Absence of Poison Pills in Nfl contracts offers (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...nder/index.html

It's tender time in the NFL. For teams that have not already done so, they must apply one of five available tenders to their restricted free agents by Thursday to secure the right of first refusal and more for those players. Those tenders take on added significance this year, the first to begin without a salary cap since 1993, because more players than usual will be restricted.

The problem for those restricted players hoping to land a big contract is that competing teams will be very hesitant to sign them to offer sheets for two reasons. The first is an exceptionally deep draft; most franchises will be loath to give up their precious picks in a deep draft to land a restricted free agent. The second is if the player is truly worth giving up picks for, odds are his team will match the offer sheet. Some teams look at signing a player to an offer sheet as just doing the other team's work for them, since the original team can match the offer and retain the player.

But what if those teams could ensure the offer would not be matched? That might change things a little bit. All any team need do is insert a term that is pretty much unmatchable. It's called a poison pill.

For example, if Bill Parcells wants to reunite with former Cowboys undrafted free agent Miles Austin, Miami could craft an offer sheet that says Austin's contract would need to be the highest on the team and 100 percent guaranteed if he plays more than four games in the state of Texas. Surely Jerry Jones would have to let Austin go since he wouldn't want to pay him more than Tony Romo or DeMarcus Ware, let alone guaranteeing the entire contract.

Poison pills are a completely legal and acceptable way to acquire tendered players in the NFL. An arbitrator ruled so in a grievance the Seahawks filed in 2006 after the Minnesota Vikings snuck a fast one past Seattle to secure All-Pro left guard Steve Hutchinson. The Seahawks quickly returned the favor by inserting their own poison pill to steal Nate Burleson from the Vikings. Yet amazingly, even though two players of that caliber were acquired in such a manner, there has not been another poison pill acquisition.

The only logical explanation for the lack of poison pill use in one of the most competitive and cutthroat industries in the U.S. is that some type of gentlemen's agreement is in place. With the job turnover for coaches and executives and the ever-present insecurity that entails, how can it possibly be that not one of these 32 teams has had a desire to do what it takes to sign any of these tagged or tendered players?

One ex-GM I spoke with said he never heard anything about not using a poison pill from his owner. He theorized that most people's reluctancy to tender offer sheets to restricted free agents has more to do with not wanting to give up draft choices.

To be clear, I don't blame the ownership if it does have a gentlemen's agreement in place. I don't think poison pill contracts are good for the league as a whole. The problem, of course, is that there is another name for a gentlemen's agreement: Collusion.

Executives in the league office get very uncomfortable when they hear that term, and rightfully so. If the league were found guilty of such a claim, their anti-trust exemption could be in jeopardy.

Given the snail-like pace of the current CBA negotiations and the increasing threat of a lockout in 2011, the NFLPA likely is willing to use every chip it can to get the best deal. Any collusion claim, especially if it involved the lack of poison pill use, could be an extremely big chip.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has already said he is going to be watching team expenditures very closely in this uncapped environment for any sign the teams have come together and decided collectively to keep player costs low.

So what does all this mean for the average fan who couldn't care less about CBA negotiations? It means if your team elects not to improve via restricted free agency, it had better say it is because it doesn't want to give up any draft choices. Because having a fear that the other team will match their offer should not apply in an era in which the poison pill is a legitimate mechanism.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0kqCgzJhh

Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

 

[Cassius]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

His titled. I added the question mark. His was just a statement.

 

[Christo]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

That's where the Author is going with it.The interesting part will be seeing if anyone does one of these this off season.

 

[CaptainHook]

interesting

 

[Cassius]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

His titled. I added the question mark. His was just a statement.

I know, wasn't directed at you.

 

[GregR_2]

Doing a little bit of research on what's happened on the topic since the original Vikings-Seahawks thing. ESPN article from back then of Tagliabue planning to get the loophole closed. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2387043

Another blurb, this one from PFT, about the reaction the Vikings got at the owners meeting that year. http://archive.profootballtalk.com/4-2-06.htm

POSTED 3:00 a.m. EDT, April 2, 2006

VIKES CATCH LEAGUE'S IRE

A league source tells us that the recent ownership meetings in Florida featured a storm of resentment directed at the delegation representing the Minnesota Vikings.

