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
    Quirk wrote: View Post
    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?
    This should be interesting. Found this article as well by Larry Coon

    Boies is one of the most renowned antitrust litigators in the country. He was involved in this year's NFL players' association suit (on the owners' side), the Microsoft antitrust suit and the Napster suit, and argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election fight.
    "If there was an interest in settling that lawsuit," Boies said, "then as Jeffrey [Kessler] says, what would happen is the lawyers for the players would meet the lawyers for the owners and we would try to come up with some kind of settlement."
    By dissolving their union, the players theoretically shift the venue of the dispute from labor law to antitrust law. A lockout, which is legal under labor law, could be deemed an illegal group boycott under antitrust law. Hunter indicated that the players would seek a summary judgment (a determination made by the court without a full trial), asking the court to bring the lockout to a quick end.
    A possible timeline of events is as follows:

    • The players' lawsuit will be filed this week.

    • The owners will formally respond and address the players' complaints in early December.

    • If the players sue outside of New York, then the first battle will be over the venue of the lawsuit.

    • Once the venue is determined, the stage is set for the initial skirmishes over discovery and the like. If the players follow through on their summary judgment strategy, it would happen at this time.

    This could happen as early as January or February if the case is filed in New York, or somewhat later if the venue battle causes a delay.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    You have to think the Owners have their own high priced lawyers and they don't do anything without a consultation to make sure they're in the clear. I think this is more big talk by the players and I have this funny feeling that they're going to get burned bad. They've essentially walked out of the room and sicked the dogs on the Owners. If it wasn't personal before now to the Owners you have to think it's changing. My guess is they're going for the jugular if they get around these legal accusations.

    Leave a comment:


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

    The Interesting parts are:

    Players ignored that warning, choosing instead to dissolve its union, giving them a chance to win several billion dollars in triple damages in an antitrust lawsuit.
    [...]
    "The fact that the two biggest legal adversaries in the NFL players dispute over the NFL lockout both agree that the NBA lockout is now illegal and subject to triple damages speaks for itself," Kessler said in an email to The Associated Press. "I am delighted to work together with David Boies on behalf of the NBA players."
    Please note: "billion dollars in triple damages"


    "With no labor union in place, it is our sincere hope that the NBA will immediately end its now illegal boycott and finally open the 2011-12 season," the letter said. "Individual teams are free to negotiate with free agents for your services. If the owners choose to continue their present course of action, it is our view that they subject themselves to significant antitrust liability."
    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?
    Last edited by Quirk; Tue Nov 15, 2011, 04:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Remember they are not decertifying. They are doing a disclaimer of interest. The union becomes an association that no longer negotiates for them. The lawyers on both sides now do the talking......


    Which is what really surprises me from the Larry Coon link above where Billy Hunter said, "It's never too late for David to call me." Is he really that stupid? He just gave the league more ammunition in the argument this course of action is a negotiating tactic.
    I get more surprised at these fairly shallow tactics. Here is a description I read about this "disclaimer of interest" which is is everything but in legal terms the decertification action itself (I think)...

    "Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter announced today that the NBAPA will file a disclaimer of interest today which means that the NBAPA formally states it will no longer represent the players. What this means effectively is that the players will now be able to sue the NBA for anti-trust violations since there is no longer collective bargaining. Hunter stated that the suit would be filed in the next couple of days.

    This is a quicker route than decertification where the NBAPA officially disbands. That could have taken until the end of December to get an official vote. It's possible that while the NBA had enough votes to put it to a vote, they may not have received enough votes from the rank and file to do so."

    Is this supposed to frighten Stern & his legal team? Everything points to a threatening posture so far imo. Giving Stern another couple of days to come back with another offer. So we wait and watch the shenanigans some more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    Considering the average NBA career lasts 4.5 years, the players voting down this deal knowing it likely means no season is pretty stupid. Of course, so is the notion of guys like Deron Williams going overseas, taking money and spots away from players who actually need the money.

    A fact: The owners can actually lose money if they make a bad deal. The players lose money by simply not agreeing to a deal in a timely manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • stretch
    replied
    ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    We are looking at 1 possibly even 2-3 seasons of NBA basket-ball lost. Players careers over, or missing out on their prime.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    That is what I was thinking.

    But unlikely until players file:
    Worst case scenario for the players and the good teams is they void all the contracts and then do a dispersal draft to play again. It would almost be fun to see the shifts in the balance of power in the league: With the first pick in the dispersal draft, the Toronto Raptors select....

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Yes ofcourse the team has to want any player. And then ofcourse be willing to pay them an agreed upon amount. And then be willing to pay any tax penalties that may be incurred on top of that. So when you put greater restrictions (or penalites) on any one of those decisions you are actually putting greater restrictions on a players choice.
    Again, though. If a player is good enough and willing to come cheap enough, no team is going to forgo signing him. It's only when the player demands to be paid more that teams will think twice about signing them. In exchange, the players get things like minimum and guaranteed contracts, which are a luxury that most people in the real world don't get.

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Simply put I think they deserve as much choice as they are able to gain. Just like the onwers deserve the right to restrict as much choice as they are able to or choose to. That is the point of this entire process. If the one side feels it is not enough... that is their right.
    Nothing wrong with this statement, but if you actually believe this, doesn't this make you shake your head at the players? I mean it seems pretty obvious to most analysts, legal or otherwise, that they are only going to get a worse deal.

    If they players were following the logic outlined above SHOULDN'T they have taken a deal?

    Haven't we reached the point were both parties have laid their cards on the table and said this is what i want and am willing to give in return?

    And isn't it obvious that the NBA has more leverage at this point?

    If i'm a player I take the deal and hope for a better economy the next time the contract is up. Just because we are giving on this one doesn't preclude us from getting more next time.

    I know I'm not a player but it really frustrates me that these guys aren't getting a deal done. If I saw ANY source that said going to court was anything other than "unlikely" to go the players way, then I'd say yeah sure, you think you can get a better deal by taking it to a judge, go for it! But from what I've read whether everyone is saying the odds are not in the players favour.

    If a friend of mine started playing russian roulette, I wouldn't sit back and not do anything, I would try really hard to get him to not do it, because it's too risky. If you lose, you lose to much. So you are darn right I want the players to take the deal. They are all going to lose money they will never get back, their will be players who (if the season is cancelled) will have player their LAST professional game in the NBA.

    We are looking at 1 possibly even 2-3 seasons of NBA basket-ball lost. Players careers over, or missing out on their prime.

    So saying the players are entitled to have as much freedom as they can get is totally fair. BUT I'm not got to sit idly by while I watch them make, what looks like to me, as a VERY VERY VERY bad decision and say, well if they want to make that stupid decision it's their right. I honestly wish, I had the opportunity to have a discussion with a handful of players and see what they really think, because I have SERIOUS questions about who is giving them advice if that person says that they can win in court.

    I do know at the end of the day it is their right to decertify their union, but it really seems like such a bad idea.

    It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, fairness or unfairness. The truth is that owners have the leverage. So stop wasting everyone time and your own money and take the deal.

    Or cancel a season, possibly more. Putting all current guaranteed contracts in jeoprady, and if you lose, or give up half way through what just might be a war of attrition, the owners get to make WHATEVER rules they want with ZERO input from players.

    on second thought, I'll take the second option
    Last edited by ezz_bee; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 09:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post
    Yes, there are many pitfalls. Even the lead counsellor Boies for the PA said that a lawsuit is not cast in stone link.

    Like I said in an earlier post I still think this is posturing. In reality Hunter has got a group of players who are not happy with not allowing them to vote for this action. If he were to go the route there might be trouble within the ranks. I dont know that they can constitutionally decertify the union without a full vote. That they havent says something...either that they wont see this action thru or they were afraid to put it to a full vote. Arm twisting 30 guys in a room is a lot easier than relying on the outcome of a secret ballot.
    Remember they are not decertifying. They are doing a disclaimer of interest. The union becomes an association that no longer negotiates for them. The lawyers on both sides now do the talking......


    Which is what really surprises me from the Larry Coon link above where Billy Hunter said, "It's never too late for David to call me." Is he really that stupid? He just gave the league more ammunition in the argument this course of action is a negotiating tactic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Thanks for posting this. I read this before but I can't remember if i posted it here or not.

    #2 is crucial and is why I do not understand what the players are thinking. If this is a negotiating tactic and the league doesn't budge and in fact offers the 47% and flex cap, they really f#cked up.



    Note the bolded section in the last paragraph. With all contracts potentially voided, the Raps only have a young C to build with.
    Yes, there are many pitfalls. Even the lead counsellor Boies for the PA said that a lawsuit is not cast in stone link.

    Like I said in an earlier post I still think this is posturing. In reality Hunter has got a group of players who are not happy with not allowing them to vote for this action. If he were to go the route there might be trouble within the ranks. I dont know that they can constitutionally decertify the union without a full vote. That they havent says something...either that they wont see this action thru or they were afraid to put it to a full vote. Arm twisting 30 guys in a room is a lot easier than relying on the outcome of a secret ballot.

    Soon there will be leaks from that meeting. Was JaVale there?
    Last edited by Bendit; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 08:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=2678

    87,000 votes

    Which group are you upset with right now?

    18% owners
    34% players
    30% both
    18% neither

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    that may not end up being a bad thing.
    That is what I was thinking.

    But unlikely until players file:


    Alan Hahn: Told voided contracts issue NBA claimed in Aug. lawsuit isn't factor until a lawsuit is filed. So no, there aren't 420 free agents right now Twitter
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 08:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post

    Note the bolded section in the last paragraph. With all contracts potentially voided, the Raps only have a young C to build with.
    that may not end up being a bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    Based on this:



    Well, do you? And if you don't, why do you think NBA players should have it?



    Oh, I see. It's really just semantics. Right.
    First off, again, I am not trying to make a judgement statement here. You can call it semantics if it makes you feel better.

    Secondly, you never did answer the question. Who decides how much choice a player deserves or doesn't deserve? and why?

    As for how much anyone deserves... that is neither relevant to what an NBA player deserves or what any individual in any profession deserves. Does a janitor deserve less freedom than a desk clerk? A bookkeeper than a fireman? An autoworker union member or an NBAPA member? Why does an NBA player deserve less choice because they have more than you? These players are in a much different position than the average worker... that position, in and of itself, automatically gives them more choice.... and even within that group of players, some have, and always will have, more choice than others.

    Simply put I think they deserve as much choice as they are able to gain. Just like the onwers deserve the right to restrict as much choice as they are able to or choose to. That is the point of this entire process. If the one side feels it is not enough... that is their right.
    Last edited by GarbageTime; Mon Nov 14, 2011, 08:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X