Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • Touche. Hindsight is terrible for that. haha

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


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



            27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep">

            Comment


            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


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

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • @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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X