lol!!!!!
To sum up a bit:
- Players did offer to cover 50% of the losses
- Players are indeed being asked to cover north of 85% of the losses
- Owners without star players don't have a league
- Owners have no more 'right' than players to ask for whatever they want to ask
- Decertification worked well for the NFL union/players
- You can't fire employees for 'whatever reason'
- There's no such thing as capitalism in the NBA. Owners don't want it either.
Everyone suspects the NBA cooks the books one way or another. Be it using tax loops, or fishy accounting. That said, there's a possibility that such accounting also favors the players.
Ultimately, not making their finances public obviously cast a bigger shadow instead of clearing things up.
Why is this discussion turning into an ideological debate, that one of the party keeps on insisting his version of slavery, ooops, "capitalism ideals" ? But okay, it's quite entertaining actually, LOL.
If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies, and many of them have. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ion-30022.html
Once again, your ignorance is proven beyond reproach.
So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...
The FMLA is a federal law and supersedes whatever state law there is.
lol ignorant
Actually, in a pure free market the Spurs would thrive as would every other small market team. The playing field would be leveled and every team would have an equal opportunity to compete for a championship.
Oh, my.
LOL @ looking at NBA players like they're easily replaced KFC cashiers.
Which means a team like the Spurs would simply not exist, because Holt is amongst the less wealthy owners out there, and would simply be unable to pay for star talent to fill up an arena. As a matter of fact, under 'your' CBA, the league would be extremely tilted towards the extremely rich owners, and the playing field would be even more tilted than it is right now.
lol don't understand basic economics
lol capitalist warrior doesn't understand supply-demand
Haha... Duncan would have been pulling minimum $40 million a year from 98 to 08 with no salary cap and no max salaries.
FMLA is very limited my brother. Only applies to employers with more than 50 employees and the employee must provide the employer with adequate notice of a need for leave that qualifies under FMLA.
Your assertion that an employee just yells "FMLA" when they're about to be terminated is ignorant and utterly stupid.
Long story short, most states are employment at will. Employers can terminate for any reason and employees can leave for any reason. That's how the free market for labor works my brother.
It's incredible how little you know about basic employment practices.
LOL!!!!!
So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...
lol the perfect example of ignorant
lol still spinning that
Some pretty epic self-ownage in this thread. ST hasn't seen the likes in quite some time.
Refreshing, actually.
Some pretty epic self-ownage in this thread. ST hasn't seen the likes in quite some time.
Refreshing, actually.ty troll, tbh...
I mean, even KBP at least would accidentally be right sometimes...
Yeah...I'm starting to get that feeling too. He was working it decently at first but he's gone off the deep end and outed himself in the last few pages.
I'll give the guy points for persistence. He's been trying to dig upwards for a few pages now.
So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...
lol the perfect example of ignorant
lol still spinning that
It's the truth brother! If you worked for me I could terminate you tomorrow just for being an asshole. Now explain to all how FMLA could prevent me from doing that?
The fact is that it can't unless you first provide notice days or months prior to your termination that you have a medical condition preventing you from performing the essential functions of your job.
I know it's a little difficult for you to grasp basic economics, basic employment law, and free market principles with your Edgewood High School education but I hope that I've been of some service to you.
Cheers!!
It's not brother!
No you couldn't brother!
You need to pick up the trolling, tbh... this is weak right here
smh
The last pages of this thread are proving to be quite entertaining.
Good to see that some people still know how to troll intelligently.
Nope. I own you on this one. I've proven my point repeatedly.It's not brother!
No you couldn't brother!
You need to pick up the trolling, tbh... this is weak right here
smh
Now, getting back to the original point...the NBAPA needs to understand they have no leverage and they should agree to the 50/50 split so we can enjoy some basketball this season and SA can enjoy having the Spurs compete well into the future. It is absolutely ridiculous how greedy and ignorant the players are being. I should say the NBAPA leadership is being greedy and ignorant. The rank and file players are ready to play and would gladly accept a 50/50 deal if presented to them by a vote. This whole dispute is all about the star players and their agents. That's wrong! They may be stars but they have no right to decide for the rest of the players what kind of deal to accept. Each player is worth only one vote regardless of status or income. The NBAPA has morphed into a dysfunctional group of the HAVES versus the HAVE NOTS. It's very sad and it's hurting fans and people's livelihoods all over the country.
It's wrong for the NBAPA to only represent the views of star players just as it is wrong for the owners to just represent the views of big market owners who want to overspend and buy championships.
Greedy Bas players!! Accept the deal and let's play some basketball!!
Nope. I own you brother!
You've proven you're a hack.
But lesson learned for you... You bring the weak , we'll make you roll in it
Anyways, back to the topic at hand:
Why haven't the players asked to decertify their union? That would bring anti-trust law into play if the owners continued a lockout.
Some say it would give the individual players more leverage. I don't understand how that could be because the owners wouldn't be contractually obligated to keep salaries at ANY percentage of revenues.
Anyone know what the situation would be if they did that--and stuck with it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote