Resuming CBA talks

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

^^ :tu

[Bruno]

Great article by Ken Berger that gives some reasons to be hopeful the full season will be saved:
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32511287

Basically owners are offering a 50/50 split, players want a 52/48 split.

[Dex]

Great article by Ken Berger that gives some reasons to be hopeful the full season will be saved:
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32511287

Basically owners are offering a 50/50 split, players want a 52/48 split.

Make it 51/49 and call it a deal, people! Jeeez :bang

At least both sides are eeking closer to each other as far as the split is concern, but my optimism is quickly waning. (As if that wasn't blatantly apparent in this post).

[timtonymanu]

Make it 51/49 and call it a deal, people! Jeeez :bang

At least both sides are eeking closer to each other as far as the split is concern, but my optimism is quickly waning. (As if that wasn't blatantly apparent in this post).

Players: But we want the fairest deal possible. We are unified. :cry

[DPG21920]

Either way, dropping from 57 to 51 would be a huge win for the owners.

[objective]

If the owners were really secretly making huge money in the league and not losing millions because they're such awesome minds in the business of Sports, I think they would have snapped up that 53% offer from the players already and we'd have a season.

The players offer them up to a billion dollars in give backs on top of these secret profits that every team is bathing in and they don't take it? They risk a unified union or an agent provoked mutiny and risk decreased revenue for years due to fan backlash just to get extra points?

I doubt it. If the owners really were making profits outside the big markets like LA or NY, there would be enough of them to get Stern to accept the player proposal before any pre-season games were missed.

[rogcl1]

Great article by Ken Berger that gives some reasons to be hopeful the full season will be saved:
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32511287

Basically owners are offering a 50/50 split, players want a 52/48 split.

OK , Here is what i think , not that it means anything. I can not believe the people that are talking about the players getting screwed ect. These owners have made their millions in some other forums and would not own an NBA team because they were dumb business men. I have always said that that these athletes should be required to teach school for a month or work at the corner grocery or whatever regular job at the prevailing wage rate to appreciate what they have . It is the working schmuck that is paying their salary anyway..
If I were an owner and paying the multi million dollar salaries, I think that I would at least want 50% revenues no matter what the numbers say and more if needed to make the numbers match. Because if I sign the checks I think 50% is not unreasonable. If the players can not get by on these millions then let them get a regular job or go play in Russia or wherever. Just the way I see it.

[DJ Mbenga]

stern aparently trying one last ditch effort to wrap it up. except the jews have their holidays coming so its going to be tough. lot of spin going around. is it 50 50? or whats been reported 49 with 50 tops players i think asked for 51 to start 53 tops. i probably got the numbers wrong but the thign remains they are 2 percentages apart. except that thats still hundreds of millions lost. the players have never had 53% or below ever in its history. now they are asked to go lower. sure hope stern can work his magic and get people in a room but players seem to be sticking to 53.

[Dex]

This guy gets it.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-nba-20111005,0,4527585.column


NBA players should accept pay cut, get back to work
BILL PLASCHKE

With many fans ambivalent about anything that happens before the All-Star game, and few teams having a chance to win a title, players should make a deal that ends lockout and strengthens the sport.

So the NBA announces it is on the verge of canceling the first weeks of the regular season, and my first thought is a fear.

Oh no! We might miss watching the Minnesota Timberwolves lose by 30 points to the Lakers on a Tuesday night in the middle of November!

The unspoken secret about the NBA lockout is that, because of the economic and talent disparity the owners are trying to fix, the average fan's attention is locked out until after the Super Bowl.

The league might be missing games, but we're not. Opening night is cool, the Christmas Day spectacle is neat, but does anybody really pay close attention until after the All-Star game? The NBA playoffs are the best in sports, but that's only two months in a season that lasts eight months, and that only works for the handful of teams that have a chance to win it all.

One of those teams plays in my town, which is also home to one of the best players in NBA history and the league's most exciting young player. In the last two years, my town has hosted an NBA championship game, an NBA All-Star game, and one memorable moment when that exciting young player executed a slam dunk over a car.

Nobody loves the NBA like Los Angeles, yet do you know how many people I have heard openly worrying about the lockout? One, and even my crazy Lakers fan neighbor just shook his head, said he hoped they would return for the playoffs, and kept watering his lawn.

The NBA is not the NFL. Heck, right now, amid the major leagues' thrilling late-season rush, the NBA is not even baseball. Yet the NBA's average player salary of about $5.1 million equals the average salary of those two sports combined.

The NBA players need to do the math, listen to the yawns, and look in the mirror.

The NBA players need to take a pay cut and go back to work in a sport that will be healthier because of it.

Under the old agreement, the players were making 57% of basketball-related income. After Tuesday's negotiating session, the owners were talking about giving the players 50%.

What happens if the players take that horrible pay cut? They will still be the highest-paid team athletes in American pro sports. Some of them will still make millions to spend their lives on a bench. The only thing that might radically change is that more owners might have more money to field better teams, increasing parity and popularity while ensuring survival.

The players are thus far refusing to take anything less than 53% because they say that, in the NBA, more than in any other sport, the stars are bigger than the league.

It's true that no sport generates glitter like the NBA. It's true that only in the NBA can one single player on one single night — Kevin Durant on a February Friday in Phoenix — convince thousands of fans to buy tickets to that game.

But the stars bigger than the league? Not even close. The stars can't exist without the league, which not only pays them the money to ensure the security of their families' future generations, but also provides them with the stage to make even more money in endorsements and business ventures.

If the stars are bigger than the league, then how come the likes of LeBron James and Dwyane Wade and Carmelo Anthony don't just spend the rest of their careers playing in those barnstorming playground games that have become so trendy? How come no major television network has paid for the rights to televise those games? How come no major sponsors have rushed to be associated with those games?

If the players are bigger than the league, then how come Kobe Bryant has to go all the way to Italy to find a place that can pay him to play basketball during the lockout? Why can't he make $3 million playing pickup games on a court somewhere in Newport Beach?

As a journalist who hangs out in all sorts of locker rooms and clubhouses, I enjoy dealing with NBA players more than any other athletes. They are often accommodating, sophisticated and surprisingly unaffected for being some of the richest folks on the planet.

However, in this case, they are wrong. For all their high-flying brilliance, the NBA players need to come back to earth and get back to work.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't get why you guys think they should accept a big ass pay cut just to make YOU happy. Well, I get it, I just don't agree with it. Most of the players aren't making Kobe money, and this is a substantial paycut. If they're together then I'm not going to begrudge them for trying to get the best deal possible.

The owners on the other hand are here because they're incapable of being responsible and need to be saved from themselves. Thats pretty god damn sad.

[yavozerb]

I don't get why you guys think they should accept a big ass pay cut just to make YOU happy. Well, I get it, I just don't agree with it. Most of the players aren't making Kobe money, and this is a substantial paycut. If they're together then I'm not going to begrudge them for trying to get the best deal possible.

The owners on the other hand are here because they're incapable of being responsible and need to be saved from themselves. Thats pretty god damn sad.

Even with a 50/50 split NBA players average salary well still be the highest among all pro sports by quite a bit. Its not about making me happy, its about making those who cut the checks happy.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I don't get why you guys think they should accept a big ass pay cut just to make YOU happy.

Because they're highly unlikely to get a better offer in the future, which is why they should realize they have to be in a damage control mode by now and accept this deal, because if they don't when they cave in, and they will, the deal would be worse for them.

That said, I can't sympathise with either side.

[yavozerb]

Because they're highly unlikely to get a better offer in the future, which is why they should realize they have to be in a damage control mode by now and accept this deal, because if they don't when they cave in, and they will, the deal would be worse for them.

That said, I can't sympathise with either side.

If I am the players I offer a 51/49 split and hope it is accepted. I am with you that it goes down hill in a hurry for players if they do not get the season started on time..

[MannyIsGod]

Even with a 50/50 split NBA players average salary well still be the highest among all pro sports by quite a bit. Its not about making me happy, its about making those who cut the checks happy.

Being the highest paid doesn't really matter much if you can get more. Do you work for less than you can get? I know I don't.

[MannyIsGod]

Because they're highly unlikely to get a better offer in the future, which is why they should realize they have to be in a damage control mode by now and accept this deal, because if they don't when they cave in, and they will, the deal would be worse for them.

That said, I can't sympathise with either side.

What makes you think they're unlikely to get a better deal in the future? Obviously thats not what they believe and they're the ones doing the negotiating. Not saying that they're right no matter what, but I don't think anyone outside of the situation can say who's more likely to get a good deal in the end.

