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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Phoenix is a small market?
    Notice I said smaller not small.

    Phoenix is the 12th largest market in the U.S.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      They can still argue that the NBA isn't losing the amount of money that they're claiming, and offer some type of proof, without getting out sensitive information. They already tried doing just that when they tried using the NJ Nets as the example.

      The NBPA hasn't been claiming the losses were over-inflated, or just plain wrong, for a couple of months now.

      They've dropped that complaint. Why can't everyone else?
      I don't think they did - it just fell out of the public eye as they moved on. What kind of proof would you want? Again, there are confidentiality agreements. What NJ Nets example? Those reports from 7 years ago?


      Once again, they aren't arguing over money now. They're arguing how that money is spent. There is a difference.
      Till an agreement is reached, they're still arguing about everything. How the money is spent and how much money is spent is directly related. Both parts are willing make concessions in the system for money and vice-versa.



      Each year players get automatic raises, because of the revenue growth. When players sign contracts, the automatically get the highest percentage of growth, whether or not the NBA grows the same amount.

      Revenue has been increasing at a slower pace than the players salaries have been increasing. Which is why there is a difference.


      The players don't actually "lose" any money. They aren't given a raise for the next two years. Once again, there is a difference.

      After the two years are up, instead of an 8% increase, they would be getting a 6.5% for Bird Rights players, and 3.5% for non-Bird Rights players.
      Oh, that's factually incorrect.

      There are lots of people who believe in that - Stern and the teams have done an excellent PR job, even though I think that in the end it was a bad idea as it made the players less cooperative - but it's not true.

      Players salaries have remained flat relatively to the revenue. THe numbers (season - BRI - players salaries - %)

      06 - $3.174 billion - $1.809 billion - 56.99%
      07 - $3.384 billion - $1.929 billion - 57%
      08 - $3.519 billion - $2.005 billion - 56.8%
      09 - $3.608 billion - $2.104 billion - 58.3%
      10 - $3.643 billion - $2.055 billion - 56.8%
      11 - $3.817 billion - $2.175 billion - 56.9%


      And your first sentence is wrong too. If the revenue doesn't grow, the players salaries won't grow either. Mind you, the salaries the players negotiate aren't the ones they're paid. Almost every year they've been forced to give back the owners money at the end of the year . THis is a rarely mentioned but important fact. Basically there are mechanisms that force the players salaries to remain flat relatively to the revenue - basically at 57% of it.

      The reason the NBA started losing money was because owners allowed non-players expenses to get out of control.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I just don't assume the way some of you seem to that it can never get any better.
        I think it can get better, but not through the way the current CBA is heading.

        The fundamental problem is that competitiveness is tied to the superstar players. So ideally, you'd want a fair way to distribute these superstars, i.e. the draft. The problem comes in free agency, because these superstars aren't going to choose teams based on competitive balance.

        Ideally again, you'd want the drafting team to be able to offer more incentive than anyone else. Hence, Bird rights. So a player wanting to leave will have to take less money - but how much less money? Thanks to max contracts, it's not a lot less. A superstar like LeBron could well figure that he could make up the difference in endorsements by moving to a better location.

        A related problem is that you don't want a single team to hoard two or more superstars. Again, max contracts are the culprit here. Even with a hard cap, you can fit in three max contracts and still have money for cheap role players.

        What the new CBA is designed to stop, are the Dallas-style teams, where you have one superstar and reconfigure the players around him every summer. The fundamental superstar problem IMO is not addressed, but hey at least you stop roleplayers from getting overpaid. It's really more about levelling the field financially more than competitively, and IMO again revenue sharing would do a much better job of that than the system changes that owners are proposing.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          And if you read the article they had complete access to the Nets books from 2003-2006.

