I've lasted on this forum a lot longer than that despite all the panty waste like you three.
It is panty waist, and what 3?
I've lasted on this forum a lot longer than that despite all the panty waste like you three.
I've lasted on this forum a lot longer than that despite all the panty waste like you three.
Lol, how many pages deep do you want me to go? Nothing on the first page was a reputable news organization.
Lol, nobody asked you to get into the specifics of which players have it better or worse, the point is that the owner has a lot of power over them.
Please try to follow. I know it's hard for you, but try.
I've lasted on this forum a lot longer than that despite all the panty waste like you three.
ES, the market will decide what is appropriate and what isn't. Capitalism. Free market. All is fair until the organization deems it too costly for image and bottom line.
I thought "panty waste" was pretty clever, even though it was probably accidental cleverness.
In that case, +1.Lol, it was intentional. Much more appropriate description for these guys.
The NBA knew this could spread to a league wide boycott.ES, the market will decide what is appropriate and what isn't. Capitalism. Free market. All is fair until the organization deems it too costly for image and bottom line.
Oh so you didn't like what they said? Therefore they are not reputable?
As much power as the negotiated contract that the players and owners agreed upon.
BOOM!
So who is picking on you?Lol, it was intentional. Much more appropriate description for these guys.
Lol, no, other than fox news, I have never heard of them before.
Which is a lot of power for the team over the players. I don't see how you think this is a strong argument.
Then you lead a sheltered uneducated life.
A contract the the player and his agent agree upon and sign with the owners. Can't get much stronger than that.
Finally, you admit the obvious. The power that they have over the players and staff is very strong indeed.
Which is why this incident and the others brings his ability to fairly run the team into question.
I rest my case.
Which is a lot of power for the team over the players. I don't see how you think this is a strong argument.
A contract the the player and his agent agree upon and sign with the owners. Can't get much stronger than that.
Dumb de Dumb Dumb DUMB!
Comprehension problems are strong in this one they are.
Again ES? How many times do you have to be told that not agreeing you with is not an issue of comprehension.
Flailing again he is...
![]()