Spurs sued for sitting players vs Heat claim they violated state law

The ticket says "Spurs at Heat" not Tim Duncan vs. Lebron. It may be billed as such by TV networks, analysts, and fans - but the fan is technically paying to see the "Spurs" and all those guys that played for San Antonio that night were in fact "Spurs."

 

A team should have final say on who plays and, indeed, which of their players show up to the game. Its not up to the fans. This lawsuit is clearly baseless.

 

Haha, cool...**** the Spurs

 

"What are you gonna do? Sue me?"

 

Absolutely wrong. Even if the terms of the settlement aren't disclosed, you can bet that if there's a settlement, everyone who went to that game will try to sue the Spurs.

 

Sorry, guess I missed where you said that. All of the ignorant nonsense you were spewing must've distracted me.

 

Congrats on being incapable of reading!!

 

Thanks. Luckily for me, I can always re-read the text to catch anything I missed.

But unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about being a dumbass.

 

The way i see it is that the spurs would definitely be better off just having a settlement and not let this drag out. But for the nba as a whole, if this guy gets a settlement, I will be pretty sure that this kind of law suits is going to be popping out all over the place.

Teams won't be able to rest starters before the playoffs, infact much worse can happen. like someone else have stated, where do you draw the line. e.g. Hawks game where they only scored 20 in the half, can the bulls rest their starters for the entire second half while fans paid for a full game?

I feel that if this guy is going to get a settlement, it will open the doors to a very bad trend. just my two cents.

 

To those saying there's no case here, let me repeat something.

Miami-Dade county.

Frivolous damages lawsuits going thru there is the same reason you would search out a conservative district to put a gun rights lawsuit through.

 

Who do I need to sue for buying a rocket's ticket pack (lakers, clippers, bucks, and jazz) and having Howard, Gasol, and CP3 failing to play?

 

Plaintiff attorneys are no better than any other blood-sucking parasite, except for their rare entertainment value.

 

You know how many times I went to go see the Rockets and Yao didn't play.

 

I hate Stern and I hate lawyers.

 

What's the difference in the cost of a premium ticket for a team like the spurs and a team like the Raptors? I think the difference should be calculated and the fans who bought tickets should be reimbursed that difference out of the 250,000 dollar fine the Spurs had to pay to David Stern.


Normally I would say that you but a ticket knowing that your favorite player might not play for any host of reasons. However, since Stern clearly thought the Spurs were at fault to the point of finning the team 250,000 dollars then I believe that is already an admission of guilt by the league that the Spurs cheated the fans out of money.

 

How many times did the league fill like the Rockets were maliciously cheating the fans out if their money by holding Yao out of the game and fined the team 250,000 dollars for their actions?

 

The problem: there's absolutely no disincentive to file a lawsuit, regardless of merit; and almost all lawsuits settle, because it's cheaper to settle for $20-40K than to defend any lawsuit, regardless of merit. Look at any district court docket in the state of Texas-- there's no way even 1% of those thousands of cases will ever make it to jury trial. Lawsuits have very little to do with justice. And there's no charge to the plaintiff until the shyster collects the 33-50+% vig out of the settlement. Then the plaintiff attorney writes a big check to his or her Democratic candidate, who fights lawsuit reform.

The solution: a "loser-pays" system.

[Sighs...] I can't escape these realities, even in this forum. Thanks, trial lawyers, for nothing.

 

I watched that game on TNT, if I had been working instead I would have made around $100 for my work for the time it takes to watch an NBA game. I decided to watch the game without being told far enough in advance that the Spurs would have pulled their whole starting lineup. I want in on this lawsuit for my $100 + at least $2,500 for emotional distress

 

This. This lawsuit is BS, they paid to see the Spurs vs. Heat and that's what they saw: case dismissed. But, this will probably be settled out of court, which shows the sad state of sue-happy culture we're in now.

 

Fortunately, the courts -- unlike many posters here -- are not computers and they can tell the difference between intentional subterfuge like the Spurs did and business-as-usual absences, like injuries or DNP-CD. And they know that the Spurs tickets were sold at a premium because of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, not because the Spurs are a great organization that can compete with any team even without their stars.

I think the suit is problematic because it was the Heat that made the premium money on ticket-sales, and it was the Spurs who ruined the product without telling the Heat they were going to do so. The Heat profited, so they should pay the damages, but the damages really were not their fault. It wasn't false advertising, because the marketing they had done was done in good faith that the Spurs would show up. The Spurs didn't market this game because it was in Miami, and they didn't get the ticket sales so far as I know. So, they didn't profit from their subterfuge.

If the Heat had proactively done something to make it up to their fans, this wouldn't be an issue.

The lawsuit isn't trying to compel playing time for players; it's punishing a business subterfuge that charged higher prices for a product that was supposedly superior on the strength of stars, but was not due to decisions made by the Spurs that were completely within their control. If Pop had announced his intentions well in advance (and the NBA somehow still allowed it), the logic of the suit would be undermined.

Of course not. This guy filed a suit because he is a lawyer and the barrier for him is quite low. Most people who went to that game don't know how to file a suit, don't want to spend the money to retain a lawyer, or otherwise don't want to bother. If there is a settlement, it won't be widely reported either; I think we will literally never see another article about this guy. So, if there's a settlement, but the team and the lawyer say nothing and no articles are written, no other fan would see blood in the water -- and again, even if they did, 99% of them won't do anything about it.

I agree with you that the NBA should have proactively reimbursed those fans the premium just for the sake of good customer service. Logistically, that may not be easy. But, I think the motivation for Stern's fine was not the fans in the stands, but the broadcasters that paid big money to televise that game, and all the advertisers who bought ad space during that game. And, if the NBA did anything to make it up to them, we probably wouldn't hear about it.