Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.
Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.
Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?
|
One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.