams secret, nor did the teams conspire to reduce player compensation. What they attempted to do was maintain the "level playing field" that the law already allowed them to create, by discouraging overtly manipulative acts.

I don't think the teams will succeed in court, but the approval of the contracts by the league could be a sticking point. I'd expect the NFL to argue that there was nothing in any one player contract that they could legally use to reject it, while they did have the power to address the pattern of behavior by certain teams.

But IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

[Captain Silver]

Told you... *sigh* the burden of always being right... so heavy I gotta cut back on the lifting my knowledge is so strong ;)

[GOTA]

According Mrs. HoustonRaven, who is a labor & employment attorney, the definition on wiki is pretty accurate. It reads:



As it pertains to the NFL, if the owners conspire (i.e. collude) to keep salaries down, at a certain level, etc. they could be found guilty of collusion.

It takes more then simply getting together and deciding something. It has to be proven that they did so in a deceiving or misleading manner.

You don't think the NFL approving contracts and then telling teams off the record that they shouldn't be making these contracts isn't deceiving or misleading the NFLPA?

[darb72]

You don't think the NFL approving contracts and then telling teams off the record that they shouldn't be making these contracts isn't deceiving or misleading the NFLPA?

The NFL didn't tell them off the record. They told every single team that they weren't allowed to use the uncapped year to circumvent later capped years. Literally everybody on this board knew the NFL told teams that so you can't argue it was done in secret. The NFLPA has already signed off on the punishments since the players are still going to be getting the same amount of money, so they're not going to fight it.

I expect the courts to side with the NFL on this one.

[HoustonRaven]

You don't think the NFL approving contracts and then telling teams off the record that they shouldn't be making these contracts isn't deceiving or misleading the NFLPA?

What was "off the record"?

According to reports, the owners were told six times not to do it. 30 of 32 owners managed to follow it.

A verbal directive is every bit as binding as a written one.

[GOTA]

What was "off the record"?

According to reports, the owners were told six times not to do it. 30 of 32 owners managed to follow it.

A verbal directive is every bit as binding as a written one.

The owners were told but was the NFLPA? The NFLPA had the understanding that the rules put forth under the old CBA concerning an uncapped year were in effect. The NFL even approved those contracts based on those rules. Since the NFLPA is the one that was hurt by this they needed to be told by the NFL that it wasn't following the agreed upon rules.

[BcRaven]

Told you... *sigh* the burden of always being right... so heavy I gotta cut back on the lifting my knowledge is so strong ;)

Be careful or you'll get a sports hernia like Torrey Smith... Bc