Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
He can't unilaterally but if the appeal is that the issue occurred under the old CBA and not the new CBA then wouldn't he be obligated to look at the old CBA and see if there was a violation for which a punishment was warranted? If thats the appeal.
I think my problem is it seems your assuming a lot. That the warning was specific, that the warning was about shifting CAP money, that the league used the new CBA for an old CBA issue, and that the Arbitrator will not be able to do anything.
I think there is a lot we don't know as in was the warning specific? everything I'm hearing is no it wasn't, which is the loophole issue. The Arbitrator can't deal with owner vs owner issue's ... guess what maybe this will set a precident just like the loophole the two team found. The amazing thing is I'm guessing there is something in the CBA that makes the rules and powers always changing if need be for such situations.
|
The only thing I'm assuming is that the Commissioner apparently warned the teams 6+ times not to do SOMETHING, that he believes the Skins ignored those warnings and adversely affected competitive balance, and the Skins were subsequently punished for it. Here's a link substantiating that:
NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year | ProFootballTalk
What's not an assumption is that he has the authority to punish teams under those circumstances. That's specifically written into the NFL bylaws.
What's not an assumption is what authority the arbitrator has. That's specifically written into the CBA (both of them).
What's not an assumption is that the CBA (both of them) says nothing about whether the Commissioner can punish Clubs.