PDA

View Full Version : Chris Paul Considering Legal Action Against NBA



shep33
12-09-2011, 04:41 AM
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/09/danny-granger-and-jason-richardson-tweet-out-their-frustration-over-the-league-halted-chris-paul-trade/#/2011/12/09/chris-paul-reportedly-considering-legal-action-against-league/

Basically what I got out of it is this. Paul wants to sue the NBA because if they prevent him from getting traded to LA (because at this point no teams will trade for him, due to him not willing to sign an extension, which he has every right to do), it prevents him from signing a max extension with the Lakers and thus he can ultimately lose as the article notes "30 to 40 million dollars".

Now how true that is I have no clue... just thought I should throw this out there


If this goes to court, the NBA is in trouble... not based on whether Paul wins or not, but because of the terrible publicity this is gonna get.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 04:44 AM
He needa to move on. Its called a contract Chris, you signed it. Play in New Orleans.

don'tfireNedCo
12-09-2011, 04:44 AM
let him. he'll lose and small market fans everywhere will boo his ***.

16 million dollars a year isn't good enough to play for NO? some professionals these *******s are.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 04:50 AM
^Seriously i cant stand how star players think they have the power to do whatever they want

PleaseBeNice
12-09-2011, 04:58 AM
+1 on what you have all said so far. they think they are entitled to a lot of stuff. very annoying

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 04:59 AM
what an idiot he's never going to win. If you want the extension, sign with another team. The owners of your team (your bosses) vetoed the trade. you can't take your bosses to court for telling you what to do. Stop being a spoiled 16 year old girl. your using a loophole to get the most money possible, the owners are using a loophole to Veto the trade. sound familiar? i swear these guys for the most part are simply out of touch with reality.

Ebbs
12-09-2011, 05:01 AM
^Seriously i cant stand how star players think they have the power to do whatever they want

This man. I won't support him regardless now he is another piece of work.

I hope he tries loses more money on his lawsuit and bevcomes hated.

You may not like him but more superstars should take a note or two from Dirk on what it means to be a franchise player.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:03 AM
Yes Dirk = class, my favorite player in Nba honestly.

CityofChaos
12-09-2011, 05:05 AM
Good call CP3 sue the guys that nixed the trade--whom btw OWN the team and also pay your salary.

:clap:

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:09 AM
This is why the NBA is a joke. The league and the players as a whole are a joke.

CityofChaos
12-09-2011, 05:10 AM
This man. I won't support him regardless now he is another piece of work.

I hope he tries loses more money on his lawsuit and bevcomes hated.

You may not like him but more superstars should take a note or two from Dirk on what it means to be a franchise player.

I hate to admit but I once HATED Dirk but now respect his loyalty considering the plethora of pre-modonna superstars contaminating this league.

LAOwnsAll15
12-09-2011, 05:11 AM
I mean honestly, You guys think this is CP3's fault for not wanting to play for a owner-less team and apparently a GM-less team. Its not okay to throw away your ANY portion of your career if you know your team is going nowhere and is okay with it.

All you guys are just mad that its only a 1-2 team sweepstakes.

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:12 AM
This is why the NBA is a joke. The league and the players as a whole are a joke.

lol can you imagine an NFL player taking his team to court for cutting him? like gimme a break man wow. you don't get what you want and your going to sue the league? take it easy bud we aren't in a lockout anymore.

Boozerguy47
12-09-2011, 05:15 AM
I hope he sits out and the NBA gets their **** together.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:16 AM
^Yeah seriously, thats why the Nfl and Nba arent even in the same universe when it comes to which is better, the Nba is filled with a bunch of spoiled prima donnas

MTar786
12-09-2011, 05:18 AM
paul should sue lol. the NBA is gone to the dogs

seikou8
12-09-2011, 05:19 AM
wow crzay free agencey moves and it hast even started

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:20 AM
lol can you imagine an NFL player taking his team to court for cutting him? like gimme a break man wow. you don't get what you want and your going to sue the league? take it easy bud we aren't in a lockout anymore.

NBA players are by far the most greedy *****es in sports. What's funny is they want to join superstar teams to win rings the easy way, get paid a **** load of money, and they don't even have to try to win most of their games because their teams are too talented. Like Bosh said last year: "too much work, not enough chill."

:facepalm:

Hellcrooner
12-09-2011, 05:21 AM
its all in my sig.

for gods sake i hope he really does sue the league and some federal judge with some bollocks storms into pro american sports and ends the stalinist communism within it.

FREE MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:21 AM
At this rate, the NHL will pass up the NBA.

MTar786
12-09-2011, 05:21 AM
I mean honestly, You guys think this is CP3's fault for not wanting to play for a owner-less team and apparently a GM-less team. Its not okay to throw away your ANY portion of your career if you know your team is going nowhere and is okay with it.

All you guys are just mad that its only a 1-2 team sweepstakes.

This x 100

They dont want new players, dont dont want to win, they dont even want to pay or improve their team in any way. And people blame paul for wanting to leave? lolloll

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:22 AM
NBA players are by far the most greedy *****es in sports. What's funny is they want to join superstar teams to win rings the easy way, get paid a **** load of money, and they don't even have to try to win most of their games because their teams are too talented. Like Bosh said last year: "too much work, not enough chill."

:facepalm:

agreed. they want the easy life. news flash, playing in the NBA is the easy life:eyebrow:

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:22 AM
Hellcrooner you, as are most Laker fans, are making a fool out of yourself.

MTar786
12-09-2011, 05:22 AM
At this rate, the NHL will pass up the NBA.

hahaha :speechless:

Davidgta1
12-09-2011, 05:23 AM
All cp3 needs to do is say Hakuna Matata.

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:23 AM
hahaha :speechless:

great sig

MTar786
12-09-2011, 05:24 AM
Hellcrooner you, as are most Laker fans, are making a fool out of yourself.

i like how you are in complete denial. Most people here that are angry arent even laker fans. they are nba fans. stop being bitter you're from a **** town lol

pacman16
12-09-2011, 05:24 AM
NBA is turning into a circus,
Players want to run the league - demand where they want to play.
and cry about not having enough super stars on their team.
NBA is going to lose a lot of fan sin the next few years

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 05:24 AM
The fulcrum of any legal action revolves around Stern's culpability of "conflict of interest" - something that would never be questioned in court because the NBA would never allow litigation to go that far.

MackShock
12-09-2011, 05:25 AM
crybaby..

LAOwnsAll15
12-09-2011, 05:25 AM
We need to ask ourselves.
Would this trade have gone down under the previous CBA?
This **** is bigger then Paul. He is basically going to fight for any future player rights under this new CBA.

If he steps down, the Owners clearly just out negotiated the players this offseason.

numba1CHANGsta
12-09-2011, 05:26 AM
There's a reason why CP3 wants to go to the Lakers is to WIN a championship, The Hornets have proven long enough to him that they cant maintain a good enough roster to help him reach the Finals, why would he stay with a team with no owner and no future? Teams should not hold a player hostage, the players have every right to choose where they want to go only in this situation being the last year of his contract

naps
12-09-2011, 05:27 AM
LOL. NBA did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. NBA is the owner of the NO franchise. A party can always say deal is off until they actually ink it. I hope Chris Paul is not gonna do it because he's gonna lose without a doubt and he'll be booed pretty much everywhere. I don't wanna see him go through that because he's one of my fav players in the league.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:28 AM
i like how you are in complete denial. Most people here that are angry arent even laker fans. they are nba fans. stop being bitter you're from a **** town lol

How do you know what town I'm from, and how is where i live relevant to your ignorance regarding why the trade was voided?

Hellcrooner
12-09-2011, 05:29 AM
NBA is turning into a circus,
Players want to run the league - demand where they want to play.
and cry about not having enough super stars on their team.
NBA is going to lose a lot of fan sin the next few years

thats how soccer has worked....forever.

most watched sport in the world. BY FAR.

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:30 AM
There's a reason why CP3 wants to go to the Lakers is to WIN a championship, The Hornets have proven long enough to him that they cant maintain a good enough roster to help him reach the Finals, why would he stay with a team with no owner and no future? Teams should not hold a player hostage, the players have every right to choose where they want to go only in this situation being the last year of his contract

No they don't...

FlashMacker
12-09-2011, 05:30 AM
If he's not gonna resign with the Hornets anyway why would Stern not allow a trade where the Hornets were actually happy with some of the players they were gonna get?

Iron24th
12-09-2011, 05:31 AM
He needa to move on. Its called a contract Chris, you signed it. Play in New Orleans.

Stop hating.


what an idiot he's never going to win. If you want the extension, sign with another team. The owners of your team (your bosses) vetoed the trade. you can't take your bosses to court for telling you what to do. Stop being a spoiled 16 year old girl. your using a loophole to get the most money possible, the owners are using a loophole to Veto the trade. sound familiar? i swear these guys for the most part are simply out of touch with reality.

Since when a player has not the right to go where he wants to go as long as his former team gets something valuable in return?

Did LBJ,Bosh,Melo get blocked???


I mean honestly, You guys think this is CP3's fault for not wanting to play for a owner-less team and apparently a GM-less team. Its not okay to throw away your ANY portion of your career if you know your team is going nowhere and is okay with it.

