Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLBPA files grievance against MLB for not acting in good faith during pandemic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MLBPA files grievance against MLB for not acting in good faith during pandemic

    They seek up to 500M in compensation. They are alleging MLB did not make a good fair effort to schedule as many games as possible with the agreed to pro-rated salaries. This could dynamite the upcoming CBA talks.

    https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/sta...873451010?s=19
    Last edited by spanishsox; 05-14-2021, 10:37 AM.

  • #2
    It's the opening salvo.

    And they may have a case, MLB themselves suggested last year a schedule of over 60 games...of course to do that they wanted the players to take more salary cuts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lipman 1 View Post
      It's the opening salvo.

      And they may have a case, MLB themselves suggested last year a schedule of over 60 games...of course to do that they wanted the players to take more salary cuts.
      Predicting the outcome of litigation has lower odds than betting a single number on a Roulette Wheel or getting struck by lightning five times in one week.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dumpjerry View Post

        Predicting the outcome of litigation has lower odds than betting a single number on a Roulette Wheel or getting struck by lightning five times in one week.
        Please note: "And they may have a case", nothing definitive in my comment at least that I can see. But it is a fact and you can be sure the arbiter will notice when the MLBPA brings up the fact widely reported and commented on, that the owners WERE willing to play more than 60 games but only if the players took more salary cuts.

        My own personal opinion, if this goes to the panel, we know how the rep for the owners and players union will vote and based on the published evidence I don't see how the third member can vote for the owners. I don't think, based on what I've read, they have a leg to stand on again and will get zapped for their stupidity.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lipman 1 View Post

          Please note: "And they may have a case", nothing definitive in my comment at least that I can see. But it is a fact and you can be sure the arbiter will notice when the MLBPA brings up the fact widely reported and commented on, that the owners WERE willing to play more than 60 games but only if the players took more salary cuts.

          My own personal opinion, if this goes to the panel, we know how the rep for the owners and players union will vote and based on the published evidence I don't see how the third member can vote for the owners. I don't think, based on what I've read, they have a leg to stand on again and will get zapped for their stupidity.
          The threshhold for showing someone "may have a case" is very low. It is prima facie. That is a far cry from Preponderance which is the burden of proof in the end. Sorry to get all legal mumbo jumbo, but, as a lawyer, I go crazy when people (I'm NOT looking at you Lip, this is a general statement) use Dick Wolf as their source of legal education.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dumpjerry View Post

            The threshhold for showing someone "may have a case" is very low. It is prima facie. That is a far cry from Preponderance which is the burden of proof in the end. Sorry to get all legal mumbo jumbo, but, as a lawyer, I go crazy when people (I'm NOT looking at you Lip, this is a general statement) use Dick Wolf as their source of legal education.
            No offense taken. I think proving in this case is fairly easy given the published comments on the matter from Manfred himself.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Lipman 1 View Post

              No offense taken. I think proving in this case is fairly easy given the published comments on the matter from Manfred himself.
              If I had a Nickle every time someone expressed that level of optimism about public statements made a party and it was disregarded because the trier of fact read it differently, you would be criticising my front office skiils because I would have enough money to buy out Uncle Jerry.

              An easy example is "I shot the Clerk" from My Cousin Vinny.

              Comment

              Working...
              X