Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopheadVII
You seem to be confusing "paying as much as they want in an uncapped year" with "unfairly shifting salary cap hit from capped year to uncapped year." They're two different things
Punishing for the former would likely constitute illegal collusion.
The part of my post you highlighted refers to the latter. It's clear they agreed this principle with the NFLPA because there are multiple clauses in the 2006 CBA that specifically prevent teams from doing this.
The League would argue that they didn't disapprove the contracts because it would prove collusion, they're saying they didn't disapprove the contracts within 10 days because that would have created an unnecessary discussion over something relatively small while the League and NFLPA were in the middle of much bigger discussions.
I'm guessing the real reason is that the Commissioner wasn't going to move on this until he got pressure from enough owners that he had to take action - and those complaints didn't come within the 10 day window for disapproval.
|
Again missing the point. It's either collusion or it's not. You can't say it was not collusion but had the league disapproved the contracts it would have been.
Collusion was there. The only thing disapproving the contracts would have done is given the NFLPA proof that there was collusion.
Also, if there was no collusion then Goodell had no reason to meet with the NFLPA and bribe, or strong arm them with the threat of lowering the CAP if they didn't agree with the punishment for both teams. Seriously the NFLPA could care less what the owners do with each other.