The reason for the discontent was the poison pilled offer sheet that the Vikings presented to former Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson three weeks ago. The NFL ultimately attempted to challenge the offer on behalf of the Seahawks.

"Everyone was talking about the group of people with more balls and ego than brains," said one source, in reference to the four men who run the organization: owner Zygi Wilf, V.P. of player personnel Fran Foley, V.P. of football operations Rob Brzezinski, and head coach Brad Childress.

"This group is on everyone's sh-t list," added the source. "League office, other teams, owners, personnel people."

The league office also isn't pleased, we're told, with the involvement of former management council employee Dave Blando in the crafting of the offer sheet that prevented the Seahawks from matching. Blando now works as a cap guy for the Vikings, and the thinking is that Blando had a key role in coming up with the term that would have made all of Hutchinson's seven-year, $49 million contract fully guaranteed if the Seahawks had matched.

Wilf bought the Vikings less than a year ago. Childress was hired days after the conclusion of the 2005 season to replace Mike Tice, who was fired minutes after a season-ending win over the Bears. Foley joined the organization not long thereafter from San Diego, where he had served as the director of pro personnel. Brzezinski has been with the team for seven years.

 

[Cassius]

It looks like they tried to get the poison pill strategy out of the last CBA, but failed.

I'm just not sold that just because the poison pill hasn't been used means the owners are "colluding." It seems more like a mutually assured destruction type balance, like with nukes.

 

[GregR_2]

It looks like they tried to get the poison pill strategy out of the last CBA, but failed.I'm just not sold that just because the poison pill hasn't been used means the owners are "colluding." It seems more like a mutually assured destruction type balance, like with nukes.

Assuming the PFT thing is accurate, it kind of reminds me of an FF situation where an owner would like to do something the rules are gray on, yet he knows if he does the rest of the league will get mad at him. With possible repercussions, not as willing to trade with him, etc. Not a case of outright discussion and agreement, yet everyone toeing the line for their own best interests.There are plenty of reasons an NFL team might not want to be on bad terms with the rest of the league. As one conceivable example, I believe the league has a fund that owners can borrow against when building a new stadium. If the rest of the owners are pissed at a team who wants a new stadium they might be able to deny them approval to get a loan from it.I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving in to the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

 

[Cassius]

I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving into the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

NFL teams/owners are under no obligation to behave "logically." I doubt this ever goes to a courtroom, but if it did, I doubt not using a poison pill is enough evidence to prove collusion. It's only one possibly explanation - a team could not use them for the reasons discussed above - it'll piss everyone off and make it harder to do business in the league. Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some kind of record of a secret agreement, I don't think this "collusion" angle has any legs.

 

[Angus82]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

lolzsiggedpsI wouldn't have any idea, but like the guy said with the nukes it could just be that these guys don't want to die by the sword, so they don't live by the sword.the nuclear sword.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

crazy salaries have nothing to do with it.poison pills are crazy terms that simply abuse the cba, much like denver and san fran abused the cap to win their titles.it's possible teams have come to a sort of unspoken gentlemen's agreement just so they don't end up on the receiving end.

 

[Christo]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

 

[Angus82]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

crazy salaries have nothing to do with it.poison pills are crazy terms that simply abuse the cba, much like denver and san fran abused the cap to win their titles.it's possible teams have come to a sort of unspoken gentlemen's agreement just so they don't end up on the receiving end.

Sometimes I do not write as well as I speak. The two teams that you mentioned are great examples of why teams will avoid poison pills. Look at the price those teams paid. Did they win SB's? yes. How long have they been rebuilding? (ALLRIGHTY THEN. spoken in your best Ace Ventura)The pill works when you want to gain a players services. It absolutely screws a team when they achieve their goal.

 

[TLEF316]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

crazy salaries have nothing to do with it.poison pills are crazy terms that simply abuse the cba, much like denver and san fran abused the cap to win their titles.it's possible teams have come to a sort of unspoken gentlemen's agreement just so they don't end up on the receiving end.

