Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
You misunderstand me. By agreeing to change this year's and next year's salary cap, the NFLPA and NFL are making changes and operating under the procedures applicable to the current CBA. You, me and the whole world knows that the reason the NFL proposed the restructuring of this year's and next year's salaray cap is b/c of the actions taken under the prior 2006 CBA. Regardless of the motivation for imposing the modification to the CBA, the only question (I believe) before the arbiter is: (1) Under the current CBA, whether or not the NFL and NFLPA could agree to such a modification for the current and following year; and (2) if permissible, was the modification done in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing (currrent) CBA. Thus, the purpose behind the modification is most likely irrelevant to either (1) or (2).
|
I agree with all this, so here is my question to you:
Let's assume that your statement lines up fairly accurately with the grievance the 2 teams filed. Could, then, the arbitrator while looking at #1, decide that he has the right to look at the reason for the modification, which would in turn open up the whole 2006 CBA issue.