What happens to 2011 RFAs if we lose the entire season?

[bstein14]

What happens to 2011 RFAs if we lose the entire season?

Just wondering what happens to these guys... In theory their 11-12 contracts would be void... So would they become RFA's in 2012?

Guys like Rodney Stuckey, Aaron Afflalo, Marc Gasol etc.

Thanks

[So Cal Blazer Fan]

The honest answer is that nobody can say for sure what will happen. Under this scenario, the rules would be determined by the (yet to be agreed upon) CBA.

The new CBA might eliminate restricted free agency all together (unlikely but possible). It might rule that players like Stuckey and Afflalo would still be RFAs in the summer of 2012. Or it might make them UFAs.

My guess is that they'd still be RFAs in the summer of 2012 if the entire 2011-12 season was lost. But that's just my guess....

[killbuckner]

I look at it from a different POV. If the entire season were going to be lost then the players would be virtually certain to decertify the union so they could try and collect triple damages for all paychecks missed and to stop the lockout once it went to trial. If the players were continuing without a union then its pretty unlikely the NBA would take the risk of implementing restricted free agency without a union consenting to it as it would likely be considered an anti-trust violation.

[DBoys]

I look at it from a different POV. If the entire season were going to be lost then the players would be virtually certain to decertify the union so they could try and collect triple damages for all paychecks missed and to stop the lockout once it went to trial. If the players were continuing without a union then its pretty unlikely the NBA would take the risk of implementing restricted free agency without a union consenting to it as it would likely be considered an anti-trust violation.

While you keep beating the drum of decertifying as some sort of Magic Bullet for the players, I simply don't accept it would necessarily play out as you postulate.

Instead of some sort of financial windfall in your scenario, the flip side possibility is that at the point of decertification the league would assert that they were still in a continuing labor negotiation, let their lawsuit play out, and the courts - per the NBA lawsuit - would allow the NBA to implement its best offer as the end result of the labor impasse. Rather than a windfall, the players would get across-the-board cuts, a 40% share, and a hard cap. Or, they'd get $4B in contracts voided, with no way to replace them. No insurance, no medical, no pensions.

I imagine that's a direction the players would almost certainly prefer to avoid.

[SO_MONEY]

I look at it from a different POV. If the entire season were going to be lost then the players would be virtually certain to decertify the union so they could try and collect triple damages for all paychecks missed and to stop the lockout once it went to trial. If the players were continuing without a union then its pretty unlikely the NBA would take the risk of implementing restricted free agency without a union consenting to it as it would likely be considered an anti-trust violation.

This is why the owners filed a claim to void all contracts if the players were to decertify, because they could not legally enforce contracts agreed to under a CBA, as it would be anti-competitive and further any issues of ant-trust violations.

Sure, RFA would be gone, but several players would stand to see undesirable results as well.

[killbuckner]

This is why the owners filed a claim to void all contracts if the players were to decertify, because they could not legally enforce contracts agreed to under a CBA, as it would be anti-competitive and further any issues of ant-trust violations.

The NBA didn't cite a single law or precedent for why they thought the contracts would become null and void. The NFL players decertified twice and couldn't get existing contracts nullified.

[DBoys]

This is why the owners filed a claim to void all contracts if the players were to decertify, because they could not legally enforce contracts agreed to under a CBA, as it would be anti-competitive and further any issues of ant-trust violations.

The NBA didn't cite a single law or precedent for why they thought the contracts would become null and void.

Not true at all.

They cited contractual law, which is about as strong a position as you can have. In other words, we have a contract, and one of the basic tenets of the contract is such and such, as determined by the system arbitrator who decides such things.

The league's stance is that the contracts only exist as a subset of a CBA. Absent the union and a CBA, they no longer have any force.

You can also look at the actions of both parties, who by their ongoing actions affirm that tenet.
....Absent such a core contractual concept, the union and league would have no basis to even discuss leaguewide contractual rollbacks, which they are discussing.

The NFL players decertified twice and couldn't get existing contracts nullified.

Who are you trying to kid? You know this really isn't a true statement. And so do we.

