Dallas and Washington lose cap space

[stevegrab]

Actually it does... If you enter into an agreement with someone based on false pretenses then that agreement should be subject to review. Not saying it's exactly the same, but a simple parrallel would be the Lemon Law. If a judge agrees that the NFL did not act in good faith then I see no reason why the NFLPA shouldn't be allowed to file suit. That's what the judge will determine, whether it is "right" for them to be allowed to sue or not. I still have my doubts that they will be allowed to, but IMO they are certainly well justified in trying.

 

On another note, I just don't get this complete & utter blind defense of the NFL as if they are beyond reproach. They weren't "men of their word" when they secretly agreed to a salary cap in an uncapped year. I don't get why they shouldn't be held accountable for that action whether the players signed an agreement not to sue or not. At the very least, they should be allowed to try and let the courts decide without facing ridicule from armchair quarterbacks.

 

 

I don't even consider the the lemon law to be roughly related. It is meant to protect somebody who is buying something from being sold a defective product. If I bought a car from you and signed an agreement that says "I'm buying it as is, you make no promises about the vehicle condition" then I come back and sue you later that is more closely related to what is happening hear.

 

For me it has NOTHING to do with any blind faith in or defense of the NFL. It just comes down to personal accountability and a man's (or group of people's) word.

 

And why should they be allowed to do any of this without facing the ridicule (actually just debate/discussion) of the fans? We've had to endure countless posts and pages of discussion on so many other topics, why is this any different? Does it offend the NFLPA that some fans think they're not being men of their words?

[rajncajn]

I don't even consider the the lemon law to be roughly related. It is meant to protect somebody who is buying something from being sold a defective product. If I bought a car from you and signed an agreement that says "I'm buying it as is, you make no promises about the vehicle condition" then I come back and sue you later that is more closely related to what is happening hear.

 

For me it has NOTHING to do with any blind faith in or defense of the NFL. It just comes down to personal accountability and a man's (or group of people's) word.

 

And why should they be allowed to do any of this without facing the ridicule (actually just debate/discussion) of the fans? We've had to endure countless posts and pages of discussion on so many other topics, why is this any different? Does it offend the NFLPA that some fans think they're not being men of their words?

 

 

I just find it very hypocritical to single out the NFLPA for their percieved lack of "personal accountability and a man's (or group of people's) word" when the whole reason they are trying to sue is because the NFL didn't keep their word. Plain & simple, that's all this boils down to.

[delusions of grandeur]

My understanding of the issue is backed up by this article on PFT. First, here is the exact language from the CBA:

 

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, any claim relating to the 2011 lockout, any restrictions on free agency, any franchise player designations, any transition player designations, the Draft, the Entering Player Pool, the Rookie Compensation Pool, Total Revenues (‘TR’) or television rights fees with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011 , or any claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady related to any other term or condition of employment with respect to conduct occurring prior to the execution of this Agreement. For purposes of clarity, this release does not cover any claim of any retired player.

 

 

 

From the article: "During Wednesday’s conference call, NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler explained that, in his view, the new collusion claim based on an allegedly secret $123 million salary cap in 2010 couldn’t have been made in the White or Brady case because the NFLPA didn’t know about it. Kessler also contended that the case law on controversies of this nature will support his position."

 

Pretty clear cut that since it was secret at the time of the CBA, then that claim couldn't have been made in those prior suits.... It would have been foolish for the NFLPA to sign something that says that they couldn't sue for things unknown at the time of the CBA, and thus they didn't. That's not what they signed off on, they simply agreed to drop the pending lawsuits and anything related to them. This is completely separate from that.

 

They definitely seem to have a legitimate claim, given that the league has now provided hard proof by unnecessarily punishing the teams.

[rajncajn]

My understanding of the issue is backed up by this article on PFT. First, here is the exact language from the CBA:

 

 

 

From the article: "During Wednesday’s conference call, NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler explained that, in his view, the new collusion claim based on an allegedly secret $123 million salary cap in 2010 couldn’t have been made in the White or Brady case because the NFLPA didn’t know about it. Kessler also contended that the case law on controversies of this nature will support his position."

 

Pretty clear cut that since it was secret at the time of the CBA, then that claim couldn't have been made in those prior suits.... It would have been foolish for the NFLPA to sign something that says that they couldn't sue for things unknown at the time of the CBA, and thus they didn't. That's not what they signed off on, they simply agreed to drop the pending lawsuits and anything related to them. This is completely separate from that.

 

They definitely seem to have a legitimate claim, given that the league has now provided hard proof by unnecessarily punishing the teams.

 

 

Several people, including myself, have said it was stupid of the players to agree not to be able to sue. If the statement you quoted turns out to be the ruling factor then I retract my opinion. Regardless, i find it equally dumb of the NFL to openly penalize teams for not adhering to something they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place. While I realize these teams were likely doing it just to get a leg up on the competition, I still applaud them for not shafting the players like everyone else.

Edited May 29, 2012 by rajncajn

[westvirginia]

Does anyone else find it hard to believe that the NFL and owners can be this unsophisticated? They had to know this is collusion and would come back to bite them, didn't they? What am I missing here?

[stevegrab]

Does anyone else find it hard to believe that the NFL and owners can be this unsophisticated? They had to know this is collusion and would come back to bite them, didn't they? What am I missing here?

 

 

I don't think you're missing anything, no ruling has been made yet. Taking the analysis provided by NFLPA legal counsel as some indication that they're going to win and the NFL screwed up in having the secret cap or punishing the teams that broke the rules.