All you guys are just mad that its only a 1-2 team sweepstakes.

This.

Hellcrooner
12-09-2011, 05:31 AM
LOL. NBA did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. NBA is the owner of the NO franchise. A party can always say deal is off until they actually ink it. I hope Chris Paul is not gonna do it because he's gonna lose without a doubt and he'll be booed pretty much everywhere. I don't wanna see him go through that because he's one of my fav players in the league.

im not so sure bout him being booed.


he has never asked for atrade, gone public bout a destiantion and has beahved much better than melo and lebron.

he was going to get a good trade and he gets nixed.

he has all the right in the world to be angry

Davidgta1
12-09-2011, 05:31 AM
Dose he even have a case?

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:32 AM
If he's not gonna resign with the Hornets anyway why would Stern not allow a trade where the Hornets were actually happy with some of the players they were gonna get?

I really think it's because it was gonna pave the way for the Lakers to make a deal for Howard, and that's not what the NBA needs after just coming out of a lockout.

pacman16
12-09-2011, 05:32 AM
CP3 is under contract controlling where he wants to go and being a ***** over it.
play where your signed or where ever the team trades you. pissed me off how such player with "love" for the game have a wish list of teams.

the players are forcing the league to soon make this a 15ish team league. players wont cry they rnt playing with two other stars and wasting their time playing for losing franchises.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:32 AM
Theres one fan base thats in denial, and thats the Lakers.

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:33 AM
Stop hating.



Since when a player has not the right to go where he wants to go as long as his former team gets something valuable in return?

Did LBJ,Bosh,Melo get blocked???



This.

LBJ and Bosh were FA's, and the Knicks were a bad team before Melo went there.

arlubas
12-09-2011, 05:33 AM
I mean honestly, You guys think this is CP3's fault for not wanting to play for a owner-less team and apparently a GM-less team. Its not okay to throw away your ANY portion of your career if you know your team is going nowhere and is okay with it.

All you guys are just mad that its only a 1-2 team sweepstakes.
You seriously need to check the definition of the word "contract".

He signed it, his decision, now play the fudging game and don't be a whinny chick. I don't think there's a rule somewhere that superstars should play at all costs to a major market team. Plus that's his signature on that paper, at least have the balls to back up your own decisions.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:33 AM
CP3 is under contract controlling where he wants to go and being a ***** over it.
play where your signed or where ever the team trades you. pissed me off how such player with "love" for the game have a wish list of teams.

the players are forcing the league to soon make this a 15ish team league. players wont cry they rnt playing with two other stars and wasting their time playing for losing franchises.

Yup.

DaBear
12-09-2011, 05:33 AM
Theres one fan base thats in denial, and thats the Lakers.

big time. this is the only time I can agree with a Packers fan.

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:34 AM
LOL. NBA did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing. NBA is the owner of the NO franchise. A party can always say deal is off until they actually ink it. I hope Chris Paul is not gonna do it because he's gonna lose without a doubt and he'll be booed pretty much everywhere. I don't wanna see him go through that because he's one of my fav players in the league.

really? not true. 29 NBA owners own the hornets. stern does not. stern did not hold a vote to veto the deal per league source

stern exercised his league veto ability. the veto ability he has for every trade in the NBA. he has the right to veto any trade he deems to imbalance the league. however gilberts letter and the reports about marc cuban suggest conflict of interest.

also attorneys have been coming through the woodwork saying paul has a legitimate case as do the players association

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:34 AM
I have to think that Paul has no case here...

I'm not sure, but when the complete face of a franchise moves from one team, in which that team is partially owned by an owner that also completely owns the gaining team, there is a problem...


Stern did the right thing, regardless of how fans precieve his actions...

Stern didn't block the trade because " it wasn't fair to the Hornets"... That's absolutely ridiculous logic...

But, Paul will get his day in court and have it explained to him...

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 05:34 AM
LBJ and Bosh were FA's, and the Knicks were a bad team before Melo went there.

What difference should that make? Bad teams are allowed to trade for a star, but good ones who have assets to trade for one can't?

Iron24th
12-09-2011, 05:34 AM
If he's not gonna resign with the Hornets anyway why would Stern not allow a trade where the Hornets were actually happy with some of the players they were gonna get?

Thanks for being honest,some here are just baiting on the Lakers and CP3 just because they hate the Lakers,but I can tell you,I would be that shocked if it happened to boston or another team.

That's just unfair.

pacman16
12-09-2011, 05:35 AM
thats how soccer has worked....forever.

most watched sport in the world. BY FAR.

soccer in ran totally different then NBA, nice try though.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:37 AM
Your not a superstar if your too ***** to man up to a contract and accept a challenge of playing on a small market team. No loyalty anymore in the Nba.

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:38 AM
I have to think that Paul has no case here...

I'm not sure, but when the complete face of a franchise moves from one team, in which that team is partially owned by an owner that also completely owns the gaining team, there is a problem...


Stern did the right thing, regardless of how fans precieve his actions...

Stern didn't block the trade because " it wasn't fair to the Hornets"... That's absolutely ridiculous logic...

But, Paul will get his day in court and have it explained to him...

false. stern vetoed the deal for basketball reasons. therefore that argument holds no weight. despite the GM who is in charge of basketball operations accepting the deal

Sterns veto power is meant to prevent collusion, under the table paying or offers.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:38 AM
Thanks for being honest,some here are just baiting on the Lakers and CP3 just because they hate the Lakers,but I can tell you,I would be that shocked if it happened to boston or another team.

That's just unfair.

If the CP3 trade is blocked to the Lakers, CP3 isn't getting traded until an ownership group is in place to buy the Hornets...

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:38 AM
big time. this is the only time I can agree with a Packers fan.

:hi5:

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:39 AM
Since when a player has not the right to go where he wants to go as long as his former team gets something valuable in return?

Did LBJ,Bosh,Melo get blocked???

ever since contracts were binding in a court of law which was centuries ago. he is still under contract to play for NO. Because of that he doesn't get to decide where he goes until his contract expired. He agreed to the terms and thus he is being held accountable to those terms. here's a life lesson, honour your contracts its professional courtesy. you will ruin your name if u dont, like many of these stars have.

they didn't get blocked because they were in Free agency:)

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:40 AM
If the CP3 trade is blocked to the Lakers, CP3 isn't getting traded until an ownership group is in place to buy the Hornets...

No, its all about the Lakers. Everything is about them, and everyone is simply a hater.

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 05:40 AM
If the CP3 trade is blocked to the Lakers, CP3 isn't getting traded until an ownership group is in place to buy the Hornets...

That means he isn't getting traded period. Considering the league has managed to own the Hornets for a year, I don't see new ownership taking over before the trade deadline.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:40 AM
false. stern vetoed the deal for basketball reasons. therefore that argument holds no weight. despite the GM who is in charge of basketball operations accepting the deal

Sterns veto power is meant to prevent collusion, under the table paying or offers.

Exactly, collusion in the marketplace, is illegal... It violates anti-trust law...

You just proved my point...

Trading from the Hornets ( in which Buss has a minority share ) to the Lakers ( in which Buss has a majority share) is collusion...

There isn't a much more text book definition actually...

Lakerfrk
12-09-2011, 05:41 AM
Paul shouldn't be suing for these reasons... he SHOULD be suing for collusion...

The NBA should have found a buyer for the team by now.. since they have been dealing with the lockout - they didn't. Therefor, Dell Demps should have FULL power to run the team.. he got a fair deal, a great deal, and took it..

The NBA should NOT be allowed to reject any deal, for they are obviously trying to push its own agenda, which they can do in the CBA.. but this trade is WITHIN the rules. The Lakers built up assets, and are using them to trade.. its ridiculous that the Lakers cannot package valuable assets for a star quality player because Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert cry about it.

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:41 AM
No, its all about the Lakers. Everything is about them, and everyone is simply a hater.

dan gilbert sure made it seem that way since his letter was entirely laker centered. no mention of the hornets or rockets. only about how the lakers get better and save money

seems pretty laker centered to me

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:42 AM
false. stern vetoed the deal for basketball reasons. therefore that argument holds no weight. despite the GM who is in charge of basketball operations accepting the deal

Sterns veto power is meant to prevent collusion, under the table paying or offers.

The GM answers to his boss, the owners, which is the NBA or 29 owners. The owners took a vote and decided that they didnt want that trade to go through. They used stern's veto power to collectively cancel the trade.

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:42 AM
Its funny how Im hating on the Lakers when the 2 players i mentioned dont play on their team. :laugh2:

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 05:44 AM
Exactly, collusion in the marketplace, is illegal... It violates anti-trust law...

You just proved my point...

Trading from the Hornets ( in which Buss has a minority share ) to the Lakers ( in which Buss has a majority share) is collusion...

There isn't a much more text book definition actually...

If that is the case, then so was the Kings-Hornets trade at the deadline. Its clearly a much more minor trade, but it would be collusion as well.

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:44 AM
:o
Exactly, collusion in the marketplace, is illegal... It violates anti-trust law...

You just proved my point...

