[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Players go for decertification
Author Thread
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/16/2011  2:06 AM
Childs2Dudley wrote:It is obvious they are using summary judgement for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that going for an injuction would fail since the NFL tried the same thing.

For anyone who has no idea what a summary judgement is, it's basically a verdict made by the court without a full trial. 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.

A nice little explanation of discovery:

In U.S.law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

The NBPA wants to avoid actual evidence from the NBA that would destroy their case and are hoping the court will rule on their case based on sworn statements and allegations that have no standing. If the court determines that this is all they need to make a decision then they will make a decision. Something tells me the court isn't ruling in their favor based on hearsay, allegations and "ultimatums". Factual proof must be provided. So far the NBA has not violated labor or anti-trust laws. I'm sure there are loopholes there that they can be charged for. It remains to be seen if those loopholes will have that much of an impact on the NBA. If I was a betting man, I'd say this case goes nowhere. And regardless of any decisions, the NBA can appeal and keep delaying or reverse the decision if the outcome is not to their liking.

The owners can sit around for year and fiddle their thumbs. The players are the ones already missing paychecks and crying on Twitter.


YOU HAVE been on fire with these post.... good job....

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
AUTOADVERT
DurzoBlint
Posts: 23067
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/10/2006
Member: #1152
USA
11/16/2011  7:04 AM    LAST EDITED: 11/16/2011  7:10 AM
CrushAlot wrote:
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.

This is what Larry Coon said.

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.

thanks, I really did want to revisit that.

the fact that you can't even have an unrelated thread without some tool here bringing him up make me think that rational minds are few and far between. Bunch of emotionally weak, angst riddled people. I mean, how many times can you argue the same shyt
jrodmc
Posts: 32927
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 11/24/2004
Member: #805
USA
11/16/2011  8:25 AM
tkf wrote:
Childs2Dudley wrote:It is obvious they are using summary judgement for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that going for an injuction would fail since the NFL tried the same thing.

For anyone who has no idea what a summary judgement is, it's basically a verdict made by the court without a full trial. 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.

A nice little explanation of discovery:

In U.S.law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

The NBPA wants to avoid actual evidence from the NBA that would destroy their case and are hoping the court will rule on their case based on sworn statements and allegations that have no standing. If the court determines that this is all they need to make a decision then they will make a decision. Something tells me the court isn't ruling in their favor based on hearsay, allegations and "ultimatums". Factual proof must be provided. So far the NBA has not violated labor or anti-trust laws. I'm sure there are loopholes there that they can be charged for. It remains to be seen if those loopholes will have that much of an impact on the NBA. If I was a betting man, I'd say this case goes nowhere. And regardless of any decisions, the NBA can appeal and keep delaying or reverse the decision if the outcome is not to their liking.

The owners can sit around for year and fiddle their thumbs. The players are the ones already missing paychecks and crying on Twitter.


YOU HAVE been on fire with these post.... good job....

Are you trying to tell me that Tweets aren't admissable as pertinent evidence in an anti-trust lawsuit! Oh, the humanity!
Motion to have nixluva's last 14,000 posts admitted as people's exhibit A!

Nalod
Posts: 71155
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
11/16/2011  9:59 AM

Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/16/2011  10:51 AM
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
joec32033
Posts: 30609
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
11/16/2011  11:28 AM
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

Tkf, when was Denver the moral high ground in that situation? Couple things..

Melo did give Denver the extra year from his previous extension.

Denver waited until the final year to extend Melo probably because Melo had a down year the year before.

~You can't run from who you are.~
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/16/2011  11:55 AM
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/16/2011  12:55 PM    LAST EDITED: 11/16/2011  12:56 PM
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/16/2011  1:08 PM
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/16/2011  1:15 PM
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

they bargained in good faith unless you have facts that they haven't.. do you? Ok then, stop with the rhetoric...

the point is the players don't like the offer, PERIOD...they feel they are being strong armed.. it is ok if they do it, but draconian if the owners do it...

the analogy is perfect....