The players have a lot of money to lose, but so do the owners. Especially smaller market teams.

[Mel_13]

What makes you think they're unlikely to get a better deal in the future?

Math and history.

[MannyIsGod]

You have history of the future deal? Nice.

[Mel_13]

You have history of the future deal? Nice.

No, the past deal.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

What makes you think they're unlikely to get a better deal in the future? Obviously thats not what they believe and they're the ones doing the negotiating. Not saying that they're right no matter what, but I don't think anyone outside of the situation can say who's more likely to get a good deal in the end.

The players have a lot of money to lose, but so do the owners. Especially smaller market teams.

1999 negotiations come to mind - the players got a worse deal because of their dithering.

The players have a lot more to lose than the owners, IMO. Very few of them will get good deals to play in Europe. Teams won't jump on 2nd and 3rd fiddle players and offer them a lot of money, only the superstars would get that. Look at Deron Williams' performances - he's not justifying the money he's being paid, he's out of shape, looks disinterested and he's certainly not brought the success he was expected to. Teams will look at his situation and think twice before offering such deals to other NBA players ( other than the likes of Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, etc. ).

Bottomline is a lot of the NBA players would have to play for much less than they would be making in the NBA by accepting the current offer and this will give the owners even more leverage in the negotiations, which they will ruthlessly use to their advantage, make no mistake.

[MannyIsGod]

No, the past deal.

But this isn't 1999. Too many things are different to draw many conclusions from that deal and if I remember correctly the players union had awful representation then.

We'll see, but I don't think 1999 applies very much and I think the players know the owners are FOS.

[MannyIsGod]

1999 negotiations come to mind - the players got a worse deal because of their dithering.

The players have a lot more to lose than the owners, IMO. Very few of them will get good deals to play in Europe. Teams won't jump on 2nd and 3rd fiddle players and offer them a lot of money, only the superstars would get that. Look at Deron Williams' performances - he's not justifying the money he's being paid, he's out of shape, looks disinterested and he's certainly not brought the success he was expected to. Teams will look at his situation and think twice before offering such deals to other NBA players ( other than the likes of Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, etc. ).

Bottomline is a lot of the NBA players would have to play for much less than they would be making in the NBA by accepting the current offer and this will give the owners even more leverage in the negotiations, which they will ruthlessly use to their advantage, make no mistake.

Players have far more options now than in 99. Its not even close.

We'll see - like I said no one outside knows more than a guess - but my hunch is that the owners will eventually give in.

[Mel_13]

But this isn't 1999. Too many things are different to draw many conclusions from that deal and if I remember correctly the players union had awful representation then.

We'll see, but I don't think 1999 applies very much and I think the players know the owners are FOS.

Taking the helm in 1996, Billy Hunter is the Executive Director of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA)

http://www.nbpa.org/executive-director

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i would really like to know the terms of the 1999 deal and the one they passed up because for such a horrible deficient deal the owners sure wanted to opt out of it quick.

Manny, they read the characterizations of the deal making process from NBA executives and then turn around and act as if it has any basis in reality. The players still have options and there is no indication that they will capitulate especially seeing that they have been down this road before.

They live in a world where they think the owners take an appreciably lesser risk despite other leagues losing 20% of gross in similar circumstances. They also live in a world where they see nothing reprehensible with the owners lowballing and wait routine.

Its political entirely. These debates are and I can guarantee yo how they vote just as your political inclinations are apparent as well.

Math, my ass.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

i would really like to know the terms of the 1999 deal and the one they passed up because for such a horrible deficient deal the owners sure wanted to opt out of it quick.

Manny, they read the characterizations of the deal making process from NBA executives and then turn around and act as if it has any basis in reality. The players still have options and there is no indication that they will capitulate especially seeing that they have been down this road before.

They live in a world where they think the owners take an appreciably lesser risk despite other leagues losing 20% of gross in similar circumstances. They also live in a world where they see nothing reprehensible with the owners lowballing and wait routine.

Its political entirely. These debates are and I can guarantee yo how they vote just as your political inclinations are apparent as well.

Math, my ass.

Out of curiosity, what percentage split do you think the players union will eventually get?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Out of curiosity, what percentage split do you think the players union will eventually get?

I have no idea. I really do not. One thing that I have noticed is that the NBA owners seem to do a lot more of their negotiation through the media than the players do.

I know that if i were the players that I would remain firm at about 53% which is a concession of 4 points and inform the NBA that if they started cancelling games for the season that we were going to decertify, encourage my constituents to seek emplyment overseas and file antitrust in federal court beginning with a request for an injunction.

But i am not going to pull numbers out of my ass or from a quote from an NBA executive.

[yavozerb]

Being the highest paid doesn't really matter much if you can get more. Do you work for less than you can get? I know I don't.

To answer the 1st part of your statement, you get paid if you exceed your current contract or expectations, meaning play better than what your paid thus should lead to a raise like most jobs.

Not sure what the hell the 2nd part of your statement means to be honest...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To answer the 1st part of your statement, you get paid if you exceed your current contract or expectations, meaning play better than what your paid thus should lead to a raise like most jobs.

Not sure what the hell the 2nd part of your statement means to be honest...

I'll help. Why negotiate for less than you think you can get?

[yavozerb]

I'll help. Why negotiate for less than you think you can get?

Why hold out for more with the possibility of less in the end? This could easily be seen many ways..

[Dex]

I don't get why you guys think they should accept a big ass pay cut just to make YOU happy. Well, I get it, I just don't agree with it. Most of the players aren't making Kobe money, and this is a substantial paycut. If they're together then I'm not going to begrudge them for trying to get the best deal possible.

The owners on the other hand are here because they're incapable of being responsible and need to be saved from themselves. Thats pretty god damn sad.

Because we're the ones paying their damn checks in the first place? If fans didn't care about watching the game, they wouldn't fill the arenas and flood the league with the same money that the players and owners are fighting about. People say without owners, their would be no players, and vice versa. That may be true, but without fans, there wouldn't be a league at all, and the fans are the ones that are really losing out here.

Am I supposed to feel bad that these guys don't get to play the game they claim to love so much? Am I supposed to feel bad that they have to wait it out, sitting on their millions (or at the least, hundreds of thousands) of dollars? If they can't live on the wealth that they've already accrued because they are too boneheaded to properly invest it, that's their problem.

I understand that the players are just trying to get the best deal they possibly can; that's the point of negotiating. The owners are just doing the same thing. The problem is, in my opinion they have gone past the point of reasonable, and now both sides are just trying to get greedy.

The player's original offer in this whole deal was to keep the original 57% that they were getting in the first place. How is that negotiating in good faith? The article I posted already spelled it out: the average salary of an NBA player is already way higher than any of the major sports.

If most of the league's owners are really struggling to make a profit (and while I think they may be exaggerating a bit, I believe they are struggling, or they would've already accepted the 53/47 split), how can that not be viewed as a problem? The point of an investment IS to profit, not just to sit in your skybox and call yourself an owner.

And why is the acceptable alternative supposed to be for the successful teams to give money to the un-successful teams just so the players can continue to be overpaid? I'm no businessman, but I wouldn't expect Netflix to share revenue with Blockbuster just so more people can watch movies. And yet, they've still agreed to do this, and it still wasn't good enough for the players.

Instead they are going to let another half-season go to waste and alienate hundreds of thousands of fans. They'll forsake arena employees, investors, rookies who haven't yet seen a dime from the NBA, and local business who depend on traffic from the games (and who could struggle to put food on the table for the time being in a crumbling economy) so that they can continue to make 5 million a season instead of 4.5? Give me a break.

If they go this route, I sincerely hope they lose more money from lost games, than they recoup in whatever deal they end up signing down the line (and I agree, it will end up being a worse deal than what is on the table right now). In my opinion, it's what they deserve.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why hold out for more with the possibility of less in the end? This could easily be seen many ways..

Of course this is the case. Its uncertain but citing NBA pr and presenting it as objective proof doesn't posit much. The players have not played there cards and we do not have enough of an idea of how much european contracts will foil the owners negotiation by starvation strategy.

hell the 6 leading agencies collectively telling their clients to hold out was taken as a win by the owners around here. Its a texas team so I'm not surprised but I'm still waiting for some historical our financial analysis beyond citing wojo quotes of nba execs And claims that makes for a good article.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because we're the ones paying their damn checks in the first place? If fans didn't care about watching the game, they wouldn't fill the arenas and flood the league with the same money that the players and owners are fighting about. People say without owners, their would be no players, and vice versa. That may be true, but without fans, there wouldn't be a league at all, and the fans are the ones that are really losing out here.