Trading from the Hornets ( in which Buss has a minority share ) to the Lakers ( in which Buss has a majority share) is collusion...

There isn't a much more text book definition actually...

wrong again. it is not collusion because buss has no say. the owners renegged ability to have a say in any trade regarding the hornets

carl landry was traded for last season. was that collusion?

if collusion was an issue with trading paul, doesn't that mean any trade involving paul would be colllusion?

then why did the NBA even allow paul or any hornet for that matter be the discussion of trades?

see that argument doesn't hold

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:45 AM
The GM answers to his boss, the owners, which is the NBA or 29 owners. The owners took a vote and decided that they didnt want that trade to go through. They used stern's veto power to collectively cancel the trade.

false again. the league released a statement that no vote was taken

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:45 AM
Its funny how Im hating on the Lakers when the 2 players i mentioned dont play on their team. :laugh2:

lol Laker fans are like the eye of sauron, once the gaze is fixed there is nothing that will break the focus.

Hellcrooner
12-09-2011, 05:46 AM
Your not a superstar if your too ***** to man up to a contract and accept a challenge of playing on a small market team. No loyalty anymore in the Nba.

i think scola, pau, odom kevin martin would like to have a talk to you bout loyalti.


o i guess teams dont need to have it?

pacman16
12-09-2011, 05:46 AM
I hope CP3 does go to the Lakers some how and then Howards changes his mind and instead requests a trade to Lakers ...... (sums up the NBA)
then I would love to hear all the lakers fans that showed hate for lebron to still bash him for signing with the heat cuz he took "the easy way on the path to a championship" love the NBA and trades/signings for their amazing team.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:47 AM
If that is the case, then so was the Kings-Hornets trade at the deadline. Its clearly a much more minor trade, but it would be collusion as well.

This is where it gets tricky...

Is it collusion when the Hornets are gaining from the trade ???

Technically, if you can prove that the Hornets benefitted from it, it can be proven in court that no such collusion took place...

When you have the NBAPA sign off on the deal and say we really don't object to it, it's not a big deal...

However, when the complete face of your franchise is being moved for pieces that have no financial ties to the organization, the detriment can be proven pretty quickly when you see the die hard Hornets fans cancelling their season ticket packages...

You have to remember, these owners don't want to own the Hornets... If you trade CP3, you can expect to own them for a lot longer...

naps
12-09-2011, 05:49 AM
im not so sure bout him being booed.


Well, wait and watch what happens if he does it actually.


he has never asked for atrade, gone public bout a destiantion and has beahved much better than melo and lebron.

He has clearly asked for a trade. WTF are you talking about. Why the **** on earth would NO try to trade him if he didn't make it clear that he was leaving and to where he wanted to go? Get a clue please.


he was going to get a good trade and he gets nixed.

Says who?


he has all the right in the world to be angry

Sure because NBA didn't allow another travesty.

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 05:50 AM
This is where it gets tricky...

Is it collusion when the Hornets are gaining from the trade ???

Technically, if you can prove that the Hornets benefitted from it, it can be proven in court that no such collusion took place...

When you have the NBAPA sign off on the deal and say we really don't object to it, it's not a big deal...

However, when the complete face of your franchise is being moved for pieces that have no financial ties to the organization, the detriment can be proven pretty quickly when you see the die hard Hornets fans cancelling their season ticket packages...

You have to remember, these owners don't want to own the Hornets... If you trade CP3, you can expect to own them for a lot longer...

Its been a year. They have had CP3 the whole time, I seriously don't understand if it can be any more difficult to sell this team.

And so when CP3 leaves this summer, don't you have the same problem selling the team?

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:50 AM
false again. the league released a statement that no vote was taken

whether it was a formal vote or not is besides the point. irregardless the NBA still owns the franchise and the collective owners expressed negative feelings towards this trade and so it was canceled. Gilbert does not run the show, he's just the one that doesn't mind being in the spotlight.

Law25
12-09-2011, 05:51 AM
Whats with these football fans coming to Nba fourms and talkin **** about our game, and no one saying crap about it. Not even Mods. Im sick of hearing how much greater football is to basketball. If it is so much greater then why in the hell are you over hear *****ing about basketball. Everyone knows NFL players get screwed thats not something to brag about. CP3 like many have said has been mum on everything until this trade was blocked. He's playing on a team with no future, no owner and no gm. This isnt Lebron leaving a team trying to give him what he wanted. This is different, and if the Celtics are aloud to trade for him that ****ed up. I dont understand why Stern would listen to Cudan when he clearly has a conflict of interest being in the west with the lakers.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:52 AM
:o

wrong again. it is not collusion because buss has no say. the owners renegged ability to have a say in any trade regarding the hornets

carl landry was traded for last season. was that collusion?

if collusion was an issue with trading paul, doesn't that mean any trade involving paul would be colllusion?

then why did the NBA even allow paul or any hornet for that matter be the discussion of trades?

see that argument doesn't hold

So what you are saying is that the Hornets can sign for and trade for any player they want ???

They can extend a max contract to 3 people this offseason along with building a 90MM dollar payroll and spend as much of the NBA owners money as they want without them having a say so ???

Any financial ties between two businesses that are negotiating with each other can be construed as collusion or a conflict of interest...

naps
12-09-2011, 05:52 AM
really? not true. 29 NBA owners own the hornets. stern does not. stern did not hold a vote to veto the deal per league source

stern exercised his league veto ability. the veto ability he has for every trade in the NBA. he has the right to veto any trade he deems to imbalance the league. however gilberts letter and the reports about marc cuban suggest conflict of interest.

also attorneys have been coming through the woodwork saying paul has a legitimate case as do the players association

Do you really think it was not the owners? Since 29 owners own the NO franchise they have right to block a trade that includes their superstar.

As for imbalance, of-course the league would have no balance at all if the Lakers land CP3 (which means they will get Howard as well). NBA can't allow the Lakers to have CP3-Kobe-Dwight when so many other teams are struggling. They already favored the Lakers by gifting Gasol which would net them 2 championships.
Note: Don't bring up Miami big three because LeBron and Bosh were free agents. Stern had no power to veto on them.

FlashMacker
12-09-2011, 05:52 AM
Its been a year. They have had CP3 the whole time, I seriously don't understand if it can be any more difficult to sell this team.

And so when CP3 leaves this summer, don't you have the same problem selling the team?


This :cool:

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:52 AM
whether it was a formal vote or not is besides the point. irregardless the NBA still owns the franchise and the collective owners expressed negative feelings towards this trade and so it was canceled. Gilbert does not run the show, he's just the one that doesn't mind being in the spotlight.

really because an owner even came out today saying he wasn't even informed of the veto until it happened

i can promise he wasn't the only one

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:53 AM
Do you really think it was not the owners? Since 29 owners own the NO franchise they have right to block a trade that includes their superstar.

the league said it wasn't the owners, not to mention an owner came foward and said he didn't even know the veto was happening

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 05:54 AM
really because an owner even came out today saying he wasn't even informed of the veto until it happened

i can promise he wasn't the only one

you don't need every owners 'permission', only the majority. once the majority is decided you don't even need to consider other voters because it won't change the outcome. = possible explanation for why he doesn't know. anything beyond this is heresay.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:55 AM
Its been a year. They have had CP3 the whole time, I seriously don't understand if it can be any more difficult to sell this team.

And so when CP3 leaves this summer, don't you have the same problem selling the team?

Which is the problem the NBA faces with the Hornets...

Essentially, you are guaranteeing that the Hornets are leaving New Orleans...

However, the NBA doesn't want to face anti-trust litigation to satisfy the Lakers regardless of who they get back in a deal for Paul...

It's not worth the negative publicity...

Stern doesn't want to get fired and the owners dont want to face a class action suit...

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:55 AM
So what you are saying is that the Hornets can sign for and trade for any player they want ???

They can extend a max contract to 3 people this offseason along with building a 90MM dollar payroll and spend as much of the NBA owners money as they want without them having a say so ???

Any financial ties between two businesses that are negotiating with each other can be construed as collusion or a conflict of interest...

if that were the case then they would not allow any movement whatsoever with the hornets plain and simple but they have. they allowed negotiations, they permitted dell demps to find a deal for paul.

read gilberts laker-centric letter. its proof that the biggest issue was that it was too the lakers

last stand
12-09-2011, 05:56 AM
you don't need every owners 'permission', only the majority. once the majority is decided you don't even need to consider other voters because it won't change the outcome. = possible explanation for why he doesn't know. anything beyond this is heresay.

the league stated there was no vote

iam brett favre
12-09-2011, 05:56 AM
lol Laker fans are like the eye of sauron, once the gaze is fixed there is nothing that will break the focus.

:laugh2: Im glad im only a casual Nba fan because there are just some fan bases i couldnt deal with

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:56 AM
the league said it wasn't the owners, not to mention an owner came foward and said he didn't even know the veto was happening

Do you know it's illegal for Stern to veto a deal unless the deal, itself, is illegal or violates the CBA ???

