Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
The multiple defenses the Redskins can use aside here, 30 owners acting as the NFL can in-fact decide to impose penalties on unwritten rules. That's what the NBA did essentially when they rejected the Chris Paul-Lakers trade (although in that case, the league actually owned one of the teams).
It will be interesting to see if the Redskins can successfully defend themselves. If they're going to defend themselves by litigation, I have no idea how they plan to do that.
If they plan to just reject the penalty on the grounds that the league approved all their moves when made according to the old CBA, I do think the league will have a difficult time forcing this penalty on them. I question whether the league is powerful enough to make the Redskins and Cowboys comply.
|
But your talking about a league that looked at a trade scenario and said no you can't do it. They didn't approve it and later cry foul.
The NFL had every opportunity to contact both teams and say "you can't do that" or reject the contracts/deals that were made. But they didn't. They approved them and now later the other teams are crying fould cause they don't have as much money to spend and now they want the NFL to penalize both teams in order to make them competative with the Skins and Cowboys. You can't do that.
By the way, the CBA had expired. What they had basically was a gentlemans agreement if you'd call it that and the league approved the deals.