"I don't want any of my clients playing for Paul Allen"

[SlyPokerDog]

"We won't sign with them, unless they're willing to really overpay. That's going to be the only way these hard-line owners are going to land any free agents after the way they've handled these negotiations."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/...p-free-agents-from-hard-line-o?urn=nba-412314

LOL! This guy talks tough when he knows his name isn't going to be published.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

oh noez, what are we going to do without free agent signings? :MARIS61:

 

[BrianFromWA]

You mean, the guys who've seen their teams a) not even be in the hunt for FAs, and b) own teams that stars are colluding to get away from? Real "hardliners", those guys.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

His clients probably won't be playing for any owner until this time next year.

 

[julius]

This guy is an idiot of an agent, if that's the case he's trying to sell.

Especially considering money talks and agents are full of shit.






wait, that's now how the saying goes.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

This agent will shit a brick when all contracts are voided if they decert.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So the agents are planning collusion. That's good info to have before the lawsuits start

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

So we will no longer be the free agency hotbed that Hedo took a shit on?

 

[Draco]

Only free agents we can sign are guys trying to run away from the Mormons.

 

[Ed O]

So the agents are planning collusion. That's good info to have before the lawsuits start

I don't think that employees are liable for collusion. Anti-competitive behavior is regulated to protect employees, not employers as I understand it.

Ed O.

 

[Nikolokolus]

So the agent is saying Portland is going to have to overpay to attract free agents here ... and this is different from how things have been forever, how exactly?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't think that employees are liable for collusion. Anti-competitive behavior is regulated to protect employees, not employers as I understand it.

Ed O.

In the general labor sense I defer to your expertise, but I know that in at least the NBA and NFL players are subject to the same non-tamper rules as agents, GMs, etc. for players under another contract. So if, for instance, Wade wooed LBJ and Bosh to come to MIA while they were still under their respective contracts, that's against league rules (I imagine it's in the CBA somewhere, since I've seen multiple respected guys quote it). If he waited until July 1, when they were free agents, then it's ok. Most people get around this by saying "I swear, I didn't talk to them until they were FAs," and it's generally accepted. However, when it's blatantly in violation, the league has stopped it.

Under league rules, players cannot tamper with other players, though it's a given that players talking among themselves not only happens, but is impossible to regulate.

The NBA metes out discipline only in what it said are "the most egregious" cases, and said Wade's comments "do not meet that standard."

 

[PapaG]

I don't think that employees are liable for collusion. Anti-competitive behavior is regulated to protect employees, not employers as I understand it.

Ed O.

If the union stays intact, it would certainly be considered collusion if members of that union have an agreement not to work with certain teams also under that CBA.

 

[PapaG]

I'll add that this agent's statement will only strengthen the resolve of the so-called 'hardline' owners. If I'm Paul Allen or some other small market owner, I go back to pushing for a hard cap and 25% automatically off of the salary cap.

The players' seem to be in disarry at this point in time. Who is the actual leader of them? Hunter? Fisher? Paul Pierce? Nameless agents?

 

[Shooter]

You mean, the guys who've seen their teams a) not even be in the hunt for FAs, and b) own teams that stars are colluding to get away from? Real "hardliners", those guys.

 

[Ed O]

If the union stays intact, it would certainly be considered collusion if members of that union have an agreement not to work with certain teams also under that CBA.

Really?

Why do you say that?

My understanding is that collusion is an antitrust issue, and not one of labor law.

Ed O.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Really?

Why do you say that?

My understanding is that collusion is an antitrust issue, and not one of labor law.

Ed O.

Now that there is no official union, it would be collusion...right?

 

[PapaG]

Now that there is no official union, it would be collusion...right?

The opposite. Now that there is no negotiated CBA, and no union, players and agents can certainly conspire to freeze some teams out of the process. The CBA not only protects the players, but it also protects the owners.

 

[Ed O]

Now that there is no official union, it would be collusion...right?

I don't know if collusion charges can be made against employees, rather than employers. Historically monopoly and monopsony have been issues from companies, rather than collections of individual employees, and historical unfairness is the primary driver for laws regulating anticompetitive behavior.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I don't know if collusion charges can be made against employees, rather than employers. Historically monopoly and monopsony have been issues from companies, rather than collections of individual employees, and historical unfairness is the primary driver for laws regulating anticompetitive behavior.

