Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...out/50409536/1

    With the NBA and the players union failing to make significant progress in labor talks this week, Boston Celtics center Jermaine O'Neal addressed the shortcomings in the owners' proposal and how fans likely see it as a millionaires-vs.-billionaires dispute. O'Neal, playing in the player-organized, two-week Impact Basketball Competitive Training Series in Las Vegas, spoke with USA TODAY NBA reporter J. Michael Falgoust:
    By Nathaniel S. Butler, NBAE/Getty Images

    Celtics center Jermaine O'Neal says of the NBA owners' proposal, "You put in a system where every team profits? There's no business structure in the world like that.



    Celtics center Jermaine O'Neal says of the NBA owners' proposal, "You put in a system where every team profits? There's no business structure in the world like that."


    Are you upset or surprised by what has taken place the last 24 hours?

    We want to make the best decision for ourselves and the business of basketball. A guy like myself, going into his 16th year, who's been in love with basketball since I was 8, you want to see development of the brand. You want to see it grow globally. At the same time, you want it to be fair. I feel bad for the families out there that support our league, that are barely making ends meet but find a way to come to our games. It's a terrible time for any sports league to be negotiating millions and billions of dollars.

    So why isn't there a compromise?

    We understand there should be some adjustments based off the economic structure of not only our country, but the world. We're willing to do that. To the severity of what the owners are asking, there's no way as a union we can do that.

    What's so unrealistic about the owners' proposal?

    You put in a system where every team profits? There's no business structure in the world like that. … You can't hold players hostage for decisions that have been made in the past. We hear that a lot from the league, "Guys aren't living up to the contracts." What do you do? Basketball is no different than any other workplace. You get guys that perform. You get guys that overperform. You get guys that go under, whether for injuries or whatever. It's just one of those things.

    Aside from the hard salary cap, you believe the lack of revenue sharing among owners is a major stumbling block?

    Their debate is that teams are losing money. If you profit-share, the top-market teams, they're going to pack the house, they have the highest ticket sales. I don't understand your concerns if you're telling us and the general public that you're concerned about some of the lower-tier markets that are not profitable. Then just profit-share.

    So you think the owners' proposal seeks to eliminate the "middle class" in the NBA?

    It's bad timing overall. Every player wants to be playing. If the owners are going to just sit on the deal they're proposing, then there's just no way. Taking out the mid-level (exception to the salary cap) is going to ruin our game. It's going to individualize our game so much. Basketball is based off a system. Everybody is given a role in the game. It's not just everybody running up and down. We have some really good mid-level players in our league, borderline All-Star players. If you're going to say, basically, we're going to roll back salaries and we're going to give two of the top players on the team the top deals and take out the mid-tier and let everybody else fend for the $1 million, $2 million, $3 million (shakes his head). … Doing that is going to make guys go for their own. It really is.

    Are owners' claims about bad attendance in some markets legitimate?

    Teams that aren't winning aren't going to have the best attendance. … That's where profit-sharing comes into place. Then you don't have all those issues with that. If people running teams don't make bad decisions, we won't be talking about bad deals.

    How much different is this lockout from the one in 1998?

    As good as (Commissioner) David Stern is, and he's really good, he's done a great job on branding the game. As owners, you got to put your ear to the product. You've got to listen to the product a little bit. I'm not talking individually. I'm talking about a body of players. We couldn't be any stronger than we are now. You look at where we were in '98. I was young; I was only two years in. I went to every meeting and it wasn't like this. Guys are very interested in what's going on. Guys feel very strong about our stance. We want to make a deal. But we can't do the deal that's being proposed right now. It's just not fair.

    We're more educated about it. The union did a good job positioning us last season to the point we knew what was going to happen. Guys did a good job positioning themselves economically. You hear all the conversation. You see more text messages, more phone calls, more unity right now. Nobody wants to be on strike. … It took us a long time to recover from the last strike. We had to win the love back. We had to get out in the communities and damn near knock on doors to get them back out there. We're just coming off the best season of all time, and for us to even be talking about stoppage (is crazy).

    Whatever deal is reached, you won't be around for most of it. What's your personal stake in this?

    I'm probably in the last year of my career. I'm more concerned about the young guys, the future of the NBA players that's going to carry the league. My 5-year-old son loves basketball. I'm more concerned about the development of our brand. I'm always going to be alumnus of the league. You're in a difficult situation, but as a player, you've got to stand strong. We are the product. We just want to be fair. We're not asking for more money.

