Re: Baker on ESPN last night

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

They couldn't be more direct because there isn't an alcohol clause in the CBA, so all they could do was set up the unable to perform base building. Which you do not know was not specified in the agreement, and probably was, since they are attacking the accuracy of it, not the validity of it. While per all reports the union DID sign off on it, with even Billy Hunter admitting as much with his most recent spin on the subject "well we sort of went along with it", without his ever saying why he did that instead of living up to the moral stance he now takes about responsibility to the player.

It's not about whether the union has a legitimate complaint. It's about how the arbitrator views things. Unfortunately, those don't have to correspond.
Kim

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas342@xxxxxxx
Sent: Feb 25, 2004 1:57 PM
To: celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Baker on ESPN last night

   Jim, I ertainly don't take issue with anything you say.  What astonishes me is that all these lawyers drafted documents, but the union STILL might well have a legitimate complaint.  Any and all (now THERE'S a legalese phrase for you)agreements should have been specific as to the connection between it and the CBA and, even better, had the union acknowledge te agreement or being on record as not wanting to take a position despite being asked to do so.