When have the NFL players tried to get existing contracts nullified? Ummm, never. So to say that they COULDN'T is not true ...we don't know what they could or couldn't do, when they have never ever everrrrrrrrrrrrr asserted such a contractual right and attempted to enforce it. The absence of "get[ting] existing contracts nullified" can tell us nothing when it apparently has never been in play. (NOTE: And let's be real here - the idea that players would ever WANT all their contracts nullified, is simply absurd.)

In addition, who says that the CBA framework for the NFL and the NBA must be identical? The NFL and NFLPA have a CBA, so does the NBA, but the fact they are both sports leagues doesn't mean they both play by the same rules. The NHL and MSL and perhaps others also have CBAs. Telling us they all must work identically is blind folly.

[SO_MONEY]

This is why the owners filed a claim to void all contracts if the players were to decertify, because they could not legally enforce contracts agreed to under a CBA, as it would be anti-competitive and further any issues of ant-trust violations.

The NBA didn't cite a single law or precedent for why they thought the contracts would become null and void. The NFL players decertified twice and couldn't get existing contracts nullified.

Anti-trust law.

Player X signs a contract under a CBA.

Player X may feel he could have gotten more... had markets dictated his salary.

Player X decides to sue the NBA for an anti-trust violation.

Therefore, the NBA cannot be forced to honor contracts as they would be anti-competitive. The only reason the contracts are legal is because a union is present and are covered by non-statutory labor exemptions, when you vacate the presence of a union theses protections to the owners are removed, allowing players to file suit.

It is unlikely either players or owners go this route, but it is a factual and legitimate claim for both the owners to void contracts and for the players to sue, if owners enforce collectively bargained contracts in the absence of a union.

[reedhopps]

The way I see it, which means nothing, is that the players should become UFA. The reason I think this is because they aren't getting any younger, and that means they will have one less year to make the money an UFA can get compared with a RFA. Just like the teams who have players in their prime are losing a season of championship potential. Contracts should still be the same as far as years, since the players did not strike or anything. The owners simply locked them out and refused to pay them their salries. That means the cotracts are basically still running w/o the benefits of a pay check.

[SO_MONEY]

The way I see it, which means nothing, is that the players should become UFA. The reason I think this is because they aren't getting any younger, and that means they will have one less year to make the money an UFA can get compared with a RFA. Just like the teams who have players in their prime are losing a season of championship potential. Contracts should still be the same as far as years, since the players did not strike or anything. The owners simply locked them out and refused to pay them their salries. That means the cotracts are basically still running w/o the benefits of a pay check.

So the players can litigate restrictions on free agency or player movement, but cannot against restrictive salaries or contracts...Sorry, that is not a legal argument based on anything, but the necessity for one side to have all of the advantages, but none of the drawbacks of the position of decertification.

Recently, Dwayne Wade claimed he and other players of his caliber could make 50 million annually on open markets, now while this remains to be seen, it demonstrates some players may themselves try to invalidate their-own contracts due to the perceived restrictive nature and collusion (collective bargaining) that went into them.

Players cannot have their cake and eat it too. They simply cannot choose what is a violation and ignore the rest when it may be to a specific individual's benefit or otherwise, but recognize it when and only when it adversely affects another player, but not apply the same standards to all, in each and every situation.

[Norm2953]

I'd love to see the chaos if all of the leagues contracts were declared void....

[d-train]

I'd love to see the chaos if all of the leagues contracts were declared void....

There is nothing in the contracts between players and owners that allow either party to void the contract in the absence of a CBA. The owners can default on their contracts but that will not turnout good for owners.

And, since the 8th court of appeals in the NFL case only overruled the injunction against the lockout of players with a working relationship, abandoning their contracts would be a bad negotiation move by owners on top of other obvious problems. I believe the NBA owners key strategy is to continue its lockout even in the event the players decertify as a means of applying financial pressure on players.

[DBoys]

"There is nothing in the contracts between players and owners that allow either party to void the contract in the absence of a CBA."

Not true. The NBA system arbitrator - whose job is to settle the fuzziness over NBA issues concerning the CBA - has said all contracts are a subset of and tied to a CBA, and he would be the one to ask.

In fact, the action of both players and owners shows they regard the NBA contracts as being of no import when there's no CBA, as players are signing and playing with other teams right now (a clear violation of the contract terms) and both sides agree it's kosher.

