Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars
This makes it sound like there was a vote, and a change to the CBA, then a violation of said change by the clubs, which led to their punishment -- but that is incorrect. We all know the actions of the clubs came before any changes to the CBA or before any official vote took place. The clubs aren't looking for relief because they were outvoted -- they're looking for relief because they are being subjected to a rule that is being applied retroactively.
|
The "modification of the CBA" is the adjustments to the Skins' and Cowboys' (and everyone else but the Saints' and Raiders') salary caps. The 29-2 vote at the owners' meeting was reported as a vote to ratify that modification.
The Skins' argument in arbitration is that the NFLMC unfairly modified the CBA to punish the Skins.
The arbitrator has authority to enforce the CBA. He does not have the authority to govern relationships between the NFL and member Clubs.
Which was the whole point of the post you quoted.