PDA

View Full Version : Bud stalled again


Daver
01-19-2002, 12:30 PM
I think this judje in Minnesota just doesn't like him.


http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0119/1314019.html

SOXSINCE'70
01-19-2002, 12:46 PM
:gulp: I doubt anything major will come of this,but it's good to see courts of law telling MLB "You say you're in dire straits,well SHOW US!!" :gulp:

czalgosz
01-19-2002, 01:10 PM
I still don't see how a county judge in Minnesota can stop a business owner from shutting down his business...

Paulwny
01-19-2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I still don't see how a county judge in Minnesota can stop a business owner from shutting down his business...

I found this, don't really know if it's the answer.


Q: Speaking of the Twins and Expos, what part of the exemption deals with contraction?

A: By eliminating teams, the owners would eventually be sharing their revenues among fewer partners. While contraction might be a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- baseball's permanent arbitrator Shyam Das is currently hearing the Players' Association grievance on this issue -- and perhaps even labor law, the exemption makes it impossible for such a move to be considered an antitrust violation.

If the exemption is removed and there is a challenge, the owners -- as in every antitrust case -- will have to prove that their action to eliminate teams is somehow better for the competitive business of the sport. A plaintiff challenging contraction, in an antitrust suit, would allege that contraction constitutes an agreement among all the teams in the league to limit output (two fewer teams to watch) and limit competition (28 instead of 30 teams competing for the same players). And the plaintiff would argue that the anticompetitive effects exceed any positive effects on competition. If they are successful, the agreement would violate the Sherman Act that prohibits unreasonable restraint of trade.

czalgosz
01-19-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


I found this, don't really know if it's the answer.


Q: Speaking of the Twins and Expos, what part of the exemption deals with contraction?

A: By eliminating teams, the owners would eventually be sharing their revenues among fewer partners. While contraction might be a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- baseball's permanent arbitrator Shyam Das is currently hearing the Players' Association grievance on this issue -- and perhaps even labor law, the exemption makes it impossible for such a move to be considered an antitrust violation.

If the exemption is removed and there is a challenge, the owners -- as in every antitrust case -- will have to prove that their action to eliminate teams is somehow better for the competitive business of the sport. A plaintiff challenging contraction, in an antitrust suit, would allege that contraction constitutes an agreement among all the teams in the league to limit output (two fewer teams to watch) and limit competition (28 instead of 30 teams competing for the same players). And the plaintiff would argue that the anticompetitive effects exceed any positive effects on competition. If they are successful, the agreement would violate the Sherman Act that prohibits unreasonable restraint of trade.

No, if they were suing over the antitrust exemption, then it would be held in federal court, not a local court.

I believe the company that runs the Metrodome is suing the Twins for breach of contract. The judge's response - to issue an order that the Twins must play the 2002 season - was both unusual and premature, especially as it was not officially announced that the Twins were contracting.

Daver
01-19-2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


No, if they were suing over the antitrust exemption, then it would be held in federal court, not a local court.

I believe the company that runs the Metrodome is suing the Twins for breach of contract. The judge's response - to issue an order that the Twins must play the 2002 season - was both unusual and premature, especially as it was not officially announced that the Twins were contracting.

Maybe the judge is a season ticket holder. :smile: