Dude, there's NO need for that here.
A simple message board debate should be far more easier from a criticism standpoint than the past three years of the Socratic method you've had in law school.
Printable View
The problem with your tack here is that the only possible way the claim can be true is if the owners are spending a smaller percentage of the cap than usual. I see no evidence of this at all (admittedly, I am only eyeballing general, preliminary figures).
Anecdotal claims about specific players signing for less than they "should" means nothing here. Literally nothing. Unless it goes hand in hand with the owners somehow benefiting (i.e. spending less money, keeping more money).
Since teams still have months to finalize their rosters and spend their remaining cap space, there is no possible way any claim can have any merit right now even if eventually it does gain merit.
Accusations or nebulous suspicions by self-interested parties should be assigned no weight, imo, without at least some evidential support.
to me it's simple mathematics plus the huge amount of FAs available. Teams like the Ravens just signed their QB to a huge contract, so it's going to limit other positions (especially teams who are have higher cap hits at the QB position). Teams like Miami who have a QB and LT on their rookie contracts can go out and sign Mike Wallace, Ellerbe, etc.
His point being AW is just regurgitating what he's heard in the grapevine, not something he has suspected itself, so its all wrapped up in one bundle, its no different evidence, sorry its not a different suspicion because he's repeating what he's been told.
That's like me telling a mate here in the uk, collusion might be happening then you trying to say that's evidence because I said it.....
I'd love to see an agent call BS using the NFLPA numbers, now that we know that those numbers are totally eff'd:
http://russellstreetreport.com/forum...ens-Cap-Update
How can you "forget" to include a player who signed his $2 million tender more than a week ago? And how can you apply a bonus that wasn't paid? What an embarrassment. This would feed right into the agents' paranoia.
Please show a time where FA market was soft and the NFLPA did not claim collusion.
No one is disputing that the FA market is soft. The issue is why.
The salary cap has not been raised as much in recent years. There is a new rookie salary cap/pool. There is now a salary cap floor. QBs are signing increasingly large contracts. Two of the biggest spending teams (Cowboys and Redskins) are temporarily penalized and prevented from entering the fray as much as usual (penalties which the NFLPA inexplicably supported). All facts and possible reasons. Owner collusion? Not a fact, and no evidence thus far; either in terms communication/cooperation between owners, or even as far as anyone can tell, in terms of overall cap spending by clubs.
This is ONE poster who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. He just wants his claims to be validated. Logic is not going to change this dude's mind, plenty of people have refuted what he's said and he's just continued to repeat himself. Only thing to do is stop arguing with him so the thread goes away.
You don't know what parameters the NFLPA is using when generating their list. And I never said the NFLPA was a good union anyway. In fact, they are quite shitty in comparison to other sports unions.
I don't know the offers because I am not an agent. And I am not a beat reporter with inside contacts. All I can see are the deals that have been signed. And to me it seems there are a plethora of 1 year, low $$ contracts.
And I am not going to do a line item comparison with previous years when this free agency period isn't even over, we are only in year 2 of the rookie wage scale system, and as I've already stated - one year likely isn't enough to show a clear pattern.
But I also don't expect this issue to go away.
Actually I see a bunch of people that have no fucking clue about antitrust regulations.
Someone here please answer the following:
1) Are the 32 NFL teams viewed as 1 entity, or 32 separate entities?
2) How does the answer to 1) impact application of section 1 of the Sherman Act with regards to the market for player contracts and potential collusion?