Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
If the NFLPA gets past this first hurdle, they get to dig for the necessary proof. At this stage, the players do not need to prove the specific number. Also, despite the additional fluff from the bloggers, the quotes from Mara, Goodell and McCaskey show an agreement of some type existed during the uncapped year and that it was intended to limit player contracts in some fashion.
Again, unless the waiver is applicable, the NFLPA is going to get ask Mr. Mara all about the "one-year loop hole" and ask Mr. Goodell to fully explain what rules he was talking about when he said “[T]he rules were articulated. . . . [T]he rules were quite clear.”
I, for one, hope the NFL loses the waiver argument. I would love to be a fly on the wall for Mr. Mara's deposition.
|
If an agreement is illegal (as would be the case with collusion) wouldn't any agreement meant to prevent the NFLPA from suing be irrelevant?
For example in this case:
Quote:
|
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello responded to the players' claims with a comment: "The filing of these claims is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement and separately by an agreement signed by the players' attorneys last August.
|
IE would the clause in the CBA preventing the NFLPA from filing suit be irrelevant in the case of the NFL Owners breaking the law as it's my limited understanding that the law is above any such clause