NFLPA to pursue collusion charges if Bryant, Thomas don't sign long-term deals

blindzebra said:
This is ridiculous.

Both teams have a vested interest in the other teams negotiation because it sets the market, you don't think Atlanta has called Dallas and Denver?

Both guys are linked to the same agent since Condon is taking over Thomas's agency, you don't think that the agents are sharing info and playing the teams against each other? For it to be collusion they would have to prove that Elway and Stephen refused to negotiate based upon set terms and neither would cave in. Well we have seen several reports of offers and most have been above the 12.8 tag.

The ironic thing is that Dallas refused to join Mara and the boys during the uncapped year and where was the NFLPA when Dallas and Washington lost cap for not colluding?
Click to expand...

For a blind hoofed mammal, your vision seems surprisingly clear.
 
From a legal standpoint it would seem to me that "collusion" would only be viable if 1) a deal was signed, and 2) the deal itself was affected in some manner. In other words, if no deal is signed then the player was not cheated or tricked into anything. The Franchise Tag is a preset contract that was agreed to by the NFLPA and NFL via the collective bargaining agreement.

That said, if the NFLPA truly believes there was collusion, the smart play legally would be to have Dez sign the contract, then file the lawsuit claiming collusion. If Dez does not sign the contract, then they really have no legal basis for claiming collusion as the Franchise Tag contract amount and details are preset via the CBA.
 
Agents aren't covered under collusion rules since they don't control the market
The NFLPA screams about collusion all the time but rarely does anything come of it
The NFLPA has a perfect collusion case with the Austin contract. What the league did by punishing teams for going over the cap in an uncapped year is a real case
 
Reality said:
From a legal standpoint it would seem to me that "collusion" would only be viable if 1) a deal was signed, and 2) the deal itself was affected in some manner. In other words, if no deal is signed then the player was not cheated or tricked into anything. The Franchise Tag is a preset contract that was agreed to by the NFLPA and NFL via the collective bargaining agreement.

That said, if the NFLPA truly believes there was collusion, the smart play legally would be to have Dez sign the contract, then file the lawsuit claiming collusion. If Dez does not sign the contract, then they really have no legal basis for claiming collusion as the Franchise Tag contract amount and details are preset via the CBA.
Click to expand...

Collusion is also known as price-fixing, generally reserved for anti-trust litigation or causes of action.

You are right, however, that if neither player actually signs a contract before Wednesday, then there has been no actual harm to the player and therefore no collusion. Still, there could be a more ripe cause of action for a failure to exercise good faith negotiations, which can be remedied by a court of law. What that remedy would look like is generally money damages, but with a collectively bargained organization, it becomes a bit unclear what the result would in fact be.

I haven't been doing this law thing for very long, but I continue to remain absolutely dumbfounded that the NFL allegedly has lawyers that are providing guidance and counsel to the front office. This one by the NFLPA surprises me, knowing the track record and experience of De Smith (and also knowing how well the NFLPA has handled past issues thus far under his leadership).
 
Reality said:
From a legal standpoint it would seem to me that "collusion" would only be viable if 1) a deal was signed, and 2) the deal itself was affected in some manner. In other words, if no deal is signed then the player was not cheated or tricked into anything. The Franchise Tag is a preset contract that was agreed to by the NFLPA and NFL via the collective bargaining agreement.

That said, if the NFLPA truly believes there was collusion, the smart play legally would be to have Dez sign the contract, then file the lawsuit claiming collusion. If Dez does not sign the contract, then they really have no legal basis for claiming collusion as the Franchise Tag contract amount and details are preset via the CBA.
Click to expand...

That is very true
My guess is at least one of them does sign a deal
And the collusion case goes nowhere
It's very difficult to prove collusion
There would have to be something in writing such as email or text to prove it
Just them talking is not collusion since teams talk to each other all the time
 
Wonderboyromo said:
should we delve into why this is a stupid statement and irrelevant or na?
Click to expand...

Please do. If you think you can.

Irvin played less than 20 years ago. Things are more expensive. But not 17 times more expensive.

The NFL is not required to be as stupid as the other leagues, and it isn't. That's why it's 1000 times more popular than MLB, the NBA, and other leagues.
 
blindzebra said:
This is ridiculous.

Both teams have a vested interest in the other teams negotiation because it sets the market, you don't think Atlanta has called Dallas and Denver?

Both guys are linked to the same agent since Condon is taking over Thomas's agency, you don't think that the agents are sharing info and playing the teams against each other? For it to be collusion they would have to prove that Elway and Stephen refused to negotiate based upon set terms and neither would cave in. Well we have seen several reports of offers and most have been above the 12.8 tag.

The ironic thing is that Dallas refused to join Mara and the boys during the uncapped year and where was the NFLPA when Dallas and Washington lost cap for not colluding?
Click to expand...

Collusion would actually be that Elway and S. Jones came to an ancillary agreement given the market to set the price for their respective wide receivers, e.g. price-fixing. Still, that is extremely difficult to prove.

If neither player is realized an actual harm from the negotiations or contract signings at this point, meaning, if nobody signs a long term deal, then there is no ripeness for a collusion suit.