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Rookie
Posts: 27022
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274

11/16/2011  1:18 PM
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know...I have a feeling neither Melo or Billups have any love for Denver's owner....who is likely one of the hardliners here for major changes here. Maybe he just wants to be on the front line because of that...just sayin'

eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/16/2011  1:32 PM
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

they bargained in good faith unless you have facts that they haven't.. do you? Ok then, stop with the rhetoric...

the point is the players don't like the offer, PERIOD...they feel they are being strong armed.. it is ok if they do it, but draconian if the owners do it...

the analogy is perfect....

it doesn't matter if either of us think the league did not bargain in good faith. now it's up to a judge to figure out. though, clearly you have it all figured out as i'm sure you have presided over many antitrust cases. surprised the league doesn't make a motion to move the case into your jurisidiction. lol...

what facts do any of us have? we're all dealing with what's been out in the media. so if i need special facts to make my point, what about you? what facts do you have? how about this fact? the players already conceded $300M per season which, not coincidentally, matches the amount of money the league says it's losing. the league has responded by saying, "thank you. now we want to make it virtually impossible for you to ever freely choose where you want to play when your rookie contract is up."

my post in response to you had nothing to do with who will win the case. i was just trying to explain to you why your analogy doesn't work. it has nothing to do with rhetoric. it's just that you are so hell-bent on fighting the owner's fight that you can't see that all i was doing was pointing out a very clear legal distinction between the two scenarios you have chosen as an example of player-side hypocrisy.

the part that you are having a hard time grasping is that when players negotiate their own personal contracts or trade demands with teams, it is not part of the collective bargaining process, thus, there is no requiremment for the players to negotiate in good faith. thus, what Melo did to Denver, with the way he held them hostage using his leverage, was not in good faith, but rather at "arms-length." but, as already explained, Melo had no duty to negotiate in good faith.

so comparing what he did to Denver to what the owners are doing today is not really parallel because different rules apply in those two scenarios. and it's not some double-standard that the players designed. it's the way the law is written.

check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
11/16/2011  3:06 PM    LAST EDITED: 11/16/2011  3:11 PM
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

they bargained in good faith unless you have facts that they haven't.. do you? Ok then, stop with the rhetoric...

the point is the players don't like the offer, PERIOD...they feel they are being strong armed.. it is ok if they do it, but draconian if the owners do it...

the analogy is perfect....

it doesn't matter if either of us think the league did not bargain in good faith. now it's up to a judge to figure out. though, clearly you have it all figured out as i'm sure you have presided over many antitrust cases. surprised the league doesn't make a motion to move the case into your jurisidiction. lol...

what facts do any of us have? we're all dealing with what's been out in the media. so if i need special facts to make my point, what about you? what facts do you have? how about this fact? the players already conceded $300M per season which, not coincidentally, matches the amount of money the league says it's losing. the league has responded by saying, "thank you. now we want to make it virtually impossible for you to ever freely choose where you want to play when your rookie contract is up."

my post in response to you had nothing to do with who will win the case. i was just trying to explain to you why your analogy doesn't work. it has nothing to do with rhetoric. it's just that you are so hell-bent on fighting the owner's fight that you can't see that all i was doing was pointing out a very clear legal distinction between the two scenarios you have chosen as an example of player-side hypocrisy.

the part that you are having a hard time grasping is that when players negotiate their own personal contracts or trade demands with teams, it is not part of the collective bargaining process, thus, there is no requiremment for the players to negotiate in good faith. thus, what Melo did to Denver, with the way he held them hostage using his leverage, was not in good faith, but rather at "arms-length." but, as already explained, Melo had no duty to negotiate in good faith.

so comparing what he did to Denver to what the owners are doing today is not really parallel because different rules apply in those two scenarios. and it's not some double-standard that the players designed. it's the way the law is written.

i think you are missing the point.. just answer this question.. are the players upset that the owners are not so called "bargaining in good faith" or that the owners are offering them a deal that is substantially lower.. In other words, if the owners said, we are doing ok, but we want to do a little better than that, because we can and we deserve to.. this is our offer... perfectly legal.. would he players be happy? or would they feel strong armed? answer that first... I think we know the answer..

next question after so called agreeing to a deal why are the players upset? is it because they feel bullied? I mean that is what most players are saying, but here the owners are withing their rights to fight for a better deal.. so i ask, they have the leverage, they are using it, the players are upset... what is the difference between the owners and players using leverage, and please no "bargaining in good faith" mumbo jumbo.... lets assume both players and owners are bargaining in this mysterious good faith cloud.....

Again, the players are upset because they feel the owners are running up the score...they despise the leverage the owners have and when they use it.. we are talking Leverage... when one party uses it, it is called "not bargaining in good faith" when the other uses it, you call it "the way the law is written" wow!!

