Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
I like you because you seem to understand the CBA, but honestly your annoying me with your perspective. I don't have a handle on it yet but I see you as being wrong. The media's perspective is opposite of yours. The majority of the fans here have a perspective opposite of yours.
I'll apologize again I'm not trying to be mean I'm just not willing to accept your point of view. If you turn out to be right then good we have someone knowledgable to keep us informed.
By the way the arbitrator is not just to enforce the rules, he's there to make sure what rules were enforced were enforced fairly. In other words should the two teams have been punished, was it according to the CBA, and was the punishement to harsh or not.
#1- the CBA had expired. doesn't matter what back room agreement was made he has to look at the facts. There was no CBA and the two teams didn't break any CBA or laws. < who knows what he will do when he see's that the back room agreement was essentially collusion by the rest of the league. Maybe nothing, maybe tell the league they broke the law and can't punish the two teams... which I expect to happen.
#2- most likely will tell the league the two teams can't be punished because there was no CBA (expired) and essentially thats why there was an expiration date on the CBA to force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the CBA expriation so this type of stuff wouldn't happen. But they didn't. No laws were broken. So no punishement.
#3- I'm figuring the CAP space will be returned. All of it. But as some of you have emplied I could see the Arbitrator telling the league they will lose if he has to make a final decision and suggest they come to some agreement with the two teams and most likely to save face we will only get a portion of the CAP space back which will give the league some validation to say see we were right and the two teams validation to say the same thing. No one loses completely.
|
Preliminarily, let me say, I think Hoophead's responses are pretty much on the money.
The arbiter is only concerned with violations of
current CBA not the expired CBA of 2010. The arbiter only way has authority to make any binding decisions on the parties (the NFL and the NFLPA) because they gave it to him in the current CBA.
Further, according to Hoophead (I haven't read the actually complaint - anyone have a link to the document actually filed by the Skins?), the Skins are challenging the only that the penalty is improper under the current CBA. While I agree with your assessment of the various perspectives, it seems like the Skins are opting for an allegation that the penalties are procedurally improper - which I think is a losing argument.
Essentially, the wrong occurred at a time when no arbiter had jurisidiction (i.e. no CBA). The Skins best argument - again, as stated by Hoophead - is best presented in a court of general jurisdiction. I think the Skins
can argue to the arbiter - hey, the alteration is unfair b/c the CBA requires the same salary cap for all team and the crux of this alteration is for something that occurred outside the bounds of the current CBA and so, agreement or not, this salary cap reduction is improper under
this CBA.
Quite frankly, in this forum (before an arbiter authorized under the current CBA), I think the NFLPA's agreement to the reduction carries a lot of weight and, in fact, might be dispositive.
As to the post-hoc approval, I am not sure it is determinative. Again, that would really depend on the specific language of the CBA as to how it can be modified.