Am I supposed to feel bad that these guys don't get to play the game they claim to love so much? Am I supposed to feel bad that they have to wait it out, sitting on their millions (at at the least, hundreds of thousands) of dollars? If they can't live on the wealth that they've already accrued because they are too boneheaded to properly invest it, that's their problem.

I understand that the players are just trying to get the best deal they possibly can; that's the point of negotiating. The owners are just doing the same thing. The problem is, in my opinion they have gone past the point of reasonable, and now both sides are just trying to get greedy.

The player's original offer in this whole deal was to keep the original 57% that they were getting in the first place. How is that negotiating in good faith? The article I posted already spelled it out: the average salary of an NBA player is already way higher than any of the major sports.

If most of the league's owners are really struggling to make a profit (and while I think they may be exaggerating a bit, I believe they are struggling, or they would've already accepted the 53/47 split), how can that not be viewed as a problem? The point of an investment IS to profit, not just to sit in your skybox and call yourself an owner.

And why is the acceptable alternative supposed to be for the successful teams to give money to the un-successful teams just so the players can continue to be overpaid? I'm no business man, but I wouldn't expect Netflix to share revenue with Blockbuster just so more people can watch movies. And yet, they've still agreed to do this, and it still wasn't good enough for the players.

Instead they are going to let another half-season go to waste and alienate hundreds of thousands of fans. They'll forsake arena employees, investors, rookies who haven't yet seen a dime from the NBA, and local business who depend on traffic from the games (and who could struggle to put food on the table for the time being in a crumbling economy) so that they can continue make 5 million a season instead of 4.5? Give me a break.

If they go this route, I sincerely hope they lose more money from lost games, than they recoup in whatever deal they end up signing down the line (and I agree, it will end up being a worse deal than what is on the table right now). In my opinion, it's what they deserve.

Blockbuster doesn't go into metric stores to sell their product. The lakers did go into maison square garden. Sure they sell the lakers but we watch games for the most part. The large market teams play the small market teams directly on a set mutually agreed upon schedule.

[spurs10]

If I am the players I offer a 51/49 split and hope it is accepted. I am with you that it goes down hill in a hurry for players if they do not get the season started on time..
I agree with this. They could make up the lost 350 million they say the owners are taking off the top in a 50/50. If that 350 million is indeed the reason they won't agree to a mutual split. I believe if they don't come up with a compromise by Monday there won't be a season. Fisher was saying the players last offer would make up about 200 of the 300 million the owners claim to have lost. I don't see the owners going for that. Perhaps I should look on the bright side, I'll save thousands of dollars on tickets...

[spurs10]

If I am the players I offer a 51/49 split and hope it is accepted. I am with you that it goes down hill in a hurry for players if they do not get the season started on time..
I agree with this. They could make up the lost 350 million they say the owners are taking off the top in a 50/50. If that 350 million is indeed the reason they won't agree to a mutual split. I believe if they don't come up with a compromise by Monday there won't be a season. Fisher was saying the players last offer would make up about 200 of the 300 million the owners claim to have lost. I don't see the owners going for that. Perhaps I should look on the bright side, I'll save thousands of dollars on tickets...

[baseline bum]

The NBA should just eliminate all small market teams tbh. If the players are going to have to take a paycut to pad the pockets the big market owners even more, then just leave teams in LA, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, Dallas, and Philadelphia, remove the salary cap, and make it a free market free for all.

[Bruno]

Looks like Sunday will be the day there will or not have an agreement.

Owners shouldn't hesitate to make the last step and agreed to a 52/48 split in favor of the players. Even a 52/48 split would be great for the owners. Player will take a 8.8% salary cut which is considerable.

[yavozerb]

Looks like Sunday will be the day there will or not have an agreement.

Owners shouldn't hesitate to make the last step and agreed to a 52/48 split in favor of the players. Even a 52/48 split would be great for the owners. Player will take a 8.8% salary cut which is considerable.

I think the owners will accept this as well, but the players better not expect big increases per year following if this happens..

[MannyIsGod]

I think the owners will accept this as well, but the players better not expect big increases per year following if this happens..

Increases should be tied to revenue of the split. They should expect the increase they negotiate.

[yavozerb]

Increases should be tied to revenue of the split. They should expect the increase they negotiate.

:rolleyes, your so smart....

[Dex]

Looks like Sunday will be the day there will or not have an agreement.

Owners shouldn't hesitate to make the last step and agreed to a 52/48 split in favor of the players. Even a 52/48 split would be great for the owners. Player will take a 8.8% salary cut which is considerable.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lev10sM1hK1qbhzvgo1_500.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:rolleyes, your so smart....

Well you are not then because that is precisely how it is negotiated. Not the "the players shouldn't expect' arbitrary nonsense.

[yavozerb]

Well you are not then because that is precisely how it is negotiated. Not the "the players shouldn't expect' arbitrary nonsense.

:lol, so let me get this straight, you mean to tell the players should get paid what they negotiate? really, news to me...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NBA should just eliminate all small market teams tbh. If the players are going to have to take a paycut to pad the pockets the big market owners even more, then just leave teams in LA, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, Dallas, and Philadelphia, remove the salary cap, and make it a free market free for all.

I have a different hope. I want to see the professional leagues get full antitrust scrutiny on all of their violations. So far the NFL has really only had a very few specifics reviewed and determined to be illegal.

Kessler in his brief against the NFL went after everything. The draft, the nature of contracts, pay structures, or anything else that was clear collusion.

I am very sick of owners like Kraft, Krauss, Buss, and Jones who hide behind the shield of their trust to pull these types of machinations.

Once the trusts were busted, and they would be considering some very specific wording from American Needle vs NFL, that would leave them with two options.

First would be as you proposed which would be a fully free market without collusion beyond scheduling, venues, and the like which again the Supreme Court has set a standard by which to review. No revenue sharing, no draft, no stock structure on contracts, no restriction on employee movement beyond a mutually agreed to contract. Seeing how the US leagues have steered away from that paradigm, I don't see it happening.

The second would be that the individuals such as Kraft, Buss, Krauss and Jones along with all of the owners would have to relinquish their decision making powers to an overarching authority when it came to issues that would require colluding. For example David Stern or a board would have the authority to make a CBA without the consent of the owners beyond his initial appointment.

I think all of this tiddlywinks hide the accounting and play the PR bullshit game is a by product of these trust being allowed to operate as they are. They need to be busted. its a poor business model.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol, so let me get this straight, you mean to tell the players should get paid what they negotiate? really, news to me...

No thats not what either of us are saying. What we are saying is that they negotiate a percentage and the rise and fall of their actual salaries are based off of that.

The owners want to fix the market well if that is the case then you fit it to something such as BRI or total revenues. Not just some arbitrary fixed value that they or you as their sycophant determine they deserve. its called a free market not dictation of market by firms.

[MannyIsGod]

I think the owners will accept this as well, but the players better not expect big increases per year following if this happens..


:lol, so let me get this straight, you mean to tell the players should get paid what they negotiate? really, news to me...

Apparently it is.

[TDMVPDPOY]

man if the players want to m uch

the owners would just cut back on expenses like hotel accomondations and lunches

[yavozerb]

Apparently it is.

:rolleyes, if only you could understand the humour being thrown your way...Movin on

[objective]

Coon has a piece (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout) about the realities of lost wages for the players compared to the line they're holding. Puts things bluntly better than any other article I've seen.


The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.

Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Coon has a piece (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32334/the-player-salaries-lost-to-a-lockout) about the realities of lost wages for the players compared to the line they're holding. Puts things bluntly better than any other article I've seen.

This would hold true for the owners as well in terms of opportunity cost. All those gate receipts, concessions, TV revenues, etc would be lost for them as well. They are getting 47% of gross as well and they do still have contracts with cities, vendors etc to contend with.

[Dex]

This would hold true for the owners as well in terms of opportunity cost. All those gate receipts, concessions, TV revenues, etc would be lost for them as well. They are getting 47% of gross as well and they do still have contracts with cities, vendors etc to contend with.

So right now it's a standoff to see which side can make the other lose more money while pissing off the fans? Sounds like some brilliant negotiations. :rolleyes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So right now it's a standoff to see which side can make the other lose more money while pissing off the fans? Sounds like some brilliant negotiations. :rolleyes

Sure but I think to myself what a fair split would be when one party wants to fix the market because market forces skew dramatically the other way.

