Does collusion go two ways?

[CowboyRoy]

Im just curious................because you know some of these cats are talking to each other telling each other not to sign. Like its some kind thing with the players that they are going to fight the franchise tag thing by not signing.

Does that also apply to agents working together to collude about holding out or not signing the tag?

Who gets in trouble for that?

 

[AsthmaField]

Nope. That is a one way street brother.

Agents and clients can do it all day long. Teams can't.

 

[conner01]

Nope
Only those who control the money can collude
Owners control the salaries
It's like price fixing for a business
Customer have no ability to control the prices, only the business can
Players talking or even agents working together to try to drive up prices can't collude since they have no control over the money
Personally I see why players aren't covered but to me agents are a bit different because in some ways they do effect the money but they don't control it

 

[Stash]

Im just curious................because you know some of these cats are talking to each other telling each other not to sign. Like its some kind thing with the players that they are going to fight the franchise tag thing by not signing.

Does that also apply to agents working together to collude about holding out or not signing the tag?

Who gets in trouble for that?

Take this for what it's worth, but former NFL GM Bill Polian was completely dismissive of any of the 'collusion' talk. He said it was damage control being attempted by DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA in an effort to appear relevant and to take some attention away from the fact that they got pantsed in the last labor negotiation.

He said that it was impossible to prove and any such talk should be disregarded.

 

[Galian Beast]

col·lu·sion
noun

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

 

[DFWJC]

Im just curious................because you know some of these cats are talking to each other telling each other not to sign. Like its some kind thing with the players that they are going to fight the franchise tag thing by not signing.

Does that also apply to agents working together to collude about holding out or not signing the tag?

Who gets in trouble for that?

It probably should but it doesn't.
I'm sure part of the hold up is that the same agent represents the top two franchised players at the same position.
But it's legal

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Im just curious................because you know some of these cats are talking to each other telling each other not to sign. Like its some kind thing with the players that they are going to fight the franchise tag thing by not signing.

Does that also apply to agents working together to collude about holding out or not signing the tag?

Who gets in trouble for that?

of course it does.

it is just one is deemed legal, one is deemed illegal. it's exactly the same behavior and the same goals. employers simply have less rights

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

of course it does.

it is just one is deemed legal, one is deemed illegal. it's exactly the same behavior and the same goals. employers simply have less rights

This. If it were illegal among employees, we would have no Unions.

 

[Longboysfan]

I thought the other way.
The players own the product... Themselves.
They could get together and set the market price higher than the actual value.
So the buyers - the owners - have to pay more for a product.

 

[xwalker]

Im just curious................because you know some of these cats are talking to each other telling each other not to sign. Like its some kind thing with the players that they are going to fight the franchise tag thing by not signing.

Does that also apply to agents working together to collude about holding out or not signing the tag?

Who gets in trouble for that?

No, see Labor Unions.

 

[Cowboys22]

There can be no collusion in this case because the Cowboys have a legally agreed to contract offer on the table. That being the franchise tag offer. They are under no obligation to offer 1 penny more. Talking to the Broncos does not equate to collusion. Teams talk about lots of things all the time. Good luck proving they have an illegal agreement in place. There is nothing wrong with both teams informing the other in a casual conversation that they have no plans to offer CJ money. Either team could break their word at any time. As long as the franchise offer is on the table, both teams are covered.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

There can be no collusion in this case because the Cowboys have a legally agreed to contract offer on the table.

There *could be*, I just doubt there is and am even less likely to believe they can prove it.

 

[links18]

That's called "collective bargaining."

 

[Nightman]

Actually MLB put the collusion clause in their CBA because the Dodgers thought Koufax and Drysdale were working in unison to get new deals. I'm no expert but I think it can work both ways, it's just that teams may not want to anger potential free agents.

-Collusion in baseball is formally defined in the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs

 

[dbonham]

Actually MLB put the collusion clause in their CBA because the Dodgers thought Koufax and Drysdale were working in unison to get new deals. I'm no expert but I think it can work both ways, it's just that teams may not want to anger potential free agents.

-Collusion in baseball is formally defined in the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs

That may be in their CBA but it is not in the NFL's nor is it the legal definition

 

[Nightman]

That may be in their CBA but it is not in the NFL's nor is it the legal definition

Can Dez legally say " I won't sign unless Murray gets 40m. It is a both of us or neither one"?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In a case like Condon, I absolutely think it is Collusion. If you get enough high profile players, especially at a single position, you can drive the market. You can influence the market. If Dez does refuse to sign his Tag and refuse contract options, it is a clear sign, IMO, that Condon or agencies like his, are influencing the market. It's not against the rules but it probably should be considered because it's having the same effect as if it were teams who were colluding to drive the market.

 

[Craig]

Can Dez legally say " I won't sign unless Murray gets 40m. It is a both of us or neither one"?

Of course he could.

 

[casmith07]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: yes, it can be, if both parties (the employees' labor union and the employer) collectively bargain to penalize or otherwise "write-in" collusion rules or parameters for employee relations.

 

[burmafrd]

one thing you have to realize that just because something is technically legal does not mean it is morally or ethically correct.