On Wednesday, the Monkey team faced off against the Six Laws of the Book of the Great Sage Lin Bingsheng
On Wednesday, the Monkey team faced off against the Six Laws of the Book of the Great Sage Lin Bingsheng.
On August 16, PLG's Hsinchu JKO Lioneers officially announced that "Sun Wukong" Lin Bingsheng, the T1 New Taipei Central Bank's attacking guard, had transferred to the Wind City after ending his contract with the Central Bank.
However, this seemingly normal announcement was just the beginning of a stormy day. Please continue reading on Instagram to see the full story.
Lin Bingsheng, who has a significant presence on Instagram, continuously reposted the well wishes from Central Bank fans who bid him farewell after announcing the end of his relationship with the team. However, it was noticed that he had not reposted the "Welcome" message from his "new team," which was quite unusual and raised suspicions among sensitive fans.
Then, at noon on the 16th, Lin Bingsheng posted on his Instagram, thanking everyone for their concern and blessings, as well as expressing gratitude to the Lioneers for the opportunity. He explained that due to personal career planning considerations, he had repeatedly expressed thanks and apologies but declined to join the team.
This post was like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, igniting the atmosphere in Taiwan's basketball community and leaving people breathless.
Around two in the afternoon, while fans and media were still speculating about the "truth" between the Lioneers and Lin Bingsheng, the Lioneers, feeling betrayed, issued a statement saying they would "seek legal means to defend the team's rights." They also shared a screenshot of the "appointment contract" signed by both parties, clearly showing the company seal and the signatures of the representatives.
As the situation unfolded, Lin Bingsheng was attacked and ridiculed by many fans for allegedly breaching his contract and attempting to switch teams with a gun.
The actions of the new T1 team, Taipei Taishin, which was speculated to be involved in the raid, also received criticism from many fans. The Lioneers directly labeled this behavior as "malicious poaching of contracted players."
In this drama of Taiwanese basketball, where the line between appointment and employment is blurred, it is rare to have the opportunity to see the actual signatures of players on contracts. However, the use of the term "appointment contract" by the Lioneers is perplexing.
Article 549 of the Civil Code explicitly states that "either party to the appointment contract may terminate the contract at any time. If one party terminates the contract during a period unfavorable to the other party, they shall be liable for damages. However, if the termination is not attributable to that party, it is not subject to this limitation." Some argue that this means the contract between Lin Bingsheng and the Lioneers can be terminated at any time, so the poaching behavior may indeed be valid.
However, in the practical interpretation of Taiwanese courts, the determination is not solely based on the wording of the contract. In 2015, after a dispute with a spectator on the sidelines, the Fubon Braves unilaterally terminated their multi-year contract with Zheng Renwei, citing "improper behavior damaging the team's image." Zheng Renwei disagreed and filed a lawsuit with the court to "confirm the existence of the contract."
At the end of the "appointment contract" publicly released by the Hsinchu JKO Lioneers, the signatures of the representative of Party A and the handwritten signature of Lin Bingsheng can be clearly seen. Source: PLG Hsinchu JKO Lioneers.
The court stated that the contract clearly demonstrated "the unique personality, organizational, and economic subordination inherent in an employment relationship," and that there was a continuous provision of services in exchange for remuneration, with the team having complete control and supervision. Therefore, the contract could not be automatically regarded as an appointment contract based solely on its wording. Instead, it was determined that there was a continuous employment relationship between the two parties. The court ruled against the Fubon team, stating that Zheng Renwei's actions did not reach the level of direct termination, and there was a risk of abuse of power.