Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Even though they approved it, that doesn't mean they can't hit back later if the new CBA stipulates they can, or more accurately, if the new CBA doesn't prohibit them for doing so.
The big issues here are that: 1) this penalty is being applied very inconsistently and 2) NFL teams attempted to collude.
I'll give you an example of something they did put in the new CBA: they took out the poison pill-contract guarantee. That was collectively bargained. No one put a poison pill contract in during the uncapped year BECAUSE teams were colluding (and had been for years). But also because they feared retribution.
|
I disagree. I think you're, at best, on shaky ground when you try to punish people for something that was perfectly within the rules when it was done.
I agree that something that makes it even harder is that they're in effect trying to punish the Redskins and Cowboys for not going along with what was really an illegal policy.
I think the other element here is that all the parties that have decided to punish these teams (The other teams and NFLPA) stand to personally gain from the process. Imagine if a state started paying jurors more for every guilty verdict, how quickly those sentences would get thrown out.