Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
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.
|
We know there was a "Warning". What was the "warning" for? not to overspend. If all the owners are making an agreement (with out the NFLPA's knowledge or agreement) to not overspend then they are trying to limit the high end costs. They were putting a CAP on spending. Thats collusion. No I'm not saying the owners all came out and said "don't spend more then X amount of dollars". But one can infer by the warning what they were doing.
Why didn't the league just send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" and require them to "restructure" the contracts to fall within the "warning"?
If thats not their job to review contracts and to make sure they fall with in the CBA then why send the contracts to the league at all? There would be no reason. The league easily and had the opportunity to send the contracts back to the two teams reminding them of the "warning" given and could have told them to restructure them or redo the contracts to fall with the perimaters.