The NBA is not my favorite sport. In no particular order, I prefer the following sporting events to the NBA - MLB, NFL, Golf Majors, College Football, International Football (soccer), Association Football (soocer), the Olympics (both Winter and Summer), Tennis Majors, March Madness, and NCAA La Crosse. Just kidding on last one.
Even in my teens, when the Sonics were good and the Mariners and Seahawks sucked (See 1992 Seahawks Team for a laugh), I was more into the Mariners and Seahawks. It isn't like I am unfamilar with Derek McKey and Michael Cage, but I could rattle off a long list of Seattle athletes I like better than Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, and Jim McIlvane.
As to why I do not like the NBA that is another story for another day, needless to say whether the Sonics return to Seattle or not isn't really something I am all jazzed about (For the record, 10 years in SoCal and I'm not about the Lakers and Clippers). Honestly, I do not care that much.
The Seattle ownership group has offered a ridiculous amount of money to the Maloof family. In a perfect market, the Maloofs would sell the team in a heartbeat for this amount of money. It is literally a deal they cannot refuse. Further, and unless the Sacramento group matches the offer all the other league owners benefit. If a team in Seattle is worth $625 million, a team in Los Angeles, even a shitty one like the Clippers is worth at least $1 billion. (I shudder to think what the Yankees or Cowboys would be worth in this market). In essence this offer probably makes every other ownership group in the United States and Canada wealthier.
So this begs the question as to why the NBA would block a sale which makes them wealthier in an instant? I do not know the answer. One possible answer is the NBA is creating a bidding war, hoping the offers will get higher and higher, perhaps increasing the value of their teams even more. I think that the former is a side benefit. The real answer is control.
Unlike most businesses, an owner of a North American sports franchise cannot move the team unilaterally. The players they employ are acquired via a draft. They monopolize the venues they play in (and don't pay for). An owner cannot sell a franchise to whoever they want. And even better, these leagues have largely figured out how to have our Universities pick up the tab for player development (mainly football, but all sports draft a lot of college player - this is completely unheard of in Europe in all sports).
One doesn't need to be on Harvard Law Review (University of San Diego, non law review is sufficient) to figure out this seems like an anti-trust problem.
Wow, that was a long introduction, but I'm going to try to make some legal sense of the whole situation in a few parts. Our discourse is sports law starts over 90 years ago in a Supreme Court opninion by the great Oliver Wendell Holmes. It is probably the worst SCOTUS opinion this side of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
The opinion is Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National of Professional Baseball Clubs et. al.
The jist of the opinion was professional baseball was not interstate commerce so it was exempt from anti-trust laws. In 1919 (three years before this opinion), there was an famous "trade" of a certain player between a team in New York and a team in Massachusetts. This sale was for $125,000, not even chump change now, let alone in 1919. And at that time, teams played against each other against teams in other states, and even played in something called the World Series. The players got paid. The Philadelphia A's won three World Series between 1910-1914. However, their owner the immortal Connie Mack decided his players were too expensive, and decided to re-build with a younger team. Does that sound familar? Marlins fans can take solace that Mack after 15 years built another dynasty and the A's appeared in consecutively in the 1929, 1930, and 1931 World Series winning it twice.
Long story short - Professional sports is interstate commerce.
Next, we are going to skip ahead a few years to Jim McIlvane's best friend, free agency.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
May 1, 2013 - Killers Concert Review
I've been a Killers fan since their debut in 2005, however until last night I had not seen them live in concert. Perhaps the most bizarre part of the concert, was when I was walking in, they had just taken the stage and were playing "Mr. Brightside" as their first song with the lights on. Never seen that before.
After that, the lights went down as is normal and the show proceeded. The band sounded great all across the board - They played with a lot of energy, and I was very impressed with Bradon Flowers stage presence, he was able to keep the crowd engaged and really seemed to enjoy performing and not there just to cash his quite large paycheck.
The set list had 19 songs. The inclusion of "Jenny was a Friend of Mine" as the first encore was a pleasant surprise. I was sort of expecting "All these Things That I've Done" to be an encore (it was the last song of the main set) largely because it has an "encore-ish" feel to it - I can't really explain what an "encore-ish" feel is except to analogize to my many Depeche Mode concerts.
To the best of my knowledge "Everything Counts" has been the final encore for the vast majority of Depeche Mode concerts since the Music for the Masses tour. While it is a great song, it doesn't crack my top ten list of any DM song list, perhaps not even top 20. It does however have sort of an "epic" (maybe the more appropriate musical term is anthemic) feel both in its pace, arrangement and lyrics. The chorus especially is great to sing a long to. So I think it makes sense to end a concert with an energetic song like that, where the entire crowd can sing "The grabbing hands, grab all they can, all for themselves afterall, Everything Counts in Large Amounts......" And since they have been doing it for so long, it is pretty much expected by the fan base (Cure is similar with the Forest, though I would not categorize the Forest as anthemic).
