tkf wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

tkf wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:you guys realize that there is absolutely NO blueprint for how thin will turn out. It could be more than one season at risk.

Those small market teams think they have attendance problems now.....more than a season off will see many teams totally fail due to apathy.

Also, if Stern succeeds in Voiding contracts, the NBA landscape (roster) wise can end up totally different from now. You think your happy with the idea of Melo & Amare...well if contracts get voided, it changes the game.

Say Dwight being a free agent once the lockout is resolved says: "Hey Amare, come join me in LA?" You think Amare doesn't seriously consider....New York Loyalty or no New York Loyalty. Then Amare call up Melo and is like "I know you like that whole coming home thing but, I'm signing in LA to play with Dwight, you should roll with us."

Melo, then after thinking it through decides, wifey can market herself just as well in LA as NY.

That is my current fear, that the desertification will change everything.

great, let those guys go to LA, what have they won, we can then work on lebron and getting gallo back..... get the team we should have had in the start.. I am fine with that.. LOL

your taking it too literal. I just used that to show that it could have a greater domino effect than people are projecting.

actually I am wishful thinking.. LOL.... I like your scenario, I am good with that.. believe me... haha

Take Bron out of the equation, switch with Durant and we have a deal :)

DrAlphaeus wrote:I don't know about the whole "system is broken" thing. Reminds me when politicians say "government is broken"... what does that exactly mean? Is the engine shot or does it just need a tune-up?

Exactly- it's nonsense, the system just needed tweaking. The problem was some of the owners were in a state of denial- as long as they blame the system and being in a small market, it absolves them of any responsibility. Yes, market size can play a part but at the end of the day it comes down to decision making- look at the T-wolves- they're lousy because of many stupid decisions, 2 inept GM's and some of the worst drafting possible. But the owner is claiming it's because of free agents signing the MLE with luxury tax teams. Ridiculous!

What confuses me about this disclaimer business is how does it actually end if the court accepts the disclaimer? Does it mean a CBA is impossible, and if so does that mean the nba could only reopen if it had no CBA? (and that would be better for the players than the CBA proposed, as the CBA protects owners from their overpaying tendancies). If the nba refuses to end the lockout unless their is a cba, then what can the players do if there is no union to agree one? If the players cave in a few months down the line, how would they atually do so if there was no union to offer terms of surrender? I'm genuinely confused.

DurzoBlint wrote:

tkf wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

tkf wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:you guys realize that there is absolutely NO blueprint for how thin will turn out. It could be more than one season at risk.

Those small market teams think they have attendance problems now.....more than a season off will see many teams totally fail due to apathy.

Also, if Stern succeeds in Voiding contracts, the NBA landscape (roster) wise can end up totally different from now. You think your happy with the idea of Melo & Amare...well if contracts get voided, it changes the game.

Say Dwight being a free agent once the lockout is resolved says: "Hey Amare, come join me in LA?" You think Amare doesn't seriously consider....New York Loyalty or no New York Loyalty. Then Amare call up Melo and is like "I know you like that whole coming home thing but, I'm signing in LA to play with Dwight, you should roll with us."

Melo, then after thinking it through decides, wifey can market herself just as well in LA as NY.

That is my current fear, that the desertification will change everything.

great, let those guys go to LA, what have they won, we can then work on lebron and getting gallo back..... get the team we should have had in the start.. I am fine with that.. LOL

your taking it too literal. I just used that to show that it could have a greater domino effect than people are projecting.

actually I am wishful thinking.. LOL.... I like your scenario, I am good with that.. believe me... haha

Take Bron out of the equation, switch with Durant and we have a deal :)

deal!!! LOL

By the number I agree that the owners should have given more after getting a 50/50 BRI on other issues but I mean c'mon.

nixluva wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:How many times are we going to discuss the same exact thing over and over again?

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the players from the start had conceded salary and at the end had accepted a 50/50 share!!! Nevermind the fact that the owners always win these CBA battles and they agreed to the 57% share for the players and did so with no arm twisting by the players. The owners agreed to that CBA with all the financial info and predictions good or bad! Remember the owners are the businessmen in this relationship. Now they're going at the players with anger and threats as if it was the players that somehow tricked them into creating the last CBA! Come on man, you can't be that anti worker that you refuse to see this! Please don't tell me that it's jealousy or you resent the players making good money!

Are we to shed a tear when billionaire businessmen mess up a business that they control and dictate the rules in? Plus how can u characterize these billionaire owners as "losing their shirts"? Do you realize how silly that sounds? 300 mil spread over 30 teams won't bankrupt billionaires!!! And I remind you they did this to themselves.

Is it fair? Yes.

Why? Cuz for two years the league told them to save their money and be ready.

Most of us have no concept of the nature of the details and what the playbook looks like.

All I can say is the owners are not phuching around this time.

Players want to fight for what they think is right, then good for them. Hope they don't take it personal.

nykshaknbake wrote:Your response has no relevance to what C2D just said. Prior concessions don't matter if the system needs to be overhauled. It doesn't even matter who created it. Nixluva, you're viewing this as a revisement of the old deal when this is really a new deal from scratch. You're esentially saying that because the owners had a bad buisness plan they now have to continue to have a bad buisness plan. And to not do so would be 'anti-worker'. To boot you fling accusations about his character because he doesn't hold the exact same viewpoint as you! You're asking the owners to take a loss just because doing so won't bankrupt them?! Why don't you send me $1000? You can do it over a year, it won't bankrupt you either!

By the number I agree that the owners should have given more after getting a 50/50 BRI on other issues but I mean c'mon.

nixluva wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:How many times are we going to discuss the same exact thing over and over again?

