Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
Sorry, but how were they breaking the law if they weren't objecting to the teams spending in an uncapped year?
The League is arguing that they were fine with the big bonuses - just not how they were structured re: how much cap hit in which year.
Based on my reading of the 2006 CBA, the NFLPA would have accepted a rule covering this situation if it had been discussed in 2006. There are other similar rules covering similar situations with the intent to prevent the same thing from happening. And in 2010, they weren't in a position to amend the 2006 CBA with the NFLPA - they were spending their time negotiating a new CBA.
|
and I would be fine with them denying the contracts because of the way they were structured. But they didn't did they? Why? Because then it would have proven the owners were breaking the law.