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/16/2011  3:40 PM
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
eViL wrote:
tkf wrote:
Nalod wrote:
Melo lives a charmed existance. Dude forced a trade his way, got his extension and now is first in on a lawsuit!

Bottom line. No hoop.

At least they are on the COURT!

you know what is funny nalod,how the players can manipulate the system and it is ok..

Denver: melo we want to offer you extension

melo: No thanks, i want to play in NY

Denver: well we will trade you to NJ, they have more of what we want

melo: Nope, NY or bust

Denver: wow, so its like that now melo?

melo: YEP, it called leverage.. hehe

Denver: ok, well can you help us get more from NY?

melo: sure, as long as I get my cheddar

FAST FORWARD

STERN: this is the offer from the league

Hunter: Wow this deal is killing us

STERN: I think it is called leverage

Hunter: IT is DRACONIAN


the moral of the story is, when the owners use leverage it is draconian.. when the players use it, it is OK.....

go figure

i know you think this is super clever. but the comparisons you are drawing are completely irrelevant. in a collective bargaining situation, the parties are legally bound to negotiate in good faith. normally, negotiations between parties are done at "arms-length," however, labor law puts special requirements on parties in collective bargaining.

Melo had no duty to use good faith in dealing with Denver so your analogy doesn't work. at all.

actually it is super clever, because all of this Good faith stuff is BS, just another word for..."the players don't like the offer"....so what you are saying is that once the owners prove they are losing money, the players will be happy with their deal? NO!!!! the players are upset because the owners are using their leverage to the full extent, therefore their tactics are draconian..

when a player does it... all is well.... everyone is saying the owners should just throw the players a bone, and not run up the score... well they don't have to... but again, it is ok for melo to not have to deal in good faith, but draconian when the owners want to use their leverage and run up the score?

yea, it was super clever.....

no. actually, the "duty to bargain in good faith" is a legal requirement in collective bargaining situations under labor law rules. thought i explained pretty clearly why your analogy doesn't work.

they bargained in good faith unless you have facts that they haven't.. do you? Ok then, stop with the rhetoric...

the point is the players don't like the offer, PERIOD...they feel they are being strong armed.. it is ok if they do it, but draconian if the owners do it...

the analogy is perfect....

it doesn't matter if either of us think the league did not bargain in good faith. now it's up to a judge to figure out. though, clearly you have it all figured out as i'm sure you have presided over many antitrust cases. surprised the league doesn't make a motion to move the case into your jurisidiction. lol...

what facts do any of us have? we're all dealing with what's been out in the media. so if i need special facts to make my point, what about you? what facts do you have? how about this fact? the players already conceded $300M per season which, not coincidentally, matches the amount of money the league says it's losing. the league has responded by saying, "thank you. now we want to make it virtually impossible for you to ever freely choose where you want to play when your rookie contract is up."

my post in response to you had nothing to do with who will win the case. i was just trying to explain to you why your analogy doesn't work. it has nothing to do with rhetoric. it's just that you are so hell-bent on fighting the owner's fight that you can't see that all i was doing was pointing out a very clear legal distinction between the two scenarios you have chosen as an example of player-side hypocrisy.

the part that you are having a hard time grasping is that when players negotiate their own personal contracts or trade demands with teams, it is not part of the collective bargaining process, thus, there is no requiremment for the players to negotiate in good faith. thus, what Melo did to Denver, with the way he held them hostage using his leverage, was not in good faith, but rather at "arms-length." but, as already explained, Melo had no duty to negotiate in good faith.

so comparing what he did to Denver to what the owners are doing today is not really parallel because different rules apply in those two scenarios. and it's not some double-standard that the players designed. it's the way the law is written.

i think you are missing the point.. just answer this question.. are the players upset that the owners are not so called "bargaining in good faith" or that the owners are offering them a deal that is substantially lower.. In other words, if the owners said, we are doing ok, but we want to do a little better than that, because we can and we deserve to.. this is our offer... perfectly legal.. would he players be happy? or would they feel strong armed? answer that first... I think we know the answer..

next question after so called agreeing to a deal why are the players upset? is it because they feel bullied? I mean that is what most players are saying, but here the owners are withing their rights to fight for a better deal.. so i ask, they have the leverage, they are using it, the players are upset... what is the difference between the owners and players using leverage, and please no "bargaining in good faith" mumbo jumbo.... lets assume both players and owners are bargaining in this mysterious good faith cloud.....