Note also that the union attorney says the players couldn't legally decertify at this point even if they wanted to. His statement is that there is no decertification without permission, and it's his legal opinion that they'd never get it.

[d-train]

Note also that the union attorney says the players couldn't legally decertify at this point even if they wanted to. His statement is that there is no decertification without permission, and it's his legal opinion that they'd never get it.

What's your source for this?

Incidentally, a lawyer’s opinion of what union membership might do is not a legal opinion.

The NBA system arbitrator - whose job is to settle the fuzziness over NBA issues concerning the CBA - has said all contracts are a subset of and tied to a CBA, and he would be the one to ask.

The system arbitrator only has jurisdiction over maters brought to him by petition by a party to the CBA during the term of the CBA. There is no matter involving termination of individual contracts before the previous CBA’s system arbiter and the CBA is now expired.

In fact, the issue of cancelling individual player contracts without alleged cause set forth within the agreement has never been before any fact finder with jurisdiction. If you think it has, you must have been dreaming.

At this time, the only legal authority that has jurisdiction over contractual disputes between owners and players is one of the US courts. The owners can petition the courts for a hearing to void player contracts but no law or agreement supports this action. And, if they do, it would invalidate any claim owners may have to assert a continuing employment arrangement with players.

[DBoys]

1 The attorney is not some random guy off the street, but the one who represents the players in these matters, [edit] Larry Katz. He says they would not be allowed to decertify at this point. Certainly that makes him the most informed and insightful opinion available on such a question.

2 Your long answer about system issues misses the fact that the NBA's system arbitrator already ruled that individual contracts are inextricably tied to the CBA. Once ruled, that's the lay of the land for that system going forward, unless there is a negotiated change at some point that alters or negates that ruling.

Unless you can cite where in the 1999 or 2005 CBA it says these contracts are NOT inextricably tied to the CBA, then that prior ruling continues to be part of the framework for the NBA's CBAs and contracts signed under them.

[d-train]

1 The attorney is not some random guy off the street, but the one who represents the players in these matters, Jeffrey Katz. He says they would not be allowed to decertify at this point. Certainly that makes him the most informed and insightful opinion available on such a question.

I think you meant Larry Katz. I believe Katz is the attorney handling the player's claim to the labor relations board that the NBA has not bargained in good faith.

I doubt Katz has disclosed publically any of his legal opinions to the players, but I invite you a 2nd time to provide a link.

2 Your long answer about system issues misses the fact that the NBA's system arbitrator already ruled that individual contracts are inextricably tied to the CBA. Once ruled, that's the lay of the land for that system going forward, unless there is a negotiated change at some point that alters or negates that ruling.

Unless you can cite where in the 1999 or 2005 CBA it says these contracts are NOT inextricably tied to the CBA, then that prior ruling continues to be part of the framework for the NBA's CBAs and contracts signed under them.

Your claim is BS. A system arbitrator has never ruled that player contracts are void after the expiration of the CBA or that either party has an option at that point to void the employment contract. You might be extrapolating meaning from a statement made by an arbitrator in a context that isn't applicable as you are presenting it. Or, you might be completely full of crap.

[DBoys]

Yes it was Larry Katz [not Jeffrey Katz], and yes he publicly made the blunt statement that a decert petition by the players wouldn't be allowed at this point.

It's become clear you don't have much knowledge in the broader context and what's occurred there, with your assertions that show your lack of knowledge, laced with rudeness. But you are missing a lot.

However, considering that context, I've no interest in educating you by providing links and further info. Do your own research and try to catch up. Or don't. I no longer care if you learn anything or not.

[d-train]

Yes it was Larry Katz [not Jeffrey Katz], and yes he publicly made the blunt statement that a decert petition by the players wouldn't be allowed at this point.

I believe the players can decertify anytime they want. It's probably nothing the players will do while they have a pending complaint under review by the labor relations board, but it’s a choice. The players could withdraw their labor relations complaint and decertify if they want.

It's become clear you don't have much knowledge in the broader context and what's occurred there, with your assertions that show your lack of knowledge, laced with rudeness. But you are missing a lot.

However, considering that context, I've no interest in educating you by providing links and further info. Do your own research and try to catch up. Or don't. I no longer care if you learn anything or not.

I’m sure I am missing a lot, but not the benefit of your vast knowledge because of my rudeness.