Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joey
    replied
    I'm not sure he meant it as is written. I hope not anyway.
    The players have never been fighting for a free-market.
    Just something closer to, than what the owners are pushing for.

    DISCLAIMER: Not Arguing in favour of Free Market.
    Baseball manages to avoid the whole 'Yankees and Redsox Win Every year' fairly well, I'd say.
    Blue Jays manage to stay competitive, and in a couple years, will have a stable of young talent to let loose on the League.
    I'm not pushing for an open market, but its not as horrible as its made out to be. Winning trumps EVERYTHING.
    If you put together a winning program, you'll draw all the free agents in the world.
    Look at the 1993 Blue Jays. Had a HUGE payroll, but basically had ALL the good players of the day. haha

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Anti-trust suit to be filed in Oakland tonight

    Read from bottom up, via Twitter.com:


    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Boies says California chosen because Hunter "has a great fondness for Oakland."
    39 seconds ago

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Boies: It is in everybody's interests to resolve this quickly. The longer it goes on, the greater the damages for teams and players.
    2 minutes ago

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Boies: We've brought this case in order to try to restore "competitive free-market conditions. Nobody can tell you how long it will take."
    3 minutes ago

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Boies: Stern ended negotiations. It is "absolutely clear, if there was ever any doubt, that the collective bargaining process has ended."
    3 minutes ago

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Boies says there is "no doubt" that this boycott is a violation of antitrust laws. Only question is whether NBA has labor exemption.
    4 minutes ago

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Dvid Boies says he case is based on a boycott of NBA teams, a per se violation of antitrust laws.
    5 minutes ago
    ยป

    KBergCBS Ken Berger
    Billy Hunter says antitrust complaint will be filed tonight in N. District of California vs. NBA.
    As a fan of the Raptors and NBA, I cannot tell you how much I dislike the bold section.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Via HoopsHype.com:

    Adrian Wojnarowski: The NBA informed teams late this afternoon that games through December 15th have been cancelled, a front office executive says. Twitter

    So for the players, it is officially 6 years of just to break even from 6 weeks of a cancelled season?

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Defense Lawyers, yes. They will take anything.
    Litigation Lawyers? Hardly.
    Especially one with a VERY solid reputation to uphold.
    I have to respectfully disagree. My father is currently having some legal issues regarding a vacation property. He has hired one of, if not the most respected real estate law firm in Ontario to handle his dispute. He has paid over 10k in retainer fees already. The entire time he has been advised by this firm, that although he may have a case, his current situation is so murky that his lawyers refuse to comment specifically what they think the odds are that he'll win (and if he does win, what kind of damages he could be rewarded with) however, they are MORE than happy to represent him so long as he can continue to afford their 2k+ retainer per month. When it comes to litigation there are very few "sure things"

    I could concede that this guy may not take the case if he thinks it's a guaranteed loss, but there are very few cases that are cut and dry. There's is nothing wrong with a lawyer laying out possible scenario's and representing a client even though they think that litigation isn't the best way to go. In this case, he has the opportunity to represent an organization with A LOT of money, litigation could last MULTIPLE YEARS, and is such a high profile case that as long as he does the best job he can, he will get the benefit of a TON OF MEDIA EXPOSURE. Whether the NBAPA or NBA wins any legal dispute lawyers on both sides get theirs. That's just the way it is.

    Hopefully, the players' lawyers are giving them realistic expectations of what they are likely to face if they go the route of litigation. If the lawyers tell them that it's a crap shoot, (which it seems to be), or that litigation is likely to go against them, and the players still want to go to court, the lawyers aren't doing anything unethical by representing them to the best of their abilities. I really just hope that what ever legal counsel they have is giving them realistic advise.


