Unfortunately our depth at RB includes rookie James White from U Wisconsin and I think we can all agree that running backs from Wisconsin rarely pan out in the NFL.
Who is spinning here?
Not acknowledging whether the Broncos gained a competitive advantage is de facto proof that they did? What kind of logic is that? It's not logic based at all.
Since you are basing your argument on Henderson's statement, let's look at some more of the statement:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep17.html
So, for review. He didn't say one way or the other whether or not the club gained a competitive advantage. But he does acknowledge clearly, and plainly, that the agreements were designed to help the club cope with cash flow issues while fronting their portion of the costs of the new stadium. I.E., if not for the stadium being built, they would not have had a reason to use such agreements.Harold Henderson, the chairman of the Management Council and the NFL's executive vice president of labor relations, confirmed in a written statement released by the league that "the individuals responsible for the violations are no longer with the team" and that the Broncos "have been cooperative throughout the investigation." Henderson did not directly address the issue of whether the club gained a competitive advantage but said the Broncos circumvented the cap to help pay for costs related to the construction of Invesco Field at Mile High.
"The investigation resulted in the discovery of undisclosed agreements between the club and Broncos players during the same period [1996-1998] pursuant to which various players agreed to defer certain compensation in exchange for a commitment to pay interest on the deferred amounts," Henderson said in the statement. "These agreements were plainly designed to help the club cope with seasonal cash flow problems exacerbated by the Broncos' need to fund front-end expenditures associated with development of the new stadium in Denver."
It did create salary cap "accounting issues" (his words), and the club accepted the penalties imposed.
But your logic that just because he didn't say one way or the other whether or not the club gained a competitive advantage defaults to meaning that he thinks they did is kind of silly. He could have just as easily answered that they did gain a competitive advantage. Instead, he agrees with the Club that the motive behind these agreements was to help cash-flow payments for the new stadium.
Did Joel move to Oklahoma and start selling insurance?
#longwinded↑
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ref-he...133404249.html
A Ref Helped The Patriots Avoid A Penalty On The Jets' Game-Ending Blocked Field Goal
I don't think it's a big deal but I'm not buying the player safety excuse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)