Again, the players are upset because they feel the owners are running up the score...they despise the leverage the owners have and when they use it.. we are talking Leverage... when one party uses it, it is called "not bargaining in good faith" when the other uses it, you call it "the way the law is written" wow!!

i'm not going to entertain your questions because you refuse to accept that labor law governs collective bargaining and with that comes the requirement of "good faith" negotiations. i have no idea what a judge would consider good faith in this situation. never was my point to claim i knew how a judge would side one way or another. in fact, the lack of binding legal precedent here makes this matter all the more unpredictable.

that aside, i was only pointing to an important distinction that makes your analogy a failure. do you think i'm making this up? look it up yourself. i'm trying to help you understand the context of what's going on and you are falling over yourself trying to argue with me regarding something i had no intention of debating. there is no debate. labor law imposes a duty of good faith in collective bargaing. labor law does not apply to individual contract negotiations between individual players and their teams.

i never said that what Melo did to Denver was in "good faith." all i said is that he had no legal duty to act in good faith. whereas, the League has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Union. don't like that? i don't know what to tell you. write a letter to your congressman.

i don't know why it's failing to make it through. you don't seem emotional, but maybe you are. i have no clue. no point to further extrapolating this.

check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
11/16/2011  5:38 PM
So when owners send players in trades like Billups got sent it's all good? Players are always being traded to other teams whether they want to go or not! Players controlling where they go is a rare and new phenomenon. Lets also be real here, players have had more years of being exploited or undercompensated for more years than they have had any advantage so the scores not even close to even!!!

The players merely played within the rules that the owners dictated as they always have due to their greater leverage. This is the 1st time things went so far in favor of the players and it was owner inflicted! One thing that has gone under the radar is that teams like NY and Chi have been much more frugal with their salaries and haven't been subsidizing the small markets as usual from luxury tax. This is why revenue sharing should have been a top priority. Perhaps the league should not have an equal split of national tv revenue. They could give a bigger cut to teams that dont have big local TV deals.

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/16/2011  5:43 PM
The idea that an employee should no say in where he or she works is ridiculous.
eViL
Posts: 25412
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2004
Member: #561
USA
11/16/2011  6:20 PM
nixluva wrote:So when owners send players in trades like Billups got sent it's all good? Players are always being traded to other teams whether they want to go or not! Players controlling where they go is a rare and new phenomenon. Lets also be real here, players have had more years of being exploited or undercompensated for more years than they have had any advantage so the scores not even close to even!!!

The players merely played within the rules that the owners dictated as they always have due to their greater leverage. This is the 1st time things went so far in favor of the players and it was owner inflicted! One thing that has gone under the radar is that teams like NY and Chi have been much more frugal with their salaries and haven't been subsidizing the small markets as usual from luxury tax. This is why revenue sharing should have been a top priority. Perhaps the league should not have an equal split of national tv revenue. They could give a bigger cut to teams that dont have big local TV deals.

more than anything this lockout is proof that there are teams that need to be contracted. they need to get rid of 4 teams (kings, bobcats, hornets, timberwolves), expand rosters, make player movement more flexible and create a better minor league system.

check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
BasketballJones
Posts: 31973
Alba Posts: 19
Joined: 7/16/2002
Member: #290
USA
11/16/2011  6:56 PM
eViL wrote:
i never said that what Melo did to Denver was in "good faith." all i said is that he had no legal duty to act in good faith. whereas, the League has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Union.

Seems clear enough to me. It's up to the judge now.

https:// It's not so hard.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
11/16/2011  7:47 PM
Here is some interesting reading to gain some perspective of NBA/player relations over the years:

5. What's the history of the CBA? How long has the current CBA been in effect? When will it expire?

Bob Cousy began to organize the NBA players in 1954, although the league refused to recognize the union until 1957. A near strike at the 1964 All-Star game forced the league to adopt a pension plan. The first CBA was established in 1970, and new agreements followed in 1973, 1976 and 1980. The 1976 CBA coincided with the settlement of the "Oscar Robertson" suit, which was filed by the players association in 1970 to block the NBA-ABA merger. The 1976 agreement also provided limited free agency through the elimination of "option" clauses that bound players to teams in perpetuity.

