Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV No. This is: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-causes-of-action-bad-faith/ Here's a question: Can either Randers or Yura sue RSL for acting in bad faith and win? If the answer is "no" then it is not bad faith, it is something else. Randers did nothing unethical in signing Yura. Yura did nothing unethical in signing with Randers. The rules say six months before the contract expires and they did that. Randers did nothing unethical in making an offer to RSL. RSL did nothing unethical in making a high counter-offer. I forgot about Yura's family situation (the baby). I will make one observation: RSL has one more than one occasion waived or released a player from his contract because of family or professional issues. These incidents were not played out in the media beforehand.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV You used "bad faith". Do6 suggested "impasse". Your comeback was "sorry - euphemism". I'm still waiting for your facts that RSL is trying to inflict damage to Yura, not your assertions, insinuations or other diversions. You seem to have trouble distinguishing.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Agreed. On one hand it can be bad to upset an agent, expecially when three - McCabe, Yorks, Motzkin - control most of the league. However, these guys are poker players and will come back to the table time and time again if it's in their players best interest. Read about some of the disputes McCabe has had with other teams in the past over negotiations and you'll find this to be true. However, RSL also has to worry about giving in to a players demands, and must worry about "their best interest", not simply what a player wants.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Go re-read the post. "impasse" = euphemism. Was sorry Do6 disagreed. ...I'm still all ears. And I have all day.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Do you think Randers wanted to sign Yura come January though? The problem I see is that if Yura had waited that long, the window for him to go to Europe might have passed (cant say for sure either way though I know). While Randers might have said they wanted to "wait" for Yura, it was very obvious that they wanted him NOW (july), but werent going to spend over a mil to get him...
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV WTF? Who said this? Bad faith--like any bad behavior--can exist whether it can (or can not) be proven inside a U.S. court of law. C'mon now. Do6, I trust you're a better referee than you are logician. BTW, still all ears. Tic toc, tic toc...
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Bad faith - definition: Lack of honesty or trust, such as to knowingly misrepresent a thing or situation as what it is not in reality. Now prove it.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV The inconsistency on this thread is killing me. What happened to all of you who were earlier saying, "We know Yura's leaving, so why play him? I would sit him and play some of the other guys who need to see the field. Let's build on the future." Well, now that we're doing that, the same people are using it to call the organization a bunch of idiots. It's laughable, really.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Re-read my posts above. I've already given the 6-8 specific reasons why it wasn't in RSL's best interest to forgo the cash for Yura last week. I'm not going to re-type them again for the slow. Just scroll up. Am I wrong? If so, how? <--serious question. WHY WAS IT IN RSL'S INTEREST TO REJECT THE CASH? So far I'll I've gotten is your prissy & defensive "trust Garth" rubbish. Or Do6's mind-numbingly OT faux legal babble. Bottom line: I'm more interested in RSL's future health than I am Garth's. Maybe you're too close to him. We have no problem benching Yura. That's another question altogether. But if you do, for God's sake take the money & wash your hands! Really bizarre conversations today. Not impressed...fellow RSL supporters. C'mon now.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Those reasons support the argument that it may have been a smarter decision to take the deal (of which we have no concrete details of). However, your claim was that the team used "bad faith" and is trying to "inflict damage" on Yura. None of the reasons you pointed out support that. If you'd like to backtrack now, please do so. If not, please support your claim. Tic toc... I've not been defending Garth in this. I've only pointed out you have totally dismissed his claims, and totally embraced the agents claims. Are you too close to McCabe? I've talked to both about this, and I think both of them are feeding me spin. Which is why I'm interested in more factual evidence. To me - Yura is the key - although he obviously will have his own bias. He may help to unlock some doors. P.S. We are not so far off on the "wash your hands" thinking.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Repeat again your 6-8 reasons why it's in RSL's interest? Because I haven't heard one yet. Thought so.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV So this one time I was hanging out on the pier watching an old guy fish for sharks. He had all sorts of fishing line - different weights, spools, hooks - and it was all fancy and new, except for the rod, which was bamboo, and the reel, which was nonexistent. And he had a bucket full of chum, but it was illegal to toss chum into the water from the pier, so he pretended it was bait whenever some officers of the law walked by. Down below the pier, one the beach, some girls were sunbathing, but it kind of smelled because of the chum. My firends and I walked down there to say hi to the girls, but I think they smelled the chum on us (we'd been with the old guy for awhile). Didn't go over well.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV I fiugre that my post has as much chance of being mutually understood by you and rslfm as what you're tossign at each other, so why not!? We're in talking-past-each-other mode for sure now.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV When I start making claims. I'll be glad to back them up.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV +1 "You must spread some rep........." I feel like we need to bring back the 'he said / she said' feature from day's past..... or maybe just get a room and work it out.......
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Please stay on topic here... haha. I guess you could say that RSL is coming out smelling like chum on this one to me.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV Maybe I should move it out of this thread and start a new thread?
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV How is RSL coming out smelling like chum on this one? Is it bad to want a player to uphold his contract? Is it bad to expect a certain price for how you value your assets/players? I think Yura is the one who is coming out smelling like chum on this one. In fact, I think he's been bathing in the chum. He went to Randers without letting RSL know, signed a pre-contract, and took a picture with their kit. Sure, he was free to do so due to contract requirements, but he did so thinking RSL would just let him go without a fight. He didn't go there with the thought, "Man, this will be nice in January.", he went there thinking, "Man, this will be nice in August." Yura planned on forcing his way out of the contract early, and now that it's backfired on him, he doesn't see it as a problem he caused. It's the same thing as Boozer, or Beckham, etc. Go talk with another team, make them seem your priority, and when you get back to the place you are contracted there won't be any repercussions. I don't think Yura saw himself riding the pine the rest of the season when he went to Randers. Personally, I'd do the exact same thing if I were Garth. Show the players that you own the contracts, not them. Let them know, and future players, that you won't be bullied out of contracts, and you expect them to live up to theirs. I'd bench Yura the rest of the season, and keep him out of the locker room. He's shown he wants to be somewhere else, so let him be somewhere else: a spectator. That is, until Randers offers what would be a fair value for your player.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV The underlying issue is that RSL and Yura have a binding contract and Randers and Yura have a binding contract. Into this you introduced a legal term that has a specific meaning with regards to business and contract law. If you want to communicate clearly you must use the applicable definition or use another term. Back to an earlier post: As I have already shown, this is not the very definition of "bad faith." It is however, a near perfect definition of "spite." It may even fit the situation.
Re: 2009 RSL In-Season News Thread, Part IV There is a Japanese restaurant I used to go to. It had the low tables, paper walls, traditional music, the atmospere was great. Suppose I was seated and as I was calmly placing my order, I stood up, lit a torch and started waving it around. It wouldn't matter what I ordered, they would not listen. All they care about is putting out that damn torch before the place goes down in flames. If I keep waving it around it's a sure thing there will be a conflagration. "Bad faith" is a torch that anyone involved in business contracts understands. By continuing to wave it about your other points become secondary until the "bad faith" issue is put to bed. If you would have said that Randers and RSL had reached an impasse and it was dumb on RSL's part to be so rigid, or if you would have said that RSL was cutting of its nose to spite its face the conversation would have gone in a different direction. I'm almost positive that some people who are arguing against you would be agreeing with you. If you can't prove bad faith as it is understood by business people or find a more suitable term, you can forget about any response to your how-ever-many points. "Bad faith" trumps "bad business decisions."
Anybody else catch JK's explanation on the coaches show regarding Yura? Basically injury worsened and sickness this past weekend..... Ugh..... I'm not buying this naive explanation to the fans. Sorry.