Then there is this from the 2011 CBA:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2011 CBA
ARTICLE 14 ENFORCEMENT OF THE SALARY CAP AND ROOKIE COMPENSATION POOL
Section 1. [...]
Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other transaction which in-cludes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this Section.
Section 3. System Arbitrator Proceeding: Any individual player or the NFLPA acting on that player’s or any number of players’ behalf, the NFL, and any Club may bring a proceeding before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Article 7, Article 12, Article 13 or Article 14, Section 2 of this Agreement. Issues of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding. Other than as set forth in Article 7, the complaining party shall bear the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the challenged conduct was in violation of such Article.
|
and
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2006 CBA same paragraph
Section 2. Circumvention: Neither the parties hereto, nor any Club or
player shall enter into any agreement, Player Contract, Offer Sheet or other
transaction which includes any terms that are designed to serve the purpose
of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected
by (a) the provisions of this Agreement with respect to Total Revenues,
Salary Cap, Entering Player Pool, and Minimum Team Salary, and (b) any
other term and provision of this Agreement. However, any conduct permitted
by this Agreement shall not be considered to be a violation of this
provision.
|
I found interesting the bolded part, and again, with limited knowledge of the complexities, this part would seem to confirm and strengthen the 2 teams' argument that the salary cap reductions can NOT be tied to actions which the league had already approved.
Hoophead, I would say that this language, present in both CBA's, specifically contradicts your contention that the use of the voidable option clause somehow can be vaguely attached to the well-defined list of options disallowed during an uncapped year.