Free market gets one upwards of 60% of the total, so given the baseline of what an US free market would give, whats a fair adjustment of the market?

Given that reality I ahve zero respect for the ownerships position. At the end of the day, I believe that every American is entitled to a free market and that they ownership is trying to skew the market to more than half at a difference of upwards of 14 points clearly places the blame of a stalemate at their feet.

Personally I in good consciousness could not ask to deviate from a free market to ask for anything more than equal shares.

Thye players have not sued which would in truth put into question the future of the sport and their initial position was a grant of 4 points. Considering most stock dividends are below that I find that completely reasonable.

The owners on the other hand are jsut trying to get every penny that they can get. The players clearly are not becuase if they had they would have sued already.

Looks like they might have to anyway.

[objective]

Berger is reporting about a failed attempt to have a meeting on Monday (http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32566143):



According to the union source, the league would agree to a meeting Monday -- the deadline set by commissioner David Stern for canceling the first two weeks of regular season games -- only if the players agreed beforehand to accept the NBA's offer of a 50-50 revenue split. The union declined, the source said.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Berger is reporting about a failed attempt to have a meeting on Monday (http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32566143):

We will only negotiate if you accept our terms.....

The players really need to sue them and get it over with.

[Bruno]

An elegant way to reach an agreement would be to play on the length of the new CBA. For example, owners could agree to a 52/48 split in favor of the players but in exchange they would get the option to break a 6 years CBA after 4 years. Union would get the 52/48 split they want and owners could end the new CBA quickly in case it doesn't work for them.

Losing NBA games and the money generated by them while sides are close would be just dumb. It's time to be reasonable and stop screwing fans and low-salary NBA workers.

[objective]

players fire back, per Woj (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AuMRdHPTJTU.zT5xddkzZ1i8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_100711):


“If the league wants to meet with us Monday, they’ll have to get their asses out to L.A.,” another union source told Y! Sports.

[ElNono]

Players called Stern's bluff... Until the union decertifies and players start filing anti-trust lawsuits, Stern is playing with house money. His 'preemptive' lawsuit should also no longer really apply, seeing it would be very difficult to claim at this stage that the union did not want to negotiate in good faith.

I really think they're worlds apart. We'll see where they go from here.

[ElNono]

^^^^^
stop spamming, asshole

[Plumblbw]

Hi Im new to the site. Just wanted to say hello to everyone at www.spurstalk.com (http://www.spurstalk.com). I just made my first website at http://www.cleaningserviceslasvegas.net. Thanks for any suggestions!

Whilst I probably do not have any right to cuss someone on this forum due to a) being a limey ba*tard and 2) due to my low post count, I'm sure your Las Vegas cleaning services will come in handy for the good people of San Antonio. Keep up the good work.

With regards to suggestions, I have a few:

1) Go do one
2) Go play with the cars on the motorway
3) Close your Spurstalk account :flag:

[tim_duncan_fan]

The owners are dirty, thieving bastards. Ready for the union to decertify. The owners are lying about financial details in order to provide some sort of basis for stealing from the players.

Do these billionaires really need more cash? As long as you're profitable overall, STFU and pay your employees. That or sell your team. Greedy bastards.

[Spurs Brazil]

Union Meets In Miami, Standing Firm At 53 Percent
Oct 09, 2011 7:38 AM EDT

The NBPA met with players in Miami on Saturday and will do so again on Monday in Los Angeles.

A source says the players were united in standing firm at their offer of 53% of BRI. The owners are seeking a 50-50 split of revenues.

The Miami meeting was originally scheduled for Sunday, but was held on Saturday instead with so many players in town for an exhibition game at Florida International. The sudden cancelation led some to speculate that a Sunday meeting with owners could be scheduled, but it appears to be a matter of convenience for the union.
Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports (via Twitter)

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215928/Union_Meets_In_Miami_Standing_Firm_At_53_Percent#i xzz1aHopW3zg

[Duncan2177]

Union Meets In Miami, Standing Firm At 53 Percent
Oct 09, 2011 7:38 AM EDT

The NBPA met with players in Miami on Saturday and will do so again on Monday in Los Angeles.

A source says the players were united in standing firm at their offer of 53% of BRI. The owners are seeking a 50-50 split of revenues.

The Miami meeting was originally scheduled for Sunday, but was held on Saturday instead with so many players in town for an exhibition game at Florida International. The sudden cancelation led some to speculate that a Sunday meeting with owners could be scheduled, but it appears to be a matter of convenience for the union.
Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports (via Twitter)

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215928/Union_Meets_In_Miami_Standing_Firm_At_53_Percent#i xzz1aHopW3zg

idiots

[Bruno]

http://twitter.com/#!/HowardBeckNYT/status/123088363476623360


BREAKING: NBA & union officials meeting 2day in last-last-ditch attempt 2 resolve lockout


Fingers crossed. Just be smart and save the whole season.

[DPG21920]

That's asking a lot, Bruno. I know it seems simple and logical to us, but there are other things in play beyond what we discuss.

[Dex]

That's asking a lot, Bruno. I know it seems simple and logical to us, but there are other things in play beyond what we discuss.

It doesn't benefit anybody to lose games. The players, the owners, the fans, anybody.

If it comes to that, it will be because the NBA and NBPA were too damn stubborn and greedy to figure it out. There's just one word for that: stupid.

[Ditty]

WojYahooNBA (http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA) Adrian Wojnarowski



As labor meeting unfolds in NY, several NBA execs have hope of deal in next 24-48 hours. Why? They don't have faith in players holding line.

Not sure if it's very encouraging?

[ElNono]

Owners think they're in the driver's seat... I wouldn't bet the house on it

[DPG21920]

It doesn't benefit anybody to lose games. The players, the owners, the fans, anybody.

If it comes to that, it will be because the NBA and NBPA were too damn stubborn and greedy to figure it out. There's just one word for that: stupid.

I agree, but like with most things if you take it at face value a deal would be done. There are other factors.

[cd98]

There is a number that both sides agree to, but it takes time to get to that number. I've been a part of many negotiations. The deal is never done in the first hour. It always takes all day, if it gets resolved. It takes time, pressure, and creativity.

Both sides have a lot to lose by missing games. Players will never see that money again (especially average to below average) and owners will take a hit both in lost revenue from games, but also because they are the face of the organization when it starts laying people off.

Listen to all the posturing, and yet they are still meeting on Sunday and you will see big concessions on both sides to get a deal done.

[Nathan89]

So the owners and players are fight over what percentage of the pie they get. Right?

And the players are losing some of the percentage the use to have. Right?

Does that mean that the cap is going to lower? If that's not the case, how do the players make less?

[Dunc n Dave]

My understanding is the cap WAS based on 57% of the BRI for the previous season, so the cap WILL be lower if the players only get 50% of the BRI from last year. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nathan89]

My understanding is the cap WAS based on 57% of the BRI for the previous season, so the cap WILL be lower if the players only get 50% of the BRI from last year. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

So the cap is going down and so will the luxury tax line.

Fuck the Spurs:bang
Fuck small market teams:bang

[Mel_13]

My understanding is the cap WAS based on 57% of the BRI for the previous season, so the cap WILL be lower if the players only get 50% of the BRI from last year. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

First, we don't know if the formula for calculating the cap will remain the same in the new CBA.

Second, even if the formula remains the same, a reduction of the players' % doesn't necessarily mean a lower cap. BRI is the whole pie. An increase in BRI could lead to an increased cap even if the players' share is smaller.

[baseline bum]

My understanding is the cap WAS based on 57% of the BRI for the previous season, so the cap WILL be lower if the players only get 50% of the BRI from last year. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The cap was something like 48% of BRI and the luxury tax was 61% or so.

[Dex]

I fully expect games to be cancelled tomorrow. All along, it's been expected that the owners will wait until the players start missing checks to see if that will change their position, and the players appear to be ready to call their bluff.

[DJ Mbenga]

sounds like players will dig in, we will all continue to marvel at how 5 hours of talking produces nothing. do they spend the time talking about tv shows, books who buys the food or something?

[Dex]

If Derek Fisher's ugly face comes out and says "We're no closer to a deal" one more time...:pctoss

[ace3g]

apparently Pop has made an appearance at the meetings

[TimmehC]

apparently Pop has made an appearance at the meetings

Holt wanted someone to help spread the floor for the owners' committee.