"All These Things....." has they same sort of feel in its pace, arrangement and lyrics - And almost anyone remotely familar with pop music over the past 10 years can sing "I've got soul, but I'm not a Soldier...." Perhaps, the Killers plan their set list to be a little unexecpted like that and if so, good for them, it is always good to mix up the songs a bit - though in my opinion, I do not really like a slow paced song to end a show, I like to go out with a bang.
Anyhow, I'd have like to seen "Sam's Town" included in the set list, I think it is one of their very best songs, and would play very well live. I perused their most recent set lists from previous shows and they appear to have played it a few times on this tour - perhaps next time. Also, it appears they have been mixing in a cover song or two per show - at this concert, it was "I Think We Are Alone Now" - Props to shopping malls and Tiffany. I liked it.
All in all very good show and I look forward to seeing the Killers in concert next go around - only slight negative is that when the songs from the new album are played alongside the past songs, it is pretty obvious that Battle Born is inferior to their previous efforts, so hopefully this is just a result of the obvious fact that it can be difficult to make every album excellent.
After that, the lights went down as is normal and the show proceeded. The band sounded great all across the board - They played with a lot of energy, and I was very impressed with Bradon Flowers stage presence, he was able to keep the crowd engaged and really seemed to enjoy performing and not there just to cash his quite large paycheck.
The set list had 19 songs. The inclusion of "Jenny was a Friend of Mine" as the first encore was a pleasant surprise. I was sort of expecting "All these Things That I've Done" to be an encore (it was the last song of the main set) largely because it has an "encore-ish" feel to it - I can't really explain what an "encore-ish" feel is except to analogize to my many Depeche Mode concerts.
To the best of my knowledge "Everything Counts" has been the final encore for the vast majority of Depeche Mode concerts since the Music for the Masses tour. While it is a great song, it doesn't crack my top ten list of any DM song list, perhaps not even top 20. It does however have sort of an "epic" (maybe the more appropriate musical term is anthemic) feel both in its pace, arrangement and lyrics. The chorus especially is great to sing a long to. So I think it makes sense to end a concert with an energetic song like that, where the entire crowd can sing "The grabbing hands, grab all they can, all for themselves afterall, Everything Counts in Large Amounts......" And since they have been doing it for so long, it is pretty much expected by the fan base (Cure is similar with the Forest, though I would not categorize the Forest as anthemic).
"All These Things....." has they same sort of feel in its pace, arrangement and lyrics - And almost anyone remotely familar with pop music over the past 10 years can sing "I've got soul, but I'm not a Soldier...." Perhaps, the Killers plan their set list to be a little unexecpted like that and if so, good for them, it is always good to mix up the songs a bit - though in my opinion, I do not really like a slow paced song to end a show, I like to go out with a bang.
Anyhow, I'd have like to seen "Sam's Town" included in the set list, I think it is one of their very best songs, and would play very well live. I perused their most recent set lists from previous shows and they appear to have played it a few times on this tour - perhaps next time. Also, it appears they have been mixing in a cover song or two per show - at this concert, it was "I Think We Are Alone Now" - Props to shopping malls and Tiffany. I liked it.
All in all very good show and I look forward to seeing the Killers in concert next go around - only slight negative is that when the songs from the new album are played alongside the past songs, it is pretty obvious that Battle Born is inferior to their previous efforts, so hopefully this is just a result of the obvious fact that it can be difficult to make every album excellent.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Sort of Simple Pleasures or Let me see you Stripped.......
Today, I teetered on having a meltdown for reasons that aren't relevant here. Thankfully, I avoided it. I really wanted to say "THIS IS WHY CHAPTER 13 FUCKING SUCKS", but I pulled myself back from the cliff.
Anyway, sometimes people like me (see title of blog) need some techniques to get a grip. Or methods to keep me from saying "Fuck you very much, your honor".
What I try to do is think about things I enjoy and things I look forward to and wouldn't want to jeopardize with a trip to the US Marshal holding pen at the Ronald Reagan Building in Santa Ana.
So in general I try to think / do some of the following:
Listen to music I like specifically - Depeche Mode Some Great Reward through Violator with two songs from Playing the Angel.
Read certain magazines I like - Harpers, Discover, and Scientific America
Read About the 2013 Seahawks Seasons - this is very exciting and always makes me feel better!
Think back to when the Huskies won a national title, and the Mariners were relevant, usually with some help from youtube to remind me, it was actually real and not some random altered memory.