    Becasuse the owners are pushing for a 10 year turn around (I think). And I don't see it taking 10 years, for the Economy to stablilize. Most of these guys won't even be in the league anymore.
    But the future players for whom 'they are fighting', will be taking the brunt of the Bad Deal.
    Yes, the owners are pushing for a 10 year deal; however, they have entertained the idea of having opt out clauses after 6 years. Even conservative estimates would have the players making healthy raises again by year 6. The future players, will get their chance to negotiate their own deal when this one expires. The money the players think they are saving for the future guys, is going to be less, than what they are giving up right now, that no one is going to get back. Although it is a noble idea that the players think they are fighting for future generations of NBA players, they are really only fighting for the current CBA, them "winning" or "losing" this CBA negotiations, doesn't have a whole lot of baring on whether they "win" or "lose" the next one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    But it could also be argued that it wasn't the CBA at all responsible for the losses, but simply the bad decisions made by the Managers and Owners time and time again.
    You're not wrong, but it was the system that created an atmosphere where managers and owners felt forced into making decisions that could easily backfire and often did. With teams having to compete with each other for a small pool of players that actually might make a difference, the pressure is enormous to spend money on those players. And the ability for players to simply leave when their contract is up increases the pressure to win and spend immediately. Look at Cleveland? Obviously there was bad management, but the franchise was desperate to do what it could to try and keep LeBron. There's already pressure by many Raptor fans to go out and spend money to try and keep the players they have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Disagree here, I have nothing against lawyers, but they represent people all the time where they feel like their odds of winning are slim-none. In most cases they get paid whether their clients win or lose.
    Defense Lawyers, yes. They will take anything.
    Litigation Lawyers? Hardly.
    Especially one with a VERY solid reputation to uphold.


    ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Fair enough, but the reality is that the economy is bad so why don't the players take the deal, and ask for more the next time around when the economy will probably be better?
    Becasuse the owners are pushing for a 10 year turn around (I think). And I don't see it taking 10 years, for the Economy to stablilize. Most of these guys won't even be in the league anymore.
    But the future players for whom 'they are fighting', will be taking the brunt of the Bad Deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Nolo Contendere**. No?

    And I suppose you are correct, but if the other side is still being argued, then I will raise points in defense of the other.
    That is my role in all of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    But it could also be argued that it wasn't the CBA at all responsible for the losses, but simply the bad decisions made by the Managers and Owners time and time again.
    Joey, I believe all such arguments became moot as of yesterday. Pity. It kind of kept the discussion going (though somtimes tedious) the past few months. From now on its going to be legal arguments. Better get those lawbooks out and brush up on your nolo contendres'

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    stretch wrote: View Post
    Even David Stern has stated previously that he wonders if the reality is that there maybe no NBA to come back to if the lockout drags on into multiple seasons.
    If it does get dragged out I do feel that the NBA could go under, but I left that out since I felt like my post was emotional enough without adding a "The sky is falling!"~ish statement. I also feel that if the players win in court then that basically means that the NBA must operate as if it were a free market. I do think that their are players who like this idea (Dwayne Wade is on record I think) but I basically think that a free market NBA would lead to at least a few franchises folding and effectively end of the NBA as we no it. But that could just be me worrying.

    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post

    I don't think the players chances are as weak as the NBA would have everyone believe.
    There's no way Boies would have taken the case if he didn't think they had a slight chance at winning.
    Disagree here, I have nothing against lawyers, but they represent people all the time where they feel like their odds of winning are slim-none. In most cases they get paid whether their clients win or lose.


    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Really though. He makes it sound like it's an episode of Grays Anatomy(barf).
    Gray's Anatomy=double barf!

    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    But so much has been made about how the last CBA would have been fine, had the Economy not turned the way it did.

    Clearly they felt the last CBA was fair enough for them to sign it without any Negotiating.
    Fair enough, but the reality is that the economy is bad so why don't the players take the deal, and ask for more the next time around when the economy will probably be better?

    slaw wrote: View Post
    both sides have way too much to lose by litigating this for 2 years. The more interesting question at this point is whether the deal ultimately reached is better for the players than the one they have on the table.

    agree 100%

    For the record, I can't imagine a scenario where the players win. Even if they were to win treble damages to the tune of 6 billion most of them still will have lost money they can't make back, plus it may create an open market in the NBA which is unstable, franchises fold and median and mean NBA salaries decrease. Does anyone see the players getting a better deal than the 50/50 stern offered last week?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    @Slaw

    Oh I dont know the certitude of predicting a dunk for either side when it comes to the intricacies and in the US the politics of the law depending on appellate circuit jurisdiction and if it were to come to it the supreme court.

    In anycase this is all muscle flexing and ego fraying going on. And as has been mentioned countless times by many, it will come down to how long either side is prepared to wait.