[spurs10]

Holt wanted someone to help spread the floor for the owners' committee.
This is not a time for levity....:lol

[Bruno]

While it would suck if a part of the regular season is canceled, I can understand why it is so hard for either side to make the last effort to reach a deal.
Players have still given up a lot and think that it is now up to the owners to make this last effort.
Owners think that they have no reason to make compromise to end the lockout because a lengthy lockout will help them to get an even better deal.

Cancelling some regular seasons games is opening the Pandora's box. Nobody know what will happen after that and how much it will hurt NBA's popularity.

[ace3g]

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
One small step up the mountain: source: sides close on mid-level exception agreement. On NBA.com: http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/10/10/encouraging-sign/index.html

[edgar]

Alex Kennedy: I just spoke to a source close to the labor talks. "We're getting close," he said. "We're definitely making progress." Twitter

[GB20]

Alex Kennedy: I just spoke to a source close to the labor talks. "We're getting close," he said. "We're definitely making progress." Twitter

i have been hearing that shit for the last four weeks.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern could call for "postponement" of 1st two weeks of regular season - not a cancellation - if progress warrants more talks, source says.


Great, another reason for this crap to get strung out even longer then it already has.

[edgar]

Tim Duncan: "Pondering if I should return to work at Apple during the lockout"

Tim Duncan Begins Summer Job At Apple Genius Bar
05.08.09+ Share
SAN ANTONIO—Spurs center Tim Duncan returned to his summer job at the Apple Store Genius Bar Monday, where he provided technical support during his eight-hour shift by diagnosing problems, troubleshooting software issues, and repairing people's computers, iPhones, and iPods. "I can't stress to our customers enough that they really need to make multiple backups of their data," said Duncan, who has worked at the San Pedro Avenue location for the past three summers. "A lot of times we can retrieve files from a crashed hard drive, but you shouldn't rely on that. Also, you can increase the battery life of your laptop if you shut it down when you're transporting it from one place to another." Duncan has also offered to take a shift for fellow Apple Genius David Atwood on Saturday, saying it would be a shame for his coworker to miss Game 3 of the Nuggets-Mavericks Western Conference Semifinals.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Labor meeting could be wrapping up.

[timtonymanu]

Great, another reason for this crap to get strung out even longer then it already has.

It would suck for our team, imo. Duncan and Manu would be worn out by the playoffs worse than last year.

[TimmehC]

Chris Mannix saying that it's "not good news".

[timtonymanu]

The usual "We're still far apart," speech I'm guessing.

[GB20]

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Media chased away from hotel entrance after threat from management to call police. #NBA #lockout

[GB20]

ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix
Angry hotel guy still complaining about press, even though we're across the street. Calm down, buddy. Calm down.

[GB20]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
NBA has remained determined in talks today to reconfigure a system that allows for players to accept a 50-50 BRI split. league sources say.

[Duncan2177]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
NBA has remained determined in talks today to reconfigure a system that allows for players to accept a 50-50 BRI split. league sources say.

So basically it looks like they are adding sweeteners in other areas for the players in order for the 50/50 split to be closer to "fair"

[Giuseppe]

The union is going to give up 7 points.

I God's.

[Bruno]

Keeping a 82 games season while postponing the start of the season by two weeks should be doable. You can end the season one week later and shortening the playoffs by one week with lest rest between games and a first round in 5 games.

Something else the NBA could do is putting adds on jerseys. They've started to do it on practice stuffs but they should also do it on games jersey. This new money should be enough to close the gap between owners and players.

[baseline bum]

Something else the NBA could do is putting adds on jerseys. They've started to do it on practice stuffs but they should also do it on games jersey. This new money should be enough to close the gap between owners and players.

I think that would alienate the hell out of fans; I don't think too many people would want to buy a San Antonio Fritos Spurs jersey.

[Bruno]

I think that would alienate the hell out of fans; I don't think too many people would want to buy a San Antonio Fritos Spurs jersey.

Well, sport's jerseys in Europe have add on them and people are buying them without a problem. Once fans will be used to that, they will buy jerseys as much as in the past.

[ElNono]

I think shirt sponsorship could work, but only with proper revenue sharing in place. There's no doubt that the Nike Lakers would fetch a lot more dough than the Cleveland BJ's...

[Dex]

I'd be okay with the advertisements on jerseys, as long as they don't replace the team name itself. Having a Visa logo or patch on the jersey wouldn't be so bad...looking like the San Antonio Visa's would be lame.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Interesting NY's Dolan in talks today, because hardline owners still resolved that system doesn't allow elite few to spend far north of cap.
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Labor meeting has passed six hours here in New York.
32 minutes ago

[Ditty]

I think hearing an annoying skinny ass black guy MC during timeouts, and advertising through the contests the have is enough advertising for the game.

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Meeting is over.


ChrisMannixSI Chris Mannix

Glen Taylor just emerged. Asked him if there was good news. Said, "Probably not."

[Pistons < Spurs]

kBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern: I'm sorry to report ... that the first 2 wks of the season have been canceled.

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern: "we remain very, very apart on all issues."



:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang

[baseline bum]

I don't see Stern allowing ads on the jerseys. He already killed Memphis naming their team after FedEx a few years ago.

[baseline bum]

Expecting NBA basketball this calendar year is pretty delusional. Hell, even this season might be.

[DPG21920]

Before all this started I had my pointless but very well researched scale of the chance of a season:

5% Full Season, 10% Half Season & 85% No Season

[objective]

waiting for the obligatory Sheridan tweet about how there's nothing to worry about and the season will start on time for all 82 games.

[DPG21920]

I'm laughing right now. It feels weird like laughing when someone gets hurt in a funny way but you don't realize that they are "really hurt", but I'm laughing at the moment because of this.

[Dex]

This is what these news reports feels like:

http://i.imgur.com/a18t2.gif

I'm gonna say what's on all of our minds: fuck all those greedy assholes.

[DPG21920]

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m524/jjutd/Lockout.jpg

[baseline bum]

^^^ 1/10 tbh

[DPG21920]

:depressed

[MaNu4Tres]

:jack

[weebo]

Just be done with it and cancel the whole season. As much as I love NBA basketball, the game won't die. All these greedy assholes can lose all their millions and billions for all i care. Fuck'em.:flipoff

[DJ Mbenga]

i think sarver had a quote earlier . im gonna paraprhase. my involvement in the negotiations will come and its not what you have heard.
judging what happened today, huge lie.

[Bruno]

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32680992


NBA labor talks are about to get an injection of Uncle Sam.

National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter told WFAN radio in New York on Wednesday that the NBA and its players union will continue talks with the help of a federal mediator next week.

I don't know how much this "federal mediator" will help but you had to take every single good news in this bad period. At least both side will stay in touch instead of playing a waiting game.

[DPG21920]

So they are meeting today?

[timtonymanu]

So they are meeting today?

They are gonna meet next Monday.

[Dex]

More information on the mediator here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Can-a-federal-mediator-help-end-the-NBA-s-months?urn=nba-wp9317&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[xellos88330]

Clever move by the players.

[Bruno]

What sucks with this whole mediator is that he only comes now, that is to say about after 100 days of lockout and while some regular season games have been canceled.

This mediator better hurry to catch up the whole story and push sides to reach a deal. It's an emergency situation. When I see that half a week has still been lost just to organize the first meeting, I don't feel that emergency.

Each day lost is $25M less generated, low salary workers not being paid and NBA popularity sinking. Stakes are so huge that way more efforts should be put in reaching an agreement.

[Dex]

What sucks with this whole mediator is that he only comes now, that is to say about after 100 days of lockout and while some regular season games have been canceled.

This mediator better hurry to catch up the whole story and push sides to reach a deal. It's an emergency situation. When I see that half a week has still been lost just to organize the first meeting, I don't feel that emergency.

Each day lost is $25M less generated, low salary workers not being paid and NBA popularity sinking. Stakes are so huge that way more efforts should be put in reaching an agreement.

That's the frustrating thing about this whole deal. Both sides knew this issue was looming for years. And yet, rather than sort it out like adults, they just waltzed into lockout mode, then took a goddamn summer vacation while touching bases every now and then for a pissing contest.

It seems like talks didn't even get serious until this past weekend, when the first two weeks of the season were already in jeopardy. Rather than lock themselves in a room and forcing each other to figure out, they'd rather play these stupid PR games and try to wait each other out and see which side will lose more money before they blink first. Meanwhile, the fans and the waged employees get the screw.

And even after all this time, they're STILL "far apart on virtually all issues"? What the hell are they doing at these meetings, just picking their noses? Something I read recently put things in perspective: The lockout has now lasted 104 days. Franklin Roosevelt helped solve the Great Depression and turn around the country in just 100 days.

