Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
|
The first arguement for the NFL is one everyone is talking about the signed agreement not to persue collusion. but the second arguement....
Quote:
|
Second, the mere absence of most teams "taking advantage" of an uncapped season does not prove collusion. Teams could have decided, on their own, to refrain from spending an unusually large amount of their owners' money in 2010. By definition, decisions by individual teams do not constitute collusion.
|
is BS. The arguement would be a good arguement had the Redsksins and Cowboys not been punished. Their arguement would stand pretty good. But why then punish two teams if the low spending was volentary? By punishing two teams for "violating the spirit of the CAP" in which there was no CAP proves in itself there was an agreement (spirit of a CAP).
What should have happened because there was no CAP in place is no punishment to anyone whether they spent below the floor or went over the CAP. When the new CBA and CAP was in place then all teams needed to be below the CAP. The Skins and Boys were. Thus no punishment.
There was a reason for a "uncapped" year. One could argue the NFL violated "the spirit of the uncapped" year. The purpose it was put into the CBA was to force the owners and players to get an agreement prior to it and if it didn't then they new spending $$$ could be fair game. The punishing of two teams for violating the "spirit of the CAP" when there was no cap proves their was some form of agreement between all the owners and they felt the need to punish two teams for their "competative advantage" the other owners failed to take advantage of.