Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.
Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.
Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.
|
I believe you're missing the point.
Keeping people from paying as much as they want for players in an uncapped year = illegal collusion.
Keeping people from shifting too much salary cap hit into an uncapped year <> illegal collusion.
The 2006 CBA had several clauses agreed between the League and the NFLPA to prevent the latter. It's clear they agreed on the principle.