In 1983 the parties agreed to share league revenues. The new agreement also instituted the modern salary cap, which went into effect in 1984. When this agreement expired the players brought an antitrust lawsuit, resulting in the "Bridgeman" agreement which brought unrestricted free agency, reduced the draft to two rounds, and added anti-collusion provisions.

Another antitrust lawsuit ensued in 1994 following the expiration of the 1988 CBA, challenging the salary cap, college draft, and right of first refusal provisions. The parties eventually reached a "no-strike, no-lockout" agreement that allowed the 1994-95 season to be played.

The parties came to terms on a new agreement in 1995, but the players tabled a vote and instead filed for union decertification. The league responded by imposing a lockout. The parties quickly came to an agreement, and the players voted against decertification. A new six year agreement was ratified which lifted the lockout before any games were missed, although the agreement was not actually signed until 1996.

The NBA exercised its option to terminate the 1995 CBA following the 1997-98 season, eventually imposing a lockout which took effect on July 1, 1998 and resulted in the cancellation of the start of the 1998-99 season and the 1999 All-Star weekend. The parties reached agreement on a new six-year agreement in early 1999, just in time to salvage a minimal 50-game season. The new agreement introduced maximum salaries, the mid-level exception, and the escrow and luxury tax systems. The league invoked its option to extend this agreement through the 2004-05 season.

The NBA and NBPA ratified the current agreement in July 2005. It expired at the end of the 2010-11 season. The league had the option to extend it through the 2011-12 season, but elected not to do so.

The CBA may be terminated early under certain conditions:

Certain types of collusion (Players Association may terminate).
National TV revenue drops significantly in the next television agreement (league may terminate).
Certain "force majeure" events (such as war or terrorism) make it impossible or economically impractical for the league to fulfill the agreement (league may terminate).
Certain provisions of the CBA are struck down in court (either side may terminate).

8. What percentage of revenues do the players receive?

Contracts are individually negotiated between players and teams, and several factors control the amount each player can receive. Collectively, the players are guaranteed to receive at least 57% of revenues in salaries & benefits. If it's ever less, the league cuts a check to the Players Association after the season for distribution to the players.

There is also an escrow system that helps to limit the money the players receive to a specific percentage of revenue. See question number 15 for details.

9. Has there always been a salary cap?

It may surprise you to learn that the NBA first had a salary cap in 1946-47, its first season. The cap that season was $55,000, with most players earning between $4,000 and $5,000. Star player Joe Fulks earned $8,000, and Tom King earned a league-highest $16,500 for his combined duties as player, publicity director and business manager for the Detroit Falcons.

The "modern" NBA salary cap began in 1984-85, at $3.6 million. It made steady but gradual increases of around $1-2 million each season until 1994-95, when it was $15.964 million. Armed with a big TV contract from NBC, the salary cap jumped to $23.0 million in 1995-96, and increased to $26.9 million in 1997-98, the last season of the 1995 CBA (a 747% increase in 13 years). The ABC/ESPN TV contract, which took effect with the 2002-03 season, provided $4.6 billion over six years, but less in 2002-03 than NBC paid in 2001-02. As a result, the salary cap went down for the first time ever in 2002-2003.

13. What is included in Basketball Related Income (BRI)?

Basketball Related Income (BRI) essentially includes any income received by the NBA, NBA Properties or NBA Media Ventures. This includes:

Regular season gate receipts
Broadcast rights
Exhibition game proceeds
Playoff gate receipts
Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena)
Parking
Proceeds from team sponsorships
Proceeds from team promotions
Arena club revenues
Proceeds from summer camps
Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments
Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances
Proceeds from beverage sale rights
40% of proceeds from arena signage
40% of proceeds from luxury suites
45% - 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
Proceeds from other premium seat licenses
Proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald's Championship and other NBA special events.
Some of the things specifically not included in BRI are proceeds from the grant of expansion teams, fines, and revenue sharing (e.g. luxury tax).

Nalod
Posts: 71155
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
11/16/2011  10:08 PM
BasketballJones wrote:
eViL wrote:
i never said that what Melo did to Denver was in "good faith." all i said is that he had no legal duty to act in good faith. whereas, the League has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Union.

Seems clear enough to me. It's up to the judge now.

Players go for decertification

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy