Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
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.
|
as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.