Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • 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.
    "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

    "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

    Comment


    • 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.
      Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
      Follow me on Twitter.

      Comment


      • 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....
        Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
        Follow me on Twitter.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.
            Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
            Follow me on Twitter.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • Boies Interview

                      From a timing standpoint, how long can this take?

                      Boies: The owners could decide to open their doors and hire players today. They don't need a union for that. They could go off and hire people the way most businesses hire people. They could identify a person, they negotiate a salary, and there's absolutely no reason that couldn't happen right now.
                      A free market. Not what the owners are interested in right now even though that's what they have.

                      Boies: I don't think talks would continue.

                      If -- and I say if because first of all, we haven't filed a lawsuit -- a lawsuit were filed, but if a lawsuit were filed and if there was an interest in settling that lawsuit, then as Jeffrey 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.

                      That settlement would be something that would open up the league to play. But you would not have a collective bargaining solution.

                      Your first "if" supposes a lawsuit might not be filed?

                      Boies: I'm just saying, we're going to go back, we're going to assess this. Jeffrey probably has got decades more experience in this than I have. And we're going to go back and we're going to talk about what the right approach is. Maybe it's filing a lawsuit. Maybe it's not filing a lawsuit. We've got to figure out what the lawsuit would say if there is going to be a lawsuit. There's a lot that has to be worked out.
                      Translation: He doesn't even know if they have a case yet. Click the link for more.

                      Source: ESPN.com

                      Comment


                      • So the owners are free to negotiate with the players right now?

                        Could the owners not dissolve the NBA, enter into a new agreement that starts a new league that has a hard cap like other sports leagues have, with the cap set at $30 million per team? Wouldn't that hurt the players? I must admit I am getting confused by the legal shinanigans.

                        What am I missing?

                        Puffer

                        Comment


                        • I think the owners could invent their own internal agreement(salary cap, exceptions, etc.) right now and start offering contracts. One catch would be that all 430 players would be free agents.

                          Comment


                          • Agents and players diploying the "close my eyes and swing with blind fury" strategy:

                            What’s more, the agents are also considering a lawsuit filed on behalf of the league’s rookies, sources said, citing that the rookies are not yet part of the union, and that they’re ready, willing and able to play in the NBA and have been denied the opportunity. The agents are going to keep filing suits to create chaos and uncertainty in the minds of the NBA owners and hope the threat of potential legal damages will coax them back to the bargaining table. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll go to court, get a lucky bounce and decimate the owners with damages.
                            Source: Yahoo Sports

                            I just don't buy this working for them. The Owners' probably all have their own legal teams and if they're smart, which they are, they've already walked through this whole scenario. I mean otherwise they probably wouldn't be a stone wall this week.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post
                              I think the owners could invent their own internal agreement(salary cap, exceptions, etc.) right now and start offering contracts. One catch would be that all 430 players would be free agents.
                              Without having a Union to negotiate with, a Salary Cap is actually Illegal under Anti-Trust laws.
                              So they would first have to identify a new player union before any sort of Agreement could be made. I think.

                              If they just wanted to sign players to contracts, thats one thing. But it would be a completely open market until a new Union is established, thus allowing the NBA to negotiate under Labor Law, and outside of the Antitrust laws. This is my understanding anyway.

                              Comment


                              • Apollo wrote: View Post
                                I think the owners could invent their own internal agreement(salary cap, exceptions, etc.) right now and start offering contracts. One catch would be that all 430 players would be free agents.
                                The players could then file an anti-trust suit based on collusion. There really is no way around this other than to a) come to an agreement of which no one seems to be willing to budge, or b) go through the courts which could take a long time.

                                How is a professional sports league expected to function in a sustainable manner without practices that are 'unfair' labour practices in any other business? These same 'unfair' labour laws are the same ones that guarantee a guy like Derek Fisher makes millions of dollars per year versus hundreds of thousands.

                                And this all comes back to curbing ways rich franchises can round out their roster after hoarding and concentrating talent from around the league.

                                I'm slowly losing interest and look forward to a lost season and hopefully a crushing blow to the players - as a fan that would be in my best interests and since everyone is looking out for themselves.... GO OWNERS!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X