Does collusion go two ways?

[AbeBeta]

Nope. That is a one way street brother.

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

Gee maybe because agents and clients aren't the ones in power?

 

[CCBoy]

Gee maybe because agents and clients aren't the ones in power?

Collusion allowed where the parties affected benefit from improved cost or rewards.

Both Thomas and Bryant benefitted from above average considerations. Second only to a standard of conduct prior to now, with Johnson.

 

[CCBoy]

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.

Condon already has his hand in the mix with receivers who will be doing the very same thing next season.

 

[CCBoy]

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.

Their very agreement then is a form of collusion between two parties.

 

[Bluefin]

If the Cowboys and Dez Bryant can’t reach an agreement for a long-term deal by Wednesday, the NFL players’ union will step in with collusion charges against Dallas, a source has confirmed.

“The union says it has credible information that the Cowboys and Broncos have had conversations about the negotiations of long-term deals for franchise wide receivers Bryant and Thomas, and the CBA grants the union the right to discovery in the case of a credible collusion claim,” wrote ESPN’s Dan Graziano.

Is it OK for the NFLPA to threaten NFL teams with legal action if they don't sign franchise tagged players to long term contracts?

If the NFLPA has credible information, shouldn't it be required to take action for the benefit of its players instead of trying to intimidate two NFL teams into paying out multi-million dollar contracts?

It just seems wrong.

 

[Garrettop]

As another poster pointed out, legality and ethicality don't always align. Was there collusion in the lingual sense on Dez's side? Most likely. In the legal sense? No.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

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?

Only if it were the Patriots and Giants in the scenario that the Cowboys and Broncos were in.

 

[CCBoy]

Only if it were the Patriots and Giants in the scenario that the Cowboys and Broncos were in.

WPB, tell me you aren't excited by all indicators at present...

 

[Rogah]

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?

Everyone in here is saying it is legal and that it isn't a violation of the CBA, and that may be true, but I'll tell you this:

Agents are glorified lawyers. They are obligated to act in their clients' best interests and advise along long those both ethically and according the NFLPA. If Dez's agent sacrificed Dez's best interests to help another client of his or a client of some other agent, that's some pretty bad juju, and that agent would be opened up to a truckload of liability.

So any sort of collusion like "I am going to hold my guy out unless your guy gets a good deal too" would get an agent in deep trouble. Now, of course, the player himself can make that decision if he wanted, but agents colluding amongst each other would be like an NFLer playing with fireworks.

 

[AbeBeta]

Collusion allowed where the parties affected benefit from improved cost or rewards.

Both Thomas and Bryant benefitted from above average considerations. Second only to a standard of conduct prior to now, with Johnson.

As usual, you make no sense

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

If the agent had proof of the two teams discussing terms of contract and negotiations then the have proof of collusion. He can posture all he wants but Apple lost a very high profile case over labor collusion on the strength of a memo. That wasn't hard to prove.

Corporate entities should not enjoy the rights of citizens. They already shield people from criminal liability as it is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

You cannot talk about other player's negotiations. This is not different than coal mines in Appalachia not being able to talk to each other about how their negotiations over coal prices.

There are several anti-trust statutes that say you are wrong. Sherman Act is a good place to start. There is a lot of bench law that contradicts what you claim as well. Apple was discussing labor prices with competitors and was censured in the last year in the industry I work in. I'm sorry but corporate entities particularly ones in small markets cannot monopolize.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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?

Little diddy.... Owners have kick started most or all of the scandals on sports.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsm...rges-against-nfl-claiming-secret-cap-in-2010/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/dwight-freeney-nfl-owners-collusion_n_3375424.html

Repeatedly in the 1980s, MLB owners colluded to keep player salaries down.[citation needed] Over multiple instances the owners were found to have stolen nearly $400 million from the players.[citation needed] When the Major League Baseball players struck in 1994, the owners were found to have committed unfair labor practices in attempting to keep player salaries down again.

Jmo....While pete rose wrong. I think things like this got him started.

 

[Rogah]

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.

If an entity is accused of collusion, they cannot use the defense "well we could have been lying so it isn't really collusion...."

2 teams having a conversation - casual or otherwise - regarding each of their plans for dealing with their respective wide receivers pretty much is the textbook case of collusion. I am not saying it happened here and if it did, I am not saying anyone can prove it.... but ya, a "casual conversation" is still collusion.

 

[Sportsbabe]

I didn't know Thomas' mother & grandmother were in jail. Different perspective. Very happy for Thomas' accomplishment....drive & discipline to get this deal.

Also happy The President pardoned his momma a couple days ago.

 

[CCBoy]

As usual, you make no sense

There is a difference from understanding topic fully and insult...you end up a lot in the later.

Colusion is simply the agreement by two parties. Period. Now criminal colusion involves penalty to a person affected by that agreement.

Both Bryant and Thomas benefited from lucrative contracts that they agreed upon. So any consideration at this point, of illegal collusion between Denver and Dallas is mute. Now run along and continue not understanding.

I stated it exactly as was presented on the NFL channel when the contracts were both signed.

 

[Hoofbite]

Any player who would turn down an offer they feel acceptable in order to try and increase someone else's deal is just stupid.

 

[Rogah]

There is a difference from understanding topic fully and insult...you end up a lot in the later.

Colusion is simply the agreement by two parties. Period. Now criminal colusion involves penalty to a person affected by that agreement.

Both Bryant and Thomas benefited from lucrative contracts that they agreed upon. So any consideration at this point, of illegal collusion between Denver and Dallas is mute. Now run along and continue not understanding.

Legally speaking, if collusion took place, the fact that each player signed a lucrative contract is irrelevant. Suppose Elway told Jones "we are offering 5 years, $70 million and not a penny more" so Jones also used that as his maximum amount. That's textbook collusion whether the players signed the deals or not.

Realistically speaking, the collusion accusation is (probably) moot because the NFLPA pretty much implied they wouldn't pursue the accusation if each player got long term deals.

 

[CCBoy]

Legally speaking, if collusion took place, the fact that each player signed a lucrative contract is irrelevant. Suppose Elway told Jones "we are offering 5 years, $70 million and not a penny more" so Jones also used that as his maximum amount. That's textbook collusion whether the players signed the deals or not.

Realistically speaking, the collusion accusation is (probably) moot because the NFLPA pretty much implied they wouldn't pursue the accusation if each player got long term deals.

There can be a positive 'collusion' between two industry controlling elements, anti trust sized corporations, when there is a positive gain resulting from that action. Such as a consumer's price of product being reduced by the 'collusion.' But all collusion is not criminal.

The contracts as administered today, are beyond a hypothetical application as well. It was based upon current standards of contract in relation to market set values and individual team protections.

Both contracts are second highest of current deals for position. No one says there is collusion of both didn't surpass Johnson's windfall when it went down. Things have changed somewhat as to standards in practice.

But degree of benefit does trump hypothecised injury of principal involved.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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

The Dodgers didn't "think" Koufax and Drysdale were working in unison. Koufax and Drysdale went to them and told them that they would only negotiate jointly with the team. The teams didn't want that happening, so they wrote the anti-collusion clause into the CBA, the same clause that came back to bite them in the '80s.