    So the current impasse is a bridge that must be crossed before any real progress can be made?

    I spoke to my agent (Monday), so we had an idea of what was going on. Somebody from the union was in the gym early (Tuesday) talking about it. It's just sad that we even look at President Obama fighting to put in a bill for people to get jobs, and there are people out here who are not going to understand this, not understand the NBA is not playing because of millions and billions of dollars. I have family that's barely living, working 9 to 5 and working hard as hell every day. As a fan, not as a player, I want both parties to be fair. Let's just resolve it and let's talk real negotiation. … We're going to stand strong. The NFL (owners) did a great job. They set the tone on how you should negotiate. They were proactive about it. The (NBA) owners only met with us twice in two months. If you're sincere about getting a deal done, twice in two months is a long time doing nothing.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

    "Dominating" interview from JO, as usual.

    If only the NBA situation were like the NFL, where players don't have long term fully guaranteed contracts like JO regardless of their ability to perform. If only the NBA had just come through one of its best ever season from a financial perspective like the NFL had. If only the NBA faced a situation where the worst outcome for both the players and the owners is to have a long lockout.

    Oh, and JO, why didn't you voluntarily share some of your $22 million salary during each year you were injured so that the rest of your teammates could have a better life while producing what you should have been? Profit sharing is no different than that. Better yet, why don't you refund the majority of your salaries for your injured years to the Pacers and the rest of the teams who held your onerous contract despite your inability to perform?

    Yep, JO, why can't the NBA follow the lead of the NFL? Look in the mirror.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

      I am not bashing you bro , but why so angry at JO?

      For a guy who was a highschool graduate and extreemly young (17) enetering the league and you have not heard one peep of trouble form him throughout his 16 year career (not the brawl, that was sporadic)

      I think he has become a very well spoken and intelligent man

      I also remember him resigning with the Pacers over the Spurs

      and it was just a one on one interview with JO and the USA Today

      again though I am not picking a battle with you fam, just voicing my opinion
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

        Loved this:

        What's so unrealistic about the owners' proposal?

        You put in a system where every team profits? There's no business structure in the world like that. … You can't hold players hostage for decisions that have been made in the past.
        JO was always a class act and he continues to be one of my favorite players.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

          Basketball is no different than any other workplace. You get guys that perform. You get guys that overperform. You get guys that go under, whether for injuries or whatever. It's just one of those things.

          Except for one minor detail, you guys have guaranteed contracts, most work places do not have guaranteed contracts, therefore if you sign a huge deal and don't perform (*cough*Jermaine*cough*) you are looking for new work. Really not that hard to understand.


          @Pacers24Colts12

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

            Originally posted by TheDanimal View Post
            Basketball is no different than any other workplace. You get guys that perform. You get guys that overperform. You get guys that go under, whether for injuries or whatever. It's just one of those things.

            Except for one minor detail, you guys have guaranteed contracts, most work places do not have guaranteed contracts, therefore if you sign a huge deal and don't perform (*cough*Jermaine*cough*) you are looking for new work. Really not that hard to understand.
            Most entertainment industries, though, do have pay or play contracts for the top level workers. And as much as people hate to admit it the NBA is in the entertainment industry.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              I also remember him resigning with the Pacers over the Spurs
              Apparently only to stay with Zeke (and a ton of $$$). He said that he would've signed with SA if he would have known Thomas wasn't going to be here.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Loved this:



                JO was always a class act and he continues to be one of my favorite players.
                ...and there are not many businesses that stay viable after losing money year after year.

                The reality is, the NBA depends on more than a few teams to stay viable. Boston, LA, New York and Chicago are all fine clubs, but they can't do it alone. It's also a much less interesting league because only a handful of teams have won championships in its history. This is just one reason the NFL is a better structured league.

                As I've said before, owners have no incentive to participate in a league where they don't profit nor do they control the product. That's the issue that needs to be resolved.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                  Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                  Most entertainment industries, though, do have pay or play contracts for the top level workers. And as much as people hate to admit it the NBA is in the entertainment industry.
                  It is not exactly the same. A performer doesn't need other "entertainers" to work his or her craft. Nor do they need a CBA and a union. They have their own independent contracts and their own marketing and management staffs. Also, nothing is guaranteed except a single performance usually. If a singer loses her voice, she isn't going to get more deals unless she has a Vegas contract in place. JO should thank God he is not a real entertainer.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                    BTW, the NBA as a whole has no guarantee of profiting in any one year. So, JO's statement isn't true.

