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

[Bendit]

A very valid argument against decertification

...or disclaimer of interest (as a tactic similar)....

"The law is not so easily manipulated," Boies wrote. "One party to a collective bargaining relationship cannot, through its own tactical and unilateral conduct, instantaneously oust federal labor law or extinguish another party's labor law rights. A union cannot, by a tactical declaration akin to the flip of a switch, transform a multiemployer bargaining unit's lawful use of economic tools afforded it under the labor laws into an antitrust violation giving rise to treble damages and injunctive relief."

The only problem is that it was argued by PA attorney Boies:

An interesting quirk of Boies' involvement is that he argued against decertification -- not disclaimer of interest, specifically -- when the NFLPA played that card in its labor dispute. In fact, in a court brief filed in Minneapolis on March 21 and bearing his name, Boies argued that collective bargaining trumps this sort of maneuver.

[Apollo]

I think it all comes down to a group of Owners who want an even playing field and a group of players not wanting to agree to that because it would limit wasteful spending.

[mcHAPPY]

I'd be curious to see what Percentage of that $4B was earned by the 'Rank and File' players.
Its backwards, but the %5 make more money for the owners than the remaining 95%.




But when that game brings in BILLIONS, those that sell the tickets should be Proportionately conpensated for what is earned.

I agree its crazy they make more than Doctors, Cops etc. but when we spend that money to watch a game, someones going to have to get that money.

And I can't imagine the Owners (read: Slimy Businessmen) are 'better human beings' than the players.

Do the players create the revenues with their skills or do the owners create the revenues with the 'star making machine', publicity, and stage for the players to perform on?

This is another: what came first, the chicken or the egg?

50/50 was a good split with all the economic issues and rising costs for the league.

However this was not about the BRI, it was about a handful of tax paying teams unable to offer a full mid level exemption. Looking at what is at stake and what the argument is about now.... wow.... morons on both sides.

[heinz57]

I'd be curious to see what Percentage of that $4B was earned by the 'Rank and File' players.
Its backwards, but the %5 make more money for the owners than the remaining 95%.




But when that game brings in BILLIONS, those that sell the tickets should be Proportionately conpensated for what is earned.

I agree its crazy they make more than Doctors, Cops etc. but when we spend that money to watch a game, someones going to have to get that money.

And I can't imagine the Owners (read: Slimy Businessmen) are 'better human beings' than the players.

They aren't shareholders. They have no invested capital. And you can argue that they ARE compensated by their lucrative endorsement deals that don't exist if the game doesn't exist.

I'm not a shareholder in my company, but if they're profitable I MAY get a bonus, or if they aren't I may get nothing and the fear of a layoff.. That's life.

[Bendit]

A quick take on ramifications of events of yesterday.........

[Apollo]

Conflict of interest?

Billy Hunter sold the players on a plan that keeps him relevant and keeps him on his $2.5 million salary to be in charge of the court battle.

Keeping Hunter also gives the NBA a better probability of convincing a judge that the players' are participating in a phony negotiating tactic.

Source: RealGM.com

The players should be asking themselves why there was no vote before drastic actions. The leaders(Union bosses, and Star players) all didn't want to risk the voice of a majority being heard because it jeopardizes their own position, regardless of what their stake is in it.

[Joey]

Touche. Hindsight is terrible for that. haha

[Apollo]

I would wager most Americans who don't work for Wall St. or the Banks have many regrets between 2005 and 2008. Just look at the price now of high end condos in Arizona or commercial real estate in Florida.

[Joey]

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.

[Apollo]

I actually think a lot of the owners probably regret their role in the last CBA negotiations. A CBA which led to them losing a lot of money. A CBA which further shifted the power out of the hands of those who are taking all the financial risk. This time around it seems like half of them want to solve their problems at all cost. I don't think they'll regret not signing on to more numbers in the red later. Also, regardless of their reasons for being in the league, they're all businessmen. No one wants to be invested in a losing product.

"The Owners bought into the league because they love Sports.."? Hahah I think that might be a bit naive.