If these guys would actually sit and negotiate instead of just posturing and trying to drain the other sides pockets, this thing would be solved already. Hopefully this mediator will help to achieve that, because the way the two sides are handling things right now, this lockout will never be over.

[Giuseppe]

Franklin Roosevelt helped solve the Great Depression and turn around the country in just 100 days.

Don't ferget he had Hitler eggin' him on.

tee, hee.

[ChuckD]

Don't ferget he had Hitler eggin' him on.

tee, hee.

Hitler wasn't even in power in 1932 when FDR was elected.

[Giuseppe]

^When FDR solved the Great Depression Hitler helped him.

[Bruno]

That's the frustrating thing about this whole deal. Both sides knew this issue was looming for years. And yet, rather than sort it out like adults, they just waltzed into lockout mode, then took a goddamn summer vacation while touching bases every now and then for a pissing contest.

It seems like talks didn't even get serious until this past weekend, when the first two weeks of the season were already in jeopardy. Rather than lock themselves in a room and forcing each other to figure out, they'd rather play these stupid PR games and try to wait each other out and see which side will lose more money before they blink first. Meanwhile, the fans and the waged employees get the screw.

And even after all this time, they're STILL "far apart on virtually all issues"? What the hell are they doing at these meetings, just picking their noses? Something I read recently put things in perspective: The lockout has now lasted 104 days. Franklin Roosevelt helped solve the Great Depression and turn around the country in just 100 days.

IMO, the worst part is that they don't even agreed on the starting point that is: How much money is the NBA losing per year and how theses loses should be cut? That's just unreal.

[silverblk mystix]

That's the frustrating thing about this whole deal. Both sides knew this issue was looming for years. And yet, rather than sort it out like adults, they just waltzed into lockout mode, then took a goddamn summer vacation while touching bases every now and then for a pissing contest.

It seems like talks didn't even get serious until this past weekend, when the first two weeks of the season were already in jeopardy. Rather than lock themselves in a room and forcing each other to figure out, they'd rather play these stupid PR games and try to wait each other out and see which side will lose more money before they blink first. Meanwhile, the fans and the waged employees get the screw.

And even after all this time, they're STILL "far apart on virtually all issues"? What the hell are they doing at these meetings, just picking their noses? Something I read recently put things in perspective: The lockout has now lasted 104 days. Franklin Roosevelt helped solve the Great Depression and turn around the country in just 100 days.

If these guys would actually sit and negotiate instead of just posturing and trying to drain the other sides pockets, this thing would be solved already. Hopefully this mediator will help to achieve that, because the way the two sides are handling things right now, this lockout will never be over.

Relax dude...it is just basketball...and mediocre at that...the way Pop has run this Spurs team into the fuckin' ground is the real tragedy here...

better lock out the whole fuckin' year...and maybe Pop will get bored and retire...

[ElNono]

Either one side or both are bluffing or there really isn't an emergency here. When there's a sense of urgency, sides work towards a resolution. The fact that they're seemingly basically as far apart as when they started, tells you all you need to know.

tbqh, people need to remember that what's being negotiated here is a deal for 5/6 seasons. Losing a season means 22% to 17% in value of what's being negotiated. A good number, but still a relatively small portion of the whole deal. We'll see what the mediator brings.

[ElNono]

And even after all this time, they're STILL "far apart on virtually all issues"? What the hell are they doing at these meetings, just picking their noses?

What you need to understand is that owners are really playing with house money. They feel that as soon as players stop receiving checks, they'll fall in line. If they don't or they decertify and sue, that's when the negotiations are going to start picking up, and when you're going to start to see some concessions from the owners.

The owners really have no incentive to concede much of anything until November rolls around.

[objective]

Stern now threatening to cancel games through Christmas if no deal on Tuesday.

[benefactor]

Stern now threatening to cancel games through Christmas if no deal on Tuesday.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/stern-doubts-christmas-games-deal-tuesday-14732688

Not exactly a threat...but he's still throwing stuff out there in order to bully the players into a deal.

Countless articles have been written about Stern and how much of a bully he is behind closed doors. Now everyone is seeing it in plain view. He needs go as commissioner...period.

[ElNono]

They're worlds apart and he wants "a deal" on Tuesday? What he wants is the players to bend over and take it. Negotiations be damned.

[benefactor]

They're worlds apart and he wants "a deal" on Tuesday? What he wants is the players to bend over and take it. Negotiations be damned.
Exactly. He's never really wanted to negotiate. His BS about the deals getting worse proved that.

[ChuckD]

Stern now threatening to cancel games through Christmas if no deal on Tuesday.

Can't remember who, but a writer totally called him out on it today. He cancels two weeks, and then one week later is ready to cancel seven? WTF?

[Giuseppe]

I saw Stern on the NBA Channel this evening and he's going to be a real problem on this. I think the players (and me) thought Stern was throwing the hard cap out there to get the players to come even on the BRI. When they did (thinking that the hard cap would go away then) Stern came back over the top still wanting the hard cap in addition to the 50/50 split.

Fuck me.

[Bruno]

A worrisome interview of Billy Hunter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AuBa2Cvuxw8Zxms5Wc0Iax68vLYF?slug=mc-spears_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_101311



Hunter: “I don’t think [the owners] are negotiating in good faith. That’s what’s frustrating. David Stern told me three years ago – and I keep reiterating that because people keep pulling up their cup on it – that they were going to lock out [the players] in order to get what it was they wanted. And what he’s done is done that. [Stern] said he was going to lock out [the players] and his owners were prepared to lock out to get what they wanted. It’s driven pretty much by the small-market teams. They actually want revenue sharing in the big markets, but the big markets have said, ‘OK we’ll give revenue conditioned upon you getting the deal in place that we think has to be there because we don’t want to go into our pockets as much as we may have to. We think you should get it off the backs of the players.’ So that’s what he’s done. He’s stated an extreme position from the get go and he’s negotiated that way. So here we are.

“We’ve been negotiating for almost three years, and here we are at the 12th hour when all of the sudden they make a slight move. But then on top of that, they then decide that they want a hard cap. So then when you get close to the economics of the number, then they get close to the system. And they know that the system is very important. If we give on the economics, we are not going to give on the system. And so all of the sudden you reach a possible agreement on the economics and now the system becomes a problem. So it’s like a moving target. It’s frustrating. It’s frustrating because the whole intent and purpose and whole strategy has been to break the resolve of the players.

”[Washington Wizards owner] Ted Leonsis – go look at some of his quotes. Leonsis said that David Stern promised them they were going to get a system like the NHL, and the only way they can get that system is to break the players. That’s what they’ve done. There is nothing complex about what is going on. It is as clear as the nose on my face. I keep calling them out on that, but people don’t write about that.”

It's going to be long and ugly... :depressed

[polandprzem]

Business takes over the sport

NBA is a bullshit now

[Mel_13]

A worrisome interview of Billy Hunter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AuBa2Cvuxw8Zxms5Wc0Iax68vLYF?slug=mc-spears_nba_lockout_billy_hunter_101311



It's going to be long and ugly... :depressed

Later in that interview he says:

“I’m not even resonating on decertification."

The players need to replace Hunter with someone who is not quite so incompetent.

[Giuseppe]

"If we give on the economics, we are not going to give on the system."

That's the crux. CW thought that the talk of the hard cap was to get the economics. Not so. The players gave them the economics and the hard cap came right back up. The hard cap was not a ruse by Stern. That's big. Real big.

[Leetonidas]

Even as a small market fan, fuck a hard cap. The NBA is a business after all, or at least it should be, and those who invest more should see more profitable returns, generally, and those who invest badly will get shit. The system is fine right now imo

[DesignatedT]

"If we give on the economics, we are not going to give on the system."

That's the crux. CW thought that the talk of the hard cap was to get the economics. Not so. The players gave them the economics and the hard cap came right back up. The hard cap was not a ruse by Stern. That's big. Real big.

Only a matter of time till they give in all the way. Might have to sacrifice a season but Stern and the Owners will get what they want. The players won't be able to last.

[Giuseppe]

^Exactly. It's easy & righteous to talk tough when you're not out $. The players won't miss their first check till November 15th. After that date they'll realize what they had, what they have, and exactly what they're losing. Then they'll quit talking to one another and start talking to their wives and parents. Shortly after that they'll sign on the line which is dotted, and you know what else? They'll be happy as clams.

