Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.
|
And the fact that the Skins and Cowboys didn't break any of the 2006 CBA provisions, and there is no disagreement on that, makes the question of punishment questionable. If the Skins had written a contract that violated the 30% rule, it would have been voided by the league. If the Skins had written a contract that contained language forbidden by the 2006 CBA it would have been voided by the league. None of the contracts were voided by the league at the time, why? because they were allowed by the 2006 CBA. Why didn't the league simply get with the NFLPA and adjust the rules, because the NFL would have been accused of collusion. Why, now 2 years later are they punishing the Skins and Cowboys, well according to you, it's simply because they can. Maybe 24 does overrule legal sense, if the Skins and Cowboys aren't willing to blow up the whole system, but I tend to think that an arbitrator, once given the opportunity will do what it takes to make it right. Keep in mind, and I am certain of this, if the arbitrator does say he has jurisdiction, (and if he doesn't it will be on your explanation of the 24 etc), that all parties have, in advance, accepted the arbitrator's right to make a final ruling.