okay, lets look at it like this commissioner=boss coach=mananger players=employeesThe boss has power over all, the organiztion is ran by them, they have the right to make rules.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jan 21 2007, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The owners of the team's are who pay the players. It is THEIR right, not the commisioners, to tell the players what they can do off the court. They are the ones giving them the money, and the players are playing for the owners, not the comissioner. And how do you know that owners of big corporations can tell their employees not to do something like going out to a night club. As long as it doesn't affect them at work, the owners shouldnt have any right in telling the employees what to do outside of work, or in the players case, the games. It is their own life, and they should be able to live how they want to. Now, if they by some chance get shot at a night club, it is their responsibility, not the owners or the commisioners. The players are going there at their own risk. They arent on the job while they are there, so the commisioner should have no say in what goes on in their personal life. Even if it did affect the players play or something to that sort, its not Stern that would do something about it, it would be the coach or owner.</div>Yes, the owners pay the players, but the commissioner pays the owners and basically allows them to own the teams. The owners are the bosses of the players, but Stern is also the boss of the owners, in a way. It's hard to explain, but think of it this way... the players have their players union... the owners don't necessarily have an "owners union," but just as Billy Hunter is the president of the players union, Stern is the president and presides over the owners. He has to approve every move an owner makes in regards to their organization. Not only that, but he also pays the owners a portion of the revenue the NBA makes...Good point in the second paragraph, but I wasn't solely speaking about banning employees from certain night clubs. And yes, they can tell their employees to not engage in activities they deem dangerous, because in a sense they are protecting their investments. It makes even more sense when you look at it in professional sports. The owners invest in the players, and Stern invests in the owners and the players, so they are all just looking to protect their investments. The NFL includes clauses in their contracts to prohibit dangerous activities (look at Ben Roethlisberger and the motorcycle accident, etc.)... so it's not really unprecedented.Another interesting thought that came to my mind (not really dealing with our little discussion here), was that there are a lot of people who don't like this move, but they are the same people that say "players should stop acting like thugs, carrying guns, etc." Well, if this rule isn't put into place, how else are the players supposed to protect themselves? If this rule isn't put into place, then nobody should be criticizing the players for carrying guns or any sort of weapon (and using it in self defense, of course)... not Stern, not the owners, not the coaches, not the media, and not the fans... because professional athletes are probably in more danger than your average person when they go out somewhere at night, and they also have the right to bear arms and protect themselves if the situation calls for it.
If the NBA is banning players from clubs what to stop them from banning them from anywhere else? Going to the club is as much a right as going to your home, to a starbucks or a library. Stern is insane. Get this guy out.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jan 22 2007, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The NFL includes clauses in their contracts to prohibit dangerous activities (look at Ben Roethlisberger and the motorcycle accident, etc.)... so it's not really unprecedented.</div>That is completely different. These terms are agreed on to the player's liking. If the NBA just institues a league wide ban of local clubs your denying them basic rights. This whole thing is a joke and no one would even be close to agreeing with this if it wasnt the NBA. Its just total BS
This is dumb. Celticballa made a good point in saying that bad things could happen anywhere, not just in night clubs. He doesn't own these guys. They should be allowed to do anything they want in their free time as long as it's not illegal.
So what will it take for Stern to be out.. the owners? If that's the case then I don't see that happening until players start protesting or something. I mean Stern is about making money and he's making these owners money. The only way I see owners getting Stern out is if you get more Mark Cubans in this league.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheFamily24 @ Jan 22 2007, 09:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So what will it take for Stern to be out.. the owners? If that's the case then I don't see that happening until players start protesting or something. I mean Stern is about making money and he's making these owners money. The only way I see owners getting Stern out is if you get more Mark Cubans in this league.</div>But even Mark Cuban has been quiet this entire season... surprisingly, he has lived up to his pledge of not going after Stern... and for him that is quite the task. Again, he's not banning them from all clubs period, he's going to do his research and produce a list of clubs and/or night spots that have a history of danger for professional athletes. Hey, the players can still go there and pay the fine... just think of it as a cover charge of a few-thousand dollars.
