Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?
|
it seems that you are saying collusion requires that players be denied the right to make money. I don't think that's the case, collusion simply means that all parties secretly agree to an act with the intent to hurt or decieve others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dictionary.com
col·lu·sion
[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy
|
In this case, I think it is clear that the owners were trying to weaken the players negotiating will by behind the scenes agreements on how to treat uncapped year. Remeber, the uncapped year was a provision that was called for in the previously negotiated CBA. More to the point, the players accepted the CBA with the uncapped year in the belief that the fear of it would be a constraint on the owners, but the owners turned around and tried to keep an arbitrary and secret salary cap (while not imposing a floor). That is the collusion being spoken about here.