NFLPA D Smith Suspects Collusion

[Hoofbite]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--d...ve-collusion-amongst-nfl-teams-012307753.html

NFL union leader DeMaurice Smith is asking NFL player agents to report any hint of suspected collusion among teams to keep salaries down during free agency, according to a memo from the NFLPA's executive director.

Numerous agents have privately complained about the slow pace of signings for veteran free agent players and the associated low salaries for those players.

Least he's seeking an unbiased perspective in the manner......

 

[Ren]

The league more or less admitted to it when they imposed the cap penalties on the Skins and Cowboys.

I know it's not the same case, but come on. If he's not more or less convinced already it's going on and just looking for proof then something is wrong

 

[zrinkill]

Of course there is collusion.

But no judge is gonna risk angering that many billionaires by admitting it.

 

[Nova]

The league more or less admitted to it when they imposed the cap penalties on the Skins and Cowboys.

I know it's not the same case, but come on. If he's not more or less convinced already it's going on and just looking for proof then something is wrong

I'm as angry about the cap sanctions as anyone... however we all really need to drop this 'collusion' business with regards to the cap penalties for WSH and DAL.

Collusion didn't happen. Were we retroactively and unfairly punished for not breaking any rules? Absolutely. But everything done was well within legal bounds to my knowledge.

 

[Ren]

I'm as angry about the cap sanctions as anyone... however we all really need to drop this 'collusion' business with regards to the cap penalties for WSH and DAL.

Collusion didn't happen. Were we retroactively and unfairly punished for not breaking any rules? Absolutely. But everything done was well within legal bounds to my knowledge.

The Cap penalties where collusion whether you want to drop it or not.

30 out of 32 teams agreeing under the table to keep salaries down in a year where there was no salary restrictions IS collusion.

 

[muck4doo]

The Cap penalties where collusion whether you want to drop it or not.

30 out of 32 teams agreeing under the table to keep salaries down in a year where there was no salary restrictions IS collusion.

Indeed. Mara was an idiot for admitting it. Of course he couldn't help himself to stick it to the Commanders and Cowboys.

 

[Hoofbite]

The Cap penalties where collusion whether you want to drop it or not.

30 out of 32 teams agreeing under the table to keep salaries down in a year where there was no salary restrictions IS collusion.

Not to get too caught up in another one of these threads but it wasn't salaries they were targeting. Salaries and cap figures aren't interchangeable so you can't really say it was salaries they were targeting.

Just a quick question. Legality, collusion and whatever other aspects aside, was that contract not written with future benefit in mind? Or perhaps, do you think it appears that Dallas deliberately structured it to have great cap numbers beyond the 2010 season?

 

[Ren]

Not to get too caught up in another one of these threads but it wasn't salaries they were targeting. Salaries and cap figures aren't interchangeable so you can't really say it was salaries they were targeting.

Just a quick question. Legality, collusion and whatever other aspects aside, was that contract not written with future benefit in mind? Or perhaps, do you think it appears that Dallas deliberately structured it to have great cap numbers beyond the 2010 season?

Whether it was or not is irrelevant really when there is no agreement in place to say how you can and cannot structure contracts, that's the whole point of there being no cap. To enforce any kind of restrictions on that after the fact would mean there was one, which one side never agreed on (if they did there would have never been a lockout or need for a new labor deal) that is collusion.

Just because no one seems interested in fighting it anymore doesn't mean the NFL is right

 

[Hoofbite]

Whether it was or not is irrelevant really when there is no agreement in place to say how you can and cannot structure contracts, that's the whole point of there being no cap. To enforce any kind of restrictions on that after the fact would mean there was one, which one side never agreed on (if they did there would have never been a lockout or need for a new labor deal) that is collusion.

Just because no one seems interested in fighting it anymore doesn't mean the NFL is right

No, I think it is relevant. They could have paid Austin every single dollar they did AND avoided the cap penalty by not structuring it in the manner that they did.

Do you think they still receive the penalty if Austin signs a 1 year, $17M contract in 2010?

 

[Ren]

No, I think it is relevant. They could have paid Austin every single dollar they did AND avoided the cap penalty by not structuring it in the manner that they did.

Do you think they still receive the penalty if Austin signs a 1 year, $17M contract in 2010?

Cap penalty for breaking what cap?

 

[burmafrd]

The NFL approved of that contract. To me that should have been how Jerruh argued the case.

If it was wrong WHY did the NFL approve it?


To penalize a team years later for a contract that was approved should be illegal.

 

[Hoofbite]

Cap penalty for breaking what cap?

You think they were penalized simply for being over what the cap would have been projected to be at?

I'll ask these questions again.

1. Do you think the contract was deliberately written to provide low cap numbers for years beyond 2010?

2. Do you think Dallas has is hit with the cap penalty if they would have given a 1 year, $17M deal instead?

 

[muck4doo]

Whether it was or not is irrelevant really when there is no agreement in place to say how you can and cannot structure contracts, that's the whole point of there being no cap. To enforce any kind of restrictions on that after the fact would mean there was one, which one side never agreed on (if they did there would have never been a lockout or need for a new labor deal) that is collusion.

