NBA法律顧問的說法! - 紐約尼克 New York Knicks

Insights into the Lin decision


http://ppt.cc/6EfC


I spoke with NBA players' association Deputy General Counsel, Ron Klempner ,
to get some insights into Friday's decision regarding Bird and early Bird
rights for players claimed off waivers, which granted those rights to Jeremy
Lin and Steve Novak . Here are highlights of the conversation:

這是記者跟球員工會法律顧問Ron Klempner對於決定給於LIN跟NOVAK的談話


Q: There was a lot of surprise about the decision. Were you?

Klempner: No, definitely not. I think that [the arbitrator] basically did
what I've been saying for quite some time, and that was his conclusion, which
is that this was incontrovertibly the state of that rule from 1995 to 2005.
The reason we brought this proceeding is because we didn't think that we had
intended to change what was in place that whole time. We think the language
change was not substantive, so that's why we brought this proceeding, and he
had confirmed what we had been saying.


Q:"這是個包含很多驚喜的決定 是吧?


K:"不 不盡然是 我認為仲裁員基本上只是做了我已經說了很多次的事 而他的結論


就是這個規則從95年到05年是不可辯解的 我們會帶來這個訴訟的理由是


因為我們不認為我們企圖改變的那規則是正確的 我們認為聯盟不是絕對的


這就是為甚麼我們帶來這場官司


I knew [the ruling] was a high burden to overcome, but if we were going to
overcome it, it would be because we were able to show him that [the league]
could have and should have done this a lot more clearly. I thought our
argument went very well. I thought that [the arbitrator] understood the
arguments, so it doesn't really surprise me. The word that I had gotten that
many various observers didn't think that we had much of a chance to win this.
We always thought that was the right result and we thought that we could make
the arbitrator recognize that.


"我知道這個裁決是個很難成功的 但如果我們成功了 這將可以展現是聯盟是可以


去做並且做得更清楚些(應該是說聯盟的規則吧) 我認為我們的辯護人做得很好


我想仲裁員他...可以理解辯護人(難道這是NOVAK@@!?) 所以這真的沒嚇到我


我曾詢問過各種的專家 每個都不認為我們有機會可以贏


我們始終認為這個結果是正確的 而且我們可以使仲裁員認可我們!


Q: Many insiders and salary-cap experts said the players' union wouldn't win.
Also, David Stern said previously that the league would likely win the case
because it had been addressed previously during negotations. Your thoughts?

Klempner: That's incorrect. This was not an issue that was discussed at all
during the negotiations. The treatment of a waived player who's claimed off
of waivers was not discussed in this new round of CBA negotiations. David I
guess was incorrect in his prediction that he made during his Finals press
conference.


Q:很多薪資帽專家都說球員工會不會贏得這場官司 屎藤也說聯盟會贏得這場官司


因為這個以前就以已經討論過並解決了 你認為呢?



K:這是不對的 這以前不是個被討論然後解決的議題 在新的CBA中並沒有談論被揮棄


的球員能不能拿到鳥權 我想史藤他的預言是錯的(屎藤去旁邊哭哭不要來亂ˋˇˊ)



Q: In basic terms, what was the argument from the union's side?

Klempner: The Knicks shouldn't have to go and break up their team. That's
part of what the soft-cap system is about. The team should always have
maximum ability to retain their own players. And the question for these guys
is: How strong would the Knicks' ability be to go and keep them in light of
their market value? And I think in layman's terms, it basically means that
the Knicks can keep these players if they so desire. And if they and the
players want that resolved, that was pretty much the intention of our
agreement.


Q:工會是以甚麼角度去辯護的呢?


K:"尼克不應該去拆散他的球隊 這就是彈性薪資空間的作用


這個隊伍一直都想盡最大的可能去留下他們的球員 這個問題對於其他球隊也是一樣


尼克有多大的能耐可以用自由市場的價格去保持住他的球員們?


用通俗的說法就是 這個基本上認定尼克可以保留住他的球員 只要他們渴望這麼做


只要他們跟他們的球員很堅決的想要這個規則 這對於我們的辯護員是最好的意義


We were arguing the spirit of the rule as much as we were arguing the
language, which is that players who move teams, not by choice, should not
have to start over with their Bird rights. They shouldn't forfeit their
valuable Bird rights, and that was a spirit that we thought was since the
inception of the rule in 1995 and it should still exist today. Lin and Novak
did not have a choice as to where it is they were going to play once their
teams effectively cast them off or placed them waivers. If they had a chance
to go and pick their teams, then clearly their Bird Rights would start fresh.
We thought we had the higher ground on the policy and we feel like this was
the right result.

"我們跟聯盟辯論了這個規則的本質 球員轉隊若非出於個人選擇，


鳥權就不應該重算


(就是說不應該是只有交易才可以有鳥權) 他們(球員)不應該喪失他們的鳥權


這就是我們認為這個規則的本質 林跟NOVAK就是沒那個選擇的人


如果他們有選擇去挑選他們的球隊 他們的鳥權計算必須重新算起


我們認為我們應該要有更好的規定 這就是我們所感覺的正確的結果


Q: How long will the eligibility of Bird and early Bird rights last for
future players claimed off waivers?


Klempner: It's indefinite. There could be something different moving forward,
and we'll know that soon. But right now, it's indefinite. The appeal would go
to an appeals panel of three arbitrators, who the the two parties [the union
and league] would have to select. The players' association believes the
appeal from the league will not be resolved by July 1, the start of free
agency, so as of now the union has won the case.


Q:你認為這個鳥權跟早鳥資格多久後會出現在未來的球員身上


K:這是不確定的 我們都知道會很快 但現在是不確定的 這個案子將會上訴到


委員會 聯盟跟工會都要做出選擇 球員工會相信聯盟想要上訴這件事在7/1號前是不


會被解決的 所以現在工會贏了!!





心得:只有一個禮拜 聯盟想上訴還要敲定聽證會和一堆有的沒的 屎藤 你來得及嗎>.^?



--
─∥ ─── ◣ =◥"◥’． ∵ ◆∥ ψsherry821224 ──────────────
∥ ◤ ◥ ◤ ◥ ∥ ◤ ◢◤\ ◣◥ Teammates don't
∥ ╱ ∥◤￣◣ ﹍◣∥◤￣╲∥ ╱∥◤￣╲ ▼‵､λ﹀▼▼ play with each
∥◆◇ ∥ ∥∥◣∥ ∥╱ ∥◣＿ ─-.╳ ︶- other, they play
∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥ ∥ ╲ ◥∥▲ ρ\ `, ▲▲ FOR each other.
─∥ ╲ ∥ ∥∥ ∥◣＿╱∥ ╲╲＿◢∥ ◥ | ◢────────…‥．

--