|
|
Back to 21 May 1996 | Forward to 26 June 1996 |
|
wtf 19 June 1996
To Top of Page...
The New Jersey Nets will reportedly name John Nash as their new general manager. The New York Daily News and New York Post are reporting that an official announcement by the Nets will likely be made next week.
What's interesting is that the Nets gave rookie coach John Calipari a five-year contract worth $15 million two weeks ago, as well as the title of director of operations. Willis Reed, who had been in charge of basketball operations for the past seven years, was moved to senior vice president of player development and scouting when Calipari was hired. Last week, Calipari was quoted as saying that he wanted someone named as a general manager of the team. Nash was their man. (Rhetorical question: when will it ever be a woman?)
In reality, John Nash wanted to stay in the Philly area. He's a Philly boy through and through, and that Dallas job that he interviewed for was just too far away. The New Jersey job is close enough that he should be comfortable. The unanswered question is: how much authority will Nash really have? Stay tunes, though not necessarily at this site.
As a follow up, the Nets made the hiring official on June 26, the day of the NBA draft. His role is still unclear, however, as to how much personnel influence he has. Willis Reed, the previous GM, was moved to another management position. Nash seemed genuinely happy to be back in the GM position, based on a brief interview during the draft.
wtf 27 June 1996
To Top of Page...
"From the outset, Coach Jimmy [Lynam] said he would like to see me back, he'd like to see the team together. ... I think both sides are definitely interested." Pack has recently begun participating in pickup basketball games, so hopefully that nerve injury is behind him. But his worth on the FA market is highly limited.
The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that said National Basketball Association teams can jointly impose work conditions on players when contract talks reach an impasse. The court, without comment, turned down the players' argument that the ruling gives team owners an incentive to force bargaining to an impasse so they can impose conditions. Last week, the court ruled in a similar case involving the National Football League that unionized workers cannot file antitrust lawsuits against employer groups for imposing salaries after bargaining talks reach impasse. The court said that decision applied not only to professional sports but to all industries in which unionized employees negotiate with multiple-employer groups.
As in the NFL, the 27 NBA teams bargain as a unit in negotiations with the National Basketball Players Association. Negotiators for the NBA and its players' union are to meet Tuesday to try to resolve differences that have delayed agreement on a six-year, $5 billion contract ratified by both sides before the start of the 1995-96 season.
During contract talks in June 1994, the NBA asked a federal court to rule that its teams are shielded from antitrust lawsuits if they jointly impose working conditions in case of deadlocked talks. Federal labor law covers union contracts, exempting them from antitrust laws. A federal judge ruled for the NBA, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The exemption from antitrust lawsuits continues after an agreement ends and a multiple-employer group unilaterally imposes new work rules, the appeals court said. In the appeal acted on Monday, the players' lawyers said the 2nd Circuit court erred in ruling the NBA would be shielded from antitrust claims if it imposed working conditions without agreement by the players. Federal labor laws are intended to enhance workers' right to unionize, the appeal said, adding that the 2nd Circuit's ruling encourages employers to "propose their toughest terms, to stonewall until impasse and then to impose those terms of employment."
Maybe the sore losers in the NBA Players Union will get it through their thick skull to stop stonewalling and get the previous agreement signed. Sheesh!
wtf 25 June 1996
To Top of Page...
Both sides agreed that negotiators had reached tentative agreements on such sticking areas as licensing, the salary cap, benefits and pensions (this is all about how the money is split up). Then the discussions turned to what player lead negotiator Jeffrey Kessler called "the union's financial independence." Essentially, the union wanted an extra $31M for the NBA's commercial use of the union's logo.
"We thought we were making terrific progress in workout out the details," said Kessler. "Then, out of the blue, they bolted out of the meeting for reasons known only to them. ... We suspect it's some effort to intimidate the players in some way." No kidding.
NBA commissioner David Stern disagrees: "We indicated some extraordinary flexibility over the six hours, including this last one, when they wanted to reopen negotiations and get an extra $31M. We didn't walk out. They made additional demands, and we didn't feel there was any point in negotiating further in light of the additional demands they put on the table." My, such a martyr we are, Mr. Stern.
These boys are going to slay the sacred cow yet. They barely escaped last year, doing it twice in a row is VERY self-destructive. I will boo heartedly next year if there is another lockout, even for a couple days.
Lucky for us, most of this was posturing. The league and players union are back talking to each other on Wednesday. I guess they didn't want to waste the momentum developed the previous day. Enough with the posturing, get this over with.
wtf 27 June 1996
To Top of Page...
The Bullets claim to have no knowledge of any suit filed against them. Either they're clueless or holding their cards close to their vest. Probably the latter, this seems to be simply an attempt to extort some money in an out-of-court settlement. Nothing like waiting 4 months to file the suit.
wtf 26 June 1996
To Top of Page...