Here is an interesting arguement from someone on another message board:
Quote:
I'm not talking about the 2010 collusion.
It's against the antitrust laws to combine to restrict trade or commerce. The agreement that contains our cap penalties restricts trade or commerce.
The catch is that collective bargaining is generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny. However, for an agreement to be exempt, it must be "the result of bona fide arms' length bargaining."
Everything I have read suggests that the NFL had the upper hand in the negotiations. Furthermore, apparently, the NFL was misleading about the purpose of the penalties. The NFLPA admits that they were "forced" into the agreement, and, if they had know the true reason for the penalties, they wouldn't have made the agreement.
That's the antitrust issue I'm talking about: What was the nature of the bargaining? There is a very strong possibility that the agreement is not exempt. Without that exemption, the agreement is almost certainly illegal, and, if so, we get our cap space back.
Those are the arguments that the Redskins didn't seem to make, but the NFLPA is now making these arguments.
|
It would be interesting if the judge see's it this way also. I'd love to have our CAP space back as a huge FU to Goodell and Mara for opening this can of worms when they could have let sleeping dogs lie.