View Single Post
09-28-2012, 09:27 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,877
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
What is the difference? Not like any of this would be written down.
The following.

English isn't my first language, but with the use of the term unwritten rule you gotta be able to include what maybe is best described as like an untold rule. Right? Take this statement: It used to be a unwritten rule in the game of hockey that you should not break infront of the goalie so that he gets sprayed with snow (now its included in the rules in someway I think). How many of the players had actually spoken with each other about that? Its not a formal verbal agreement the players have.

Collussion would be if the GM got together on the phone and struck an agreement not to approch each other's RFA's. I am not familiar with the common law legal system/US law, but the general rule with collusion is definitely that it takes some kind of agreement or organized behavior. Hence i) If the players get on a phone conference and agrees to not sprey snow on goalies, or Fehr sends out a memo not to sprey snow on goalies, or the word is activly spread somehow -- it would fulfill one of the conditions for collusion. ii) If you just don't do something because its not classy, you are afraid that it will come back and hurt you and what not, and after a while everyone recognize that everyone is doing what they are doing -- and it becomes a pattern and soon someone even calls it a unwritten rule -- one of the conditions for collussion is probably not met.

In anti-trust law you work alot with terms that cover stuff that just is implied and so forth. Like if one gas company hits the media and states that their gas price shall be 0.25 for a year, and all of a sudden the other four major companies -- 100% independant of each other -- puts their gas price at 0.25 and everyone stays there for a while, it might be seen as something in violation of anti-trust law. The collussion institute is often influenced by the anti-trust laws, and I wouldn't be suprised if there were some kind of openings to claim collussion even if the GM's didn't have a hand-shake agreement if you get what I mean.

But I personally just don't think that it smells that much in relation to what collussion really is. To be honest, it doesn't smell at all, because nobody does this to make money in any way (while Id definitely admit that strictly interpreted -- its atleast not that far of).

If it "smelled" more, I think the odds of the PA getting something done here would have been much higher. If you could like speculate that the owners would have spent 100m USD more per year if RFA was chased harder, then sure. At least try it. But now, I just doubt anyone want to touch it. At the same time, for the individual RFA it smells alot. So who knows...

Last edited by Ola: 09-28-2012 at 09:37 AM.
Ola is offline