Player collusion in Seattle?

**arnie_uk** · 04-04-2013, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

Yes. If I am delusional than so it Tony Agnone. So are all the agents feeding info to Aaron Wilson. So are all of the agents complaining to the NFLPA.

Priceless.

1) Stars will always get paid. But what if you are not a star? You have to also look at the aggregate.

And you have to look at why Miami is overpaying.

1) They want stadium funding
2) Ireland is in a contract year (hot seat)

Gee did you notice that Miami also introduced a new logo? There are making a concerted effort to get fans to come to Dolphins games to get more tax money for the stadium.

Well then you have to look at why teams aren't spending. The MAJORITY are tight against the cap... Can't spend money you don't have

**moose10101** · 04-04-2013, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

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?

1) They are separate (American Needle v. NFL)

2) AFAIK, that determination was pushed to lower courts. SC did not rule on whether the NFL was acting in an anticompetitive way under Sherman.

**NjRavensFan** · 04-04-2013, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

Huff was All Pro 2010. As was John Abraham (currently unsigned).

Nothing I say will convince you anyway.

Abraham is ancient. Huff graded out much worse than he actually is because he was playing out of position in the middle of a terrible defense. And as you pointed out yourself, those guys were All Pros THREE SEASONS AGO. Look who got paid: QBs, WRs, and young, up and coming defensive players. Just because older defensive veterans are not getting the contracts they used to have doesn't mean the owners are somehow colluding to spend less. It just means they are spending differently. Literally all evidence shows this to be true.

**bt12483** · 04-04-2013, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Answer this question. What does any of this have to do with what your "evidence"?

If you knew the answer to my question you would know.

**moose10101** · 04-04-2013, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

Huff was All Pro 2010. As was John Abraham (currently unsigned).

Nothing I say will convince you anyway.

Which was .... drum roll ..... THREE YEARS AGO. I knew you would bring up Huff, a player who's universally considered to have not come close to his potential. News flash: he's not an All Pro; he's a one-time FORMER All Pro.

What would convince me is a logical argument backed up with facts. You've presented neither.

**Haloti92** · 04-04-2013, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

1) They are separate (American Needle v. NFL)

2) AFAIK, that determination was pushed to lower courts. SC did not rule on whether the NFL was acting in an anticompetitive way under Sherman.

His questions are entirely moot in terms of this issue anyway.

The CBA is what governs the players ability to seek redress here, not the Sherman Act.

This is why the NFLPA had to decertify in order for players to sue the NFL on antitrust grounds during the recent labor fight (Brady vs. NFL).

The CBA, however, does include language that forbids collusion by owners to depress players' salaries. But this is obvious.

As you know (but he may not know), no one here is defending the owners' non-existent rights to collude, we are simply saying there is no evidence of collusion (currently).

**bt12483** · 04-04-2013, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

1) They are separate (American Needle v. NFL)

2) AFAIK, that determination was pushed to lower courts. SC did not rule on whether the NFL was acting in an anticompetitive way under Sherman.

So if they are separate...are they allowed to agree on the prices of the free agent market in view of Sherman section 1?

**arnie_uk** · 04-04-2013, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

His questions are entirely moot in terms of this issue anyway.

The CBA is what governs the players ability to seek redress here, not the Sherman Act.

This is why the NFLPA had to de-certify in order for players to sue the NFL on antitrust grounds during the recent labor fight (Brady vs. NFL).

The CBA, however, does include language that forbids collusion by owners to depress players' salaries. But this is obvious.

As you know (but he may not know), no one here is defending the owners non-existent rights to collude, we are simply saying there is no evidence of collusion.

Exactly, the money is being spent, just not on the older guys.

**NCRAVEN** · 04-04-2013, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

If you knew the answer to my question you would know.

Deflection noted.

**jonboy79** · 04-04-2013, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by bt12483

Yes. If I am delusional than so it Tony Agnone. So are all the agents feeding info to Aaron Wilson. So are all of the agents complaining to the NFLPA.

Priceless.

1) Stars will always get paid. But what if you are not a star? You have to also look at the aggregate.

And you have to look at why Miami is overpaying.

1) They want stadium funding
2) Ireland is in a contract year (hot seat)

Gee did you notice that Miami also introduced a new logo? There are making a concerted effort to get fans to come to Dolphins games to get more tax money for the stadium.

agents complaining becuase their paychecks are shrinking proves ZERO.
ZERO. had to say that twice for impact.
So MIA is not part of the "collusion"
I guess Cleveland is exempt as well. Basically all the teams with substantial capspace are not par tof the collusion? Only those tight against the cap are colluding?

**bt12483** · 04-04-2013, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

His questions are entirely moot in terms of this issue anyway.

The CBA is what governs the players ability to seek redress here, not the Sherman Act.

This is why the NFLPA had to de-certify in order for players to sue the NFL on antitrust grounds during the recent labor fight (Brady vs. NFL).

Indeed. But once they decertify the applicable law is...the Sherman Act.

Originally Posted by Haloti92

As you know (but he may not know), no one here is defending the owners non-existent rights to collude, we are simply saying there is no evidence of collusion.

Yet.

Perhaps there is a major misunderstanding.

All I am saying is that the current comments by the likes of Aaron Wilson and this new letter by D Smith support my suspicion of collusion. Is there acutal collusion? I cannot say - I am not the one fielding offers from the various teams.

Would I be suspicious if I talk to 5 different teams and they all just so happen to arrive at a similar deal?

Is that a mere coincidence?

Is the teams parallel conduct independent, or concerted?

**jonboy79** · 04-04-2013, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by arnie_uk

Exactly, the money is being spent, just not on the older guys.

maybe it's age based discrimination??? Are the owners colluding against the older players? that would be more palatable.

It's a young man's game... money is only being spent on players coming off their Rookie deals. I thoguth that was obvious, and is no basis for collusion, it's a CHOICE to spend on younger players.