The current business model is broken. It needed to be changed. The owners wanted to change it. They did. The players don't like it because of being spoiled with the best CBA in sports (outside MLB) all these years. That's too damn bad. This economy is awful and teams are in the red. Changes needed to be made; radical ones. They were made. Players said no, we'll sue you and try to win our freedom. Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the players from the start had conceded salary and at the end had accepted a 50/50 share!!! Nevermind the fact that the owners always win these CBA battles and they agreed to the 57% share for the players and did so with no arm twisting by the players. The owners agreed to that CBA with all the financial info and predictions good or bad! Remember the owners are the businessmen in this relationship. Now they're going at the players with anger and threats as if it was the players that somehow tricked them into creating the last CBA! Come on man, you can't be that anti worker that you refuse to see this! Please don't tell me that it's jealousy or you resent the players making good money!

Are we to shed a tear when billionaire businessmen mess up a business that they control and dictate the rules in? Plus how can u characterize these billionaire owners as "losing their shirts"? Do you realize how silly that sounds? 300 mil spread over 30 teams won't bankrupt billionaires!!! And I remind you they did this to themselves.

excellent post, you highlight many of the points I mentioned before... this is not a renegotiation, so to say the players are giving back or making huge concessions are not true, unless you say the same for the owners... do people really think the owners want 50/50 after talking about a BRI in the low 40's from the start....

And just because these guys are rich is no reason for them to take losses or not maximize profits just so the NBA players can continue to enjoy a lopsided CBA.. it just doesn't work that way..

DurzoBlint wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:Too bad no court would ever rule in their favor.

I have no idea if this is true or false... source?

NBA hasn't violated any labor or anti-trust laws.

Past cases involving this.

NFL went the way of disclaimer of interest and tried to get a judge to lift the lockout. It was eventually decided that the judge did not have the power to end the NFL lockout. This caused the players to return to the bargaining table and an agreement came together quickly after the players had lost the last leverage they had. This will play out the same.

I was watching PTI yesterday and the lawyer guy they have been using to explain what's going on said that there is or are anti-trust issues within the NBA BUT, the collective bargaining agreement insulated them against it.

I think it has something to do with the Rookies but, I couldn't quote it if my life depended on it.

Much of the economic structure of the NBA -- such as the salary cap, maximum salaries, rookie-scale salaries and the luxury tax -- could be challenged under the antitrust laws as a form of price fixing if there was no union. The lockout itself could be challenged as a group boycott.

Players sue NBA for antitrust violations
Posted on: November 15, 2011 8:24 pm
Print Email a Friend Facebook Twitter ShareScore: 121
Log-in to rate:Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: NEW YORK -- NBA players sued the league alleging antitrust violations Tuesday, in part using commissioner David Stern's own words against him in making their case that the lockout is illegal.

With two antitrust actions -- one in California naming superstars Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant among five plaintiffs, and another in Minnesota naming four plaintiffs -- the players are seeking summary judgment and treble damages totaling three times the players' lost wages due to what lead attorney David Boies referred to as an illegal group boycott.

"There's one reason and one reason only that the season is in jeopardy," Boies told reporters at the Harlem headquarters of the former players' union, which was dissolved Monday and reformed as a trade association to pave the way for the lawsuits. "And that is because the owners have locked out the players and have maintained that lockout for several months. ... The players are willing to start playing tomorrow if (the owners) end the boycott."

The California case, filed Tuesday night in the Northern District, named plaintiffs who represent a wide array of players: Anthony, Durant and Chauncey Billups (high-paid stars); Leon Powe (a mid-level veteran); and Leonard (a rookie). The plaintiffs in a similar case filed in Minnesota are Caron Butler, Ben Gordon, Anthony Tolliver and Derrick Williams.

Boies said there could be other lawsuits, and at some point, they could be combined.

It is possible, Boies said, that the players could get a summary judgment before the NBA cancels the entire season -- essentially a two-month timeframe. By that point, with the clock starting on potential damages Tuesday -- which was supposed to have been the first pay day of the season for the majority of players -- treble damages could amount to $2.4 billion.

"We would hope that it's not necessary to go to trial and get huge damages to bring them to a point where they are prepared to abide by the law," Boies said,.There was no immediate comment from the NBA on the lawsuits, which ratcheted the labor war to another level and came one day after the players rejected the league's latest ultimatum to accept their bargaining proposal or be forced to negotiate from a far worse one. The National Basketball Players Association at that point disclaimed interest in representing the players any longer in collective bargaining with the league after failing to reach an agreement during the 4 1-2 month lockout that was imposed by owners July 1.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/33333992

Childs2Dudley wrote:This is a route people usually take when they know there is a good possibility they will lose a case if it goes to full trial and they have to go through a process called discovery.

this isn't an accurate assessment. your post is not entirely wrong. but going for summary judgement is not some indicator that you think you will lose at trial. rather, summary judgement is something that a party would seek when, in their view, the facts already established, whether established pre-discovery, or after, demonstrate that judgement in favor of the moving party should be granted.

summary judgement is not easy to get pre-discovery as most trial judges would dismiss the motion as being premature.

the players are probably going to argue that Stern's statements in the media, coupled with the ultimatums -- which basically said, "if you don't agree right away we will summarily reset to a dramatically worse offer" (and not only just saying, but publicizing how much worse the offer would be) -- constitute evidence of the league's failure to negotiate in good faith. based on their arguments, if a judge were to agree, there would be no need for discovery because Stern's own statements would be the only facts needed.

i'm not saying that a judge will agree with the players, but them going for summary judgment is not some tip off that they have no case. in fact, it's actually a clever way for them to circumvent the recent NFL ruling which involved an injunction and not summary judgment motion.