Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It'll be interesting to see if the argument that someone here made concerning the timing of the penalty was a violation in his eyes. Perhaps technically the penalty was imposed without proper procedure simply based on the timing. I think that may be the only decent procedural argument that can be made. The vote, post-facto, didn't magically make the penalty timely. Both teams were penalized in violation of the CBA that existed on March 13th. Maybe.

The CBA doesn't say anything about how the League can punish its Clubs, and the arbitrator doesn't have any power to decide whether a penalty was appropriate.

The arbitrator can only say that an action was unfair under the CBA.

IMO, the choices are:
- The CBA was improperly modified
- Based on the way "Salary Cap" is defined throughout the document, the modification doesn't make sense - so the modification needs to be dropped or the whole document needs to be rewritten.

[skinsguy]

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Alright HoopheadVII, you're making more sense to me now. Honestly, at this point, I'd be OK with the league reducing the amount of cap penalty and being done with it. They can't take back how it affected the team this season. And, maybe in some ways, it helped to make the Redskins a bit more "grounded" in their free agency approach than what some felt they were going to be this year before the cap penalties.

I would like to see exactly where in the 2006 CBA that it talks about prohibiting of the re-structuring that the 'skins and the 'boys did in 2010. I didn't see that specifically in the section where I assumed it should have been?

I didn't say it prohibits exactly what the Skins did. It addresses other similar ways of doing what the Skins did.

I said that punishing the Skins otherwise for doing what the Skins did is not evidence of collusion, because the CBA has clauses that try to accomplish the same thing.