[Maddog]

^Exactly. It's easy & righteous to talk tough when you're not out $. The players won't miss their first check till November 15th. After that date they'll realize what they had, what they have, and exactly what they're losing. Then they'll quit talking to one another and start talking to their wives and parents. Shortly after that they'll sign on the line which is dotted, and you know what else? They'll be happy as clams.

"We might make a lot of money but, we also spend a lot of money."

Patrick Ewing

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Don't ferget he had Hitler eggin' him on.

tee, hee.
Actually, it was Japan. FDR may have had his New Deal policies in effect in 100 days, but the USA, and the world, remained in a depression. We think we had it bad, other countries had it worse. Germany was being bankrupt by the Versailles treaty of 1918 which required them to make reparations to France for all the young men they killed. Germans at the time of WWI thought they were winning, not one drop of German blood was shed on German soil. Yeah, it would have been had the war continued, but Hitler capitalized on German nationalism to get into power. He took what he needed to get his country out of depression and the west appeased him eastward (Hitler's early invasions to increase the Aryan Nation's living space) to keep him from sending his troops west. The aforementioned treaty prohibited Germany from building it's military back up, but it would require a declaration of war on Germany to enforce the Versailles treaty. Now, France, and other western nations lost that income the Germans had been sending them for years, so they suffered as well.

Japan is what brought the US into the war. They had their own problems as well. Their entire nation was about to come to a complete halt for all industry and all production as they were flat out of oil. The USA had an embargo in place prohibiting the Japanese from buying more. The only way Japan could get oil, was to go take it in Southeast Asia. Problem with that is, if they attack, the US Navy comes in and spoils their plundering. So, Japan took a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor in order to have free reign where they needed to go next.

When the USA declared war on Japan, the "Help Wanted" signs appeared everywhere across the American industrial market. WWII solved the great depression. Some even say FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to get us into the war and end the depression once and for all.

I'm not justifying war, I'm just showing some of the reasons for it. The above is true warfare, using a military to achieve economic objectives. Contrast that with those chicken shit terrorists who target innocent, non military threats. May the latter burn in hell more so than Hitler.

[Bruno]

Later in that interview he says:

“I’m not even resonating on decertification."

The players need to replace Hunter with someone who is not quite so incompetent.

I don't really know what desertification could bring to the table for players.

Players true weapon was the threat of creating a new league but it's too late for that. All the main players and agents should have work on that together on July 1st to make it serious.

[Mel_13]

I don't really know what desertification could bring to the table for players.

Players true weapon was the threat of creating a new league but it's too late for that. All the main players and agents should have work on that together on July 1st to make it serious.

Decertification brings the issues into federal court, a venue where the players may actually get some relief. It's the best weapon available to the players and the union chief continues to rule it out.

A player's league faces far too many obstacles to represent any threat to the owners. To begin with the players don't have the capital, the arenas, or the TV deals. And it just gets harder after that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Later in that interview he says:

“I’m not even resonating on decertification."

The players need to replace Hunter with someone who is not quite so incompetent.

Be careful putting all the onus on Stern or Hunter. They are the single most important players in this process but if the players or more specifically the player reps wanted to decertify then it would happen and there isn't much of shit beyond politics that Hunter can do to stop it. Decertification basically dissolves the union and thus Hunter's position.

They have retained Kessler as lead counsel and his big claim to fame is takeing the NFL out behind the woodshed in federal court. Also from reading about him during the recent NFL negotiations, he would love nothing more than the break that trust in federal court. I would love to see it myself from a personal level but i can understand the risk such a move would have for the industry as a whole and understand the reluctance.

[Mel_13]

Stern told Hunter what the owners were going to do more than three years ago. Hunter's strategy, as far as I can see, is to keep the players unified until the owners change their minds. I don't see great prospects for success by following that approach.

[Mel_13]

An article written by Arn Tellem, one of the leading NBA agents, from February, 2010:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arn-tellem/stern-und-drang_b_459910.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stern told Hunter what the owners were going to do more than three years ago. Hunter's strategy, as far as I can see, is to keep the players unified until the owners change their minds. I don't see great prospects for success by following that approach.

If there was not at least some contingency for suing antitrust, they would not retain Kessler. Thats what Kessler does. Its like retaining Matt Bonner and not trying to stretch the court. Bonner doesn't do anything else.

[Giuseppe]

Until last evening I thought this was going to be business as usual. Uh, uh. Stern wants parity and that's it. He was plain spoken and absolutely blunt last night. I sat there and watched in disbelief as he laid it all out. A gut punch is what it was. He's not fucking around. We're in for a sea change.

It happens.

[Mel_13]

And yet the union chief continues to publicly foreswear decertification. Aside from Hunter's job security, what is gained by waiting to file suit?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yet the union chief continues to publicly foreswear decertification. Aside from Hunter's job security, what is gained by waiting to file suit?

Not filing suit immediately makes sense. If they believe the PR issue means anything then by not filing suit, they gain credibility with the good faith argument. When the NFLPA filed immediately, they hammered them for it incessantly for months.

They are trying to work with the mediator now. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to go into federal court more or less blowing off the mediator. As it stands now if they play the game for a bit longer and demonstrate through the mediator that the NBA is not negotiating in good faith then it becomes much easier to file for an immediate injunction.

The original ruling on the injunction from the Judge for the NFL took almost three months. Even if they were to file the earliest they could expect back is January and of course there will be an immediate appeal. Had they sued immediately they would be mired in that nonsense in the midst of these negotiations and if the NFL negotiations were of any comparisons getting hammered in the public. We would have been having the injunction ruling just coming down now under that backdrop.

i don't see how that is to their advantage if they want to win the case because it would make them look like assholes.

I just know that they have Jeff Kessler and the guy's legacy is of forcing capitulation by the NFL. I guarantee you a big part of his input is exactly how he can win in federal court again. Hunter is absolutely getting that all the time if he talks to him at all.

On numerous cases DeMauice Smith would have to tell Kessler to back off during negotiations while he was suing the NFL. Now Kessler is quoted talking about how the NBA is not negotiating in good faith which just so happens to be the same line that Hunter is giving. I don't buy for a minute that Kessler does not have the briefs ready to file right now if he wanted to.

[Giuseppe]

Not filing suit immediately makes sense. If they believe the PR issue means anything then by not filing suit, they gain credibility with the good faith argument. When the NFLPA filed immediately, they hammered them for it incessantly for months.

They are trying to work with the mediator now. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to go into federal court more or less blowing off the mediator. As it stands now if they play the game for a bit longer and demonstrate through the mediator that the NBA is not negotiating in good faith then it becomes much easier to file for an immediate injunction.

The original ruling on the injunction from the Judge for the NFL took almost three months. Even if they were to file the earliest they could expect back is January and of course there will be an immediate appeal. Had they sued immediately they would be mired in that nonsense in the midst of these negotiations and if the NFL negotiations were of any comparisons getting hammered in the public. We would have been having the injunction ruling just coming down now under that backdrop.

Good stuff, Lumpy.

[objective]

An article written by Arn Tellem, one of the leading NBA agents, from February, 2010:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arn-tellem/stern-und-drang_b_459910.html

I think this article underscores something I've been thinking for a few days . . .

Stern is going easy on the players, and they're lucky to have been relatively close to a deal (at least in Hunter's words of being within hours of a deal).

Think of what everyone thought for sure was to Stern going for blood, and some is in that article:

Clawbacks of existing salaries. All throughout last summer's dumb signings there was media chatter that it wouldn't matter because the NBA wouldn't have to pay those same contracts, they would be reduced. Stern isn't demanding that and has ceded that away.

No more Bird exception. Well, Stern has said that demand is off the table. There may be restrictions and issues with it, such as the owner's proposal of only Bird-players getting 5 year deals. I've read that the union has charged that only teams under the cap would be allowed to have the Bird ability, but that is up in the air. Regardless, there would be some Bird exceptions going around.

No more fully guaranteed contracts. Well, Stern isn't demanding that anymore. Sure, he might hope and suspect that different tax levies and cap rules would lead to more teams negotiating more cap-friendly unguaranteed or partially guaranteed deals, but in the competitive arena of free agency, he can't know for sure that's what would happen.

No more mid-level. The same mid-level won't be around, but there will be an MLE of some kind available. Less money and less years seems certain, but a mid-level would still kick around. And Stern has said he wanted to restrict teams paying the tax from having the mid-level available (which sounds fairly reasonable).

"The NBA wants a reduction of the total salaries paid to players by 30 to 40 percent.". My limited understanding of what a flat 50/50 split compared to the previous 57% means is about a 12% reduction.

