zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. meowti+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:46:48
Aren’t those non enforceable now?
replies(1): >>mtnGoa+g2
◧
2. mtnGoa+g2[view] [source] 2024-05-15 05:17:22
>>meowti+(OP)
Might still be enforceable at this level.
replies(1): >>cellis+B9
◧◩
3. cellis+B9[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 06:39:30
>>mtnGoa+g2
Hypothetically: Could someone play for both the Los Angeles Lakers and Golden State Warriors? Something tells me those non competes are unenforceable.
replies(1): >>rvba+Ou
◧◩◪
4. rvba+Ou[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 10:30:47
>>cellis+B9
Isnt those just branches of the same company?
replies(2): >>Clarit+q51 >>cellis+rr1
◧◩◪◨
5. Clarit+q51[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 14:24:44
>>rvba+Ou
You can have contracts within a company.
◧◩◪◨
6. cellis+rr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-15 16:04:06
>>rvba+Ou
Now I'm curious how the NBA is structured. I always thought the "ownership" was who paid the players and signed the contracts (in essence, an NBA team is a company), and the NBA simply enforced the rules of the contracts (the "templating", if you will), but I'm sure it's much more complex than that. I made the analogy because NBA players often move from team to team and there are no non-competes keeping them from playing for another team.
replies(1): >>meowti+wN2
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. meowti+wN2[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-16 00:25:08
>>cellis+rr1
Maybe the NBA is a franchise and each team a franchisee?
[go to top]