View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 12:20 PM
  #82
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Collusion cannot be the case if businesses have standards and practices in place. It would be easy for any team to show, if there was such an accusation, that spending more money than they get in revenues is a bad idea. They can probably pick a point to which they want to spend based on their income.

One problem is that many teams budget under the assumption that they'll reach the second round of the playoffs. Obviously, making the playoffs means a lot more revenue. Well, if you consider the odds of getting that far, most teams will lose that bet.

Collusion can only be proven if the teams, as a group, conspire to set pricing or adopt practices which end restraining player salaries. Sticking to a budget is not collusive behavior.
So putting into place a rule against "back-diving" contracts would be necessary for the League to protect itself from itself, not from collusions accusations if all teams simply chose not to do such a thing?

I'm just really curious about which of these new rules that the League wants to put into place are truly necessary to be approved by the PA. If it's just the owners protecting themselves from themselves in some cases, then those rules can be done in-house.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote