![]() |
|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
|
Thread Tools
![]() |
Display Modes
![]() |
|
![]() |
#9 | ||||
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess
Quote:
If several of the entities violate the rules of the organization and cause damages to other entities (in this case, imposing a penalty for legally restructuring contracts (both in that they violated no govt. imposed restrictions and did not violate the rules of the joint venture)), each entity has the right to sue each other and the joint venture itself for the damages caused to their distinct business entity - just like two buisness partners in a legal partnership can sue each other or over there rights within partnership. Quote:
You and I have very different understandings of the word "legit". It may be "business as usual", but that does not make it "legit". Quote:
"Hey, NFLPA, look, we had this agreement to violate the CBA while negotiations were taking place. However, since you dropped all allegations of "collusion" as part of the final settlement on the CBA, you can't sue us for it now. Sorry about that - our bad. .... Oh by the way, a couple of teams didn't want to participate in the collusion, so we are going to hammer them on the salary cap. If you don't agree with that, well we will just have to lower the cap for everyone or you can sign off on the deal and we will be able to keep the cap up for all the other teams. So ... whatcha gonna do?" The subsequent acts of ratification don't change the fact that, at the time of uncapped year, several owners secretly agreed not to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the uncapped year and subsequently decided to selectively punish two of them that did. Quote:
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. |
||||
![]() |
|
|