Sometimes I do not write as well as I speak. The two teams that you mentioned are great examples of why teams will avoid poison pills. Look at the price those teams paid. Did they win SB's? yes. How long have they been rebuilding? (ALLRIGHTY THEN. spoken in your best Ace Ventura)The pill works when you want to gain a players services. It absolutely screws a team when they achieve their goal.

Wasn't the Hutchinson poison pill something like "If the player plays more than 4 games in the state of Washington, all the money is guaranteed"?If thats the case, there's absolutely no downside for the Vikings to sign Hutchinson to this type of deal (because he'll obviously play his games in Minnesota). But its something that the Seahawks could not match without severe cap problems.edit: apparently the terms i laid out above were actually in the contract Seattle gave to Nate Burleson (in response to the poison pills in the Hutchinson Vikings contract). Hutchinson's contract required he be the highest paid lineman on his team (or else the contract would be 100% guaranteed). Seattle couldnt afford to match that term because they had Walter Jones.

 

[Angus82]

"Hutchinson's contract required he be the highest paid lineman on his team (or else the contract would be 100% guaranteed). Seattle couldnt afford to match that term because they had Walter Jones."

This is what I was referring to. When a team is not that good you can play dirty tricks. When a team becomes a real power broker it comes back and bites you.

 

[GregR_2]

I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving into the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

NFL teams/owners are under no obligation to behave "logically." I doubt this ever goes to a courtroom, but if it did, I doubt not using a poison pill is enough evidence to prove collusion. It's only one possibly explanation - a team could not use them for the reasons discussed above - it'll piss everyone off and make it harder to do business in the league. Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some kind of record of a secret agreement, I don't think this "collusion" angle has any legs.

Well. Of course, they aren't under an obligation to behave logically. Nor is a judge/jury under an obligation to believe they just spontaneously acted illogically. In a manner that would be against their best interest without having a belief no one else in the league would use it against them too and leave them at a disadvantage.

 

[az_prof]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

I am not really familiar with the defensive FA players on market, but offensively, how about Miles Austin or VJax or Reggie Bush?The Vikings received a lot of negative publicity for doing it and let's be real, Seattle doing it to Burleson was just getting back. Reasons not to do it:YOu may want to trade with the team in the futureYou may be out of a job and looking for a job as an assistant with the team in the futureYou don't want them to do the same thing to your FAsLots of reasons to collude and so you would ONLY do it if the player in question is really special, like Hutchinson was. Personally, I would do it for Austin and it would be fun to upset Cowboys, who I hate for the Drew Pearson Fake TD.Yes, people have long memories in sports...LOL.

 

[Christo]

Have the players been complaining about this so-called collusion?

 

[PhilLynott]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

"I am not really familiar with the defensive FA players on market, but offensively, how about Miles Austin or VJax or Reggie Bush?"Really, you see Vjax or Reggie Bush as poison pill worthy? To me a poison pill is put on a player that screws the team that they are on. Also, it has to be an elite player. Reggie Bush's parent's should have taken the pill, he isn't worth a poison pill.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

 

[Cassius]

I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving into the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

NFL teams/owners are under no obligation to behave "logically." I doubt this ever goes to a courtroom, but if it did, I doubt not using a poison pill is enough evidence to prove collusion. It's only one possibly explanation - a team could not use them for the reasons discussed above - it'll piss everyone off and make it harder to do business in the league. Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some kind of record of a secret agreement, I don't think this "collusion" angle has any legs.

Well. Of course, they aren't under an obligation to behave logically. Nor is a judge/jury under an obligation to believe they just spontaneously acted illogically. In a manner that would be against their best interest without having a belief no one else in the league would use it against them too and leave them at a disadvantage.

So in this scenario, the NFLPA sues the owners for collusion, the only evidence of it being that poison pill contracts aren't being used, and the judge is going to take it seriously because "Obviously the Seahawks are colluding with the Broncos, why else would they not give a poison pill contract to Brandon Marshall? They'd become favorite in that division!"

 

[Cassius]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

There has to be some party that is getting disadvantaged over this "collusion" otherwise there's no reason for it to exist. If an argument is going to be made for collusion, pointing to the players as the victim is the best bet.

