the rumor is that these guys decided they want to play together after the olympic experience, can you really write a law to prevent that?
I am not a lawyer like MadMax. So I don't know. But from the lay point of view, I don't see how you can convict what the 3 players did in legal terms. Actually, LeBron's performance after Game 3 in the Boston series is more suspect than anything about the collusion. Nothing logical can explain why his effort dropped so dramatically, unless somehow he thought losing would give him a legitimate reason to leave Cleveland. But I don't think the NBA will do anything to investigate about that. What an embarrassment it would be if they found evidence to show that LeBron did intentionally play poorly in a playoffs series.
i don't think that alone gets it. the meeting in november gets closer. the meetings after the season get closer. i'm not sure this is criminal....as i've said with sam. and i doubt seriously that even if it were criminal that the feds would ever go after it. i don't know if some or any of the franchises would pursue common law claims in civil proceedings against these guys. like i said...if the Heat participated in any of this, that's a whole different deal. if there's ultimately a real story here...i think that's it.
I've read your articles and I did confuse the two, but I still don't get it. Honestly, I don't get it. I don't see how 3 players deciding to play together could be taken as collussion. They are free agents. As a free agent you can talk to whoever, sign wherever. I don't think a collussion charge can be made. i can see the crime for tampering but how do you prove or regulate that?
tampering would be the heat... you read the articles and you don't understand the argument?? or you just disagree with it??? i probably can't explain it any better than the articles have. i can tell you that this sort of thing is absolutely prohibited in the collective bargaining agreement in MLB.
You can download a primer from a guy who well respected in sports law circles....he talked about this very issue with respect to baseball in the Wayne Law Review in 2008. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1341333## Here's the clause of the 1976 Basic Agreement in MLB: "the utilization or non-utilizaton of free agency shall be an individual matter to be determined solely by each Player and Club for his or its own benefit. [With regard to free agency], Players may not act in concert with other Players, and Clubs may not act in concert with other Clubs." the author goes on to say that "in 1976, many club-owners feared that without this clause, free agent players would bargain in tandem for new contracts." There seems to be SOME language, albeit limited, protecting the NBA franchises from this sort of thing.
Here's an article written on June 1... Icehouse, maybe this explains it a little better. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5229374 But wait: Is this really the future of the NBA? This is collusion, correct? Collusion, pure and simple. What Wade is saying is exactly that: He and the other top players will get together and sort things out, and talk about who is going where. Wade said it: It's not just a "me" situation. So when did free agency become a collective? The idea that Wade might be curious about where James is going makes plenty of sense. The idea that Johnson's destination might affect Bosh's destination, or vice versa, is right on. You can construct a few scenarios in which a couple of these guys wind up on the same team; the Knicks and the Nets, to name two, could afford more than one top-tier free agent. But those scenarios generally play themselves out on the open market, with no predetermined winner. In an open market, bids come and go unexpectedly. Coaches get moved around. Owners make surprise impassioned pleas. Free agents do strange things. Not this summer. Not with the Gang of Four on hand. (Wade mentioned James and Johnson, but by several accounts, Bosh will be included in the "meeting.") There is nothing on the record to confirm that one meeting of a bunch of NBA stars is going to completely decide which teams get which players; but on the other hand, you do the math. Again: If the owners did this, they'd be getting sued yesterday. Maybe the most remarkable facet of the conversation is how casual Wade makes it all sound. You know, it's a bunch of friends getting together to talk hoops, and what could possibly be controversial about that? It is not until you parse the words that you realize what's going on, and honestly, what is going on is impressive. It is a transfer of power from owner to player -- and on the players' side, a union within a union. Welcome to the NBA's summer of shift. Seat belts no longer optional.
who is better? Bud Selig? Roger Goodell who has been there for exactly one year? Gary Bettman? Theres no comparison
Aren't fans always ask their stars to "recruit" other players to come to town? Now that it's actually happened, everyone is up in arms?
Again..that's fine as long as your "star" isn't actually a free agent who is pretending to be interested in signing with other teams. Kobe talking to Ron last year is different...it's when the free agents agree together that you potentially have a problem. If they had an agreement beforehand and put all the teams through the charade, there's the potential there's a problem here. If the Heat were involved in that, then I'd say the potential is more significant.
thats the big thing here.....the whole charade that was disguised as a free agent visiting trip culminated by an hour long, look what we did , hahaha "f-u to clev and the nba" special
We don't have proof of the Heat doing anything differently than 3 other teams did, which was clear cap space with the hopes of landing someone (NY, NJ, Chi). All we know is some players possibly got together prior to them being free agents and decided to play together, somewhere. I don't get how that is collussion, to discuss where you can play when you are no longer under contract. because when that happens you can play wherever, right? The things in the articles about controlling the market, etc don't seem to apply to someone that can sign wherever they want. I mean, if we all are free agents and we decide to corner the market and all play for the same team, then how is that illegial if by law we can all sign with the same team? I guess that's my question.
I read the article (thanks). I guess I just don't agree. I get what the writer is trying to say, but aren't free agents FREE? If 10 guys can sign wherever they like, how can you make it against the rules for them all to say we want to play together, or you go here and I go here for $$ reasons or this reason or that reason? At the end of the day they all get to choose where they want to play. I think the fact that they could corner the market is just a consequence that has to be there, kinda like a player entering the league has to report to whoever holds his draft rights if he wants to play. Anything less isn't true free agency to me.
the Heat were the only team that cleared house to get all 3. whatever evidence is there is circumstantial...i don't know of any other information, and i'm not suggesting i do. i don't know how to explain collusion any more than i have or the articles have. that law professors have written law review articles on it that i've included in posts should tell you that it's at least arguable. you're missing the point that those free agents ARE the market. when 3 sellers in a market meet to discuss deals, that's what some are saying is collusion. you can all sign with the same team...what you can't do is reach an agreement on that amongst yourselves or sort out who would get what. IF THE HEAT are involved...and I don't know that they are...but if they hosted a meeting with them to discuss all this, for examples...then it's a big problem for them if that's discovered.
they can absolutely all make individual decisions..... what is being argued is that it's collusion if they all get together and decide where they're going to go and discuss offers. because, as that last article points out, if the owners did the same thing, they'd absolutely be dealing with litigation and again....for that very reason this sort of behavior is banned in the CBA of MLB...and my guess is that it is in the NFL as well. there is no open market if there is a pre-determined winner. the whole bidding process was/is a farce.
