Personally, I would side with Fish. He's a player representing the players. What reason would he have to not work with Hunter unless the grievances are very significant? Don't see him simply trying to push Hunter out to get his spot. I think there's more going on here than what has been let out concerning the nepotism.
The executive committee that asked him to resign are also players elected to represent the union's membership. Why would you trust Fisher and not the other 8 guys?
They have both acted like slimeballs in the past. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with Fisher. He's less shady than Hunter.
Although it would be nice from a balanced nutrition standpoint to eat a variety of meats, fish are generally the healthiest of them all and I particularly enjoy salmon.
Don't know who's telling the truth. But Hunter has more to gain from the union than Fisher. So if I had to bet, I'd take Fisher's side.
Fisher was right all along. Hunter messed with Fisher and got burnt. Hunter used NBA players money and spent it extravagantly for his family and used his influence to help family members for job opportunities http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--n...ion-investment-for-bank-with-ties-to-son.html
Wojnarowski Strikes again: This is pretty damning. I guess what goes around comes around. Fish didn't back Garrity then and now fish is in the same position.
Looks like it's gonna get plenty nasty now. Sick way to treat Garrity, one of the good guys this league had.
I always thought Fisher was a weasel...but its finally out...Hunter...is a fraud...the NBPA executive board was obviously framed by Hunter... Hunter now really looks bad... http://tracking.si.com/2012/04/25/r...-in-sons-failing-bank/?sct=hp_t2_a8&eref=sihp