Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
as always you do a pretty good job of playing devil's advocate. I would say though, the 29-2 vote was in fact a CYA move by the league, and we will see if the arbitrator allows that. In fact, the modification was put in place and enforced without the vote taking place, and so the real interesting (and never to be found out question) is would the league have denied a contract written that was valid for the Redskins without the penalty, but not with the penalty before the acknowledging vote was taken. In other words, had the Skins, or Cowboys, signed a big name, say Dallas signed Mario Williams to a blockbuster contract on day one of FA. Further assume they kept the salary cap hit to a valid amount based on their cap without the modification. Would the league have approved that contract. If the answer is no, then the 29-2 vote is irrelevant because the NFLMC imposed a penalty without a full vote of the ownership. I would say, since the league handed out the cap numbers based on including the modification, that Dallas and Washington can get past the initial stumbling block that a vote was taken.
|
I agree with you. I know the Exec Commitee can give punishements but where there was no CBA and no rules broken I don't think they can. Also, I see the vote as something that should have taken place prior to the punishement being given and the two teams should have had an opportunity to explain their side to the other owners prior to the vote. So all owners could make an informed decision. Unfortunatly that would have taken place after the two teams could have spent the CAP space and that is what the Exec Commitee was afraid of so they punished first. Then asked for a vote with out giving the two teams the right to explain to the other owners their side. Even kicked them out of the meeting for the vote.
People fail to realize the "warning" the league gave was for teams going to and signing up players to big contracts. There was no "warning" for teams reworking contracts with players already under contract. No rules were broken. and honestly the contracts didn't change how much money the players got just when they got it.
The big issue the two teams can bring to the Arbitrator is the league approved the contracts when they had every opportunity to decline them or deny them. They do it all the time when they is something that is not right in the contracts so its not like they couldn't deny the contracts and tell both teams "per our agreement you are not allowed to do this." The problem is the league had to approve them or be seen colluding which would have gotten them into trouble. Now after the fact they want to punish which should not be allowed. If you couldn't punish then the league should be able to punish now. Besides how does 30 teams agree to break the law and punish two who chose not to break the law? Hopefully the Arbitrator see's it this way.