Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
Wait.... were still talking about the 2010 uncapped year right? and the year the offense supposedly occurred. and the fact the new CBA was not in place until 2011 a year later.... and the agreement between the NFL and NFLPA on the issue came a whole year after that in 2012.
|
Not sure if you're being ironic or starting over at square one of the earlier thread. The adjustments to the cap are for the 2012 and 2013 years. Regardless of
why the NFL & NFLPA made the adjustment, the adjustment applies to the 2012 and 2013 years and, so, requires an agreement to modify the existing CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
All we will probably hear from Burbank will be that the NFL made its case and it was clear he had no standing in ruling on the case. Which is why it was dismissed. He did not rule on whether the whole case was right or not just if he could hear it.
|
Sort of - - Burbank will say that the Skins and Cowboys
failed to state a prima facie case for going forward. The NFL had nothing to prove - their argument was simply that Washington and Dallas hadn't made their case. Burbank agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
So now DS needs to take the case to the proper venue and file it in the court of law. Scare the you know what out of the NFL into giving back the CAP space or atleast a majority of it or face going to court and possibly losing their exempt status. My money is the NFL will cave then.
|
They could, but as NC pointed out, they would be opening up the "collusion" bag for the players - a collusion that they did not expose even if they did not fully participate in it. Even without that factor, it would be a tough road to hoe given Goodell's authority under the NFL By-Laws.
Again, I thought they should've gone nuclear to start - I think the adverse ruling from the abritrator weakens their civil case and deprives them of certain arguments they could have made in a circuit court.
At this point, I am with CRed. Bite the bullet and take revenge by winning the SB.