 

[GregR_2]

...

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

There has to be some party that is getting disadvantaged over this "collusion" otherwise there's no reason for it to exist. If an argument is going to be made for collusion, pointing to the players as the victim is the best bet.

The players would be the disadvantaged party. Player mobility would have been restricted if teams would have negotiated with an RFA if a poison pill contract was considered a viable option.... but instead didn't because poison pills were off the table due to collusion.Note that my reply to Christo is pointing out the article is talking about lack of poison pill contracts over 3-4 years as being the author's evidence such collusion is going on. Christo is talking about something different, an example of a player trying to negotiate a poison pill contract term and being refused. In the author's scenario, the team might not have even begun negotiations with the player for him to have an opportunity to get to where Christo's scenario would begin.

I'm not saying it's going on or not, but that's the argument the author is making. And what the NFLPA would have to convince a court of.

 

[GregR_2]

I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving into the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

NFL teams/owners are under no obligation to behave "logically." I doubt this ever goes to a courtroom, but if it did, I doubt not using a poison pill is enough evidence to prove collusion. It's only one possibly explanation - a team could not use them for the reasons discussed above - it'll piss everyone off and make it harder to do business in the league. Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some kind of record of a secret agreement, I don't think this "collusion" angle has any legs.

Well. Of course, they aren't under an obligation to behave logically. Nor is a judge/jury under an obligation to believe they just spontaneously acted illogically. In a manner that would be against their best interest without having a belief no one else in the league would use it against them too and leave them at a disadvantage.

So in this scenario, the NFLPA sues the owners for collusion, the only evidence of it being that poison pill contracts aren't being used, and the judge is going to take it seriously because "Obviously the Seahawks are colluding with the Broncos, why else would they not give a poison pill contract to Brandon Marshall? They'd become favorite in that division!"

Minus the Seahawks part, yes, the author of the article is saying the NFLPA could argue the lack of use of the poison pill to sign RFAs as evidence of collusion.

 

[renesauz]

Poison pills in a RFA tender are total crap anyway. If they weren't against the rules, THEY SHOULD BE. They CLEARLY violate the entire purpose and intent of the RFA system, whether they are technically legal or not.

Charges of collusion are total BS since the system is set up and designed to allow the original team to match and retain rights to a player, and it's only through legal loopholes which were obviously NOT intended that a team could use poison pills. The intent was clear, and the players signed off on that CBA.

A judge may have refused to reverse the Vikings maneuver on legal technicalities...but that's a long way from successfully charging the NFL with illegal collusion. The NFLPA would have a very difficult time getting that charge brought. Worse, it would be very silly for them to even attempt to do so with a new CBA in negotiation since they would stand to gain little other then increased hard feelings with the owners.

 

[Bri]

Poison pills in a RFA tender are total crap anyway. If they weren't against the rules, THEY SHOULD BE. They CLEARLY violate the entire purpose and intent of the RFA system, whether they are technically legal or not.Charges of collusion are total BS since the system is set up and designed to allow the original team to match and retain rights to a player, and it's only through legal loopholes which were obviously NOT intended that a team could use poison pills. The intent was clear, and the players signed off on that CBA. A judge may have refused to reverse the Vikings maneuver on legal technicalities...but that's a long way from successfully charging the NFL with illegal collusion. The NFLPA would have a very difficult time getting that charge brought. Worse, it would be very silly for them to even attempt to do so with a new CBA in negotiation since they would stand to gain little other then increased hard feelings with the owners.

I really thought it was illegal now. Too late to research and someone mentioned it was shot down at last CBA so maybe that's it. Anyhow what you were saying in your last paragraph is important. A team can be all "woohoo" we got player X and then no team wants to deal with them anymore.The Cowboys were kept out of free agency because no one signed any of their free agents recently. Granted they weren't very good but it still makes you wonder.

