Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
mm-hmm . Yup.
The NFL did not agree to their contract agreement whereby they would have one year of completely unrestricted free agency as a result of opting out of the CBA.
And heaven forbid that a team try and get an advantage within the rules. Had the NFL not been deceptive and acting in bad faith any team could have been able to seek the same advantage.
Teams could have but they didn't. Even with contractual and legal rights they chose not to. Is that not indicative that they were operating on something that they believe supersedes both of those? Why would they not? And for that matter, why didn't Dallas just go balls to the wall. Screw it, if you have contractual and legal rights why not just bring everyone in? Too much money for Jerry? Doubtful.
It will probably make things a lot easier for both of us if I just disclose that I'm not interested in the legal aspect of the situation. In that regard, I would assume that you probably have less interest in discussing the issue with me.
I'm not interested in this aspect because legality is, and never will be, the end-all to any discussion. Lets not pretend like it is. Some of the most hotly contested topics in our society fall directly on the line of legality and principle. We have decade long fights over some of the issues in spite of the legal aspect.
And this isn't to say that principle is where my stance solely originates from but I would say that it is a part.
Secondly, I have no interest in the topic because I don't share the same faith that I assume you have (at the very least not to the same degree) in the infallibility of the legal system. I'm not in any desire to fall into the "it's legal/illegal, so it must be" mindset because there are certainly things for which the legal stance isn't good enough. See hot topic issues again for an example.
Lastly, I'm not interested because ultimately it was agreed upon by the Players Union. Doesn't this make it no different than any of the other things that are agreed upon between the two groups? Or are we to differentiate based on one being not "legal enough"?
This really shouldn't be shocking for me to say I don't care to discuss the legal aspect. In between those finely plucked statements you quoted me with was some context that should have given you a big enough hint that I wasn't talking about the legality of the issue.
That's why I mentioned Casillas and his intent. Sure, it was within the rules but that doesn't change the fact that his intention was to get a benefit out of it that he otherwise wouldn't get. Listen to his comments where he says that deer antler (current drug of PED discussion, although not sure if anyone even knows if it works) is "nothing" and his comments how how he could "feel it".
Just as with him, Jerry had an intent to gain an advantage that he otherwise couldn't have.
Having the contractual or legal right to fall back on doesn't clean up a slimy move and I don't think we need to look much further than the 1st Amendment for numerous examples.
Nevermind a division rival was calling the shots on this one.
Well, that is his job being the leader of the group who has sole bargaining rights for the NFL. It would only make sense he is involved with working it out with the Players Union.
Whether or not Mara is a scumbag is one point, to expect a guy elected to a position of authority only to be told that he can't be trusted to act without bias is another. Why not just elect a guy without those concerns?