Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert
Im thinking the way the NFL sees it is that the Redskins didnt necessarily sign a new player during 2010 to a massive FA contract. Rather they just "dumped" money of existing contracts of players that were already under contract, in order to free up money in future years and to get in good fiscal shape.
Still collusion. Still ridiculous. But i can see why other owners, even though acting cullusive, would be upset. But complete bs
|
Um, collusion or not the NFL had to sign off on the contracts. Someone at the NFL level needs to be fired for not performing their job in denying the contracts or failing to catch this last year when the deals were sent to the NFL for approval.
I really don't care how they got to free up the money.... there was no CBA. With out a CBA all the rules were not in play. Collusion would be when all the owners agree to something that basically corners the market and the players, fans, and other owners are being hurt in some manner.
#1- who's getting hurt?
#2- not all the owners did it
#3- the owners didn't corner the market
Am I wrong?