 

[az_prof]

Poison pills in a RFA tender are total crap anyway. If they weren't against the rules, THEY SHOULD BE. They CLEARLY violate the entire purpose and intent of the RFA system, whether they are technically legal or not.Charges of collusion are total BS since the system is set up and designed to allow the original team to match and retain rights to a player, and it's only through legal loopholes which were obviously NOT intended that a team could use poison pills. The intent was clear, and the players signed off on that CBA. A judge may have refused to reverse the Vikings maneuver on legal technicalities...but that's a long way from successfully charging the NFL with illegal collusion. The NFLPA would have a very difficult time getting that charge brought. Worse, it would be very silly for them to even attempt to do so with a new CBA in negotiation since they would stand to gain little other then increased hard feelings with the owners.

There was nothing illegal about the deal the Vikes used to steal Hutch. Sorry. Get over it.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I don't see how this is collusion. It's a good idea that they don't do these poison pills, and coming to that conclusion independently is pretty easy to do.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

crazy salaries have nothing to do with it.poison pills are crazy terms that simply abuse the cba, much like denver and san fran abused the cap to win their titles.it's possible teams have come to a sort of unspoken gentlemen's agreement just so they don't end up on the receiving end.

Sometimes I do not write as well as I speak. The two teams that you mentioned are great examples of why teams will avoid poison pills. Look at the price those teams paid. Did they win SB's? yes. How long have they been rebuilding? (ALLRIGHTY THEN. spoken in your best Ace Ventura)The pill works when you want to gain a players services. It absolutely screws a team when they achieve their goal.

Wasn't the Hutchinson poison pill something like "If the player plays more than 4 games in the state of Washington, all the money is guaranteed"?If thats the case, there's absolutely no downside for the Vikings to sign Hutchinson to this type of deal (because he'll obviously play his games in Minnesota). But its something that the Seahawks could not match without severe cap problems.edit: apparently the terms i laid out above were actually in the contract Seattle gave to Nate Burleson (in response to the poison pills in the Hutchinson Vikings contract). Hutchinson's contract required he be the highest paid lineman on his team (or else the contract would be 100% guaranteed). Seattle couldnt afford to match that term because they had Walter Jones.

Honestly this type of Poison Pill I really don't have a problem with. But X number of games in the state of ______ is BS.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I wonder if the teams never actually discussed not using poison pills, and instead this is just everyone giving into the peer pressure, if it could be ruled as collusion by the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be... the evidence that the teams didn't use a method they logically should being enough proof?

NFL teams/owners are under no obligation to behave "logically." I doubt this ever goes to a courtroom, but if it did, I doubt not using a poison pill is enough evidence to prove collusion. It's only one possibly explanation - a team could not use them for the reasons discussed above - it'll piss everyone off and make it harder to do business in the league. Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some kind of record of a secret agreement, I don't think this "collusion" angle has any legs.

But they are under obligation to behave "fairly" vis a vis the NFLPA.players. I would be surprised if this isn't remedied in whatever agreement they eventually come to.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Maybe I am naive, but who is worth putting a poison pill on? I just do not see any FA's that would warrant a crazy salary.

I am not really familiar with the defensive FA players on market, but offensively, how about Miles Austin or VJax or Reggie Bush?The Vikings received a lot of negative publicity for doing it and let's be real, Seattle doing it to Burleson was just getting back. Reasons not to do it:YOu may want to trade with the team in the futureYou may be out of a job and looking for a job as an assistant with the team in the futureYou don't want them to do the same thing to your FAsLots of reasons to collude and so you would ONLY do it if the player in question is really special, like Hutchinson was. Personally, I would do it for Austin and it would be fun to upset Cowboys, who I hate for the Drew Pearson Fake TD.Yes, people have long memories in sports...LOL.

Drew Pearson gave me a free "sample cookie" at the now defunct Atlanta Soul Food Joint "Sons" about 2 years ago. It was delicious.

 

[TWP]

I'm no DOJ prosecutor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. (And I know a DOJ prosecutor and I studied game theory and law & economics in school.)

1. Yes, the lack of use of poison pills is evidence of collusion-like behavior

2. Just because there is collusion-like behavior, doesn't mean there is collusion (the guy who wrote "it's not collusion if everyone agrees to it" is exactly wrong -- it may not be collusion if NO ONE explicitly agreed to it, if they all agreed to it then it definitely IS collusion)

3. In the real world, if there is collusion-like activity it may or may not be deemed collusion by a court (as I understand it -- a real lawyer could give you real examples in each direction)

4. This is clearly not a high priority for anyone in terms of bringing to court, although it could be an NFLPA card to play in negotiations ("We can't trust you, you guys screw us every way possible", etc.)

