Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
In short - arbitration is a procedure to complain about someone breaking the rules of the CBA. If the NFL just changes the rules, the two teams can't complain the League is breaking the rules anymore.
And if 24 owners approve the change in rules, the two teams who don't like the changes are SOL.
|
Yes. No. Sorta. As to the arbitration, there are two questions: (1) Did the NFL follow the rules on how penalties are levied? and (2) Did the NFL have a legal substantive basis for levying the sanction?
As to (1), I would say the owners vote likely vitiates any procedural violations. Note that this is a prospective action - i.e.
going forward the sanction is deemed to have been issued in an appropriate manner. So, even though procedurally incorrect and possibly unenforceable for that reason up to now, the cap penalty is, from this point forward procedurally correct. (oops, I served the notice on the wrong entity. Even though it was unenforceable while improperly served, I have corrected that and can now enforce it after the notice has been served on the correct entity).
As to (2), it goes back to the retroactivity. The conduct being now sanctioned was not improper/illegal/violative
at the time it was taken. I don't believe that the owner's can change history with a vote. [As an example, I don't think the owner's could say - by vote of 24 - that teams didn't follow the Rooney Rule before it was created are subject to lost draft choices.]
I don't know if this second issue is really before the arbiter or if that has been saved for another legal rainy day.