Just because no one seems interested in fighting it anymore doesn't mean the NFL is right

Nailed it again. The NFL let things go into an uncapped year. That uncapped year was put there in place to protect players, and show the NFL what could happen without a new contract in place. The NFL with the exception of the Cowboys, Commanders, Saints, and Raiders chose to ignore that, and colluded to keep salaries down. Mara got his panties in a bunch over it after the NFL made the NFLPA agree not to sue for past collusion. It's dirty. It's wrong. The Cowboys and Commanders have every right to be mad about it, and the NFLPA too. Mara admitted to what they did. It was straight up collusion, which is very illegal.

 

[muck4doo]

You think they were penalized simply for being over what the cap would have been projected to be at?

I'll ask these questions again.

1. Do you think the contract was deliberately written to provide low cap numbers for years beyond 2010?

2. Do you think Dallas has is hit with the cap penalty if they would have given a 1 year, $17M deal instead?

It doesn't matter. An uncapped year is an uncapped year. There was no contract in place. That was why Mara never mentioned any rules that the Cowboys and Commanders broke, because they didn't break any. He mentioned "spirits" of rules that didn't exist that season. Funny how he never went after teams that broke "spirits" of salary floors that didn't exist as well. I am mad at Mara and what he did to us. You should be too. This is just plain wrong what he did to us, and illegal as well.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

It doesn't matter. An uncapped year is an uncapped year. There was no contract in place. That was why Mara never mentioned any rules that the Cowboys and Commanders broke, because they didn't break any. He mentioned "spirits" of rules that didn't exist that season. Funny how he never went after teams that broke "spirits" of salary floors that didn't exist as well. I am mad at Mara and what he did to us. You should be too. This is just plain wrong what he did to us, and illegal as well.

Exactly.

In particular when you see just how low teams like the Jaguars, Bills and Bucs went in the uncapped year. They clearly violated the "spirit of the salary floor" but didn't get punished

 

[muck4doo]

Exactly.

In particular when you see just how low teams like the Jaguars, Bills and Bucs went in the uncapped year. They clearly violated the "spirit of the salary floor" but didn't get punished

Then (Bucs), had tons of free money to spend the next off season. I know. It makes me sick the entire thing Mara and crew did. I may hate the Skins with all my heart, but you guys got robbed, as well we(you guys worse). You have every reason and right in the world to be mad. I can't believe people would even defend this.

 

[muck4doo]

You know what sickens me even more. After Mara punished the Cowboys and Commanders for not participating in illegal collusion, he then rewarded the teams that did with extra cap space at the expense of the Cowboys and Commanders. Seriously, I don't know how you can't be mad at that. Yes, I want to beat the Commanders, Iggles, and Gnats. But not like that. It's just plain wrong.

 

[Nova]

The Cap penalties where collusion whether you want to drop it or not.

30 out of 32 teams agreeing under the table to keep salaries down in a year where there was no salary restrictions IS collusion.

Whether it was or not is irrelevant really when there is no agreement in place to say how you can and cannot structure contracts, that's the whole point of there being no cap

I'm not going to pretend that I'm some kind of legal expert, but I'm glad you said the second thing because it's the one thing I've asked a few times on this forum and other forums as well that has yet to be answered by someone who still believes it was collusion. If you can answer it and make complete sense then I'll drop it...

Yes, there was no cap for 2010 because there was no collective bargaining agreement. So we shouldn't have been punished for not breaking any rules. I agree.

However, you understand that everything that was done to enforce punishment was done with in the legal bounds of the NFL? Right?

That's fine, we're still on the same page at this point.

What you're thinking is that the owners colluded against the NFLPA in restricting salary cap space among themselves which in turn hurt the players association... right?

Still I agree that makes sense.

But what it seems like you're failing to realize is the double edged sword of having no CBA in place. If the owners have no agreement with the players and the players association...

How on earth can they collude against them?

But even if you can answer that, I lied. I won't drop it. It doesn't matter. The NFL abides by it's own rules as evidenced by many of its practices. It is not held to the same standard as most businesses in the united states because of the new CBA.

The fact that just about any action the NFL, and especially the competition committee, takes can be justified by the "competitive balance" clause makes the argument null and void in my opinion.

Because the goal of the NFL is not to entertain, but to make money. What they do to a single franchise may be to the benefit of the entire league (again, monetarily) as deemed and condoned by the NFL.

And two angry owners going against that IS NOT in the interest of the entire league. The Cowboys and Commanders have no move here.

 

[junk]

But what it seems like you're failing to realize is the double edged sword of having no CBA in place. If the owners have no agreement with the players and the players association...

How on earth can they collude against them?

No, there was a CBA. There was no salary cap, but there was a CBA. 2010 was the last year of the CBA.

When the CBA expired, the owners locked out the players and we had to wait for a new CBA before the season could commence.

 

[Hoofbite]

You're literally saying exactly what he said.

So, I'll pose the questions again.

It doesn't matter. An uncapped year is an uncapped year. There was no contract in place.

You think they were penalized simply for being over what the cap would have been projected to be at?

That was why Mara never mentioned any rules that the Cowboys and Commanders broke, because they didn't break any. He mentioned "spirits" of rules that didn't exist that season. Funny how he never went after teams that broke "spirits" of salary floors that didn't exist as well. I am mad at Mara and what he did to us. You should be too. This is just plain wrong what he did to us, and illegal as well.

1. Do you think the contract was deliberately written to provide low cap numbers for years beyond 2010?

2. Do you think Dallas is hit with the cap penalty if they would have given a 1 year, $17M deal instead?


I'm simply looking for an opinion on the matter. I've heard all the legal and cap arguments. I'm looking for opinion at this time.