Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
I'm sure the Skins were concerned about the ethics of collusion for their reasoning to dump salary. lol
|
I agree. However, that doesn't make the point irrelevant.
When you do the right/legal thing, you should not get punished even if you do it for the wrong reasons. You may not get an "Atta Boy", but you certainly shouldn't be singled out sanction either.
You can't legislate morality, intention or beliefs. You can regulate actions.
Ultimately, as someone said, this is a cat fight amongst a bunch of owners. GGiven that the NFLPA has signed off on the collusive behavior and the private nature of the owner's agreement (i.e. - not an action by the govt.). Not sure what Snyder's legal grounds would be. I wonder if could file a complaint with the NLRB essentially alleging that the owners colluded and should be sanctioned regardless of the players subsequent approval of the collusion. If that were possible, that would really make it a pissing match.
Again, I think the whole D.Smith backroom deals thing CRed described probably has merit along with the whole "F you Danny Boy. Play by our rules or we
will get you!" aspect.
All in all, a bunch of very rich guys pissed about how one or two of them don't play nice with the other little rich boys and didn't share his toys after nap time.