Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

Ok, look this is my other arguement. You can't have it both ways.

1- You can't say there was no collusion and use the Skins as an example, then turn right around and say the Skins should be punished because they broke a warning.

2- Either there was collusion or not. IF there was no collusion then the Skins broke no rule and there should be no punishement. IF the Skins did break the rule (no matter that it was unwritten) then the rule, agreement, warning, whatever is the collusion.

col·lu·sion
   /kəˈluʒən/ Show Spelled[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law . a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

You admit 32 teams had an agreement. You admit it was to keep the costs down (which is the treacherous purposes part or comspiracy). So #1 of the definition fits exactly what the 32 owners planned to do. 2 teams refused to break the law which means 30 teams did.

Now lets look at the second definition: A secret understanding- which is exactly what it was, between two or more persons- 30 to be exact, maybe not illegal but definitly to defraud another of his or her rights- keeping the costs down so the players could not argue to up the CAP or show the owners were making more money then they stated they were or could. * now the last part of #2- to appear as advirsaries though in agreement- which is exactly what the 30 teams did and by them punishing the Cowboys and Redskins they have proven there was an agreement and these two teams broke it.

So yes it is collusion.

and I'll say again, the League USED the two teams as an example to show there was no collusion AT THE TIME so the NFLPA/players could not file suit. Now after the fact and all suits have been dropped, still afraid the NFLPA would retaliate the League brought them in and basically bullied them into agreeing with the punishment by telling them if they don't agree with the punishment and agree to not file a law suit then the CAP will be lowered causing your players to lose money. The NFLPA was forced to agree for as they represent the players and want to get them as much money as possible. It wasn't until after the NFLPA promised they would file a suit that the punishments were dolled out.

I really wonder if that is not collusion in itself also the agreement between the owners and NFLPA to not file a law suit and allow the 30 owners to punish, take something of value CAP away from the Redskins and Cowboys. But no one can say the League didn't commit collusion with their original unwritten agreement. If there was no punishment then there is no proof of the collusion which is why the NFLPA has not filed a suit, but now that the other owners want to punish and got an agreement from the NFLPA they felt comfortable in dishing out their punishment.