As I said above, however, the NFLPA could sue Denver and Dallas for failing to negotiate in good faith. However, with the franchise tag being something that the NFLPA collectively bargained, I am unsure how the court would remedy the situation. It isn't a simple services contract between private parties. Collective bargaining is something interesting that I don't know enough about to adequately speak about how it affects litigation.
 
Personally I think the NFLPA is pretty upset that they took it in the tail pipe on the last CBA
 
Jenky said:
NFLPA to pursue collusion charges if Bryant, Thomas don't sign long-term deals

i
Dan Graziano, ESPN Staff Writer


If Dez Bryant and Demaryius Thomas don't sign long-term contracts with their respective teams by Wednesday's deadline for franchise players to do so, the NFL players' union plans to move ahead with collusion charges against those teams, a source close to the situation told ESPN.

The NFLPA informed the Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos on Monday that they need to preserve any e-mails, phone records, texts and records of other communication between the two teams, according to the source.

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.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story...us-thomas-denver-broncos-sign-long-term-deals
Click to expand...

I heard a report that the source of the Collusion issue, is that Stephen Jones supposedly told Dez in a conversation that he had spoken to Elway about the situation with Thomas.
 
Reality said:
From a legal standpoint it would seem to me that "collusion" would only be viable if 1) a deal was signed, and 2) the deal itself was affected in some manner. In other words, if no deal is signed then the player was not cheated or tricked into anything. The Franchise Tag is a preset contract that was agreed to by the NFLPA and NFL via the collective bargaining agreement.

That said, if the NFLPA truly believes there was collusion, the smart play legally would be to have Dez sign the contract, then file the lawsuit claiming collusion. If Dez does not sign the contract, then they really have no legal basis for claiming collusion as the Franchise Tag contract amount and details are preset via the CBA.
Click to expand...

If I were the NFLPA, I think I might argue that the very fact that they could not get a long term deal and were forced to accept the franchise tender is proof that Denver and Dallas set the market, the market being Franchise Tag value. They can then say that Denver and Dallas kept their contract offers low, Dez/Thomas sign the franchise, and by signing the Franchise Tender have been negatively impacted by the actions of Dallas & Denver.
 
coult44 said:
The TV contracts will be more in this one year than they were for all of Irvin's years combined. I don't know why people want to ignore these facts. The price of a ticket to a single game in the worst seat in the stadium, is more than price of Super Bowl ticket during the 90's. It's a completely different level of money now. As the owners make billions more, the players want to make millions more. There's nothing wrong with everyone wanting their part of the money.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to face value or the resale value of the ticket? This is a topic I am on the fence.

The face value of tickets are fairly reasonable although prices do adjust for anticipated consumer disposal income. I don't have much of an issue with the owners or free enterprise for that matter in that regard.

What grinds my gears are resale value of tickets. People, organized or not, intentionally buy large numbers of single game tickets at face value and then apply outrageous markups. For example, I'm pricing tickets for the Dallas/New England game this season. I will end up buying tickets on the 200 level but curiosity doesn't stop me in finding out what the seats are selling for on the 400 level. I checked late last month and seats with a normal face value of $35-$55 dollars were scalping for $425 and up. That's criminal in my opinion even though it's perfectly legal.

So, on one hand, I'm not upset with the owners for selling a ticket at face value. The owners do not make additional revenue from scalped tickets. On the other hand, I am upset at the ability to mark up hundreds, if not thousands, of percent above the original price of the ticket. Some people will disagree that the process does not corrupt supply and demand but it does.

Scalping overly inflates a natural shortage of tickets. There will never be "enough" tickets for people to buy. In my opinion, it would be fair to shop for a game ticket at face value and lose to another buyer who both purchased the ticket and attended the game, or resold the ticket at face value. It is unfair to price the ticket outside a true fan's disposable income range for strictly profit. There should be a moral aspect of this free enterprise loophole. People, who can afford tickets at face value, are getting screwed because some greedy you-know-what attaches a 500% markup. Greed is not good for people actually wanting to see a game.
 
Lol, these agents are trying every trick they can come up with to get their guys long term deals but they're nothing more than a petulant crying babies spewing nonsense at this point.

I hope team management is laughing as hard as I am at their transparent and hollow threats
 
yimyammer said:
Lol, these agents are trying every trick they can come up with to get their guys long term deals but they're nothing more than a petulant crying babies spewing nonsense at this point.

I hope team management is laughing as hard as I am at their transparent and hollow threats
Click to expand...

It's because they have no leverage and they understand this. Public sentiment is the only real tool they have in the bag IMO. They are trying to use that. I get it.
 
Those markups exist because enough people are willing to pay them. No one has a human right to attend sports games. Nothing wrong with it.
 
ABQCOWBOY said:
It's because they have no leverage and they understand this. Public sentiment is the only real tool they have in the bag IMO. They are trying to use that. I get it.
Click to expand...

I agree...I get it, all teams get it, everyone involved gets it which just makes it all the more hilarious imo because everyone knows its nothing more than screaming at the wind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 309 more.
Total: 5,800 (members: 409, guests: 5,391)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,207
Messages
13,796,916
Members
23,774
Latest member
Dcfiles
Back
Top