    If you wish to read a fairly reasoned argument about why the case for decertification is player unfavourable you may read this....the caveat being that this is a "disclaim of interest" and not a decertification and I do not know if there is a distinction when dealing with a antitrust claim under the circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl..._owners_111511


    A scathing and deserving review of both Hunter and Stern.

    Here is my problem with the Woj though......

    His sources are spot on when it comes to player movement, draft, trades, free agent signings, etc. but he is without a doubt an agent mouthpiece. If you want to know what the agents are thinking or doing, read Woj.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    Whether or not they signed it or felt good about signing it is not the issue. What's at issue is that the CBA helped cause a majority of teams to lose money. Nothing else is important.
    But it could also be argued that it wasn't the CBA at all responsible for the losses, but simply the bad decisions made by the Managers and Owners time and time again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    But so much has been made about how the last CBA would have been fine, had the Economy not turned the way it did.

    Clearly they felt the last CBA was fair enough for them to sign it without any Negotiating.
    Whether or not they signed it or felt good about signing it is not the issue. What's at issue is that the CBA helped cause a majority of teams to lose money. Nothing else is important.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    You have to be careful here though with what was actually being argued in the NFL decision at the court of appeals. The issue was simply whether it was proper for the lower court to issue and injunction against the owners implementation of a lockout. The court of appeals overturned the lower court's injunction but did not go much further. The appeals court did not rule on the legality of the union's declaration or on the merit's of its potential anti-trust claims. In fact, within the bubble of that 8th circuit ruling, it seems more likely than not that the players would eventually prevail.

    Of course, we're in the weeds here. The big picture is simple: the players would likely ultimately prevail in an antitrust case cause they have a really, really good argument but, and here's the rub, it might take 1-4 years to get there and the reality of the situation is that the players don't have that much time. The owners are better positioned to wait it out but how long before some rival league springs up in the interim if you are gone for 3 seasons? You also have the rather large issue that the interests of the players are not necessarily aligned.

    Bottom line: both sides have way too much to lose by litigating this for 2 years. The more interesting question at this point is whether the deal ultimately reached is better for the players than the one they have on the table.
    I'm not sure how the players would eventually prevail when the appeal's court overturned the lower court ruling. The ruling meant the lockout was valid - luckily for the NFL this was a moot point. Also, the NFL situation and the NBA situation are apples and oranges given the NBA is overall a money loser.



    As for the bolded section: Really? The argument of negotiating in 'good faith'? Because the way I see things:

    The players had 'blood issues' in negotiations.
    Their lawyer threatened this course of action in February of 2010 as a negotiating tactic.
    The league has all sorts of proof to their financial operating losses.
    The league has moved very far from their initial open proposal conceding to the players 'blood issues'.

    I'm not saying the owners are going to win any court case but I also don't think it is a safe bet for the players.



    I 100% agree with your bottom line. Ultimately, the initial rulings will likely have to come back in the player's favour for a better deal to happen. Until that happens though, I think they dig in and look to go with the 47% offer with flex cap, no guaranteed contracts, and 3 year deals.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post
    ...or disclaimer of interest (as a tactic similar)....




    The only problem is that it was argued by PA attorney Boies:
    You have to be careful here though with what was actually being argued in the NFL decision at the court of appeals. The issue was simply whether it was proper for the lower court to issue and injunction against the owners implementation of a lockout. The court of appeals overturned the lower court's injunction but did not go much further. The appeals court did not rule on the legality of the union's declaration or on the merit's of its potential anti-trust claims. In fact, within the bubble of that 8th circuit ruling, it seems more likely than not that the players would eventually prevail.

    Of course, we're in the weeds here. The big picture is simple: the players would likely ultimately prevail in an antitrust case cause they have a really, really good argument but, and here's the rub, it might take 1-4 years to get there and the reality of the situation is that the players don't have that much time. The owners are better positioned to wait it out but how long before some rival league springs up in the interim if you are gone for 3 seasons? You also have the rather large issue that the interests of the players are not necessarily aligned.

    Bottom line: both sides have way too much to lose by litigating this for 2 years. The more interesting question at this point is whether the deal ultimately reached is better for the players than the one they have on the table.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X