Quote:
Originally Posted by tshile
I'm curious if this is your opinion or if this is something that's obvious/clear that I've missed.
If the Redskins are interested in being reimbursed for a penalty they saw to be unfit, why would they root against the NFL PA?
Is it because the NFL PA's sole interest is in invalidating the CBA and getting a better deal?
I ask because I'm curious because I don't know a lot about this.... I actually thought all of this was resolved and had no idea there was a ruling pending by the appeals court still out there...
I don't recall ever hearing the end goals being the CBA being revisited. If that's the end game then I may root against the NFL PA too - they're awful at negotiating and reopening the CBA will just cause more lockouts/problems for a second deal the inevitably screws over the PA anyways. That juice would not be worth the squeeze.
|
If the NFLPA wins a lawsuit that says the NFL is guilty of collusion, it opens the flood gates to invalidating the NFL anti trust exemption. It's in no way beneficial to the Redskins (or Cowboys who also had a smaller penalty) to recoup a "trivial" amount of salary cap space and at the same time undercut the whole basis of the NFL's CBA structure. Mostly, this is my opinion, but it was hashed out in depth in the various salary cap penalty threads and articles that were published at the same time as the original rulings were made.
Put it this way: If you had a business, and due to unfair practices you lost $300 dollars. You would be right to go after the $300, but in order to get it, you would cost yourself $30,000. Would you do that for the sake of being right, or would you right it off, make a mental note, and when the time is right get the $300 back in other ways.
That's the ratio the Redskins are looking at with the salary cap, and siding with the NFLPA in a collusion case.