Really though. He makes it sound like it's an episode of Grays Anatomy(barf).

[Joey]

"The Owners bought into the league because they love Sports.."? Hahah I think that might be a bit naive.

[jimmie]

Thought this take by Ian Thomsen is pretty spot-on, bolded part in particular:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1dn7iss00

Recently an essay by Etan Thomas posted on ESPN.com chose to compare the plights of the players union with the stand taken by the so-called 99 percent who have formed the "Occupy" movement on Wall Street and other locations around the world. I have enormous respect for Thomas, a sensitive poet who is serving his union's executive board for no pay because he believes in the principle. This is why I could not believe how out of touch he was to view the mission of his union as having anything at all in common with the movement to Occupy Wall Street. How in the imagination of any reasonable person could a player in the highest-paid league in the history of mankind begin to compare the terms of this $4 billion negotiation against the people who are unable to feed their families, who have lost their homes to foreclosure and who believe they have been neglected by employers and government?

If someone as smart and sensitive as Etan Thomas cannot recognize the great fortune that has placed him among the elite 1 percent, and how very little the rest of the world will sympathize with his cause, then what hope is there for any common sense to prevail amid this senselessness? He and the players talk about principle, but what will they be saying about the high price of that principle 20 years from now?

Here is the fundamental problem, and I believe 99 percent of you will agree with me: The owners and players share too much in common. People on each side of the table believe absolutely that they are in the right, that they won't be dictated to, and that they would rather see no season in 2011-12 than to surrender to their partners-turned-enemies.

The result is that they are all doomed to regret their role in what has happened. Because someday they're going to think about why they got into this business. The owners bought into the league because they love sports, and the players have always played because they love to play. That love is what brought them together, and now look at the harm they're doing to the thing they love most.

[Bendit]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72...ly-hunter-says

The Interesting parts are:


[...]


Please note: "billion dollars in triple damages"




Get the rub here? There is no union, thus the Season can continue right now, with each team able to bargain individually with each player as they choose.

There is no longer any legal basis for a lockout, since there is no union to lock out. Thus the NBA must start playing. If they do not do so, then they prove themselves guilty of being a coercive monopoly and justify anti-trust action.

The NBA has no antitrust exemption like that granted the NFL by Public Law 89-800. Which may have been what caused Kessler to lose to Boies in the NFL case, and why Boies has a different position now.

Kessler and Boies (who represented the NFL against Kessler in the NFL Antitrust), smell blood. Billion dollar tripple damages kinda blood.

Are Stern's days numbered?

As I understand it, the NFL anti trust exemption pertains to the TV deal only not labour. MLB is the only league with the labour exemption.

Link

[Apollo]

Most fans don't care about proportions. All they see is the Owners offering billions and the players turning it down and stating that the Owners aren't negotiating in good faith. I'm sure most fans who do care about proportions would be completely mind boggled about how 50% or 47% is bad. The only risk the players incur(injuries) is softened tremendously by insurance.

Anyway, now that the Union is being disbanded I guess this opens the door to long term scabs if need be.

[Joey]

They're out to protect the interests of the loudest voices. The stars.

I'd be curious to see what Percentage of that $4B was earned by the 'Rank and File' players.
Its backwards, but the %5 make more money for the owners than the remaining 95%.

They're millionaires because they play a game professionally.

FAIR would be a professional game player not getting paid more than doctors, nurses, firemen, cops...

Hell, I do volunteer work and regularly meet people who have dedicated their lives to philanthropy, but only gross like 25-30k a year, and they're totallycool with that.. FAIR is them making millions on the grounds of being totally awesome human beings..

FAIR is somebody who chooses to PLAY A FUCKING GAME making minimum wage

But when that game brings in BILLIONS, those that sell the tickets should be Proportionately conpensated for what is earned.

I agree its crazy they make more than Doctors, Cops etc. but when we spend that money to watch a game, someones going to have to get that money.

And I can't imagine the Owners (read: Slimy Businessmen) are 'better human beings' than the players.