Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
You just:
A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.
B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did
C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.
I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.
I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.
|
Here in lies the problem, the teams were warned as we know but not warned about exactly what the Skins did. You keep making it sound like they were warned not to push CAP all into one year when they were not. and this is where I see the appeal starting.