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

NBA files suit against NBPA

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

  • #61
    Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

    I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.
      Just lock them all in a room and don't let them out until either a deal is made or they die of thirst!
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.
        It was the only way this could happen.

        This isn't about splitting up money, though that's the simplest way to quantify it. The owners want to change the fundamental relationship, from a bizarre quasi-partnership to a more classic employer/employee relationship.

        The players say - correctly - that this relationship is part of the basic compact between the two parties, and the owners have - in word and deed - treated them as both partners and the "product" to be promoted, thus confirming the players' status.

        The owners say - correctly - that they made those agreements and took those actions at a different time in a different situation, and if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't. The model under which the NBA has operated is ****ed in the head, and the size and structure of player compensation is a huge drain on the league. It discourages growth into new markets, stability in current markets, and puts the players ahead of everything, including what they actually to believe to be the product - which is "the teams". (Of course, the teams are them, so it's an understandably self-serving argument.)

        It is an unreasonable expectation to think that either side would willingly accede to a system that would satisfy the other without a fight. The only real possibility that no games would be missed was if the owners just simply decided to suck it up for another five years - which is what happened in 2005 - and that wasn't going to happen this time around.

        The owners are always going to want a hard cap, limits on guaranteed contracts, and a compensation program that is not attached to revenue or revenue growth.

        The players are never going to willingly agree to such a structure.

        There is no real middle ground here. There's no area to collaborate.

        As to making either side the "bad guy" or "good guy" in this, that's just a complete waste of time. Both want what they want. Both have well-developed justifications as to why they should get what they want. It's not like there's actually a "right" or "wrong" here. There's just the outcome.

        The upcoming season was always less important to the two parties than the issues that they are fighting over. The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that the NFL is fundamentally healthy, and always has been. The NBA is fundamentally broken, and really, always has been - even during the huge growth of the '90's.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Will the NBA be stronger or weaker with players maxing out at 16mil per, rather than 20mil? Uh.... stronger. It would shift player salaries down, reducing salary payroll, making it actually profitable to own a franchise and invest into it.

          A NBA player standing up and *****ing about making 16mil, instead of 20mil, pisses me off.

          Whether we like it or not, the NBA is a business. The point of a business is to make money. If the league doesn't make money, it will fold. There's no way around it.
          Don't disagree with any of that.

          My point is, there will be a compromise. And assuming everyone is smart and sees a money making opportunity, eventually they're going to a situation where taking the deal is going to be much better than not taking a deal.

          I think the league's salary situation is in need of changes, sure. But how big are they going to be? Something tells me they're not going to be as big as the one the owners are demanding.

          As you said, the owners have to make money. Right now, the owners aren't going to make any money because they're not going to play games. They have to compare whatever potential agreement is on the table to sitting and not making money.

          The main thing I'm trying to get at is that someone eventually going to give in, and THAT is what's going to drive this negotiation process to a finish. And I'm guessing both sides are going to give in to some degree because both sides are going to be taking it on the chin in the "not earning any money to cover my expenses" department.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

            The owners are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain.

            I wonder if anyone has looked into how much the Simons are going to lose by sitting out this year?

            Even if it's, say $50mil (which I doubt), they'll be better off after year 4 with a new deal (assuming they post a profit or break even) than they would have by keeping the old system in place.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              The owners are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain.

              I wonder if anyone has looked into how much the Simons are going to lose by sitting out this year?

              Even if it's, say $50mil (which I doubt), they'll be better off after year 4 with a new deal (assuming they post a profit or break even) than they would have by keeping the old system in place.
              If they have been losing money on the Pacers like they say, Simon will actually increase his profit as he won't have to dip into his other businesses in order to pay for the Pacers.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                If they have been losing money on the Pacers like they say, Simon will actually increase his profit as he won't have to dip into his other businesses in order to pay for the Pacers.
                Well, no, there are still costs even if they play no games. Come on, now, don't buy into the whole "the Simons get everything for free" stuff.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                  The bottom line is this:

                  The owners want to CRUSH the players in this deal. Absolutely destroy them. And what they're hoping for is a repeat of 1999, when a big reason the lockout ended was because too many players were running out of money.

                  That's why Billy Hunter has told players for 3 plus years to save their money. That's why one agent had 4 of his clients, including Zach Randolph and Ben Gordon, 2010-11 salaries paid over two seasons. That's why the NBPA is encouraging players to sign overseas.

