2010 Owners Collusion on Salary Cap

[JDM]

That's not what happened.

All that happened was that front loaded contracts were treated like they normally would be treated. That is all that happened. That is fair and was agreed upon by the teams.

That is not collusion.

 

[Manster7588]

That's not what happened.

All that happened was that front loaded contracts were treated like they normally would be treated. That is all that happened. That is fair and was agreed upon by the teams.

That is not collusion.

Maybe you need to go backed and read the stories again.

 

[fordman84]

That's not what happened.

All that happened was that front loaded contracts were treated like they normally would be treated. That is all that happened. That is fair and was agreed upon by the teams.

That is not collusion.

Sorry, but you are wrong. If something is agreed upon by the teams in regards to contracts or money that would be a detriment to the players, that is collusion.

 

[jarntt]

So if I get a group of people together, every employer in a field, and imply that it would be best not to hire people for more than minimum wage...that isn't collusion?

Yes, that would most likely be collusion depending on exactly what was said. But, do you think that is what happened? You think that could be proven? And again it could very easily be argued that our penalty had nothing to do with holding down individual player salaries or even overall salaries which is what collusion is to me. Did Haynesworth or Austin get less than fair value? The penalty only dealt with how the ultimate contract they agreed to was structured on an annual basis to gain an unfair advantage against the cap that would be in place in future years and may or may not be in place for that year - that was always the vague part to me. How can you penalize a team if there was no official cap? Legally they could retroactively impose the cap once the agreement was signed, but I never heard exactly what happened with that year and how they determined there was a cap to enforce. But, back to the collusion topic...those two contracts that led to the penalty sure don't appear to help the case of collusion do they?

 

[fordman84]

Yes, that would most likely be collusion depending on exactly what was said. But, do you think that is what happened? You think that could be proven? And again it could very easily be argued that our penalty had nothing to do with holding down individual player salaries or even overall salaries which is what collusion is to me. Did Haynesworth or Austin get less than fair value? The penalty only dealt with how the ultimate contract they agreed to was structured on an annual basis to gain an unfair advantage against the cap that would be in place in future years and may or may not be in place for that year - that was always the vague part to me. How can you penalize a team if there was no official cap? Legally they could retroactively impose the cap once the agreement was signed, but I never heard exactly what happened with that year and how they determined there was a cap to enforce. But, back to the collusion topic...those two contracts that led to the penalty sure don't appear to help the case of collusion do they?

I just don't see how anyone can say that the owners didn't collude with each other when it was known that there was no CBA to operate under. Any agreements, doesn't have to be an agreement to keep money from players (look at OPEC, a cartel that colludes to keep prices up). To me, to prove collusion you simply need to be able to prove:
1) There was no CBA...done
2) An entire market, in this case all NFL employers, agreeing to operate as if there is a CBA
3) Punishment or rewards given for members of that group who went along with the unwritten rules as if they were under contract.

If there is no CBA, technically there are no rules. If there are no rules, then you can't break them. The NFLPA is just as much on the hook for giving the NFL a get-out-of-jail-free card when they agreed to the new CBA which at THAT point gave the NFL the ability to punish teams retroactively. The NFLPA should have told the NFL to exclude that, because it would punish teams who were operating outside of the new CBA.

 

[Davis_Mike]

This case will go nowhere. The NFLPA is trying to have their cake & eat it too. The NFLPA signed off on the sanctions in order to see an immediate increase in the the salary cap. The salary cap was do to be static for the first few years after the the new CBA. In order for the NFLPA & D Smith to make it not look like they were totally hosed during negotiations, they agreed to impose these sanctions. That resulted in the NFL increasing the cap more than originally planned. The NFLPA now can't go back now & call it collusion after they profited from it after signing off on it.

Like I said, this case is going nowhere.