What does Stern have to gain from vetoing a deal ???

naps
12-09-2011, 05:58 AM
the league said it wasn't the owners, not to mention an owner came foward and said he didn't even know the veto was happening

You will never know the exact inside story but it's not a rocket science.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 05:59 AM
if that were the case then they would not allow any movement whatsoever with the hornets plain and simple but they have. they allowed negotiations, they permitted dell demps to find a deal for paul.

read gilberts laker-centric letter. its proof that the biggest issue was that it was too the lakers

Bingo...

They allowed Demps to find a deal that was financially beneficial to the Hornets...

There isn't one player in the NBA that could satisfy that requirement...


It's nearly impossible...

naps
12-09-2011, 06:00 AM
Do you know it's illegal for Stern to veto a deal unless the deal, itself, is illegal or violates the CBA ???

What does Stern have to gain from vetoing a deal ???

Stern hates the Lakers!!

Lakers fans a popping up frustration threads every 10 mins...smh...

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 06:01 AM
the league stated there was no vote

There was no vote because legally only Stern had the power to act - and therein lies a potential act of 'conflicting interests.' Stern, acting as commissioner, represents what could be construed as the opinion of the owners of the team (the other 29 owners in the league) and acted in such a capacity in lieu of the caretaker who he assigned to run the team - a precedent the league had adopted for a long time, even to the dismay of Mark Cuban when Landry was acquired.

The simple analogy is that the owner of the team willingly undermined his own team - and that is certainly grounds to file a lawsuit.

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 06:01 AM
Which is the problem the NBA faces with the Hornets...

Essentially, you are guaranteeing that the Hornets are leaving New Orleans...

However, the NBA doesn't want to face anti-trust litigation to satisfy the Lakers regardless of who they get back in a deal for Paul...

It's not worth the negative publicity...

Stern doesn't want to get fired and the owners dont want to face a class action suit...
What is your point? If they leave, they leave. And so your proposition is they just lose Paul for nothing for the next owner (if there ever is one) to have to start completely over? Seems like a failure on the leagues part there to begin with. I don't care if he goes to the Lakers, Celtics or whoever really. He should get traded somewhere for something so the new ownership group has some sort of asset on the team.

Instead Stern wants to make an example out of CP3 by not letting him go to a bigger market. In the process, he is going to hurt the value of an already near worthless franchise that he has already had to own for nearly a year.

And if they didn't want to move CP3 and hold onto him while working on finding a new owner, why the hell did they let 5 teams keep making offers if they were never going to let him be traded?

And not worth the negative publicity? What do you call all of this.

last stand
12-09-2011, 06:01 AM
Do you know it's illegal for Stern to veto a deal unless the deal, itself, is illegal or violates the CBA ???

What does Stern have to gain from vetoing a deal ???

what does he have to gain? well the truth is he has a veto clause. its in the NBA bylaws. if it violates collusion. i guess he can attempt to argue that it was violating the CBA despite the fact that it wasn't.

so what does he have to gain, well he can drop an explanation like "basketball reasons" as the explanation. the lakers, rockets weren't even informed of the veto or given a chance to change the deal

this whole think stinks to hell and i guarantee stern doesn't make it out of this with his job. go to any sports page there is not a sports reporter even remotely in favor of this.

everyone is calling collusion and conspiracy. this is infinitely worse than tim donoghy because this is seen as concrete. the owners will respond and my guess is they will fire stern saying he acted without consultation

nastynice
12-09-2011, 06:02 AM
I don't understand how ANY nba fan could be happy with what just happened? I think New Orleans is the one getting screwed over the hardest in all this. They actually had what looked like a decent roster that had a good shot of getting to the playoffs. Now what else can they get for paul? Really wierd situation.

last stand
12-09-2011, 06:03 AM
There was no vote because legally only Stern had the power to act - and therein lies a potential act of 'conflicting interests.' Stern, acting as commissioner, represents what could be construed as the opinion of the owners of the team (the other 29 owners in the league) and acted in such a capacity instead of the caretaker who he assigned to run the team - a precedent the league had adopted for a long time, even to the dismay of Mark Cuban when Landry was acquired.

The simple analogy is that the owner of the team willingly undermined his own team - and that is certainly grounds to file a lawsuit.

wow we have a winner

last stand
12-09-2011, 06:05 AM
Bingo...

They allowed Demps to find a deal that was financially beneficial to the Hornets...

There isn't one player in the NBA that could satisfy that requirement...


It's nearly impossible...

not true. they kept dell demps to be an impartial mediator. the purpose of the impartial mediator was to prevent conflict of interest

dell demps is not an employee of jerry buss/ the houston rockets. dell demps was an employee of the hornets. he was an impartial mediator. he was meant to make all decisions to prevent any collusion lawsuits.

yet he made a decision and suddenly conflict of interest really entered.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:06 AM
There was no vote because legally only Stern had the power to act - and therein lies a potential act of 'conflicting interests.' Stern, acting as commissioner, represents what could be construed as the opinion of the owners of the team (the other 29 owners in the league) and acted in such a capacity instead of the caretaker who he assigned to run the team - a precedent the league had adopted for a long time, even to the dismay of Mark Cuban when Landry was acquired.

The simple analogy is that the owner of the team willingly undermined his own team - and that is certainly grounds to file a lawsuit.

Exactly...

So, you have to find a trade that is financially beneficial to both teams without undermining one of those teams to give a competitive advantage to the other...

Of yeah, and the pieces have to fit too... :laugh:

Why they even tried is beyond me...

LAOwnsAll15
12-09-2011, 06:06 AM
I don't understand how ANY nba fan could be happy with what just happened? I think New Orleans is the one getting screwed over the hardest in all this. They actually had what looked like a decent roster that had a good shot of getting to the playoffs. Now what else can they get for paul? Really wierd situation.

The thing is the NBA would 10000000x favor screwing over a team they have 3% invested in to make a point and help the team they actually own.

The NBA doesnt not care how bad the NOH are, they are a lost cause.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:08 AM
not true. they kept dell demps to be an impartial mediator. the purpose of the impartial mediator was to prevent conflict of interest

dell demps is not an employee of jerry buss/ the houston rockets. dell demps was an employee of the hornets. he was an impartial mediator. he was meant to make all decisions to prevent any collusion lawsuits.

yet he made a decision and suddenly conflict of interest really entered.

Because it was financially deterimental to the Hornets and financially beneficial to the Lakers...

I know why this is hard for you... You want to find some conspiracy that means Stern is colluding with the fans to be the trade sheriff...

It's not happening... I understand the frustration of almost getting a Chris Paul but it's not going to happen...

Stern isn't going to put his job on the line for nothing... If he's wrong, he's essentially done...

Remember that Stern was a lawyer before he was the commish...

He knows his stuff...

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 06:10 AM
Because it was financially deterimental to the Hornets and financially beneficial to the Lakers...

I know why this is hard for you... You want to find some conspiracy that means Stern is colluding with the fans to be the trade sheriff...

It's not happening... I understand the frustration of almost getting a Chris Paul but it's not going to happen...

If Okafor (or Ariza thought I don't think he makes enough) was sent to LA for them to pick up his salary does that make it any better?

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 06:12 AM
Exactly...

So, you have to find a trade that is financially beneficial to both teams without undermining one of those teams to give a competitive advantage to the other...

Of yeah, and the pieces have to fit too... :laugh:

Why they even tried is beyond me...

The real problem is how Stern reacted to what was an otherwise 'fair trade.' It's a gross misuse of his power as commissioner of the league and opens up all kinds of slippery slopes not fully secured by the CBA which, pending what happens here, could result in even more legal action.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:13 AM
If Okafor (or Ariza thought I don't think he makes enough) was sent to LA for them to pick up his salary does that make it any better?

No...

How do you gauge Chris Paul's value to the organization ???

You can site jersey sales, season ticket sales, and the growth of the organization after Paul's arrival...


I think I said it before, Paul's value to that organization is about as high as anyone in basketball...

last stand
12-09-2011, 06:13 AM
Because it was financially deterimental to the Hornets and financially beneficial to the Lakers...

I know why this is hard for you... You want to find some conspiracy that means Stern is colluding with the fans to be the trade sheriff...

It's not happening... I understand the frustration of almost getting a Chris Paul but it's not going to happen...

Stern isn't going to put his job on the line for nothing... If he's wrong, he's essentially done...

Remember that Stern was a lawyer before he was the commish...

He knows his stuff...

and the Players Union has their lawyers. they will look into this.

BigBluN'Orange
12-09-2011, 06:13 AM
Why are you guys mad at the players? In the NFL the players have NO RIGHTS, their UNION is wack... If the owners wanted more control they should have negotiated better CBA. But they couldn't so it is what it is. WORKER RIGHTS!!!!!! include the right to go where you want to go. BTW for those who keep bring up the contract, he is going to play his contract out then go to where he wants. He is doing NO a favor by telling them that he doesn't want to come back so that they can get something for him. BTW go do some research on all the work he has done for the community, especially around Katrina time, so stop HATING on a man, and judging his character because he wants to work somewhere else after his contract is over.... its called LEVERAGE fellas, its part of the business.

last stand
12-09-2011, 06:14 AM
No...

How do you gauge Chris Paul's value to the organization ???

