Fishsticks
Banned
Seriously?
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Seriously?
Hell yeah that was funny .. shoot carolinajazz is non-stop comedy.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I wonder if Billy Hunter's public acknowledgement that the idea was floated to start a new player's league will affect their anti-trust case.
If the players really can start their own league, then the owners aren't really being all that anti-trustworthy.
(What would really be entertaining is if both the players and the owners started separate leagues, and to see which one survived--or both.)
If the players really can start their own league, then the owners aren't really being all that anti-trustworthy.
(What would really be entertaining is if both the players and the owners started separate leagues, and to see which one survived--or both.)
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Owners win. The NBA would retain the arena rights and television contracts. Superstars would have a small league playing in second-tier arenas with maybe a TV contract from Versus. I'd like to see more ex-players like Jordan become part of ownership groups. Then they could enlighten the players and reps about concepts like risk/return and ROI, etc.
Last edited:
Risk/return, ROI what's that? We play and you give me millions of dollars. If you don't I'm holding out until I get paid. Ugghh.
Does anyone know whether the players that were not allowed to vote on the NBA proposal could ban together and assuming they were more than half of the players could they still vote to accept the deal? If more than half want the deal could they say we never got a chance to approve or disapprove and we want to accept despite the disclaimer of interest? I assume the answer is no because if the answer was yes, players should be calling every single player in the league with 1-5 years experience and all players making less than 6 million dollars a year and see if a majority would accept the deal.
Does anyone know whether the players that were not allowed to vote on the NBA proposal could ban together and assuming they were more than half of the players could they still vote to accept the deal? If more than half want the deal could they say we never got a chance to approve or disapprove and we want to accept despite the disclaimer of interest? I assume the answer is no because if the answer was yes, players should be calling every single player in the league with 1-5 years experience and all players making less than 6 million dollars a year and see if a majority would accept the deal.
mellow
Well-Known Member
Isn't that one of the reasons they didn't fully disband? so that the union, I mean trade association, could keep control on the rank and file?
If they want someone showing up at their doors with baseball bats and crow bars sure they could have their own vote.
Well if the remaining players hold off until the start of the next Euro season I'm sure they could all get jobs playing in some league. You make it sound like they are going to starve. They will survive. These aren't people who are use to being millionaires their whole lives.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Whether they have enough savings to live on (vs. drawing unemployment, begging, mooching, doing promotional appearances here and there, etc.) is not particularly relevant to the notion that by not approving the deal (partly by not having a chance to and not really having had much explained to them about it), they are missing out on six, seven, or maybe even eight figures of salary this year that they will be hard-pressed to recuperate in alternative lines of work, including overseas play.
I think that most fans here care more about whether they play (and maybe what their decisionmaking process is in doing so) than whether they survive, which is probably a non-issue as you correctly suggest.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Right. Or Kobe could just make their house and bling payments for them for the next 3 years. No wonder he's pissed.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....well, that's the type of thinking you have that comes from guys who think nothing of covering there ENTIRE bodies from neck to foot with tattoo's.......and who think nothing bad happens at 2 am in the morning at Strip Clubs! Do you honestly think these guys have an ounce of brains or any common sense whatsoever?
Chris-L
Well-Known Member
Makes me wonder, will these guys actually get unemployment checks if they apply? Never been on unemployment, but don't they give you like 70% of your income?. I'm not OK paying these guys 100k+ a month because they couldn't budget wisely.
Chris-L
Well-Known Member
Are you saying people who tattoo their bodies and enjoy looking at boobs are stupid and have no common sense? If so, I take that personally.
Unemployment pays 70% percent up to a max amount. For example the max unemployment you can get in the state of Nevada is $398.00 per week. So if a guy makes $40,000 a year he would get $398.00 per week. Is a guy makes $100,000 a year he would get $398.00 per week. So no worries about these guys getting a ton of $ off of Unemployment
I think the issue is less about $$$ and more about pride.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....where have you been...the Antarctica or something? Every time one of these sports figures gets busted or in trouble for malfeasance while patronizing a Strip Club at 2 am in the morning.....the coach, newspaper guys and anyone else who may have some sense will say "NOTHING good happens at 2 am in the morning at night clubs!" But these athletes think they can go there, have a good time and then leave unscathed!
just curious where the redundancy of "2am .. 'in the morning" germinated?
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
+1 on that.
Chauncey Billups is among the proudest, giving up $14ish million in the final year of his contract.
As a thirtysomething.
For pride.
Some of these youngins, especially with nonguaranteed contracts, will be hurt the most.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...eaction-on-twitter-to-union-disbanding/page/4
If they had better advice or common sense, they would have been screaming from the raptors--er, rafters--to get a deal done. Some of them will probably not even make it into the NBA. They journeyman should have gone Occupy Conference Room on the executive committee. The lawyers will definitely win ($$$, no pride (or shame, for that matter)).
The agents might win, although they are probably giving up a percentage of year's salary just like everyone else. I don't fully understand their motives, although they probably have ambitions to make some cool cash on a short-term All-Star touring team or even a competing elite league. The former is much easier than the latter, and I still think that most of the agents will have been better off just going with 50-50.