5. The rule that requires the current team to match the exact contract is idiotic -- they should have just made them match the actual salary numbers that are committed to by the other team. So if the Eagles offer a contract that says "All money guaranteed if the player plays in a Vikings jersey", since he wont wear a Vikings jersey playing for the Eagles, the money won't be guaranteed, so the Vikings dont have to make the money guaranteed. They dont have to match the exact terms being offered, just the money being offered.

 

[Da Guru]

NFL teams wised up..they were the ones eating their own poison.

 

[Christo]

I don't see how this would be collusion.

I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it.

The players didn't agree to it.

I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

I was addressing your claim that the players didn't agree to it. If no one is complaining about being hurt by this alleged agreement why is it even being discussed?

 

[Christo]

The players would be the disadvantaged party. Player mobility would have been restricted if teams would have negotiated with an RFA if a poison pill contract was considered a viable option.... but instead didn't because poison pills were off the table due to collusion.

Note that my reply to Christo is pointing out the article is talking about lack of poison pill contracts over 3-4 years as being the author's evidence such collusion is going on. Christo is talking about something different, an example of a player trying to negotiate a poison pill contract term and being refused. In the author's scenario, the team might not have even begun negotiations with the player for him to have an opportunity to get to where Christo's scenario would begin.

I'm not saying it's going on or not, but that's the argument the author is making. And what the NFLPA would have to convince a court of.

Has the NFLPA said this is an issue?

 

[GregR_2]

The players would be the disadvantaged party. Player mobility would have been restricted if teams would have negotiated with an RFA if a poison pill contract was considered a viable option.... but instead didn't because poison pills were off the table due to collusion.

Note that my reply to Christo is pointing out the article is talking about lack of poison pill contracts over 3-4 years as being the author's evidence such collusion is going on. Christo is talking about something different, an example of a player trying to negotiate a poison pill contract term and being refused. In the author's scenario, the team might not have even begun negotiations with the player for him to have an opportunity to get to where Christo's scenario would begin.

I'm not saying it's going on or not, but that's the argument the author is making. And what the NFLPA would have to convince a court of.

Has the NFLPA said this is an issue?

I don't know. Have they? I've got the same articles to go by that you do. The NFLPA said they are watching free agency closely for signs the teams are acting collectively. I don't see any other comments or quotes that answer your specific question.If you want my guess, if the NFLPA thought they could win a court case on it or at least worry the NFL enough it was useful as leverage, I'm sure they would consider it an issue.

 

[GregR_2]

...I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

I was addressing your claim that the players didn't agree to it. If no one is complaining about being hurt by this alleged agreement why is it even being discussed?

It's being discussed because columnist Ross Tucker thinks the lack of contracts is evidence collusion is going on and wrote an article on it. And if there's any legal basis for his view it could impact the NFL-NFLPA labor negotiations.

 

[Christo]

Has the NFLPA said this is an issue?

I don't know. Have they? I've got the same articles to go by that you do. The NFLPA said they are watching free agency closely for signs the teams are acting collectively. I don't see any other comments or quotes that answer your specific question.If you want my guess, if the NFLPA thought they could win a court case on it or at least worry the NFL enough it was useful as leverage, I'm sure they would consider it an issue.

It's being discussed because columnist Ross Tucker thinks the lack of contracts is evidence collusion is going on and wrote an article on it. And if there's any legal basis for his view it could impact the NFL-NFLPA labor negotiations.

You are the one who stated that the players did not agree. Yet you have provided no evidence of that. You seem to believe that the fact that there have been no RFA contracts that included poison pill clauses in the last few years makes it reasonable to conclude that there is collusion by the owners against the players. But given there is no evidence that players have requested but been denied poison pill clauses, it is more reasonable to conclude that there is no collusion by the owners and that the owners and players are all in agreement that poison pill clauses are in no one's interest.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

...I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

I was addressing your claim that the players didn't agree to it. If no one is complaining about being hurt by this alleged agreement why is it even being discussed?

It's being discussed because columnist Ross Tucker thinks the lack of contracts is evidence collusion is going on and wrote an article on it. And if there's any legal basis for his view it could impact the NFL-NFLPA labor negotiations.

This type of collusion would help the players anyway.

 

[GregR_2]

Has the NFLPA said this is an issue?

I don't know. Have they? I've got the same articles to go by that you do. The NFLPA said they are watching free agency closely for signs the teams are acting collectively. I don't see any other comments or quotes that answer your specific question.If you want my guess, if the NFLPA thought they could win a court case on it or at least worry the NFL enough it was useful as leverage, I'm sure they would consider it an issue.

It's being discussed because columnist Ross Tucker thinks the lack of contracts is evidence collusion is going on and wrote an article on it. And if there's any legal basis for his view it could impact the NFL-NFLPA labor negotiations.

You are the one who stated that the players did not agree. Yet you have provided no evidence of that.

Between the OP and myself there are articles that have been posted and linked to which included the NFLPA going to court to uphold the poison pill as something that the CBA does not restrict. And which include statements by the league about wanting to negotiate a closing of said loophole with the players. That's plenty of evidence already given that the players were not in agreement with getting rid of poison pills. Enough so that Cassius, who you were posting in agreement with, said after those articles, "It looks like they [the owners] tried to get the poison pill strategy out of the last CBA, but failed."

If you're saying they players since agreed otherwise, you're the one making the claim and should provide some evidence to support it.

You seem to believe that the fact that there have been no RFA contracts that included poison pill clauses in the last few years makes it reasonable to conclude that there is collusion by the owners against the players. But given there is no evidence that players have requested but been denied poison pill clauses, it is more reasonable to conclude that there is no collusion by the owners and that the owners and players are all in agreement that poison pill clauses are in no one's interest.

No, I haven't made any statements what I believe. I keep replying to statements you're making that are factually incorrect regardless of whether one agrees with the article or not, and you then assume this means I disagree with you. Rather than realize I'm correcting your incorrect statement and not making a statement about my view on the article.Instead of you just saying, "I don't think lack of contracts being signed is enough evidence of collusion," you say "I don't think it can be collusion if everyone agrees to it" when everyone didn't agree to it. Or try to make the discussion about something the article isn't with "I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused" when a central tenet of the article is that one of the two reasons RFAs don't get signed is teams won't even negotiate with players unless they believe the original club won't match. Which the poison pill could give them confidence the team won't match.

If you actually read my posts you'd have seen after correcting such an error I've said things like, "I'm not saying [the collusion the article spoke of is] going on or not, but that's the argument the author is making. And what the NFLPA would have to convince a court of. "

You'd also see I posted the hypothetical where there was no meeting and agreement by the owners not use the poison pill, but it instead came across through something akin to peer pressure like the PFT article insinuated about the Vikings. And stated I didn't know if a court would find that enough to be sufficient evidence of collusion.

 

[GregR_2]

...I haven't heard that any player attempted to negotiate one and was refused.

"A player attempting to negotiate one and being refused" wasn't given in the article as what would be the argument for collusion.

I was addressing your claim that the players didn't agree to it. If no one is complaining about being hurt by this alleged agreement why is it even being discussed?

It's being discussed because columnist Ross Tucker thinks the lack of contracts is evidence collusion is going on and wrote an article on it. And if there's any legal basis for his view it could impact the NFL-NFLPA labor negotiations.

This type of collusion would help the players anyway.

How would it help the players? Take the case of Miles Austin.Let's say the author is right, and teams that are willing to give up the draft picks think Dallas will just match the contract in the absence of a poison pill which they collude not to use. So no one negotiates with Austin, who only has Dallas he can talk to now, giving Dallas more negotiating power.If however teams were willing to use the poison pill, Austin might be able to negotiate with two or more other teams and play them against each other to get a better contract.That's one argument it would hurt the players. Another previously mentioned is that it would restrict a player being able to go to a team he wants to.