You can site jersey sales, season ticket sales, and the growth of the organization after Paul's arrival...


I think I said it before, Paul's value to that organization is about as high as anyone in basketball...

and if they don't sell the hornets before the season is up paul walks for nothing

the franchise value drops even lower

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 06:14 AM
No...

How do you gauge Chris Paul's value to the organization ???

You can site jersey sales, season ticket sales, and the growth of the organization after Paul's arrival...


I think I said it before, Paul's value to that organization is about as high as anyone in basketball...

So 66 more games of jersey sales and ticket sales is worth letting him walk for free in the summer.

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 06:15 AM
and if they don't sell the hornets before the season is up paul walks for nothing

the franchise value drops even lower

Thank god someone else is bringing this up.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:17 AM
The real problem is how Stern reacted to what was an otherwise 'fair trade.' It's a gross misuse of his power as commissioner of the league and opens up all kinds of slippery slopes not fully secured by the CBA which, pending what happens here, could result in even more legal action.

Don't know about that...

Gross ???

To prevent the NBA from another black eye ???

To think that a trade that is, talentwise, financially, and collectively beneficial to the Lakers and just as detrimental to the Hornets in all those respective categories while Jerry Buss has a minority stake in the losing team while having a majority stake in the gaining team has reason to be, at the very least, examined more closely...

Especially when you consider that Buss wants no part of the Hornets and is part of a group that is actively shopping them...

BigBluN'Orange
12-09-2011, 06:17 AM
AND the hornets were getting a ****** package... Odom? washed up too old to carry a team, Scola? servicable player, but also old, Martin can score, but don't you think its telling that hes been traded so many times, hes not that great... and lastly a 1st round pick from the rockets, which belonged to the knicks... it won't be a lottery pick because knicks will make playoffs in the weak east. Best case scenario is 15 or so, can't get a franchise changing player at 15 (possible, not likely though). And ontop of all of that, they are taking on a lot of salary. this trade was about to doom the hornets.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:19 AM
So 66 more games of jersey sales and ticket sales is worth letting him walk for free in the summer.

How do we know when someone buys the Hornets, he doesn't convince Paul to stay in New Orleans ???

No one can project that...


It's not the NBA's place to try...


All they can do is try to keep the organization as attractive as possible so they can try and sell...

All they should be doing is protecting themselves from even the illusion of collusion...

BigBluN'Orange
12-09-2011, 06:22 AM
Do you really think it was not the owners? Since 29 owners own the NO franchise they have right to block a trade that includes their superstar.

As for imbalance, of-course the league would have no balance at all if the Lakers land CP3 (which means they will get Howard as well). NBA can't allow the Lakers to have CP3-Kobe-Dwight when so many other teams are struggling. They already favored the Lakers by gifting Gasol which would net them 2 championships.
Note: Don't bring up Miami big three because LeBron and Bosh were free agents. Stern had no power to veto on them.

Just saying, the Gasol trade wasn't that lop sided. Memphis got cap space which allowed them to sign Z-BO who is a big part of what they are doing. and they got one of the better centers in the league now Marc Gasol. Also don't forget there are way less centers in the league than there are PFs. not to mention they got a couple of draft picks, not sure who those picks ended up being, but they got a couple of picks.

ripjhb18
12-09-2011, 06:23 AM
How do we know when someone buys the Hornets, he doesn't convince Paul to stay in New Orleans ???

No one can project that...


It's not the NBA's place to try...

Who can project if the team even has an owner by the summer??? Like I said, its already been nearly a year of the NBA owning this team. As of now, I don't see any progress being made in someone buying them. And if you had reason to believe the best player was leaving, why would you even buy them? Especially in this economy.


And you know what is not the NBA's place? Collectively owning a team.

shep33
12-09-2011, 06:24 AM
Stephen A. Smith just said people are talking to Paul and that he has a possible case for the law suit. Says CP3 won't go back to the Hornets under these conditions, and is forcing a deal to the Lakers to go through

sf-fanatic
12-09-2011, 06:24 AM
thats how soccer has worked....forever.

most watched sport in the world. BY FAR.

ok but the nba is the third most popular sport in the united states. nba gets most of its money from the united states so thats what matters

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 06:32 AM
Don't know about that...

Gross ???

To prevent the NBA from another black eye ???

To think that a trade that is, talentwise, financially, and collectively beneficial to the Lakers and just as detrimental to the Hornets in all those respective categories while Jerry Buss has a minority stake in the losing team while having a majority stake in the gaining team has reason to be, at the very least, examined more closely...

Especially when you consider that Buss wants no part of the Hornets and is part of a group that is actively shopping them...

Ok, since everyone hasn't voiced their opinion just yet, we can throw out the dozen or so team executives who have already been contacted about the trade who believed the Hornets did "very well" or "won" the trade. (More of those opinions will come out over the weekend and the consensus opinion may change)

That aside, Stern knows what vetoing this deal does for negotiation procedures. The Hornets front office has now effectively been castrated in terms of negotiating power and their hand has been tipped. This proposed trade could represent the 'best offer' the franchise will receive for Paul - who could at the end of year opt out.

To make matters worse, Stern had already heard owners' complaints earlier this year when the Hornets traded for a player and Cuban stated "it was wrong" to do so. The league allowed the team to continue and distanced themselves from the running of the team. They set the precedent and then disregarded it.

An eleventh hour coups does nothing but shatter the integrity of the league and open the very real possibility of a commissioner who could veto any and every trade for similar reasons. At best his actions represent confirmation of a corrupted paradigm regarding the Hornets management - at worst the NBA is a farce.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:33 AM
Who can project if the team even has an owner by the summer??? Like I said, its already been nearly a year of the NBA owning this team. As of now, I don't see any progress being made in someone buying them. And if you had reason to believe the best player was leaving, why would you even buy them? Especially in this economy.


And you know what is not the NBA's place? Collectively owning a team.

It's quite possible that, once Paul walks, the Hornets contract completely... The owners won't continue to lose money to keep them running...

It doesn't make sense for a person to buy a dying franchise that has a superstar on the brink of leaving while it will, undoubtably, cost you millions to be mediocre at best... Oh yeah, as you mentioned, all this in a horrible economic situation nationwide...

You are right, but most leagues do this with teams that are going bankrupt... The Expos were owned by MLB for a couple of years before they were bought and relocated to Washington DC...

The Hornets won't relocate before being bought... They would have to have an ownership group make that decision...

BigBluN'Orange
12-09-2011, 06:36 AM
Hypothetically speaking, you own a team and have given your GM all the power to do w/e he wants... all of a sudden he makes a trade you think is dumb... won't you VETO the trade...

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:36 AM
Ok, since everyone hasn't voiced their opinion just yet, we can throw out the dozen or so team executives who have already been contacted about the trade who believed the Hornets did "very well" or "won" the trade. (More of those opinions will come out over the weekend and the consensus opinion may change)

That aside, Stern knows what vetoing this deal does for negotiation procedures. The Hornets front office has now effectively been castrated in terms of negotiating power and their hand has been tipped. This proposed trade could represent the 'best offer' the franchise will receive for Paul - who could at the end of year opt out.

To make matters worse, Stern had already heard owners' complaints earlier this year when the Hornets traded for a player and Cuban stated "it was wrong" to do so. The league allowed the team to continue and distanced themselves from the running of the team. They set the precedent and then disregarded it.

An eleventh hour coups does nothing but shatter the integrity of the league and open the very real possibility of a commissioner who could veto any and every trade for similar reasons. At best his actions represent confirmation of a corrupted paradigm regarding the Hornets management - at worst the NBA is a farce.

This doesn't matter much...

Regardless of the opinion of the owners together, it would have to be proven in court that the Hornets recieved equal value or greater to put aside the idea of collusion...

You can prove Paul's value to the Hornets... It's not a hard thing to do...

You can, also, effectively prove the value of other players to their respective organizations...

It has little to do with talent level... It has everything to do with money...

BigBluN'Orange
12-09-2011, 06:37 AM
Honestly Fellas this trade sucked, You didn't even get the two best trade pieces on the lakers, you are not getting gasol and you are not getting bynum... you want the lakers sixth man LAMAR ODOM? okay...

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 06:52 AM
This doesn't matter much...

Regardless of the opinion of the owners together, it would have to be proven in court that the Hornets recieved equal value or greater to put aside the idea of collusion...

You can prove Paul's value to the Hornets... It's not a hard thing to do...

You can, also, effectively prove the value of other players to their respective organizations...

It has little to do with talent level... It has everything to do with money...

I had already conceded that the point didn't matter much and yes this decision did revolve around money, just as it did before though I believe you are looking at the wrong money. Stern CANNOT defend himself when he gets before a court on the following grounds:

When the Hornets traded for Landry, they assumed some extra $2 million in liabilities and Cuban (one of the other 29 owners of the franchise) raised holy hell about the deal but nothing was done.

With Gilberts letter as public knowledge and reference, Stern was faced with a decision to allow a trade that assumed some additional $15 million in liabilities (over a similar time frame) to the Hornets and yet chose to veto the trade.

In addition to that, there is the very real question of how Stern vetoed the trade at all. If he did so on behalf of the owners of the team, they had appointed a third party to handle those decisions and even allowed him to do so throughout the season. If it was as commissioner of the league more questions need to be raised such as "why this trade (and not any other)?" and "why now?"

Paul has every right to explore seeking restitution for any damages and I think he's on pretty solid ground depending on the answer to some of those questions.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 06:56 AM
I had already conceded that the point didn't matter much and yes this decision did revolve around money, just as it did before though I believe you are looking at the wrong money. Stern CANNOT defend himself when he gets before a court on the following grounds:

When the Hornets traded for Landry, they assumed some extra $2 million in liabilities and Cuban (one of the other 29 owners of the franchise) raised holy hell about the deal but nothing was done.
With Gilberts letter as public knowledge and reference, Stern was faced with a decision to allow a trade that assumed some additional $15 million in liabilities (over a similar time frame) to the Hornets and yet chose to veto the trade.

In addition to that, there is the very real question of how Stern vetoed the trade at all. If he did so on behalf of the owners of the team, they had appointed a third party to handle those decisions and even allowed him to do so throughout the season. If it was as commissioner of the league more questions need to be raised such as "why this trade (and not any other)?" and "why now?"

Paul has every right to explore seeking restitution for any damages and I think he's on pretty solid ground depending on the answer to some of those questions.

I understand the thinking...

However, you can justify Carl Landry coming to the Hornets as financially beneficial for a variety of variables ( even if some of them aren't entirely justifiable)...

Trading Chris Paul is unjustifiable...

You are committing financial suicide and it is quite measurable to measure the benefit to the Lakers and the detriment to the Hornets...

Anti-trust is ambigious at it's best...

However, this is a pretty clear cut case in my opinion...

last stand
12-09-2011, 07:01 AM
If that wa the case they would have released a statement saying theycould not trade Paul because of financial reasons

But theycame out with basketball reasons

Nobody would be arguing if they came out with the financial reasons argument. By nobody I mean sports writers

Cano-Montero...
12-09-2011, 07:02 AM
I understand the thinking...

However, you can justify Carl Landry coming to the Hornets as financially beneficial for a variety of variables ( even if some of them aren't entirely justifiable)...

Trading Chris Paul is unjustifiable...

You are committing financial suicide and it is quite measurable to measure the benefit to the Lakers and the detriment to the Hornets...

Anti-trust is ambigious at it's best...

However, this is a pretty clear cut case in my opinion...


man you really must hate the lakers or something...You keep on saying that they benefit the most and NO got worst when almost all rival gm's, analyst and etc see them as getting worst after the trade..

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:03 AM
If that wa the case they would have released a statement saying theycould not trade Paul because of financial reasons

But theycame out with basketball reasons

Nobody would be arguing if they came out with the financial reasons argument. By nobody I mean sports writers

Why would they say that when Chris Paul is tradable...

He is tradable for a package that is as or more valuable, financially, to the Hornets organization than Chris Paul...

Since that is nearly impossible to accomplish, he is, essentially, untradable...

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:05 AM
To touch on the question of why they sited "basketball reasons"...

Do you think the fan base wants to hear any more about basketball economics ???

What does that do to a league that already has a black eye ???


Considering the fallout that is, undoubtably, about to occur, their public relations dept should have handled it somewhat differently...

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 07:08 AM
Why would they say that when Chris Paul is tradable...

He is tradable for a package that is as or more valuable, financially, to the Hornets organization than Chris Paul...

Since that is nearly impossible to accomplish, he is, essentially, untradable...

Unfortunately the ownership of the team allowed that exact situation to occur with another player (though it was protested).

You are advocating that the Hornets lose any solvency and simply act as a clearing house for NBA talent - contraction, which may well be the result of all of this if the league gets sued and cannot sell the franchise. Certainly a team without Paul (or ANY compensation for him) would be worth less than a team with (Odom, Scola, Dragic, and a pick).

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:11 AM
Unfortunately the ownership of the team allowed that exact situation to occur with another player (though it was protested).

You are advocating that the Hornets lose any solvency and simply act as a clearing house for NBA talent - contraction, which may well be the result of all of this if the league gets sued and cannot sell the franchise. Certainly a team without Paul (or ANY compensation for him) would be worth less than a team with (Odom, Scola, Dragic, and a pick).

You are projecting again...

What Paul does in the future has no bearing on his value to the organization, as of today... Especially since they aren't in a position to project Paul's future in the NBA... All they have is measurable information which includes his value to the Hornets as it pertains to the value gained back from a team gaining Paul..


The NBA cares about Paul's value to the Hornets today... They don't care about the Hornet's value without Paul... At least, in respect to the deals they make and as it pertains to collusion...

magichatnumber9
12-09-2011, 07:16 AM
Hey Chris Paul " YOU MAD "

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 07:18 AM
You are projecting again...

What Paul does in the future has no bearing on his value to the organization, as of today... Especially since they aren't in a position to project Paul's future in the NBA... All they have is measurable information which includes his value to the Hornets as it pertains to the value gained back from a team gaining Paul..


The NBA cares about Paul's value to the Hornets today... They don't care about the Hornet's value without Paul... At least, in respect to the deals they make and as it pertains to collusion...

I agree, but if one could argue the asset of Landry outweighed the assumed liability of acquiring him, one could similarly argue the assets of Odom, Dragic, and Scola outweigh their respective liabilities with respect to Paul.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:22 AM
I agree, but if one could argue the asset of Landry outweighed the assumed liability of acquiring him, one could similarly argue the assets of Odom, Dragic, and Scola outweigh their respective liabilities with respect to Paul.

First one is arguable, but could be justified as profitable...

Second one is in no way justifiable...

Does the acquisitions of Odom, Dragic, and Scola keep the Hornets in N.O ???

Chris Paul's presence, measurably, keeps the Hornets in N.O...

Raidaz4Life
12-09-2011, 07:24 AM
First one is arguable, but could be justified as profitable...

Second one is in no way justifiable...

Does the acquisitions of Odom, Dragic, and Scola keep the Hornets in N.O ???

Chris Paul's presence, measurably, keeps the Hornets in N.O...

But then again you are just speculating....

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:31 AM
But then again you are just speculating....

Actually, the value of Chris Paul to the Hornet's is very measurable...

The value of Scola, Odom, and Dragic to their respective organizations is also measurable...

Paul's generated revenue can be measured...

It could be argued in court that no player in the NBA generates a higher percentage of revenue, individually, than Chris Paul as it pertains to the overall value of the Hornets...

I don't know the statistics and I don't want to look them up...

When compared to the percentage of revenue generated by those three, i'm guessing the distance is very very distinct...

It would have to be to justify Stern's veto...

mike_noodles
12-09-2011, 07:36 AM
Not to mention that the NBA is the ownership group, and if they don't feel like they'll get value back in the trade, then they can continue to nix deals until they get value back.

TopsyTurvy
12-09-2011, 07:38 AM
First one is arguable, but could be justified as profitable...

Second one is in no way justifiable...

Does the acquisitions of Odom, Dragic, and Scola keep the Hornets in N.O ???

Chris Paul's presence, measurably, keeps the Hornets in N.O...

And this clearly demonstrates the supreme irony facing the NBA and owners right now. They voted to not include contraction as an option on this CBA and now have to live with a collectively-owned team losing it's largest asset for nothing.

Good luck selling fellas.

At worst, the trade could be construed as an assumed risk to sell the franchise and keep it solvent compared to the alternative.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:39 AM
Not to mention that the NBA is the ownership group, and if they don't feel like they'll get value back in the trade, then they can continue to nix deals until they get value back.

They are, actually, legally obligated too...

Any deal that isn't profitable for the Hornets, as well as, the team that owner has majority stake in is considered collusion and is against the law...

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:40 AM
And this clearly demonstrates the supreme irony facing the NBA and owners right now. They voted to not include contraction as an option on this CBA and now have to live with a collectively-owned team losing it's largest asset for nothing.

Good luck selling fellas.

Completely agree with you here... It's an unwinnable situation that is only going to get worse before it gets better...

They wanted to fix it through collective bargaining and they back at square one...

Raidaz4Life
12-09-2011, 07:41 AM
Actually, the value of Chris Paul to the Hornet's is very measurable...

The value of Scola, Odom, and Dragic to their respective organizations is also measurable...

Paul's generated revenue can be measured...

It could be argued in court that no player in the NBA generates a higher percentage of revenue, individually, than Chris Paul as it pertains to the overall value of the Hornets...

I don't know the statistics and I don't want to look them up...

When compared to the percentage of revenue generated by those three, i'm guessing the distance is very very distinct...

It would have to be to justify Stern's veto...

That does not necessarily mean "Paul= NO staying" and "Scola, Odom, Martin= NO leaving", like you initially suggested though.

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 07:45 AM
A group of owners pressuring the league to invalidate something that is by the rules is called collusion and is a federal crime.

David Stern and all the owners pressuring the cancellation of the deal of guilt of a federal crime.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 07:47 AM
That does not necessarily mean "Paul= NO staying" and "Scola, Odom, Martin= NO leaving", like you initially suggested though.

I don't know when I suggested that...


