Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
You could make that argument if the 2006 CBA didn't have multiple clauses intended to keep clubs from shifting too much cap hit into a potential uncapped year. The League and the NFLPA foresaw an uncapped year, what it meant, and how it should be handled. There were clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from earlier years into an uncapped year and clauses governing how much cap hit could be shifted from a future year into the final uncapped year.
They didn't foresee people writing in void clauses with massive payback amounts that would never be exercised, just so they could call the voidable years "under player control".
It's not collusion if the NFLPA clearly agreed to the principle.
|
Went back and looked through about 5-8 pages and didn't see where you highlighted the clauses you reference and I have some recollection that you did so. Can you either repost or just point me to them? I think you are probably right but there is also the legal principle that if you list some things but not others than the unlisted are excluded from the list - it's not quite that cut and dry but it may be applicable. As you say, however, this is an agreement between the players and the owners so the question is how is that adjudged in a dispute between a club in the NFL.
Which reminds of another basis for which the NFL could argue for the dismissal - simply that, as they are not parties, individually, to the CBA, the Skins and Cowboys have no standing to dispute the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.