Sources: NFLPA preparing collusion case

R'uh r'oh, Raggy!

this happens in a number of sports....::prepares for the fire""....but...Barry Bonds anybody?

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 10:37 AM ET  10.09 by ThE WiLLiesT

this happens in a number of sports....::prepares for the fire""....but...Barry Bonds anybody?

Do you honestly believe that MLB "colluded" against Bonds? If you were an owner, GM or manager, would you want a 40-something y/o player with the kind of baggage (attitude, legal issues, etc.) that Bonds had at that time?

I certainly wouldn't and I don't think anyone in their right mind would!

Means nothing to me....



"Honesty, born in me....Heresy"

An interesting twist. I think the players have a case. An uncapped year, the spending spree predicted by many did not happen. The NFL presents itself as 32 separate business entities competing against each other. That's an obvious load of crap.

A spending spree in an uncapped season would weaken the owners' case regarding financial difficulties. Good move by the players. If what the owners claim is true, open your books and prove it.

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.

If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 11:18 AM ET  10.09 by CowboyDave

An interesting twist. I think the players have a case. An uncapped year, the spending spree predicted by many did not happen. The NFL presents itself as 32 separate business entities competing against each other. That's an obvious load of crap.

You got a contradiction there. If the NFL *isn't* 32 separate business entities, collusion cannot exist, therefore the case is groundless.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 11:18 AM ET  10.09 by ORF

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

The NFL has a pretty strong argument that they're one entity. The teams aren't at liberty to schedule games with UFL teams or any other leagues teams.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 11:18 AM ET  10.09 by ORF

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

Good point. The NFL is obviously a single entity. Yet, that is not how they present themselves, to circumvent anti-trust laws. They may compete for players, but don't appear to compete for revenue. TV revenue (the biggest pie) is shared equally. Stadium receipts are shared on a 60/40 basis. New stadiums are partially funded by taxpayers based on the promise of increased tax revenue. Con job.

My conclusion: Greed has no boundaries.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 10:49 AM ET  10.09 by stargatebabe

Do you honestly believe that MLB "colluded" against Bonds? If you were an owner, GM or manager, would you want a 40-something y/o player with the kind of baggage (attitude, legal issues, etc.) that Bonds had at that time? I certainly wouldn't and I don't think anyone in their right mind would!

attitude...legal issues....how many times have we seen players gambled on with issues with far lesser talents. i mean...the man was CRANKING out homeruns like nobodys business. He could of easily been DH and still put up big numbers...40 y/o player..07 at age 42 he hit 28 homers...with a monster OBP

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 11:30 AM ET  10.09 by CowboyDave

Good point. The NFL is obviously a single entity. Yet, that is not how they present themselves, to circumvent anti-trust laws. They may compete for players, but don't appear to compete for revenue. TV revenue (the biggest pie) is shared equally. Stadium receipts are shared on a 60/40 basis. New stadiums are partially funded by taxpayers based on the promise of increased tax revenue. Con job.My conclusion: Greed has no boundaries.

You're starting to sound like Dolemite.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 11:18 AM ET  10.09 by ORF

This is just one tentacle of a larger octopus and feeds more fuel onto the 'anti-trust' fires. The defense case against the "Who Dat?" vendors in New Orleans rests on the fact that the NFL is a single entity rather than a loose confederation of 32 corporations.If the NFL is a single entity, then there can be no illegal 'collusion' between owners because they are all part of the larger concern.

Orf, I have no idea what you said, but I'll go with it... Just another case of "the man" holding the poor players down who are struggling to feed their families.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 11:31 AM ET  10.09 by ThE WiLLiesT

attitude...legal issues....how many times have we seen players gambled on with issues with far lesser talents. i mean...the man was CRANKING out homeruns like nobodys business. He could of easily been DH and still put up big numbers...40 y/o player..07 at age 42 he hit 28 homers...with a monster OBP

If he had McGwire or Sosa's personality, teams might have taken a chance.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 11:30 AM ET  10.09 by williewilliejuan

The NFL has a pretty strong argument that they're one entity. The teams aren't at liberty to schedule games with UFL teams or any other leagues teams.

The problem for the league is that they've never had blanket Congressional legal 'blessing' for that status as has MLB. The "Who Dat" case carries risks in that no matter how strong you think your legal position may be, judges are a crap shoot.

Right now, the NFL's antitrust status is more of a 'wink and a nod' type of arrangement. It's never been codified and letting the courts decide is risky.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 11:33 AM ET  10.09 by williewilliejuan

If he had McGwire or Sosa's personality, teams might have taken a chance.

If he were any kind of decent teammate someone would have lobied to bring him in. Even Bond's mother is done with him.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 11:28 AM ET  10.09 by ORF

You got a contradiction there. If the NFL *isn't* 32 separate business entities, collusion cannot exist, therefore the case is groundless.

Agreed. The point is that the NFL does present itself as 32 privately owned business entities. That avoids the anti-trust regulations. There is competition, therefore anti-trust regulations do not apply. Presented as a single business entity, a strong argument can be made that it is a monopoly, subject to anti-trust laws.

You nailed it. It cannot be collusion, if the NFL is viewed as a single business entity. However, it can be viewed as a monopoly.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 11:39 AM ET  10.09 by CowboyDave

Agreed. The point is that the NFL does present itself as 32 privately owned business entities. That avoids the anti-trust regulations. There is competition, therefore anti-trust regulations do not apply. Presented as a single business entity, a strong argument can be made that it is a monopoly, subject to anti-trust laws.You nailed it. It cannot be collusion, if the NFL is viewed as a single business entity. However, it can be viewed as a monopoly.

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 11:31 AM ET  10.09 by williewilliejuan

You're starting to sound like Dolemite.

That's uncalled for. Why would you say that?

I simply maintain that the players deserve fair pay for a hard days work. If the players are willing to sacrifice current earnings for future health benefits, fine. If they are so short sighted to reject that, don't whine later. I'm obviously on the players side.

I think the players will fold like a cheap tent. A lockout season will crush most players. Guess being tough has many variables.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 11:46 AM ET  10.09 by williewilliejuan

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

IMO, not any more than MLB's minor leagues. The NFL wants the blessing of Congress, then *arguments* don't matter.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 11:46 AM ET  10.09 by williewilliejuan

Doesn't the presence of the UFL undermine the monopoly argument?

No, not at all. How many times has this been attempted? The USFL was the most successful, yet folded.