Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
I understand what he's trying to say I just don't think he's 100% correct with it. I think the arguement is all well and good but the vote should have taken place at the next owners meeting, all teams agreed to the punishement, and it dished out. I have a problem with the punishement being given prior to a vote simply to keep the teams from using the CAP space which essentially is what it was. The league had two yrs to hold a meeting and vote. They had what 5 months to hold a meeting and vote on the issue. They have meetings every month. They could have held an emergency meeting as they have done. Instead, they waited until the last possible moment so neither team could argue their case and or have time to get the CAP space returned in time to use it. clearly what Goodell and the Exec Commitee wanted to happen and achieved.
But I think the two teams will get the space back based on three things:
1- No rule or law was broken, so there should be no punishement.
2- The league was actually breaking the law(collusion) with the agreement. They didn't have the NFLPA's approval back then, only after the new CBA was signed and the NFLPA blackmailed to keep the CAP limit high and a reminder they gave up their rights to file a suit.
3- Procedurally I think the Exec Commitee screwed up but had to to keep the two teams from spending it. If the league or Exec Commitee failed to follow procedures then I can see the CAP space being returned.
What will be interesting is to see if the Arbitrator brings in the NFLPA Rep and asks him if he felt like he was forced to agree to the punishement. If he says yes or the players would have lost money.... who knows what will happen.
|
I think Hoop and JR have it. In non-legal terms...the owners can do to each other whatever the hell they want, whenever they want to do it. As long as it doesn't run contrary to the CBA. As JR said it seems our first move is to challenge the punishment on procedural grounds.
I have asked the question about fairness in hopes that someone would give me the magical answer that the arbitrator can indeed rule based on basic fairness but I am pretty sure he cannot. In which case I agree the our procedural challenge is very likely our weakest argument at this point and that leads me to believe that it is only our first step.
I think it is super important for everyone to step back and look at this from a technical and legal standpoint. What is "fair" sounds like it is irrelevant to me. What is proper (as in they have a right to do it) is all that matters.