Ed O.

There already was an anti-collusion clause in the last CBA. The NBA rarely acted on it, though.

 

[Ed O]

There already was an anti-collusion clause in the last CBA. The NBA rarely acted on it, though.

Are you talking about the tampering rules that Brian mentioned, above?

I don't see how that is applicable to free agents.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Are you talking about the tampering rules that Brian mentioned, above?

I don't see how that is applicable to free agents.

Ed O.

I don't see how the players can sue the NBA for anti-trust violations. A legal case can be made for just about anything, and an agent declaring that owners will be punished for their stances during a protracted collective bargaining negotiation isn't going to help make the players' case.

 

[Ed O]

I don't see how the players can sue the NBA for anti-trust violations. A legal case can be made for just about anything, and an agent declaring that owners will be punished for their stances during a protracted collective bargaining negotiation isn't going to help make the players' case.

The players can sue for antitrust violations because, in the absence of a union, antitrust law is what's applied. It's very basic.

I don't know the legal basis for claiming agents can't steer their players towards or away from certain owners. It might be out there (attorneys can be very creative when there's money on the line). I just don't know what it is.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

The players can sue for antitrust violations because, in the absence of a union, antitrust law is what's applied. It's very basic.

I don't know the legal basis for claiming agents can't steer their players towards or away from certain owners. It might be out there (attorneys can be very creative when there's money on the line). I just don't know what it is.

Ed O.

There are other options available to basketball players to play professionally. We have many NBA players overseas playing, and other "charity" games in the USA. If the players wanted to, what would stop them from forming a small barnstorming league during the lockout? Anti-trust is going to be a difficult claim for the players when many of them are already admitting, by their actions, that other options exist professionally. In terms of comparision, I think an easier case could be made that the BCS is in violation of federal antitrust laws, considering the lack of other options versus the equity of all NCAA FBS schools.

I'm not saying that the lawsuit is frivilous at all. It's obviously a negotiating tactic, though, because the NBA players have even less of a case than the NFL players had in terms of good faith negotiations. An NBA attorney should just walk into court with the bylaws of other FIBA-sanctioned professional leagues, show how one-sided those are for the owners, and then introduce the 50/50 proposal they just offered the players.

 

[Boob-No-More]

"We won't sign with them, unless they're willing to really overpay.

Translation: We'll sign with whoever throws the most money at us.

Yawn... same old same old. No player is going to turn down more money to make an "ethical" stand.

 

[jlprk]

The definition of collusion.

This thread has been a legal education to all of us, especially Ed O. PapaG, I didn't know you are a lawyer. Update us on your career. Other than message boards, where have you practiced?

 

[PapaG]

The definition of collusion.

This thread has been a legal education to all of us, especially Ed O. PapaG, I didn't know you are a lawyer. Update us on your career. Other than message boards, where have you practiced?

Other than offering up stupid strawmen that have noting to do with negotiations, I'm wondering what your purpose is, jlprk? I mean, you freely admit that you're a sideshow, and I've yet to see you offer anything substantive other than wild accusations toward the owners, that clearly aren't based on the factual proposal made by the owners, and to the players.

 

[Ed O]

This thread has been a legal education to all of us, especially Ed O. PapaG, I didn't know you are a lawyer. Update us on your career. Other than message boards, where have you practiced?

I don't think that any of us are claiming to be antitrust or labor law experts. It seems to me that PapaG has raised some pretty good points (and/or things to chew on) even without a JD. Having food for thought--rather than just answers we are confident are correct--seems to be the best use of this board related to this issue, IMO.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

PapaG is arguing for the dictionary definition of collusion used for everyday events, and Ed O for the legal definition.

Obviously, all that matters in this case is the legal definition.

 

[PapaG]

PapaG is arguing for the dictionary definition of collusion used for everyday events, and Ed O for the legal definition.

Obviously, all that matters in this case is the legal definition.

I never once used the 'dictionary definition' of collusion. As for the 'legal' definition, that's up for the courts to decide. Might want to get those eyes checked out, oldtimer. You're slipping...