[外電] NBA球員工會法律顧問的說法!

看板Knicks作者lest83 (lest83)時間13年前 (2012/06/23 11:15)推噓7(7推 0噓 14→)

留言21則, 8人參與討論串1/1

Insights into the Lin decision http://ppt.cc/6EfC I spoke with NBA players' association Deputy General Counsel, Ron Klempner , to get some insights into Friday's decision regarding Bird and early Bird rights for players claimed off waivers, which granted those rights to Jeremy Lin and Steve Novak . Here are highlights of the conversation: 這是記者跟球員工會法律顧問Ron Klempner對於決定給於LIN跟NOVAK的談話 Q: There was a lot of surprise about the decision. Were you? Klempner: No, definitely not. I think that [the arbitrator] basically did what I've been saying for quite some time, and that was his conclusion, which is that this was incontrovertibly the state of that rule from 1995 to 2005. The reason we brought this proceeding is because we didn't think that we had intended to change what was in place that whole time. We think the language change was not substantive, so that's why we brought this proceeding, and he had confirmed what we had been saying. Q:"這是個包含很多驚喜的決定是吧? K:"不不盡然是我認為仲裁員基本上只是做了我已經說了很多次的事而他的結論就是這個規則從95年到05年是不可辯解的我們會帶來這個訴訟的理由是因為我們不認為我們企圖改變的那規則是正確的我們認為聯盟不是絕對的這就是為甚麼我們帶來這場官司 I knew [the ruling] was a high burden to overcome, but if we were going to overcome it, it would be because we were able to show him that [the league] could have and should have done this a lot more clearly. I thought our argument went very well. I thought that [the arbitrator] understood the arguments, so it doesn't really surprise me. The word that I had gotten that many various observers didn't think that we had much of a chance to win this. We always thought that was the right result and we thought that we could make the arbitrator recognize that. "我知道這個裁決是個很難成功的但如果我們成功了這將可以展現是聯盟是可以去做並且做得更清楚些(應該是說聯盟的規則吧) 我認為我們的辯護人做得很好我想仲裁員他...可以理解辯護人(難道這是NOVAK@@!?) 所以這真的沒嚇到我我曾詢問過各種的專家每個都不認為我們有機會可以贏我們始終認為這個結果是正確的而且我們可以使仲裁員認可我們! Q: Many insiders and salary-cap experts said the players' union wouldn't win. Also, David Stern said previously that the league would likely win the case because it had been addressed previously during negotations. Your thoughts? Klempner: That's incorrect. This was not an issue that was discussed at all during the negotiations. The treatment of a waived player who's claimed off of waivers was not discussed in this new round of CBA negotiations. David I guess was incorrect in his prediction that he made during his Finals press conference. Q:很多薪資帽專家都說球員工會不會贏得這場官司屎藤也說聯盟會贏得這場官司因為這個以前就以已經討論過並解決了你認為呢? K:這是不對的這以前不是個被討論然後解決的議題在新的CBA中並沒有談論被揮棄的球員能不能拿到鳥權我想史藤他的預言是錯的(屎藤去旁邊哭哭不要來亂ˋˇˊ) Q: In basic terms, what was the argument from the union's side? Klempner: The Knicks shouldn't have to go and break up their team. That's part of what the soft-cap system is about. The team should always have maximum ability to retain their own players. And the question for these guys is: How strong would the Knicks' ability be to go and keep them in light of their market value? And I think in layman's terms, it basically means that the Knicks can keep these players if they so desire. And if they and the players want that resolved, that was pretty much the intention of our agreement. Q:工會是以甚麼角度去辯護的呢? K:"尼克不應該去拆散他的球隊這就是彈性薪資空間的作用這個隊伍一直都想盡最大的可能去留下他們的球員這個問題對於其他球隊也是一樣尼克有多大的能耐可以用自由市場的價格去保持住他的球員們? 用通俗的說法就是這個基本上認定尼克可以保留住他的球員只要他們渴望這麼做只要他們跟他們的球員很堅決的想要這個規則這對於我們的辯護員是最好的意義 We were arguing the spirit of the rule as much as we were arguing the language, which is that players who move teams, not by choice, should not have to start over with their Bird rights. They shouldn't forfeit their valuable Bird rights, and that was a spirit that we thought was since the inception of the rule in 1995 and it should still exist today. Lin and Novak did not have a choice as to where it is they were going to play once their teams effectively cast them off or placed them waivers. If they had a chance to go and pick their teams, then clearly their Bird Rights would start fresh. We thought we had the higher ground on the policy and we feel like this was the right result. "我們跟聯盟辯論了這個規則的本質球員轉隊若非出於個人選擇，鳥權就不應該重算 (就是說不應該是只有交易才可以有鳥權) 他們(球員)不應該喪失他們的鳥權這就是我們認為這個規則的本質林跟NOVAK就是沒那個選擇的人如果他們有選擇去挑選他們的球隊他們的鳥權計算必須重新算起我們認為我們應該要有更好的規定這就是我們所感覺的正確的結果 Q: How long will the eligibility of Bird and early Bird rights last for future players claimed off waivers? Klempner: It's indefinite. There could be something different moving forward, and we'll know that soon. But right now, it's indefinite. The appeal would go to an appeals panel of three arbitrators, who the the two parties [the union and league] would have to select. The players' association believes the appeal from the league will not be resolved by July 1, the start of free agency, so as of now the union has won the case. Q:你認為這個鳥權跟早鳥資格多久後會出現在未來的球員身上 K:這是不確定的我們都知道會很快但現在是不確定的這個案子將會上訴到委員會聯盟跟工會都要做出選擇球員工會相信聯盟想要上訴這件事在7/1號前是不會被解決的所以現在工會贏了!! 心得:只有一個禮拜聯盟想上訴還要敲定聽證會和一堆有的沒的屎藤你來得及嗎>.^? -- ─∥ ─── ◣ =◥"◥’． ∵ ◆∥ ψsherry821224 ────────────── ∥ ◤ ◥ ◤ ◥ ∥ ◤ ◢◤\ ◣◥ Teammates don't ∥ ╱ ∥◤￣◣ ﹍◣∥◤￣╲∥ ╱∥◤￣╲ ▼‵､λ﹀▼▼ play with each ∥◆◇ ∥ ∥∥◣∥ ∥╱ ∥◣＿ ─-.╳ ︶- other, they play ∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥ ∥ ╲ ◥∥▲ ρ\ `, ▲▲ FOR each other. ─∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥◣＿╱∥ ╲╲＿◢∥ ◥ | ◢────────…‥． -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.167.181.191

推

osape

06/23 11:17, , 1^F

06/23 11:17, 1^F

※ 編輯: lest83 來自: 118.167.181.191 (06/23 11:18)

→

Quezacot

06/23 12:14, , 2^F

06/23 12:14, 2^F

→

Quezacot

06/23 12:15, , 3^F