Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
I agree with that.
However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.
On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.
Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.
As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:
1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.
2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.
3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.
4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.
|
I am glad we agree that the Skins did nothing wrong by the letter of the CBA.
Everything else I understand what your views and points are.
Personally, I hope the arbitrator rules in the Skins/Cowboys favor, or at least scares the NFL enough that they reduce the sanctions, even if that means leaving this year's in place and writing off next year's.