                    Also, the teams raking in the dough, if they were truly independent, would just tell the other franchises to take a hike. The fact is, they are dependent based on the business structure and the product. As a result, this is an example of a good business move by small market teams who happen to be in power because there are more of them and they have much less to lose by the league shutting down.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                      "You put in a system where every team profits? There's no business structure in the world like that. … You can't hold players hostage for decisions that have been made in the past. We hear that a lot from the league, "Guys aren't living up to the contracts." What do you do? Basketball is no different than any other workplace. You get guys that perform. You get guys that overperform. You get guys that go under, whether for injuries or whatever. It's just one of those things."

                      While no business is guaranteed a profit they do have control over their #1 expense which is payroll.
                      When almost any other business loses sales and profits they reduce expenses. It's sad, but necessary to reduce payroll by laying off employees or cutting salaries to remain profitable and stay in business. My business lost sales and profits when the recession hit. If we didn't reduce expenses then we wouldn't be here today and would have gone the way of so many other unprofitable business over the past few years. The NBA can't do this with guaranteed contracts, a guaranteed split of the bri, and a guaranteed # of players on each team even if the business loses money.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        It is not exactly the same. A performer doesn't need other "entertainers" to work his or her craft. Nor do they need a CBA and a union. They have their own independent contracts and their own marketing and management staffs. Also, nothing is guaranteed except a single performance usually. If a singer loses her voice, she isn't going to get more deals unless she has a Vegas contract in place. JO should thank God he is not a real entertainer.
                        If you're a writer, actor, director or technician on a film or TV set then you're most definitely in a union with a CBA.

                        NBA teams run a business with a significant risk of injury (from the work they're doing) as well as a high degree of uncertainty when it comes to player potential and effectiveness. If they don't want to pay injured or under-performing players then don't buy a franchise.

                        BTW, the NBA as a whole has no guarantee of profiting in any one year. So, JO's statement isn't true.
                        No business has a guaranteed profit every year.
                        Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 09-15-2011, 08:12 PM.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                          While no business is guaranteed a profit they do have control over their #1 expense which is payroll.
                          When almost any other business loses sales and profits they reduce expenses. It's sad, but necessary to reduce payroll by laying off employees or cutting salaries to remain profitable and stay in business. My business lost sales and profits when the recession hit. If we didn't reduce expenses then we wouldn't be here today and would have gone the way of so many other unprofitable business over the past few years. The NBA can't do this with guaranteed contracts, a guaranteed split of the bri, and a guaranteed # of players on each team even if the business loses money.
                          NBA teams can very easily cut payroll by trading players or negotiating buy-outs.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                            NBA teams can very easily cut payroll by trading players or negotiating buy-outs.
                            Not easily, and it's not even close to being the same. Any other business can cut their worst employees. An nba team can only give away an all star if they want to reduce payroll. If it were easy we would have cut some serious payroll with Dun, TJ, Tinsley, ect. over the past few years.
                            If any other business let's an employee go they don't have to buy them out for 90% of what they make for the next 4 years.
                            Just because it's been this way in the prior cba doesn't mean it's right or that it has to be that way.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Jermaine O'Neal on NBA labor impasse: We want to make a deal

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              If you're a writer, actor, director or technician on a film or TV set then you're most definitely in a union with a CBA.
                              Writers, directors and technicians are back stage participants, hardly comparable to an entertainer. If you want to go that far, the janitor at a casino is in the entertainment business. It simply doesn't compare to what we were discussing.

                              Yes, actors are in a union...but that doesn't answer any of my other distinctions.

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              NBA teams run a business with a significant risk of injury (from the work they're doing) as well as a high degree of uncertainty when it comes to player potential and effectiveness. If they don't want to pay injured or under-performing players then don't buy a franchise.
                              Many businesses have a significant risk of injury. The NBA is not particularly special. All of them have a high degree of uncertainty regarding effectiveness of a particular worker as well. In fact, the certainty that an NBA player will perform well or not is probably more, not less foreseeable.

                              In any event, if the small market owners don't want to pay injured or under-performing players they need to adjust the CBA and force that issue if they need to do it.

                              [/QUOTE]

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X