                  The NBPA doesn't want to be forced into a bad deal because enough of the players are out of money. If the players have saved enough, or are earning money elsewhere, than they can afford to sit out a season. Reading anything else into the players signing overseas is ludicrous.

                  So, if I'm the players, and I'm confident enough that my clientele is secure enough financially to survive a missed season, I would tell the owners and David Stern to not even bother meeting with us until you've come up with a reasonable revenue sharing plan. There's no point to otherwise. I'd then float reasonable compromises such as a harder salary cap, less guaranteed contract years, and a lower % of BRI.

                  I'm not confident in there being a 2011-12 season. I think enough of the owners are willing to miss a season to get what they want, while enough of the players will be able to afford to miss a season financially. I hope I'm wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    It was the only way this could happen.

                    This isn't about splitting up money, though that's the simplest way to quantify it. The owners want to change the fundamental relationship, from a bizarre quasi-partnership to a more classic employer/employee relationship.

                    The players say - correctly - that this relationship is part of the basic compact between the two parties, and the owners have - in word and deed - treated them as both partners and the "product" to be promoted, thus confirming the players' status.

                    The owners say - correctly - that they made those agreements and took those actions at a different time in a different situation, and if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't. The model under which the NBA has operated is ****ed in the head, and the size and structure of player compensation is a huge drain on the league. It discourages growth into new markets, stability in current markets, and puts the players ahead of everything, including what they actually to believe to be the product - which is "the teams". (Of course, the teams are them, so it's an understandably self-serving argument.)

                    It is an unreasonable expectation to think that either side would willingly accede to a system that would satisfy the other without a fight. The only real possibility that no games would be missed was if the owners just simply decided to suck it up for another five years - which is what happened in 2005 - and that wasn't going to happen this time around.

                    The owners are always going to want a hard cap, limits on guaranteed contracts, and a compensation program that is not attached to revenue or revenue growth.

                    The players are never going to willingly agree to such a structure.

                    There is no real middle ground here. There's no area to collaborate.

                    As to making either side the "bad guy" or "good guy" in this, that's just a complete waste of time. Both want what they want. Both have well-developed justifications as to why they should get what they want. It's not like there's actually a "right" or "wrong" here. There's just the outcome.

                    The upcoming season was always less important to the two parties than the issues that they are fighting over. The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that the NFL is fundamentally healthy, and always has been. The NBA is fundamentally broken, and really, always has been - even during the huge growth of the '90's.
                    I mostly agree, but since the truth of the matter is eventually a deal will get done, why can't whichever side is weaker just admit that and work cooperatively towards a deal now rather than having to lose money and hurt the league and hurt the fans?

                    I'm assuming the players are the ones who will blink first, and while not all of them are the brightest crayons in the box, their representatives are, and those guys have to know what the reality is here. So why not admit it and think long and hard about what they will eventually concede, get it over with, and save the season?

                    I'm assuming the answer boils down to pride, and I guess, to me, that's just not good enough. They're only delaying the inevitable, and they're only making it harder than it has to be.

                    I think if they were going to see it my way, they would have gotten this done before July 1st, so I know I'd be wasting my time hoping for a change of heart now, but it just..... bothers me. I understand fighting a losing battle under a certain set of circumstances, but this isn't a war, and sooner or later they will all be "friends" again, so why not try harder to cut the crap?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      Seems like the NBA is choosing to go uptempo, while having a dominant inside game, while the players are attmpting to go to the four corners with no shot clock to minimize the impact of the inferiority of their squad compared to the owners.

                      The question is, will the small school win, or will the big city school simply overpower it with speed, shooting, and a huge front line?
                      When do we run the picket fence?
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Well, no, there are still costs even if they play no games. Come on, now, don't buy into the whole "the Simons get everything for free" stuff.
                        I know, my point is though will he lose as much as he does during a normal season or not? I wasn't talking about the Pacers, I was talking about just Simon's own personal bank account. Without knowing how much it will cost without any Pacers games going on it is impossible to say if he will see a larger increase in money going into his bank account or if he will see less money go into his bank account.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I mostly agree, but since the truth of the matter is eventually a deal will get done, why can't whichever side is weaker just admit that and work cooperatively towards a deal now rather than having to lose money and hurt the league and hurt the fans?

                          I'm assuming the players are the ones who will blink first, and while not all of them are the brightest crayons in the box, their representatives are, and those guys have to know what the reality is here. So why not admit it and think long and hard about what they will eventually concede, get it over with, and save the season?

                          I'm assuming the answer boils down to pride, and I guess, to me, that's just not good enough. They're only delaying the inevitable, and they're only making it harder than it has to be.

                          I think if they were going to see it my way, they would have gotten this done before July 1st, so I know I'd be wasting my time hoping for a change of heart now, but it just..... bothers me. I understand fighting a losing battle under a certain set of circumstances, but this isn't a war, and sooner or later they will all be "friends" again, so why not try harder to cut the crap?
                          No one has any idea of what "the inevitable" is, nor is there any clear indication as to who is actually the "weaker" side.

                          If the two sides were monolithic entities that voted with a single voice, then the owners would be much, much stronger. It would be a virtual certainty that they could "outlast" the players in a war of attrition. But even then, the owners are exposed to legal risks - both under labor law, or potentially anti-trust litigation. These would be avenues that the players could pursue and have a reasonable chance of winning.

                          (Though, truthfully, neither side really wants it to spend significant time in a court, because courts are stupid and insane, and could end up requiring all of the players and owners to wear those ridiculously pointy bras that Madonna wore during one of her phases.)

                          The problem is that these are one-man, one-vote groups. In this regard, the NBPA is potentially stronger. The majority of their rank and file benefit enormously from the current deal, and stand to lose the most in any significant move away from it. It's not hard to keep guys from voting against "poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick."

                          The owners' situation is more complicated. There are owners who are getting killed by the system, and owners who are making a killing on the system, and a group that span the distance between.

                          The ones making a killing, like, say Jerry Buss, are already fine with making a settlement with the players on their terms. The ones getting killed will never vote for much less than what the owners are seeking in their latest proposal.

                          So it becomes all about the group in the middle, and you really only have to get 15 votes to approve a CBA for the owners. Henry Abbott said today that he had been told that the players really only needed to move 4 owners off the hard line to get "a reasonable deal for the players". The owners have to starve out probably more than 250 players.

                          When you couple this with the fact that the players don't believe the owners' claims of losing money - which can be more accurately stated as they don't have the remotest ****ing clue what any of the financial **** means - then I'd be willing to bet that most of them believe the owners are bluffing.

                          So, even if the players were to objectively decide they were "weaker", they can still see realistic paths to victory.

                          As to hurting the league, the problem is, both sides believe they are "the league." The players believe they're the product, and the owners believe that they are the stewards of the teams, and thus, the league. Each assumes what is in their best interest is in the league's best interest, so the only way they can "hurt the league" is to give in.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                            But at the end of the day, which group is going to run out of money first? That's clearly the players, right? Relatively speaking.

                            Sure, the owners can get hurt, too, but it's not the same thing as it is with the players. Even if it's really only about four owners, they probably can afford to wait longer to blink than those players can, in the long run.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                              I believe that the owners losing money as a group have to be desperate and less willing than the players to compromise. All players make money but all owners don't.. Why would owners who lose money capitulate and sign a CBA for 5 more years so they continue to lose the same or more money? What is their incentive? Players may make less but still make money.

                              So this lockout is about everyone, players and owners, losing money and the players can now get a taste of what it means to actually lose money. i would normally side with labor over management because in the usual case labor gets screwed but this isn't a normal labor management situation. It's almost as if the owners really work for the players and they are the ones getting screwed.
                              Last edited by speakout4; 08-04-2011, 08:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: NBA files suit against NBPA

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                But I don't think that's the players point.

                                I think its

                                "You better pay us what you promised us, or we'll go elsewhere." And it doesn't matter that it's less. 10 mill, 14 mill, 5 mill..doesn't matter anyone can live well off of that. But 4 million less then you were promised. That's irritating. IMO, it's a power game more so than it is about money. This deals with players rights. Their point being, you can't give us less than what was offered in our contract. Not because it's less money, but it's because it's what you promised. It's the contract you guaranteed.


                                They aren't fighting with the overseas leagues. They're fighting the idea that a team can promise a player one amount, and then simply reduce it because NBA GM's got stupid.
                                Let's play devils advocate for a second. Let's just assume that the owners are hard core, dead set, absolutely on board with busting this union up and getting things their own way (which is what I think), what happens if they say "So what. Go elsewhere"?
                                http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                                "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X