When you have a minority owner that also owns a majority stake in the same marketplace, the potential for conflict is very high...


This is the situation we have...

Buss can't make a trade that guts the Lakers and benefits the Hornets either... That is also collusion...

Both sides have to show the financial benefits of making such a deal...

Like ive said one hundred times, it is impossible to be able to show a financial benefit from trading Paul when you are gaining that group of players in return...

natelpete
12-09-2011, 07:48 AM
Chris Paul is overrated anyway

Wade>You
12-09-2011, 07:50 AM
Not to mention that the NBA is the ownership group, and if they don't feel like they'll get value back in the trade, then they can continue to nix deals until they get value back.The NBA said all along, and emphasized, that they would not interfere with basketball operations.

There are people that saw this coming from a mile away when the NBA first bought the Hornets.

Davidgta1
12-09-2011, 08:15 AM
I just don't get it why not trade him to the lakers the hornets were getting a good deal. An the bs with Dan Gilbert what dose want for cp3 to get get traded to sac min or the cavs? cuz that won't happen cp3 won't sign there so I just don't get it. So instead of getting some good pieces for the hornets now cp3 is just gonna walk away an go in to free agency an the hornets come out the losers. GOOD JOB STERN

ThePooH_1_
12-09-2011, 08:19 AM
:facepalm:
Chris Paul is overrated anyway

Tom Stone
12-09-2011, 08:20 AM
The deal was good for all three teams......im shocked stern stepped in.....because the deal was fair....i think paul has a case to sue.

IBleedPurple
12-09-2011, 08:20 AM
Why are you guys mad at the players? In the NFL the players have NO RIGHTS, their UNION is wack... If the owners wanted more control they should have negotiated better CBA. But they couldn't so it is what it is. WORKER RIGHTS!!!!!! include the right to go where you want to go. BTW for those who keep bring up the contract, he is going to play his contract out then go to where he wants. He is doing NO a favor by telling them that he doesn't want to come back so that they can get something for him. BTW go do some research on all the work he has done for the community, especially around Katrina time, so stop HATING on a man, and judging his character because he wants to work somewhere else after his contract is over.... its called LEVERAGE fellas, its part of the business.

It also shows a lack of character on the part of many star players basically trying to turn most of the league into a JV or farm team. Very few want a 6-8 team league, and then everybody else.

And in basketball, one player can make more of a difference than in other sports. That gives fans every reason to hate, and I'm sure many will continue to do so.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-09-2011, 08:23 AM
.

arkanian215
12-09-2011, 08:28 AM
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/09/danny-granger-and-jason-richardson-tweet-out-their-frustration-over-the-league-halted-chris-paul-trade/#/2011/12/09/chris-paul-reportedly-considering-legal-action-against-league/

Basically what I got out of it is this. Paul wants to sue the NBA because if they prevent him from getting traded to LA (because at this point no teams will trade for him, due to him not willing to sign an extension, which he has every right to do), it prevents him from signing a max extension with the Lakers and thus he can ultimately lose as the article notes "30 to 40 million dollars".

Now how true that is I have no clue... just thought I should throw this out there


If this goes to court, the NBA is in trouble... not based on whether Paul wins or not, but because of the terrible publicity this is gonna get.

Isn't the claim not credible though? Supposedly he was willing to take a pay cut to sign outright with the Knicks so I don't know how he can claim that.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 08:30 AM
The deal was good for all three teams......im shocked stern stepped in.....because the deal was fair....i think paul has a case to sue.

Again, anti-trust has nothing to do with talent level...

It has to do with money...

No one should mention the deal being "fair"... It has no bearing...

It has to do with profitability...

Was the deal profitable for both sides ???

If Hornets stood to make money by trading Chris Paul, they could have dealt him...

Did the Lakers stand to make money by dealing for Paul ???

The Lakers were the only ones that would have been able to show a significant gain due to the acquisition of Chris Paul...

Therefore, since Jerry Buss has minority ownership in the Hornets, the Hornets can't deal Paul for that package...

jezzyman05
12-09-2011, 08:30 AM
This man. I won't support him regardless now he is another piece of work.

I hope he tries loses more money on his lawsuit and bevcomes hated.

You may not like him but more superstars should take a note or two from Dirk on what it means to be a franchise player.



Don't forget Duncan either Dirk and Tim are the definition of franchise player

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 08:43 AM
Dose he even have a case?


He would win.

- the trade was within trading rules of the league
- the purpose of trade approval is not to say do we want this but does it follow the rule and this did follow the rules of the old and new CBA
- Stern only voided the trade after several owners got together and said no
- The Gilbert letter is proof of at least one owners involvement in voiding a valid deal and would be used in a federal court
- If other owners pressured Stern but where smart enough to not let it get public then its Collusion and that is a federal crime and all owners in this type of trial would be summoned and sworn in under oath.


This case in a court would be a slam dunk from everything I've heard about and what federal law dictates.

Wade>You
12-09-2011, 08:47 AM
It's time the players take the NBA back from the Dan Gilberts of the league. They should really ream them in the court over this ****, no settlement whatsover. We'll never have a lockout again.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 08:48 AM
He would win.

- the trade was within trading rules of the league
- the purpose of trade approval is not to say do we want this but does it follow the rule and this did follow the rules of the old and new CBA
- Stern only voided the trade after several owners got together and said no
- The Gilbert letter is proof of at least one owners involvement in voiding a valid deal and would be used in a federal court
- If other owners pressured Stern but where smart enough to not let it get public then its Collusion and that is a federal crime and all owners in this type of trial would be summoned and sworn in under oath.


This case in a court would be a slam dunk from everything I've heard about and what federal law dictates.

He would have absolutely no case whatsoever...

The owners didn't have to pressure Stern...

The numbers spoke enough of a truth to make Stern's decision for him...

xnick5757
12-09-2011, 08:55 AM
He would win.

- the trade was within trading rules of the league
- the purpose of trade approval is not to say do we want this but does it follow the rule and this did follow the rules of the old and new CBA
- Stern only voided the trade after several owners got together and said no
- The Gilbert letter is proof of at least one owners involvement in voiding a valid deal and would be used in a federal court
- If other owners pressured Stern but where smart enough to not let it get public then its Collusion and that is a federal crime and all owners in this type of trial would be summoned and sworn in under oath.


This case in a court would be a slam dunk from everything I've heard about and what federal law dictates.


:facepalm:

Gilbert and the others are all partial owners of the Hornets. They can do whatever the hell they want with the team, because THEY OWN IT. It's not collusion if you own the damn team!

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 08:56 AM
He would have absolutely no case whatsoever...

The owners didn't have to pressure Stern...

The numbers spoke enough of a truth to make Stern's decision for him...


No, just no. Nice try to though.

algreek3
12-09-2011, 08:57 AM
Paul has no case.

The Hornets are owned by every owner.

Period.

bringinwood
12-09-2011, 09:00 AM
No, just no. Nice try to though.

Nice logic...

You can re-read through this thread and potentially educate yourself...

I'm tired of explaining it to people...

It seems like it would take you a really... really.... really long time to grasp it...

Davidgta1
12-09-2011, 09:02 AM
He would win.

- the trade was within trading rules of the league
- the purpose of trade approval is not to say do we want this but does it follow the rule and this did follow the rules of the old and new CBA
- Stern only voided the trade after several owners got together and said no
- The Gilbert letter is proof of at least one owners involvement in voiding a valid deal and would be used in a federal court
- If other owners pressured Stern but where smart enough to not let it get public then its Collusion and that is a federal crime and all owners in this type of trial would be summoned and sworn in under oath.


This case in a court would be a slam dunk from everything I've heard about and what federal law dictates.
Thanks 4 explaining it to me dude.

Davidgta1
12-09-2011, 09:03 AM
I wonder how long this is gonna drag on for?

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 09:11 AM
Nice logic...

You can re-read through this thread and potentially educate yourself...

I'm tired of explaining it to people...

It seems like it would take you a really... really.... really long time to grasp it...


Call me an idiot like you did if you want but I'm not the one that is attacking another poster and I'm not the one that is telling someone to educate themselves when I explained my point in what you quoted.

If you are so insecure you need to have the last word after posting to try and insult another post go ahead because you are not worth responding to again after this and I'm not going to restate in my response what someone is quoting me saying. And I'm the idiot.

justinnum1
12-09-2011, 09:13 AM
What legal action? Technically business cant be conducted till today at 2pm. What stern did was dick, but legal. He basically reneged on a verbal commitment.

justinnum1
12-09-2011, 09:14 AM
Paul has no case.

The Hornets are owned by every owner.

Period.

And this.

Sandman
12-09-2011, 09:14 AM
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/09/danny-granger-and-jason-richardson-tweet-out-their-frustration-over-the-league-halted-chris-paul-trade/#/2011/12/09/chris-paul-reportedly-considering-legal-action-against-league/

Basically what I got out of it is this. Paul wants to sue the NBA because if they prevent him from getting traded to LA (because at this point no teams will trade for him, due to him not willing to sign an extension, which he has every right to do), it prevents him from signing a max extension with the Lakers and thus he can ultimately lose as the article notes "30 to 40 million dollars".

