Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.
Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.
In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.
Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).
The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.
|
I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.
The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?