[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If I understood Smith's argument, it is that the lower end teams are not using all the available supplemental funds and thus paying less total salary. Well that was what the salary floor was supposed to enforce, that every team met the minimums, not meet the minimum floor + use all available supplemental funds. Now that there is no floor, I don't quite understand the argument that the lower end teams have to spend all that is allocated, since theoretically the could sign each player to a vet minimum deal. Further, Smith said they were going to be watching the deals to see that player salaries didn't decline in an uncapped year, but again uncapped also means no floor, and I think more teams will take advantage of that fact rather than looking to break the bank on players, heck I don't really even expect us to break the bank, and that is not what the NFLPA expected at all.

thats what i am not sure about either but my take on it is that the NFLPA back when this deal was struck in 93 (?) made a provision for the uncapped year to protect against cheap low rev teams from not spending any money on players (in the uncapped year = no floor) by forcing high rev teams to give to the low rev teams so that low rev teams couldnt say they didnt have the money.