Quote:
Originally Posted by irish
It being a shady move isnt up for debate, it is a shady move.
|
It may have been an asshole move, but it wasn't shady. In fact, it was the opposite of what I understand the colloquilism "shady" to mean. Contrary to the wishes of his business partners, Snyder said, quite blatantly, "I am going to take every advantage to which I am legally entitled."
The owners secret, unwritten agreement to act contrary to the intent of the uncapped year? Now
that was shady.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish
He'd be the one who would need to make the case, not the NFL and I dont think he has enough to make his case. How would he prove collusion was going on and he didnt want to be part of it?
|
How would he prove collusion?? Are you serious? the proof of the collusion is in the sanction itself - the NFL is fining them
for failing to collude with the other owners.
I am not going to the various links b/c I think it is pretty well documented that the owners attempted to create an agreement that no single owner would use the uncapped year to gain a competitive advantage over the other owners. Evidence of that would be the various statements saying that the Redskins were "warned" multiple times. I believe there are press releases to this effect.
Any such agreement would be a collusive agreement contrary to the intent of the uncapped year provision of the CBA. The NFLPA's subsequent acquiesence to the penalties imposed in return for a higher salary cap number does not change the illegality of the original collusion.
[If victim of a crime changes their mind and doesn't want to testify against the criminal, it doesn't change the criminality of the original act. If there is no independent evidence of the crime, then lacking victim cooperation it makes the crime hard to prove. Similarly, here, the NFLPA's subsequent acquiescience to the collusion might mitigate against a penalty being levied against the NFL for colluding to violate the prior CBA. It is, however, irrelevant to whether the collusion was illegal and whether the NFL can now sanction owners for refusing to participate in what was an illegal endeavor.]