 

[jarntt]

First off you need to PROVE things not just "know" or assume they happened which can be much more difficult. Secondly, I never heard the full explanation on how the league felt it could impose the penalties. If it was done retroactively based on language in the new agreement that all parties signed it may mean there is no case. That would show no collusion existed at the time, but rather the owners after the fact decided to look at what happened in the past and "correct it". That may not seem fair, but it also may be within their power. It isn't fair for the Commissioner to take draft picks from teams, but he has. Waht if right before this draft the Commissioner decides to penalize whatever team wins the SB by reducing their cap amount by $5M to create more parity? That may be within his power. Now, if the penalty was based solely on these conversations of "psst...don't do it" it is a lot trickier for the league and that is what always called into question the decision to penalize teams to me. I remember a claim that they are not subject to the same rules and can't remember what they based that claim on.

Regardless of what you think the most important point in this case is likely the fact that the new CBA included a clause (going only off of what I read recently) that states 'the union gives up the right to sue over "collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011.' So how can you sign the agreement with that clause and then go back and sue for exactly that same thing?

 

[fordman84]

First off you need to PROVE things not just "know" or assume they happened which can be much more difficult. Secondly, I never heard the full explanation on how the league felt it could impose the penalties. If it was done retroactively based on language in the new agreement that all parties signed it may mean there is no case. That would show no collusion existed at the time, but rather the owners after the fact decided to look at what happened in the past and "correct it". That may not seem fair, but it also may be within their power. It isn't fair for the Commissioner to take draft picks from teams, but he has. Waht if right before this draft the Commissioner decides to penalize whatever team wins the SB by reducing their cap amount by $5M to create more parity? That may be within his power. Now, if the penalty was based solely on these conversations of "psst...don't do it" it is a lot trickier for the league and that is what always called into question the decision to penalize teams to me. I remember a claim that they are not subject to the same rules and can't remember what they based that claim on.

Regardless of what you think the most important point in this case is likely the fact that the new CBA included a clause (going only off of what I read recently) that states 'the union gives up the right to sue over "collusion with respect to any League Year prior to 2011.' So how can you sign the agreement with that clause and then go back and sue for exactly that same thing?

I agree it isn't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean there wasn't collusion or it wasn't wrong. The NFLPA did sign off on the punishment, so that is why it won't go anywhere.

I still would pay any amount of money, even taking a second loan on my house, for the opportunity to kick Mara in the balls with steel toe boots.

 

[Manster7588]

Yes, that would most likely be collusion depending on exactly what was said. But, do you think that is what happened? You think that could be proven? And again it could very easily be argued that our penalty had nothing to do with holding down individual player salaries or even overall salaries which is what collusion is to me. Did Haynesworth or Austin get less than fair value? The penalty only dealt with how the ultimate contract they agreed to was structured on an annual basis to gain an unfair advantage against the cap that would be in place in future years and may or may not be in place for that year - that was always the vague part to me. How can you penalize a team if there was no official cap? Legally they could retroactively impose the cap once the agreement was signed, but I never heard exactly what happened with that year and how they determined there was a cap to enforce. But, back to the collusion topic...those two contracts that led to the penalty sure don't appear to help the case of collusion do they?

I'd say punishing two teams for contracts made in the uncapped year is proof of collusion.

 

[jarntt]

I'd say punishing two teams for contracts made in the uncapped year is proof of collusion.

Not necessarily.
Here is my question from the first page:
"Think about it this way, a team through collusion can get a player to sign for 20% below his market value, but still structure the contract so that it would result in a penalty from the league similar to what Washington or Dallas received for abusing the cap." So the two don't have to work together.

The opposite works also. Miles and Haynesworth both got contracts that far exceeded what their perceived value was and what was expected. So were they hurt financially by the actions of the owners? yet tehy are the cases being brought up as proof. Look at Miles. If he got that exact same contract, but much of what was called a 2010 salary was instead a signing bonus there would have been a minimal change from his point of view, but from a cap perspective there would be a huge change and no penalty. The player was not in any way harmed by what occurred.

 

[fordman84]

Not necessarily.
Here is my question from the first page:
"Think about it this way, a team through collusion can get a player to sign for 20% below his market value, but still structure the contract so that it would result in a penalty from the league similar to what Washington or Dallas received for abusing the cap." So the two don't have to work together.