 

[Christo]

Between the OP and myself there are articles that have been posted and linked to which included the NFLPA going to court to uphold the poison pill as something that the CBA does not restrict. And which include statements by the league about wanting to negotiate a closing of said loophole with the players. That's plenty of evidence already given that the players were not in agreement with getting rid of poison pills. Enough so that Cassius, who you were posting in agreement with, said after those articles, "It looks like they [the owners] tried to get the poison pill strategy out of the last CBA, but failed."

The fact that the CBA doesn't restrict poison pill clauses doesn't mean there can't be an agreement. And the fact that the NFLPA has stated that poison pill clauses aren't restricted by the CBA doesn't mean there isn't an agreement to not use them.

If you're saying they players since agreed otherwise, you're the one making the claim and should provide some evidence to support it.

You said the players didn't agree. I'm saying your logic for reaching that conclusion more reasonably supports the conclusion that the players are in agreement with the owners.

 

[Christo]

No, I haven't made any statements what I believe. I keep replying to statements you're making that are factually incorrect regardless of whether one agrees with the article or not, and you then assume this means I disagree with you. Rather than realize I'm correcting your incorrect statement and not making a statement about my view on the article.

Where have I made a factually incorrect statement?

 

[CalBear]

How would it help the players? Take the case of Miles Austin.

Let's say the author is right, and teams that are willing to give up the draft picks think Dallas will just match the contract in the absence of a poison pill which they collude not to use. So no one negotiates with Austin, who only has Dallas he can talk to now, giving Dallas more negotiating power.

If however teams were willing to use the poison pill, Austin might be able to negotiate with two or more other teams and play them against each other to get a better contract.

What if Austin's current contract had a poison pill? Then no other team would be willing to negotiate with him. A player might be willing to accept a poison pill to get a better up-front contract, but it's pretty clear that once that pill is on his contract, he's going to be in a weaker position in future negotiations.

 

[TWP]

How would it help the players? Take the case of Miles Austin.

Let's say the author is right, and teams that are willing to give up the draft picks think Dallas will just match the contract in the absence of a poison pill which they collude not to use. So no one negotiates with Austin, who only has Dallas he can talk to now, giving Dallas more negotiating power.

If however teams were willing to use the poison pill, Austin might be able to negotiate with two or more other teams and play them against each other to get a better contract.

What if Austin's current contract had a poison pill? Then no other team would be willing to negotiate with him. A player might be willing to accept a poison pill to get a better up-front contract, but it's pretty clear that once that pill is on his contract, he's going to be in a weaker position in future negotiations.

Not if the poison pill is, as I suggested above, "You get $100MM if you play in a game in a Vikings jersey with authorization of the coach". That has no impact on any team other than the Vikings.GregR has been almost completely spot on in this thread, no idea why people are arguing with him. There is no evidence of explicit collusion. There is plenty of evidence of implicit collusion. Collusion by the teams is bad for the players. The way the teams are acting is bad for the players. It also may or may not be illegal.

 

[renesauz]

Not if the poison pill is, as I suggested above, "You get $100MM if you play in a game in a Vikings jersey with authorization of the coach". That has no impact on any team other than the Vikings.GregR has been almost completely spot on in this thread, no idea why people are arguing with him. There is no evidence of explicit collusion. There is plenty of evidence of implicit collusion. Collusion by the teams is bad for the players. The way the teams are acting is bad for the players. It also may or may not be illegal.

The players signed off on the RFA system. The sytem clearly and implicitly is designed to allow the original tream to retain the rights of a player. Therefore...the players would have a very tough time selling this as an illegal collusion on the part of the owners. Consistant use of poison pills would essentially negate the entire RFA system, and it should be painfully and blatantly obvious to everyone that that was never the intent, no matter what player(s) later decided was in their own best interests.What happened was a specific player found a loophole, then found another team willing to exploit that loophole. Much like any loophole in a legal contract, a judge said "sorry, you'r s.. out of luck" to the Seahawks. This whole conversation is much ado about nothing, IMO. If the current RFA system is retained, this loophole will be closed in the next CBA. If it isn't retained (or something very close to it), then it won't much matter.