          Here is a link to where Deadspin first reported it, and they have images of the actual books.
          http://deadspin.com/5816870/

          Right after that article was shot to pieces, the NBPA quit claiming the losses weren't real/inflated.
          Last edited by Since86; 11-16-2011, 01:34 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so you are correct that just not talking about it doesn't mean they don't think it. However, one would hope they would realize they'd get more fan sympathy if they kept pounding on the numbers that were really profits, assuming those exist as much as it is claimed they do.
            If you're saying that the players are terrible at PR, I agree with you - there's plenty of evidence pointing to that.

            It seems pretty clear to me - there are no shenanigans going on in the NBA's books. There are however disputed expenses (primarily interest and presumably depreciation) which the union claims is not any of their business. So it's not a matter of accounting, it's a matter of opinion - and which opinion you give more weight to seems to correlate strongly to which side you have more sympathy to. That applies I think to most everyone engaged in this particular debate.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Which league has better parity, the NBA or the NFL?

              The NFL. Whether or not it's by 50% or by 75%, does it really matter? The NFL has better parity than the NBA, and that is what the argument is about. Not the level at which the NFL is better.

              If the difference was just a little bit, then I would agree with you.

              But the Celtics have 27 rings and the Lakers have 16. The Steelers lead the NFL with 6 rings. The Cowboys have 5.

              Which one has better parity? The longer the time line you use, the wider the gap gets.

              And if we ignore anything before 1966 (when the first SB was played) the Lakers have 11 and the Celtics have 9.
              I would say the NFL has better parity, but that's because of the nature of the sport. A great player like Manning can only impact one side of the ball, whereas a Jordan can make plays on both sides. The NBA is driven by stars, and if you have stars then you win. In the NFL, it's much easier to build a competitive team because there are so many different positions. Even so, only 3 teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl in the past 8 seasons. That's not the epitome of parity. Odds are that the Pats or Steelers will get to the Super Bowl this year, which would make it 9 straight years of it being one of those 3 teams.

              I mean, do the Pittsburgh Steelers ever have the "best" player? They have a lot of great players, but they don't have the "best" one. But because of the nature of football, they are able to win championships because they build a complete team across the board. The ONLY team in the NBA who has done something similar is the 04 Pistons. Otherwise, the team who wins it all always has a top 3 player, if not the best one.

              I think you are confusing the Celtics with the Yankees as the Celtics have 17 rings and not 27 (or maybe that was just a typo). Second, you're only counting Super Bowl era rings in your argument. The Packers actually 11 championships and the Bears have 8. They racked up a bunch of wins when there weren't many teams in the league, just like the Celtics did.

              OK, so the Celtics won a bunch of rings when there were only 8 teams. That says nothing about the state of parity in today's game. The Celtics won a bunch when there was hardly anyone in the league and they were able to get the best players and bully everyone around. But that's pretty irrelevant to today.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Maybe there needs to be a way to formally designate players as 'superstars' and make special free agent rules based around that. I know that sounds like a 'franchise tag', but that's not necessarily what I mean.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                  The reason the NBA started losing money was because owners allowed non-players expenses to get out of control.
                  Players salaries account for, I believe, 75% of the Pacers total expenses. How in the hell is that other 25% costing them 15M per year, especially when they don't even pay to keep Conseco up and running, but rather the CIB does?

                  EDIT: Total revenue: $95M Player salaries $71M. Therefore 74.7% of all total revenue goes directly to the players. Total expenses is $112M. Therefore player salaries account for 63.4% of all total expenses.
                  Last edited by Since86; 11-16-2011, 01:40 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    A great player like Manning can only impact one side of the ball
                    Not entirely true. He can't go out and make a tackle, but his performance on offense directly impacts the situation left for the defense to deal with. Less INT's, more rest off the field, the psychology of the scoreboard, that kind of thing.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Another thing to consider is the fact that the NFL postseason is single elimination while the NBA plays 7 game series. ANYTHING can happen in a single elimination, and often the "best" team doesn't win. I mean, would the Patriots have lost to the Giants in a 7 game series? No freaking way. By default, the NFL should have more parity because of this.

