Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
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.
|
For the 87th time, the warning was not "not to overspend"!
It was "not to unfairly shift cap hit into the uncapped year".
If you don't see the difference, let's start ignoring each other's posts.