The Messenger said:
No offense to you intended but IMG has hired Jim Quinn considered one of the best anti-trust lawyers in the USA and his expertise is in CBA challenges as he has been involved for the PA in NFL, NBA and MLB .. SO he is no rookie here ..
You are taking on the TOP GUN here .. If the case would be so easily disputed as you make out then I doubt that they would be bring on this challenge ..
And the league has their own high priced legal talent and much deeper pockets.
Quinn will test the CBA and special clauses and player contract restrictions on many levels .. If IMG is willing to pay Quinn and fight this is court, that clearly tells me that considering the costs alone that they feel they have a better then average case here ..
But there is a big difference between fighting this in court and posturing in public for bargaining leverage, which is all that IMG is doing right now. Let's see if they ever take this into court - especially after a new CBA is agreed to.
Sorry but if I had to bet money mine would be on Quinn and IMG here ..
Personally I believe the flaw in your logic falls in the standard players contract .. I fully support that things caried forward from an old CBA to new is covered in transition rules, however that means that current existing contracts would be subject to this only, becasue if you like they are in transition from old to new CBA, and since they are guaranteed the expiry of a CBA does not void the player contract..
Future signed player contracts are not subject to transition rules just the base new CBA .. Reason being the 24% rollback will appear in transition rules as well and all players with valid contracts or RFA will have their salaries lowered by that amount because their contracts say so. So if they vote in a new CBA they are aware of this ... However when a team signs a UFA in the future to a valid players contract say Palffy under the new CBA his contract is not subject to the 24% rollback ..
Thus the theory that transition rules are not applicable to new contracts just old established ones ..Since you can't pick and chose what rules to apply to a contract and which not to.
If Carter is ruled a UFA then he is no different the Palffy in this point being made here . .
Sure, you can pick and choose what rules apply to a contract and which not to - as long as those rules are agreed to by the league and the PA (the player's/draftee's legal bargaining agent). Just look at the ELS rules - they apply to some contracts, not to others. Look at RFA restrictions - they apply to some players, not to others.
But Carter is different than Palffy. Even if Carter were a UFA, he could be subjected to different rules under the CBA than Ziggy - the ELS limits. There is no legal reason why they could not be treated differently in other respects, as long as all players in the same class (unsigned 2003 draftees) were treated the same.
The bottom line is that the court challenge does not come down to any specific term or transition rule of the CBA, but to the basic question of what law applies, and the courts have held that under the umbrella of a negotiated CBA, labor law and the NLRA take precedence over anti trust law.