Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
I get so baffled at how people just avoid the collusion part. Your "A" is the key. The owners were breaking the law. They agreed to break the law. They knew they couldn't do anything about the contracts or the two teams with pointing out they were breaking the law. So they APPROVE the contracts.
I like to think DS and JJ forced them into this situation. Either they not approve them and get caught or they approve them and be forced to eat it while not liking it. My problem is ...
1- the owners were already breaking the law. not a rule. the law. which in most peoples moral compasses is worse.
2- how is the league going to punish them after they already looked at the contracts, and agreed to them. Thats like the police telling you that you can speed then when you do they pull you over and give you a ticket for speeding.
|
1. The League would argue that they are not punishing the two teams for spending money in an uncapped year. They could have paid them as much in 2010 as they wanted, as long as they treated bonuses the same way signing bonuses are normally treated and as long as 2011 salary wasn't more than 30% lower than 2010 (as per 2006 CBA).
2. I agree with this, but you don't argue with the cop when he also has the power of the judge and jury.