                      In the NBA, the "best" team almost always wins because of the series format.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Players salaries account for, I believe, 75% of the Pacers total expenses. How in the hell is that other 25% costing them 15M per year, especially when they don't even pay to keep Conseco up and running, but rather the CIB does?
                        I can easily see how nonplayer expenses cost $15m (and probably more) - Bird alone costs a reported $5m. And for a while, we were paying Donnie a similar amount. Then you have coaches - Obie supposedly cost $4m. And have you seen PS&E's org charts? All those VPs and directors must cost a pretty penny.

                        But you do have a valid point - cordobes is talking about the league wide cap on player salaries, which don't apply on a team by team basis. So it's very possible for the Pacers' player salary to grow faster than their revenue, or the NBA's revenue. That's a team issue though, not a CBA issue.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Another thing to consider is the fact that the NFL postseason is single elimination while the NBA plays 7 game series. ANYTHING can happen in a single elimination, and often the "best" team doesn't win. I mean, would the Patriots have lost to the Giants in a 7 game series? No freaking way. By default, the NFL should have more parity because of this.

                          In the NBA, the "best" team almost always wins because of the series format.
                          The NBA also has 16 teams (out of 30) that go to the playoffs, whereas the NFL has 10 teams (out of 32) that go to the playoffs.

                          Very rarely does a "bad" team make it into the NFL playoffs whereas every year there are "bad" teams that make it into the NBA playoffs, like the Pacers last year.

                          The competition just to get into the NFL playoffs is a lot more competitive than the NBA. Which is why a 10-6 Pats team sits out.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            I would say the NFL has better parity, but that's because of the nature of the sport. A great player like Manning can only impact one side of the ball, whereas a Jordan can make plays on both sides. The NBA is driven by stars, and if you have stars then you win. In the NFL, it's much easier to build a competitive team because there are so many different positions. Even so, only 3 teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl in the past 8 seasons. That's not the epitome of parity. Odds are that the Pats or Steelers will get to the Super Bowl this year, which would make it 9 straight years of it being one of those 3 teams.

                            I mean, do the Pittsburgh Steelers ever have the "best" player? They have a lot of great players, but they don't have the "best" one. But because of the nature of football, they are able to win championships because they build a complete team across the board. The ONLY team in the NBA who has done something similar is the 04 Pistons. Otherwise, the team who wins it all always has a top 3 player, if not the best one.

                            I think you are confusing the Celtics with the Yankees as the Celtics have 17 rings and not 27 (or maybe that was just a typo). Second, you're only counting Super Bowl era rings in your argument. The Packers actually 11 championships and the Bears have 8. They racked up a bunch of wins when there weren't many teams in the league, just like the Celtics did.

                            OK, so the Celtics won a bunch of rings when there were only 8 teams. That says nothing about the state of parity in today's game. The Celtics won a bunch when there was hardly anyone in the league and they were able to get the best players and bully everyone around. But that's pretty irrelevant to today.
                            And the Bears championships, along with GB, go all the way back to 1921. The NBA wasn't created until 1946. So they had an extra 25 years to rack up wins, in a smaller league, and still didn't do it.......

                            The NFL is a lot harder to get players, than the NBA. A team like Cleveland can have one player and be a title contender each and every year. You cannot do that in the NFL.
                            (And you can use the Colts as the counter example, but I'm warning you now I'm going to point out that they had multiple, more than two other players, Pro Bowl players on their roster those years. LeBron was the only one for Cleveland)

                            One player in the NBA is 20% of the starting players. One player in the NFL is 0.0303% of the starting players. If you want to remove special teams, then it's 4.5%. If you want to remove the defense it's 9%.


                            It's much easier to get one player and change your course for the NBA than it is for the NFL.


                            The NFL has a roster size of 53. The NBA has 15 players on a roster.


                            Which one is easier to overhaul and get better players?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              I'm not sure that's right. Boies already stated that the players aren't seeking an injunction to lift the lockout. They're going straight for a summary judgement on punitive damages. Though you could say that the threat of such a ruling might lead the NBA to lift the lockout through settlement, but it seems unlikely that a court will order the lockout to be lifted.
                              Oh, I know. I was just stating that the NFL ruling doesn't constitute a precedent and that the courts enjoining the lockout wouldn't be exactly surprising, considering the split decisions. I think that some agents may still pursue it on behalf of players out of the bargaining unit.

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              I am really confused with the bolded part.

                              The courts were chosen because they would favor the players. The sham argument is a ligit one that will be made by the owners.
                              Yeah, it's funny, but it happens because the roles are a bit inverted in this particular case - for most corporations, unions dissolving tends to be a positive event, not a negative one. Almost always you have employers fighting certification and for decertification. Actually we had an union disclaiming interest a few months ago - not in the US - and it was a happy moment, one of celebration. So, a ruling against the union dissolving and that the bargaining process is still alive would be actually pro-union in general terms and probably require judges that interpret the labor laws more aggressively. I'd be scared by the idea of courts imposing more restrictions to deunionizing in the US, quite frankly.

                              I agree that the sham disclaiming of representation argument will be made by the owners. And it's certainly legitimate. I don't really get is why will the courts accept it this time around. And even if they do, they'll need to provide some remedy for the union. Like saying to wait some time or something. But I don't think there's a chance a court will say that some workers have to remain unionized forever.

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              That's not the same situation, though. I thought that battle was over whether or not free agency was even allowed to exist in the NFL. That's lightyears from where the players in the NBA are it in that regard. They have it much better than NFL players.
                              Why is that relevant? They'll just evaluate if the union dissolution is a sham or not, no?

                              Here's the relevant part of the ruling in that case:

                              http://pt.scribd.com/doc/53897974/Ju...players-vs-NFL
                              (....=
                              Most importantly, in 1991, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued an opinion in a factual context remarkably similar to that at issue here. In the wake of the EighthCircuit’s November 1989 decision in Powell v. National Football League, which concluded that the non-statutory labor exemption protected the League’s free agency restrictions from any antitrust claims by the Union, “the NFLPA Executive Committee decided to abandon all collective bargaining rights in order to allow player antitrust challenges to” those restrictions “to go forward free of the labor exemption defense.” Inre Pittsburgh Steelers, Case 6-CA-23143, 1991 WL 144468, *1 (June 26, 1991).
                              25
                              The General Counsel in the Pittsburgh Steelers matter addressed whether the NFLviolated Section 8(a), which prohibits unfair labor practices by employers, by continuing to recognize the NFLPA as the players representative “following the NFLPA’s disclaimer and reorganization, where another union is now trying to organize the players.” Id. The NFL had “refused to accept the disclaimer and reorganization,” and the rival purported union, the United Players of the NFL (UPNFL), filed a charge that the NFL’s statements“created the impression that the NFLPA was still the players’ bargaining representative,”thereby interfering in the new union’s organizing campaign.Identifying as a “threshold question” the issue of “whether the NFLPA remains the players’ collective-bargaining representative,” the General Counsel noted that the NFL contended that “the NFLPA’s disclaimer and reorganization is a sham and that management has acted properly in continuing to recognize the NFLPA as the incumbent union.” Id. at *2. The General Counsel, however, concluded “that the disclaimer was valid,” and that “the NFLPA has not merely disclaimed representative status,” but also“restructured itself so that it no longer functions as a collective-bargaining agent.” Id.Accordingly, the General Counsel concluded that “the NFLPA is not a labor organizationas defined in Section 2(5) of the Act,” and thus “there can be no Section 8(a)(2) violationsince it cannot be said that the NFL has been attempting to deal with a ‘labor organization.’” Id. In the absence of a “labor organization,” the General Counsel statedthat “[w]e conclude that the [Section 8(a)(2)] charge should be dismissed.” Id. “Insummary, we conclude that the Section 8(a)(2) allegation is without merit because the NFLPA has effectively disclaimed its representational rights and has converted itself from a Section 2(5) labor organization to a trade association.” Id. at *4; see In reCleveland Decals, Inc., 99 N.L.R.B. 745 (1952) (dismissing petition for decertification because “the Union’s unequivocal disclaimer of interest in the Employer’s employeescancels whatever vitality its certificate as bargaining representative might otherwise
                              possess”); In re Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., 77 N.L.R.B. 463 (1948)(dismissing petition for decertification and setting aside a previously issued “Direction of Election” after union disclaimed its status as exclusive bargaining representative of theemployees because “to direct an election despite the Union’s disclaimer, would not only be a waste of Federal funds, but would also almost certainly mean” the Employer could“refuse to engage in collective bargaining with [any union]”).Summarizing the Board’s opinions on union disclaimers, the General Counsel provided a succinct standard. “In order for a union’s disclaimer in representing a particular unit to be valid, it must be unequivocal, made in good faith, andunaccompanied by inconsistent conduct.” In re Pittsburgh Steelers, 1991 WL 144468 at*4 n.8. “Moreover, when a union has made a valid disclaimer, no question oncerning representation exists and a decertification election will not be held because it would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources.” Id.Here, the League contends that the Players’ “purported” disclaimer of their collective bargaining agent is a mere tactic that undermines the validity of the disclaimer.(Doc. No. 34, at 29-32 (Mem. at 21-24); Doc. No. 75, at 13-14 (Mem. at 8-9).) The Players deny this, asserting that “[b]y disclaiming their union, the Players have given upthe right to strike, to collectively bargain, to have union representation in grievances, tohave union representation in benefits determinations, and to have union regulation of agents.” (Doc. No. 41, at 6 (Mem. at 1.).) Moreover, the Players note that the disclaimer does not stand alone. The Union also (1) amended its bylaws to prohibit it or its membersfrom engaging in collective bargaining with the NFL, the individual teams, or their agents, (2) filed notice with the Department of Labor to terminate its status as a labor organization, (3) filed an application with the IRS to be reclassified for tax purposes as a professional association rather than a labor organization, and (4) informed the NFL that itno longer would represent players in grievances under the soon-to-expire CBA, such thatthe players would have to pursue or defend on an individual basis any grievance with the NFL or the individual teams. This Court finds that the disclaimer is not a mere tactic because it results in serious consequences for the Players. Moreover, this Court need not resolve the debate about whether their motive was influenced by the expectation of this litigation, because the NLRB’s General Counsel has addressed this question too. “[T]he fact that the disclaimer was motivated by ‘litigation strategy,’ i.e., to deprive the NFL of a defense to players’ antitrust suits and to free the players to engage in individual bargaining for free agency, is irrelevant so long as thedisclaimer is otherwise unequivocal and adhered to.”
                              Actually there are more cases than I had been told. At no point they mention what was or was not being negotiated in the CBA (as they don't in the NFL ruling of last Summer).

                              What are the NBA owners invoke others haven't done before them? Courts change their tune all the time, but to me this seems to be the weakest argument the owners have so I don't understand why it's getting so much buzz - not why it exists.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                There's always more hope in football than basketball. That's the nature of the sport, not a failing of the league itself.

                                Gotta disagree here.

                                Before the big turning point CBA in 1992, The NFL was the epitome of Have/Have- nots. Guys like Bill Parcells and Bill Walsh said as much while being a part of the Haves.

                                The good teams could stockpile players that could never leave and the well run organizations won each and every year.

                                Teams like Indy and Green Bay had zero chance of realistically competing.

                                Also during this time the Jordan Era NBA was the most popular and fastest growing sport in the Country.

                                The NFL decided to sit down and decide to band together for the good of the league. I hope the owners are all committed to doing that same thing now.

                                Because another band-aid agreement and more of the same isn't going to do anything but hurt the league overall and ensure that we all have to deal with this again in a few years.

                                Now is the nuclear winter where I feel major structural and procedural changes are going to happen. And rightly so the players are concerned about that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X