Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.
Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?
If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.
|
The problem SBXVII isn't that all you say isn't true, the problem is, that the arbitrator, IF he sticks to a purely defined role from THIS CBA, then he won't look into those issues, and will rule strictly on the procedural issue that the Cowboys and Skins have supposedly raised. On that issue alone, the League has as good a case as the Skins/Cowboys. In other words, it may be patently unfair, but it was patently unfair
by the book. That, I believe is Hoophead's basic premise.
I believe, but we won't know until the arbitrator rules, that he(the arbitrator) will look into all aspects of the punishment, including the root from which it came, and if he does that, then he should rule in the Skins/Cowboys favor, because it is clear that the option clauses they used were valid negotiating tools in both the 2006 and the 2011 CBA, and the fact that no salary cap was present shouldn't restrict a team from using those same tools.