http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/956048.html

 

 

For those who might like to read a court decision on collusion.

 

 

 

 

A few hours later:

I got to be thinking, I should explain that this a decision from the 1994-95 labor action. MLB lost in court, appealed, and lost again. This is the decision when they lost again. In fact, MLB always loses these cases. The discussion gives an interesting history of player/owner relations. I read court decisions all day long (in my day job) and they are a hidden side to what is in the papers.

Edited January 7, 200323 yr by cwsox

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/956048.html

 

 

For those who might like to read a court decision on collusion.

 

 

 

 

A few hours later:

I got to be thinking, I should explain that this a decision from the 1994-95 labor action.  MLB lost in court, appealed, and lost again.  This is the decision when they lost again.  In fact, MLB always loses these cases.  The discussion gives an interesting history of player/owner relations.  I read court decisions all day long (in my day job) and they are a hidden side to what is in the papers.

and if you see the trend, it goes to prove that there may be indeed a case for collusion again. noone can't tell me that we, the sox is not in a need for 1 or 2 players and yet jr and company has pursued noone.

and if you see the trend, it goes to prove that there may be indeed a case for collusion again. noone can't tell me that we, the sox is not in a need for 1 or 2 players and yet jr and company has pursued noone.

There is a difference between collusion, and Reinsdorf just being cheap.

and if you see the trend, it goes to prove that there may be indeed a case for collusion again. noone can't tell me that we, the sox is not in a need for 1 or 2 players and yet jr and company has pursued noone.

There is a difference between collusion, and Reinsdorf just being cheap.

 

Its so true Ian, so true.