Quote:
Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
TonyB, let's be for real here. If come bargaining time, an individual player wants to negotiate a clothing allowance as part of his deal, go for it! Negotating is a critical part of getting what you want in your comp package. We all should be doing that, regardless if you're a CEO, NBA player, or accountant.
But don't say that going shopping for these clothes will now cause them unexpected financial hardship (which is what one player is basically saying).
Are you trying to tell me that these players currently do not own suits, dress slacks, etc.? And let's say for the sake of argument they don't (lol) the price doesn't change that much across the men's department ($150 pair or khakis vs. $150 of sneakers).
And now, these new dress codes are racist. 
I'm just speechless for the moment.
|
No, I'm not making any of the assertions you mentioned above.
But see through the alleged "absurdity" of Jackson's statement for a moment, and you see an apples-to-apples comparison, that raises a question or two. No, a $7 million a year player does not need a clothing allowance, IMO, but neither does a 7-figure-a-year CEO need a free house to live in (yet, this happens everyday and nobody says boo about it).
Maybe Jackson was showing the absurdity of the rule change with his statement -- which is the point I was alluding to. I haven't read yet where this was collectively bargained, so just how "enforceable" it is at this point is unclear to me.