Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
I see it being overturned or significantly mitigated. You are right: this is not really an issue for the courts or for Goodell. It is an issue for the owner's meetings at the end of the month. The owners can (and I expect will) reduce this to something smaller.
|
Hold on, it could be a court issue for the players union. If the owners say there was an agreement then the owners colluded and the union would have an arguement that the owners were colluding during the lockout. But whats being said is there was an agreement but had the League not permitted the deals then the players union would have been tipped off and no CBA would have been signed and they would have gone to court over collusion.
Instead the League approved the deals in order to keep the peace and get a new CBA signed. They can't go back and now cry fould with out pointing out that they were colluding at the time which gives the NFLPA the right to take the owners to court over collusion during the lockout.
either they were colluding or they were not. If they were not then the Skins and Boys are off the hook. If the Skins and Boys broke an agreement then the owners just proved they were colluding against the NFLPA.