Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
Thank you for the nice words.
Teams that underspent had the right to do so - I believe no salary cap meant no salary floor either.
I'll have to look for the details of Peppers contract, but I think I saw somewhere that the original numbers in the oft-seen graphic are incorrect.
On the last part, I'm sure they can complain all they want, but acting like a whiny two-year old towards a powerful Commissioner probably does more harm than good.
In the end, it's a club of 32 competitors that hired a Commissioner and gave him strong powers to settle disputes between them (and actually get things done.) Ultimately, he reports to the group of 32. Individuals can whine to him, but he answers to the 32.
|
Woow. time out. you pointed out that there were rules from the 2006 CBA that were still in place regarding the CAP and how teams could spend. Either there was a CAP or there was not. I guess what I'm getting at is the same rules that apply for how much teams can over spend apply to how much teams can underspend.
which is it. was there a rule or were there no rules? Cause this is the big arguement that there was no rules because the CBA expired and there was no CAP. and if this is correct then the Skins and Boys did nothing wrong and should not be punished. No matter how much the other 30 teams don't like it.