Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Exactly, with no salary cap in place per the then-effective collective bargaining agreement, doing anything to restrict salary growth that was not written into the then-effective CBA is tantamount to collusion.
The fact that owners are crying that franchise tag amounts went up shows they were expressly trying to hold player salaries down by instituting this verbal warning / handshake agreement.
This sucker has no chance of standing, NFLPA acquiescence or not.
|
I agree that it would be unfair, and evidence of illegal collusion if owners were punishing the Skins and Cowboys for pushing up the value of the franchise tag at certain positions.
However, this is one writer's (Breer's) speculation as to why certain owners might have generally been upset with the signings, and another writer (Graziano) taking that speculation as fact and running with it. Here's the logic used:
Breer:
- It's been reported that multiple teams are upset with the way the Skins and Cowboys structured the Austin, Haynesworth, and Hall contracts.
- 29 teams voted to support the sanctions against the Skins and Cowboys.
- I can think of three teams that were affected by the franchise tags going up at those positions.
Graziano:
- Those three teams are completely full of it!
- I know the NFL gave us a different reason why the owners were upset, but Breer says these three teams have reason to complain, and therefore they must be behind the 29-2-1 vote, and therefore they are demonstrating evidence of illegal collusion.
I would love for the arbitrator to give the Redskins relief (while somehow still managing to screw the Cowboys), but it won't be based on this logic if he does.