The opposite works also. Miles and Haynesworth both got contracts that far exceeded what their perceived value was and what was expected. So were they hurt financially by the actions of the owners? yet tehy are the cases being brought up as proof. Look at Miles. If he got that exact same contract, but much of what was called a 2010 salary was instead a signing bonus there would have been a minimal change from his point of view, but from a cap perspective there would be a huge change and no penalty. The player was not in any way harmed by what occurred.

You yourself said that the two players in question got more money than the normally would have because of the uncapped year. Ok, so how about the other hundreds of FA's who didn't get to experience the same over-market payday because the other owners all agreed, outside of a CBA, to not offer those kinds of deals to players. Each and every one of them has a case to say they were harmed by the rest of the owners who played along.

 

[jarntt]

You yourself said that the two players in question got more money than the normally would have because of the uncapped year. Ok, so how about the other hundreds of FA's who didn't get to experience the same over-market payday because the other owners all agreed, outside of a CBA, to not offer those kinds of deals to players. Each and every one of them has a case to say they were harmed by the rest of the owners who played along.

I'm not saying they received more money BECAUSE of the uncapped year, just that they did during the uncapped year. Those two owners gave players more than their fair value (IMO) and THEN structured a contract in a manner inconsistent with what they have done in recent years. These two players can be used as proven examples of individuals not harmed finanacially during that season. It is much harder to prove anyone else was harmed by not getting something because there is nothing to print out and point to as proof.

 

[fordman84]

I'm not saying they received more money BECAUSE of the uncapped year, just that they did during the uncapped year. Those two owners gave players more than their fair value (IMO) and THEN structured a contract in a manner inconsistent with what they have done in recent years. These two players can be used as proven examples of individuals not harmed finanacially during that season. It is much harder to prove anyone else was harmed by not getting something because there is nothing to print out and point to as proof.

That's the thing with collusion, I don't think you have to prove something that didn't happen. Two teams who didn't play along showed that it could have happened, and the other teams who did play along could have been a detriment to those other players.


But, that part of the issue isn't going to come up or ruled on because the NFLPA signed their ability to do so away. Actually, nothing really can come of this except perhaps a black eye for the NFL...and that won't do a darn thing.

 

[jarntt]

That's the thing with collusion, I don't think you have to prove something that didn't happen. Two teams who didn't play along showed that it could have happened, and the other teams who did play along could have been a detriment to those other players.


But, that part of the issue isn't going to come up or ruled on because the NFLPA signed their ability to do so away. Actually, nothing really can come of this except perhaps a black eye for the NFL...and that won't do a darn thing.

bold 1: Well, I would be surprised if you could win a lawsuit against someone in general without proving they did something, but honestly I don't know. If you are right, I'll take back what I said because I do think there was some collusion and was the first to bring up the possibility on ESPN the minute I heard about the penalty. My point all along was that it couldn't be proven,

bold 2: agree. The USFL actually "won" their lawsuit against the NFL and was rewarded with a monster payout of $1 if I remember correctly. I personally think it is thrown out, but we shall see.

 

[Manster7588]

Not necessarily.
Here is my question from the first page:
"Think about it this way, a team through collusion can get a player to sign for 20% below his market value, but still structure the contract so that it would result in a penalty from the league similar to what Washington or Dallas received for abusing the cap." So the two don't have to work together.

The opposite works also. Miles and Haynesworth both got contracts that far exceeded what their perceived value was and what was expected. So were they hurt financially by the actions of the owners? yet tehy are the cases being brought up as proof. Look at Miles. If he got that exact same contract, but much of what was called a 2010 salary was instead a signing bonus there would have been a minimal change from his point of view, but from a cap perspective there would be a huge change and no penalty. The player was not in any way harmed by what occurred.

But if the league had a gentleman's agreement not to over spend and giving 99% of the work force less money isn't that collusion. I already I doubt something comes of this but there is no doubt in my mind collusion did occur.

Hell I could argue extortion too since NO, Chi, and Okland also broke the agreement but on a lower level. The league threatened them with penalties if they didn't support Mara. I believe NO and OK abstained from the vote.

 

[cowboycolors]

bold 2: agree. The USFL actually "won" their lawsuit against the NFL and was rewarded with a monster payout of $1 if I remember correctly. I personally think it is thrown out, but we shall see.[/QUOTE]

That is correct on the USFL and the amount was "trebled" so they got 3 dollars

The NFLPA wont win this IMHO but I would bet my House that John Mara is scared shitless that there is even a snowballs chance in Hell that it could happen.

There was collusion IMO
From Legal dictionary

collusion
n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners

Change baseball to football and we have a winner .

Provable in court is a complete different story

 

[JDM]

Sorry, but you are wrong. If something is agreed upon by the teams in regards to contracts or money that would be a detriment to the players, that is collusion.

After the fact. As part of the negotiation over the CBA I believe.

 

[Manster7588]

After the fact. As part of the negotiation over the CBA I believe.

Are you talking about how the union agreed to keep quite if the NFL upped the cap the 1st season?

 

[cowboycolors]

ST. LOUIS - Attorneys for the NFL and the players' union went before a federal appeals court Tuesday, arguing over whether to reopen the so-called Reggie White case that helped set league labour policy for years amid allegations that team owners set a secret salary cap.
Both sides had 20 minutes in oral arguments before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and both sides left the proceedings feeling optimistic. The word collusion was uttered exactly once.
The hearing was held in the same courtroom where in June 2011 dozen of players showed up in force to urge the appeals court to declare the lockout illegal. The courtroom was packed with about 200 people, so many that folding chairs were brought in to seat some out-of-work and retired players.
This time around, the setting was decidedly low-key. There were no famous faces among the 20 or so attendees, counting at least a half-dozen lawyers for both sides and attorneys awaiting cases later on the morning docket, and no media throng waiting beyond the steps of the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse.
"I think it went well," NFL attorney Gregg Levy said. "The court was well-prepared."
The NFLPA is appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge David Doty in Minneapolis rejecting the union's attempt to reopen the lawsuit that guided labour matters from 1993 until a collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2011. Among other reasons, union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said, the case should be revisited because the agreement did not cover retired players and others not in the union.
The lawsuit filed in May 2012 claimed the NFL imposed a secret salary cap during the uncapped 2010 season that cost players at least $1 billion. The league denied the allegation, although four teams were punished for overspending and undermining competitive balance, with Dallas and Washington hit with future-cap reductions.
The case landed in appeals court after Doty rejected a claim of collusion in December 2012. Doty had previously sided with players during more than two decades of judging NFL labour matters.
Kessler said players were offended at the "insinuation of gamesmanship" involved in the appeal and said the CBA "has no relevance" in the proceedings.
Levy argued that there was no legal precedent for the appeal, calling it an "extraordinary premise." He noted that all parties involved have prospered since the agreement, reiterated the league's position that the collusion claim was moot and said the lawsuit was beyond the statute of limitations.
At one point during Levy's argument, Riley said he thought the district court ruling was "pretty thin." Levy replied: "It's right on the money."
A decision from the three-judge panel is expected in two or three months.
"We'll get back to you in due course," Chief Judge William Riley of Omaha, Neb., told both parties.
White filed a class-action lawsuit in 1993 seeking more open free agency and a salary cap. The resulting agreement was in place until 2008 when the NFL opted out, saying its costs were too high and that it needed givebacks from players. Before the lawsuit, the NFL had limited free agency known as Plan B, in which teams were allowed to protect 37 players and had the right to match offers for free agents or receive compensation. White died in 2006.




only article I could find on the net but note Chief justice Riley's question


Will be interesting

 

[JDM]

I'm talking about the fact that a "solution" was already negotiated. There is no grounds for a lawsuit when the situation was already negotiated and handled.