shangrila wrote:eagles nut wrote:Try reading the actual CBA. It's debatably collusion according to the the express terms of the CBA. It depends on exactly how Article XIV, Section 1, Part e. is interpreted. I'll let you do the google search to look it up.
I tried looking for it and couldn't find it. Maybe I'm (Please Use More Appropriate Word), but if you want me to get up on a high horse alongside you you'll have to give me a link.
Regardless, if its debatable then its not clear cut collusion. The guy I quoted seemed to be implying that someone like Paul would have a legitimate case in court. He wouldn't.
He'd have a case in course. It wouldn't be open-and-shut. I have to go to work and I don't have time to write out the exact text from the CBA. It's a PDF file and you can't cut-and-paste from it.
Basically it says that any team or its agent can't engage in any combinatations or conspiracies, explicit or implied, with another team or its agent or the NBA itself that affects - and then it lists 5 categories, the first 4 directly about unrestricted free agents , draft picks, and RFAs. The last one is e)the terms and conditions offered to any Veteran or rookie. The debate would be exactly what the word "offered" means. Does it apply to the terms and conditions to any player under contract or only for unsigned players offered new contracts?
Here's a link to the google search I used:
http://www.google.com/search?q=NBA+CBA+ ... =firefox-aIt's the first result.
Note: The above is from the 2005 CBA. The new CBA isn't online anywhere yet. There have been no reports anywhere about any changes in the collusion rules from the last CBA and I suspect that that would have been reported if there were. It's probably the exact same language.
