Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
What collusion are you fans talking about ..none of the other owners in any way shape or form tried to stop a player from making any money ...or any owner from making any money,this is all about how the contracts were structured anda majority commity choose a way for them to be done and it was "agreed upon"...4 choose to go back on their word as a owner to gain and unfair competitive advanage over the other owners ...more then some, in a salery cap move.Do you think these other 28 owners don't have lawyers ,do you not think the NFL thought this through,laws don't have to broken in busuness, business ethics count in court .
|
Oddly, not "agreed upon" in writing. And, why, pray tell, was it "agreed upon" that contracts couldn't be structured in a certain way? So cap couldn't be dumped (as we, admittedly, did). Now, what's wrong with that--why couldn't we structure our contracts this way? Answer: we'd have MORE MONEY TO PAY THE PLAYERS. The NFL effectively blocked that, with an unwritten "agreement." That, I believe, is collusion.
I would have thought that the collusion is pretty obvious to everyone--the NFL owners are a private club of super rich folk who make their own rules (and Danny and Jerry are admittedly among the worst of them!). You sound like Claude Raines in Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling in this casino!"
The other 28 "innocents" with their "business ethics" have their own shenanigans going on--don't be naive. I think all that ticker tape and Eli-love has clouded your judgment.
As for Graziano and "check mate" or whatever: when everyone from King to Clayton think the league has gone too far--and these are not people who love the skins, to say the least--that should tell you something.
Danny and Jerry may be asses, but this punishment is out of line.