Reply to Local clubs agreeing to a mutual non-compete

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Local clubs agreeing to a mutual non-compete"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is  not a legally binding thing. There are no ‘anti trust’ issues-sheesh.

There was a press release from 60 local clubs saying they will not use this situation to actively impact other clubs. Arlington, McLean, Bethesda and nearly  every other local club signed on to this charter. Read into it what you will in terms of what that means.

Is it legally enforceable- no. moreso an agreement between clubs not to use the current situation to poach and impact solvency of other clubs.

You can google and read the language yourself and make your own conclusions.

Nearly every club it seems—including those in the GA thread —is guaranteeing players their spot on their same team for next year. That does not help new players who wish to transfer as they are joining a full roster.

So likely we are in a weird place for the next month and it has nothing to do with just ASA and Mclaan. Its broader agreement to not leverage the situation to their advantage.

So back to original point- yes there will be transfers —but doubtful it will happen very early in the process as the optics would be not good. So all the people claiming immediate transfer offers from last week might just be trolls trying to get you riled up

[/quote]

Ok. Please do understand that every cartel agreement is not a legally binding or enforceable agreement. Written, legal or enforceable agreements are especially unusual in cartels.  I am not saying this is an antitrust problem but you need to stop saying things like that. It creates even more trouble. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics