Comments on: One man’s suggestions we like to stop future lockouts

By: borderline1988

borderline1988 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:34:21 +0000

THe blogger’s just trying to make a theoretical point. Obviously in practice, this idea is stupid.

Although, the idea (from the players’ point of view) is already in place. Not receiving paychecks is going to hurt those overspending guys bad. Probably 100 out of the 450 players are really feeling the pinch of missing their first paycheck. My guess is that another 50 players will be feeling it with every month they don’t get paid.
Maybe the top-paid 100 players can last for a long time (for years or forever) without a paycheck. Everyone else has their breaking points.

THis lockout will end the moment that the influence of the players who are past their financial breaking point will be on equal footing with the stars who are currently running the show.
WHen that will happen, noone knows exactly. The maximum time it’ll be is one year. My guess is that itll take 1 month.

By: jlinatl

jlinatl — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:29:06 +0000

This would kill the players. The owners could essentially change “their” charity by not donating at all or donating a decreased amount to the charities they already give to. Most of them probably have a few pet charities that they give heavily to. But they also have other secondary charities that they give less to. Those charities would likely take the hit.

By: acdc363

acdc363 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:12:42 +0000

Wtf

By: 1historian

1historian — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:03:56 +0000

this is a joke, right?

By: berto55

berto55 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:03:05 +0000

I completely disagree. The dumbest idea ever was green lighting this “article”.

By: texmex2

texmex2 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:38:19 +0000

what a stupid article, really pushing it past assine…~

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:36:45 +0000

This idea assumes both sides actually want there to be basketball…which is a MAJOR assumption with the way both of these sides have acted.

By: urallstupid

urallstupid — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:04:21 +0000

dumdest idea ever lol, why would you think that the players and the owners would agree to this?

By: hail2tharedskins

hail2tharedskins — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:42:19 +0000

There is a big problem with that suggestion. While it sounds good, if the CBA is expired you can’t enforce clauses that force either side to pay anything. As long as there is a CBA in effect you can’t have any legal recourse in anti-trust courts as the players did here. They would have to give that up. In other words if you let all terms of the CBA expire except these penalty clauses – you would still have a CBA with no league rules – ie exactly what the owners want. They could impose anything they wanted on players. Basically, either you have a CBA or you don’t.

Aside from that even monetary penalties would work against the players, even if the penalties are doubled for the owners they would be able to absorb the payments a LOT easier than the players especially at a time they wouldn’t be getting any paychecks. However, it would likely be a no-go for players before you got to that because if the two sides agreed to that they union would have to set a fund to cover the payments in the event they got to that point and that would be funded by the union taxing players salaries to fund that pot (in other words the players would have to pay the penalty to the union beforehand even if we never got to that situation.