Surf Wikipedia Endlessly about random people and random stuff from history.
Anyway, those are my "simple pleasures" to the extent there is anything simple about it. And for what it is worth, I am listening to this and reading about this guy. And I feel much more relaxed...thankfully
Anyway, sometimes people like me (see title of blog) need some techniques to get a grip. Or methods to keep me from saying "Fuck you very much, your honor".
What I try to do is think about things I enjoy and things I look forward to and wouldn't want to jeopardize with a trip to the US Marshal holding pen at the Ronald Reagan Building in Santa Ana.
So in general I try to think / do some of the following:
Listen to music I like specifically - Depeche Mode Some Great Reward through Violator with two songs from Playing the Angel.
Read certain magazines I like - Harpers, Discover, and Scientific America
Read About the 2013 Seahawks Seasons - this is very exciting and always makes me feel better!
Think back to when the Huskies won a national title, and the Mariners were relevant, usually with some help from youtube to remind me, it was actually real and not some random altered memory.
Surf Wikipedia Endlessly about random people and random stuff from history.
Anyway, those are my "simple pleasures" to the extent there is anything simple about it. And for what it is worth, I am listening to this and reading about this guy. And I feel much more relaxed...thankfully
Monday, April 22, 2013
Insomnia Inspired Irritability
I titled this post more to show off my kickass alliteration skills - thank you Mr. Marchbank. Well actually, it is sort of descriptive. A bit. I am having trouble sleeping, I feel inspired, and I am a bit cranky, so go figure.
Anyway, my small, growing and loyal readership has demands of my posts making some sort of point, god forbid they find another blog to read. The last few posts have alternated between bankruptcy law stuff and another series I am trying to start about teachers. I haven't had a chance to get to teachers yet (aside from a reference in this post)..
The origin of the name is that the majority of the world is different than me - they are not bipolar. This isn't really suprising to anyone. So the basic point of the name is to emphasize I am and feel different than most people of the world.
The primary point of the name is pride (in the name of love). It is a misconception that we bipolar people have a disability (legally bipolar is disability, but I'm not making a legal argument). We are just different. I am not going to sit in the psychiatric closet (second place was going to the back of the psychiatric bus).
Therefore, the point of the name is to express to the world I am not ashamed of my condition. In fact I embrace it. Before you say "surely you can't be serious", I say - "check out this list, and don't call me Shirley.
Anyway, my small, growing and loyal readership has demands of my posts making some sort of point, god forbid they find another blog to read. The last few posts have alternated between bankruptcy law stuff and another series I am trying to start about teachers. I haven't had a chance to get to teachers yet (aside from a reference in this post)..
The origin of the name is that the majority of the world is different than me - they are not bipolar. This isn't really suprising to anyone. So the basic point of the name is to emphasize I am and feel different than most people of the world.
The primary point of the name is pride (in the name of love). It is a misconception that we bipolar people have a disability (legally bipolar is disability, but I'm not making a legal argument). We are just different. I am not going to sit in the psychiatric closet (second place was going to the back of the psychiatric bus).
Therefore, the point of the name is to express to the world I am not ashamed of my condition. In fact I embrace it. Before you say "surely you can't be serious", I say - "check out this list, and don't call me Shirley.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Teachers / Professors of Mine - Part I
I think teachers at all levels get a bad rap. When kids do well, their parents take all the credit, when kids do poorly, teachers take all the blame. Further, good teachers are often forgotten even by students who appreciated their effort. Whenever, my friends and I are discussing various teachers / professors it almost invariably leads to which teachers / professor's "mailed it in".
This outlook really reinforces the worst stereotypes of the profession i.e. lazy teachers with tenure who don't care. Therefore the purpose of this series will be to discuss teachers I have had at all levels of education with a dash of cynicism and praise for those who did well and those who did not. I'm going to include the following schools I attended -
Marvista Elementary, Normandy Park, WA 1982 - 1988
Sylvester Middle School, Burien, WA 1988 - 1990
Highline High School, Burien, WA 1990- 1994
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1994- 1998 - Note this will emphasize my major of Business / Accounting
University San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CA - 2003 - 2006
Any classmates from those, feel free to comment.
This outlook really reinforces the worst stereotypes of the profession i.e. lazy teachers with tenure who don't care. Therefore the purpose of this series will be to discuss teachers I have had at all levels of education with a dash of cynicism and praise for those who did well and those who did not. I'm going to include the following schools I attended -
Marvista Elementary, Normandy Park, WA 1982 - 1988
Sylvester Middle School, Burien, WA 1988 - 1990
Highline High School, Burien, WA 1990- 1994
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1994- 1998 - Note this will emphasize my major of Business / Accounting
University San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CA - 2003 - 2006
Any classmates from those, feel free to comment.
Boston Marathon Bombers
I warn you in advance this might piss some people off.
I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the entire show was dedicated to the bombing, the perpetrators and the aftermath. The show cut out to a crowd in Boston chanting -
"U.S.A. , U.S.A....."
Really? Is this an Olympic hockey game? World Cup? Did Michael Phelps win another medal?
I remember thinking the same thing when similar chants were heard outside the White House after Bin Laden was killed.
Where were these chants when Christopher Dorner was killed? I bet 95% of non Southern California residents couldn't even tell you who Dorner was? I'm serious, if anyone outside SoCal knew about him, please let me know.
Dorner was every bit the terrorist the Boston Bombers were. People commit horrific crimes all the time. To me the attention to Boston Bombers, somehow makes me feel that somehow crimes / terror in my neck of the woods are less important. So let's keep the USA chants on hold until the 2014 World Cup - we will really need them much more then.
I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the entire show was dedicated to the bombing, the perpetrators and the aftermath. The show cut out to a crowd in Boston chanting -
"U.S.A. , U.S.A....."
Really? Is this an Olympic hockey game? World Cup? Did Michael Phelps win another medal?
I remember thinking the same thing when similar chants were heard outside the White House after Bin Laden was killed.
Where were these chants when Christopher Dorner was killed? I bet 95% of non Southern California residents couldn't even tell you who Dorner was? I'm serious, if anyone outside SoCal knew about him, please let me know.
Dorner was every bit the terrorist the Boston Bombers were. People commit horrific crimes all the time. To me the attention to Boston Bombers, somehow makes me feel that somehow crimes / terror in my neck of the woods are less important. So let's keep the USA chants on hold until the 2014 World Cup - we will really need them much more then.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Concept - Part II - Insiders
I think the biggest mistake people make in life is expecting there to be a right answer to every question. This kind of thinking, leads people to spend endless hours trying to find the right answer when it doesn't exist.
In the practice of law this problem runs rampant. It almost seems like some practitioners are looking for a button on their computer which says "Do work" ; "write response" ; "think for me". I have a theory on this, but that is another series for another day.
I was in court last week, and the Judge asked me if a certain person was an insider. I cannot off the top of head give the verbatim definition of an insider per 11 USC 101(31)
The real issue is why does it matter if some party is an "insider" or not? We could sift through the code and see where it is mentioned and how it is applied in cases. I can think of a few sections where I know it is mentioned, but I'm sure there are more. I am going to off the top of my head, and without looking rattle off three situations where I know there are insider issues that could run afoul of the "Concept"
1. The proposed broker who is going to sell a parcel of real property is a business partner of the debtor.
2. Class 2 of unsecured creditors is accepted because the debtor's mom and dad are creditors and have sufficient numerosity to carry the class.
3. Debtor paid his best friend back a couple weeks before he filed for Chapter 7, in a case where other creditors get nothing.
There are more. Applying the "Concept" to insiders, we can infer a sub-concept that is goes something to this effect -
"transactions involving any party shall not benefit insiders of that party at the expense of any other party"
You could probably add something like this to Sub-Concept 1 "...and all transactions with insiders should be clearly and completely disclosed with ample notice for anyone else to object"
Seems pretty obvious to me.
In the practice of law this problem runs rampant. It almost seems like some practitioners are looking for a button on their computer which says "Do work" ; "write response" ; "think for me". I have a theory on this, but that is another series for another day.
I was in court last week, and the Judge asked me if a certain person was an insider. I cannot off the top of head give the verbatim definition of an insider per 11 USC 101(31)
The real issue is why does it matter if some party is an "insider" or not? We could sift through the code and see where it is mentioned and how it is applied in cases. I can think of a few sections where I know it is mentioned, but I'm sure there are more. I am going to off the top of my head, and without looking rattle off three situations where I know there are insider issues that could run afoul of the "Concept"
1. The proposed broker who is going to sell a parcel of real property is a business partner of the debtor.
2. Class 2 of unsecured creditors is accepted because the debtor's mom and dad are creditors and have sufficient numerosity to carry the class.
3. Debtor paid his best friend back a couple weeks before he filed for Chapter 7, in a case where other creditors get nothing.
There are more. Applying the "Concept" to insiders, we can infer a sub-concept that is goes something to this effect -
"transactions involving any party shall not benefit insiders of that party at the expense of any other party"
You could probably add something like this to Sub-Concept 1 "...and all transactions with insiders should be clearly and completely disclosed with ample notice for anyone else to object"
Seems pretty obvious to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)