Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
.
I'll tell you why. I'm still sticking by the issue that the agreement the owners had between each other to keep costs down was collusion. They didn't want the NFLPA to find out cause it would have opened them up to a law suit. The league waited until after the new CBA was agreed upon, agreed to drop all rights of law suits, and only then did they pull in the NFLPA Rep and remind him of his dropped rights and to put icing on the cake they pointed out that they would conveniently keep the CAP for each team where it is if they agreed to the punishment. Black mail. To not agree meant a lower CAP for each team. The league was afraid of what the NFLPA woud do so they had to black mail/bribe them into not taking action.
|
Why do you keep stating over and over that the owners had an agreement to keep costs down as though it's fact? Nothing in this case shows evidence of that (other than cynical speculation).
According to the league, the Skins could have given Haynesworth and Hall the exact same amount of money, paid to the players at exactly the same time if they hadn't tried to shift all of the cap hit into 2010.
Actual cash paid is relevant to accusations of collusion. Salary cap hit is an accounting construct for the purposes of keeping competitive balance. They could have given the players the same cash at the same time.