Re: Olden deal

["Greg Odegaard" <gmodegaa@longvred.rmc.com>]

Shawn and others as the articled noted, the Polynice contract is not a
victory for the owners is may in fact me a first nail in the coffin.  In
effect the Polynice deal had a clause regarding the status of a strike or
lockout (along with possibly Kemp), because maybe only 2 out of hundreds of
contracts had this clause, it makes every contract possibly binding
regardless of the lockout.  The article stated that the league reviews and
approves every contract and they should have caught this clause, thereby
putting into place the players argument of some kind of precedent deal. 
They argue this and the state of all baseball contracts that do cover the
matter.

It is hard to completely explain, but the clause in one deal, approved by
the league, could likely make all other contracts current regardless of the
lockout.  The owners will likely have to pay, even with an appeal, IMO.

Greg
----------
> From: Shawn Roth <ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net>
> To: celtics@igtc.com
> Subject: Re: Stop the (reefer) madness!
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:40 AM
> 
>   I did hear another B-ball related note this morning.  It sounds like
the
>   hearings about paying guarented contracts during the lockout could be
going
>   the owners way.  A clause in Olden Polynice (sp?) contract denies him
pay
>   during a lockout.  I'm not exactly sure the whole story, but it sounded
like
>   a small victory for the owners.  So it sounds like the lockout may
continue.
> 
>   Well, everybody have a good day!
> 
> Shawn