Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilgrin
If the league sticks to the "because we say so" arguement, arbitration seems a bit silly. And the chance of it being fairly considered? How do they pick the person who hears the case?
I think in addtion to good chances in a legal battle, the skins and cowboys also have the NFL not wanting any of this to take place in public. Trying to talk the crazy guy back off the cliff.
|
In arbitration the league will advance a couple of legal theories as to why the sanction should be upheld:
1. Since we [the owners] believed a new CBA was forthcoming that would reinstate the salary cap, the majority of owners reached an informal agreement not to structure contracts in a manner that would harm the competitive balance going forward. DS and JJ violated this agreement and attempted to gain a competitive advantage contrary to the spirit of the governing CBA which, by its terms, created only one uncapped year [
Of course, if no subsequent CBA had been agreed upon, the cap would simply disappear going forward] .
2. As a procedural matter, pursuant to the NFL's charter, the sanction was issued by the competition committee and communicated through the Commissioner's office. Further, and because it affects the salary cap, the sanction has been approved by the NFLPA as required by the current governing CBA.
These are both legally defensible positions that create the appearance of a reasonable dispute (barely so in my humble opinion). For all the reasons I have stated before, I just don't think they stand up under any scrutiny.
The "b/c we say so" argument is the practical and informal reason for their actions rather than the legal basis.
As to who hears the arbitration, from what I understand, that would be governed by the CBA.