Now how true that is I have no clue... just thought I should throw this out there


If this goes to court, the NBA is in trouble... not based on whether Paul wins or not, but because of the terrible publicity this is gonna get.

I don't see how he can take this angle, he's declined a contract offer from the Hornets. This isn't about losing money at all.

And sucks that the league blocked your trade. The league owns your team. :cry: about it

sb123
12-09-2011, 09:17 AM
Paul has no case. He has a contract with the Hornets and the Hornets Owners don't want to deal him. Case closed. Shut up and sit down you ego maniac.

When you are done with your contract, you can decide whatever your sweat tea arse wants. Including getting a job at McDonald's if that is what you choose.

See, this is why I rooted for the Owners to crush the players testicles in the lockout. They feel entitled to whatever they want whenever they want. Maddening.

I hope they send Paul to freaking Toronto now.

oak2455
12-09-2011, 09:23 AM
This is funny go get em CP3:rolleyes:

sb123
12-09-2011, 09:26 AM
Call me an idiot like you did if you want but I'm not the one that is attacking another poster and I'm not the one that is telling someone to educate themselves when I explained my point in what you quoted.

If you are so insecure you need to have the last word after posting to try and insult another post go ahead because you are not worth responding to again after this and I'm not going to restate in my response what someone is quoting me saying. And I'm the idiot.

You have no clue what you are saying.

harnith
12-09-2011, 09:57 AM
He needa to move on. Its called a contract Chris, you signed it. Play in New Orleans.


This has nothing to do with a contract. Chris Paul has one year left, or 66 games to play in N.O for that contract. The team traded him because he is not interested in signing an extension or resigning at the end of the contract. It is in the best interest of the N.O Hornets and the sale of the team to trade him now and get value in return.

LA get - Paul

Rockets get - Gasol

N.O get - Odom, Scola, Martin, Dragic

New Orleans would improve their team for the future. Also without it would stabilize the team and make it more appealing for a sale. Chris Paul will not be a Hornet beyond this season regardless, hornets fans know this and WANT the trade to happen. It will also destroy LA's chances at D-12 who will mostly be a Net, therefore not allowing LA a super-team, just a younger star for when Kobe leaves.

If teams agree to trade players the league has no right to impede that.

Sandman
12-09-2011, 10:04 AM
If teams agree to trade players the league has no right to impede that.

Unless the league OWNS the team.

Therefor... both teams didn't make the trade, because the Hornets' Owner did not approve the deal.

69centers
12-09-2011, 10:11 AM
Good luck with that. David Stern didn't block Paul from going to L.A. as a free agent; he blocked a trade. Big difference. No "rights" were violated.

Link (http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/shaun_powell/12/08/chris-paul/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1)

Wade>You
12-09-2011, 10:12 AM
@LarryCoon
My man 24 nailed it "The fertile area here is conflict of interest. When the league took over the team, they appointed a caretaker exactly to avoid that conflict. Now they've trumped the organization. The only way the league (and its owners) avoid a conflict argument is by keeping an arms length through a trustee or manager, and that requires autonomy."
https://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon/status/145030086100393984
https://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon/status/145030238978572288
https://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon/status/145030372202258432

harnith
12-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Unless the league OWNS the team.

Therefor... both teams didn't make the trade, because the Hornets' Owner did not approve the deal.

The entire league owns the team, including the Lakers. HOWEVER there is a GM in place. General Managers are in charge of managing the team i.e hiring/firing coaches and trainers, trading and signing players, drafting. The owners see the revenue and sit in their box. If they don't like they trade they should fire the GM not stop it from going through.

And if the Lakers are part owners and cant trade Paul to themselves, then N.O should not be allowed to trade any players or draft any players, or sign any player until they are sold. With this philosophy that would mean New Orleans has no right to add or remove any player to or from their roster.

Celticsfan2007
12-09-2011, 10:39 AM
The entire league owns the team, including the Lakers. HOWEVER there is a GM in place. General Managers are in charge of managing the team i.e hiring/firing coaches and trainers, trading and signing players, drafting. The owners see the revenue and sit in their box. If they don't like they trade they should fire the GM not stop it from going through.

And if the Lakers are part owners and cant trade Paul to themselves, then N.O should not be allowed to trade any players or draft any players, or sign any player until they are sold. With this philosophy that would mean New Orleans has no right to add or remove any player to or from their roster.

Huh?

Do you realize what you just wrote? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard...

Chronz
12-09-2011, 12:39 PM
This man. I won't support him regardless now he is another piece of work.

I hope he tries loses more money on his lawsuit and bevcomes hated.

You may not like him but more superstars should take a note or two from Dirk on what it means to be a franchise player.

Didnt Dirk say he would have gone to Miami if they asked?

3mikee_
12-09-2011, 12:45 PM
Didnt Dirk say he would have gone to Miami if they asked?

LOL I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing. And I've heard in many years before trade rumors involving Dirk and I'm almost sure that some of those rumors were based off his unhappiness with the lack of help he got in Dallas.

Back to the topic.. I love CP3, the kid has the right mentality, works super hard, plays super hard. But the fact is that he is providing the team with the option of trading him and GETTING SOMETHING IN RETURN .. he's not entirely screwing New Orleans because he was going to leave eventually anyways.

Baseball example.. I'm much more happier that Roy Halladay was actually traded for some pieces instead of us getting to see him for another losing season and just have him end up leaving at the end.

natelpete
12-10-2011, 02:55 AM
The NBA said all along, and emphasized, that they would not interfere with basketball operations.

There are people that saw this coming from a mile away when the NBA first bought the Hornets.

The NBA shouldn't be allowed to own a team

Wade>You
12-10-2011, 02:58 AM
So who determines what good value on the trade is? What if I wanted to trade Luke Ridnour for Chris Paul straight up? Should that be allowed to happen since the NBA can't interfere with basketball operations?It's quite simple, actually: their GM, Dell Demps.

And if he wants to work in the NBA in the future and not go down as the biggest dumb--- to ever GM, he won't trade Chris Paul for Luke Ridnour.

See ^.

Wade>You
12-10-2011, 03:04 AM
I'd also like to add that anyone with common sense in the Hornets basketball operations would probably fire Dell Demps before they let him trade Chris Paul for Luke Ridnour. That proposal would never make it to the league's office.

Sactown
12-10-2011, 03:05 AM
http://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon/status/145379451889401856
LOL@THIS

ink
12-10-2011, 04:13 AM
http://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon/status/145379451889401856
LOL@THIS

Larry Coon needs to read something other than old CBAs as a hobby.

Method28
12-10-2011, 05:03 AM
As a Hornets fan....Im pissed this trade did not go through.

It hurts us in the long run and honestly CP3 SHOULD sue their ***. Will he win? No, probably not. But the sheer embarrasment and hassle would make the NBA think twice about doing stuff like this. Im sure his real reason is not the money....just as the owners real reason was not what they said. Its just an excuse to do it.

Go CP3...break Sterns ankles on a different type of court.

ink
12-10-2011, 05:12 AM
As a Hornets fan....Im pissed this trade did not go through.

It hurts us in the long run and honestly CP3 SHOULD sue their ***. Will he win? No, probably not. But the sheer embarrasment and hassle would make the NBA think twice about doing stuff like this. Im sure his real reason is not the money....just as the owners real reason was not what they said. Its just an excuse to do it.

Go CP3...break Sterns ankles on a different type of court.

As a Hornets fan you would have gotten a couple of guys close to being past their prime and another that won't play D. You're lucky. If you're losing Paul you need to rebuild not re-tool with guys that won't be with the team in 2 years.

Fool
12-10-2011, 05:14 AM
Trade isn't dead...

amos1er
12-10-2011, 05:34 AM
Its not Paul's place to sue...However, the Lakers should sue Stern's ***.

Here are the facts...

- Stern is the League commissioner and has a vested interest to do whats best for the NBA

- The NBA owns the Hornets and therefore Stern as League commissioner vetos a trade that would piss off small market owners; which would be a better business move for the league in his eyes.


Uhhhhhhhh. Ever heard of conflict of interest people, because thats exactly what this is. If the Lakers sue Stern, they will win for sure because its pretty obvious that Stern only nixed this trade because he has conflicting interests in the betterment of the NBA and therefore should not be able to nix a trade for no good reason, especially when the teams GM and FO had already ok'd it. This is plain as day, and I expect that the trade will go through and Stern will not be able to do anything about it because he is in the wrong.

Method28
12-10-2011, 06:35 AM
As a Hornets fan you would have gotten a couple of guys close to being past their prime and another that won't play D. You're lucky. If you're losing Paul you need to rebuild not re-tool with guys that won't be with the team in 2 years.

While i agree to a certain point...my main concern is for the teams overall wellness right NOW.

NOLA is NOT in a situation to have a crappy bball team. Fans hardly attend now with CP3...you think they'd go watch a team with CP3 gone and getting nothing in return. Im thinking this might be the end for the team in NO. Thats why im worried.

I was hoping that while the players we'd get back were not gna make us a contender...maybe they good keep us afloat. But if we dont get something in return for CP3....NO ONE will watch and this team will be gone.