Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
As explained earlier in the thread: - Punishing teams for overspending in an Uncapped Year would probably be illegal collusion
- Punishing teams for shifting salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year is not illegal collusion. The 2006 CBA contained multiple clauses prohibiting shifting too much salary cap hit into an Uncapped Year
- Mara has said the Clubs are being punished for shifting too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year
- The NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner specific authority to discipline clubs up to certain limits if he believes in his sole discretion that they acted in a way detrimental to the League and adversely affected competitive balance.
- The League has said the the Commissioner warned Clubs not to try to shift too much cap hit into the Uncapped Year in advance
- The League does not approve contracts - it has the right to veto them
- The NFL Executive Committee is not the same as the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. The MCEC reports to the Commissioner who reports to the Executive Committee.
The only reason this is a discussion at all is that either the Commissioner or other owners decided they wanted to punish the two Clubs with a different - less harsh - punishment than what the Commissioner is specifically given the authority to impose in the NFL Bylaws.
As for what other teams did similarly, I'd be happy to see specific examples. The Peppers contract was the one offered as an example, but that seems to be a case of mistaken reporting.
The real argument the Skins have is that, had they been told in time that they couldn't structure the Haynesworth contract the way they did, the Skins would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the uncapped 2010 League Year instead of waiting to July to trade him to the Pats. Cutting him would have legitimately caused all of his $21m signing bonus to hit in 2010, and he would be done with. EVEN IF you think what the Skins did was unfair, they should only be on the hook for 3 years x $3m from Hall's bonus (that would have been a signing bonus otherwise). $36m is way over the top. |
I'll read the rest later as I gotta get going from work but your just looking at your #1 and #2.... the punishement is not collusion. The agreement the 30 owners had to keep costs down with out the NFLPA's approval is collusion. The issue is the NFLPA didn't have definite proof that the owners were colluding which is why when the new CBA was signed there was an agreement between both sides that the NFLPA gave up their right to file a law suit. The meeting the Exec Committee and the NFLPA had was to remind them of the agreement and to blackmail them into agreeing or the CAP would be lowered for their players for each team.
The punishement is proof their was an agreement between the owners to keep the costs down against the uncapped year. which there should not have been an agreement because thats colluding unless the players agreed to it.