And of course not in the article was the owners demanding to lock the players into serfdom with a 10 year deal . . . but they offered the players an opt-out at seven years.

Are these the slash-and-burn scorched earth demands of the boogeyman that Stern was thought be by all (including me)?

Seriously, that's what people thought Stern was going to demand, then draw his line in the sand, and freeze the players out until they caved and agreed to those predicted harsh goals.

But to me . . . none of the NBA's stated offers or floated concepts if they are to be believed authentic pass the smell test of "these guys were going to lock the players out no matter what".

That doesn't mean that I think the owners are the only ones conceding. And the players at 53% giving the owners what amounts to a Billion dollars is a big deal, and I don't understand why the players aren't making a bigger deal of them essentially offering to pay the owners a billion dollars to play again.

Compared to what people were bracing themselves for . . . Stern seems to be playing it fair.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good stuff, Lumpy.

Glad that its good input.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think this article underscores something I've been thinking for a few days . . .

Stern is going easy on the players, and they're lucky to have been relatively close to a deal (at least in Hunter's words of being within hours of a deal).

Think of what everyone thought for sure was to Stern going for blood, and some is in that article:

Clawbacks of existing salaries. All throughout last summer's dumb signings there was media chatter that it wouldn't matter because the NBA wouldn't have to pay those same contracts, they would be reduced. Stern isn't demanding that and has ceded that away.

No more Bird exception. Well, Stern has said that demand is off the table. There may be restrictions and issues with it, such as the owner's proposal of only Bird-players getting 5 year deals. I've read that the union has charged that only teams under the cap would be allowed to have the Bird ability, but that is up in the air. Regardless, there would be some Bird exceptions going around.

No more fully guaranteed contracts. Well, Stern isn't demanding that anymore. Sure, he might hope and suspect that different tax levies and cap rules would lead to more teams negotiating more cap-friendly unguaranteed or partially guaranteed deals, but in the competitive arena of free agency, he can't know for sure that's what would happen.

No more mid-level. The same mid-level won't be around, but there will be an MLE of some kind available. Less money and less years seems certain, but a mid-level would still kick around. And Stern has said he wanted to restrict teams paying the tax from having the mid-level available (which sounds fairly reasonable).

"The NBA wants a reduction of the total salaries paid to players by 30 to 40 percent.". My limited understanding of what a flat 50/50 split compared to the previous 57% means is about a 12% reduction.

And of course not in the article was the owners demanding to lock the players into serfdom with a 10 year deal . . . but they offered the players an opt-out at seven years.

Are these the slash-and-burn scorched earth demands of the boogeyman that Stern was thought be by all (including me)?

Seriously, that's what people thought Stern was going to demand, then draw his line in the sand, and freeze the players out until they caved and agreed to those predicted harsh goals.

But to me . . . none of the NBA's stated offers or floated concepts if they are to be believed authentic pass the smell test of "these guys were going to lock the players out no matter what".

That doesn't mean that I think the owners are the only ones conceding. And the players at 53% giving the owners what amounts to a Billion dollars is a big deal, and I don't understand why the players aren't making a bigger deal of them essentially offering to pay the owners a billion dollars to play again.

Compared to what people were bracing themselves for . . . Stern seems to be playing it fair.

You act like Stern was not just asking for all of that as late as a month ago. That they did not give into his asinine demands does not reflect well on Stern. Quite the opposite really.

[ElNono]

Not filing suit immediately makes sense. If they believe the PR issue means anything then by not filing suit, they gain credibility with the good faith argument. When the NFLPA filed immediately, they hammered them for it incessantly for months.

They are trying to work with the mediator now. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to go into federal court more or less blowing off the mediator. As it stands now if they play the game for a bit longer and demonstrate through the mediator that the NBA is not negotiating in good faith then it becomes much easier to file for an immediate injunction.

The original ruling on the injunction from the Judge for the NFL took almost three months. Even if they were to file the earliest they could expect back is January and of course there will be an immediate appeal. Had they sued immediately they would be mired in that nonsense in the midst of these negotiations and if the NFL negotiations were of any comparisons getting hammered in the public. We would have been having the injunction ruling just coming down now under that backdrop.

i don't see how that is to their advantage if they want to win the case because it would make them look like assholes.

I just know that they have Jeff Kessler and the guy's legacy is of forcing capitulation by the NFL. I guarantee you a big part of his input is exactly how he can win in federal court again. Hunter is absolutely getting that all the time if he talks to him at all.

On numerous cases DeMauice Smith would have to tell Kessler to back off during negotiations while he was suing the NFL. Now Kessler is quoted talking about how the NBA is not negotiating in good faith which just so happens to be the same line that Hunter is giving. I don't buy for a minute that Kessler does not have the briefs ready to file right now if he wanted to.

Don't forget also that the NBA filed a preemptive suit basically saying that decertification meant the PA negotiating in bad faith. The union being able to show they negotiated long and hard, and in good faith, in front of a mediator, should basically dismiss that suit and open the door for decertification.

[ElNono]

Compared to what people were bracing themselves for . . . Stern seems to be playing it fair.

Stern wants to show he's "negotiating" and that he has made "concessions". But when you actually put the old CBA as the backdrop, instead of the initial demands, he's still raping the players.

As much as people think Stern can just lock players out and tell them to take whatever deal or GTFO, he really cannot do that. You can see what happened with the NFL to see why he really can't do that without getting his owners in trouble. Stern has to at least look like he's negotiating in "good faith"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't forget also that the NBA filed a preemptive suit basically saying that decertification meant the PA negotiating in bad faith. The union being able to show they negotiated long and hard, and in good faith, in front of a mediator, should basically dismiss that suit and open the door for decertification.

That suit followed by the NBA's behavior just puts them in an awful light. You look at the rhetorc put out by Stern and his offices with the "we'll meet with you on Monday only if you agree to a deal." A scheme to completely re-engineer how business is done in the NBA that was flamboyantly self-serving.

Stern had better hope for a large contingency of players to panic about the lack of income very quickly or he could very well be getting butt plugged in federal court this Spring. He would be very wise to play nice with this mediator.

The law is clear. There may be some precedent needing SCOTUS review on the injunction after how the appellate court but they did that from the vantage point of equal protection from an exemption from injunction and not on the merits of the injunction.

SCOTUS in American Needle vs NFL voted 7-1 and took the liberty on reasserting that labor was not exempt from antitrust despite the case being about a licensing dispute.

Kessler was involved in White vs the NFL where the standards were set for application of Sherman and in short firms cannot collude to set conditions for contracts. Its pretty clear that the idea of colluding to not negotiate will not hold muster nor will collusion to not honor existing contracts with the lockout.

Then we can see the crazy Slav in NJ go crazy spending his cash and Stern will get fired. i think the NBA could really use some regime change. I can honestly say that the guys like Jones, Kraft, Rooney and Goodell look like absolute visionaries compared to whats going over at the NBA offices.

[Mel_13]

Quotes from union leadership after last night's meeting with 30 players in LA:


"If somebody wants to point a gun at my head, I'm going to point one back at him," NBPA executive director Billy Hunter said when asked about NBA commissioner David Stern's assertion that the lockout could last until at least Christmas if no deal is consummated on Tuesday when both sides meet with a federal mediator.

"It's not just the players that are going to suffer if there are games lost. What [Stern] has failed to reveal to you is the amount of economic damage [the owners] are going to suffer," Hunter said. "The pain is mutual. If you're going to inflict some pain on the players, there is going to be some pain inflicted on them as well.

"They've got to be concerned about, whether or not, in the face of a prolonged lockout, there's going to be some franchises that won't make it."


"We haven't played dirty pool, put owners on the spot and tried to undress them in the media," players' association vice president Maurice Evans said. "Because we still are optimistic and hopeful that a deal can be reached.

"But it has to be said. For those owners who are under the impression, or have been led to believe that they will be just fine because of the deal they will ultimately get, whether it's one month, three months, six months, next year, that's a falsehood."

Evans said the players' association has projected it will take the owners until at least 2023 to recover the basketball-related income they will lose if the entire season is canceled.

"And that's the best-case projection," he said. "What about the worst case? Some teams that don't recover until 2030 or 2040. Which owners, as individuals, can afford to take those hits?"

Good to know that the union is prepared to cut off their own noses in order to bleed all over the owners. This is their plan? To engage the owners in a game of chicken where everyone loses and take solace from the belief that the other side will lose more?

Their bravado was tempered a bit when JaVale McGee was quoted as saying "there's definitely some guys in there saying that they're ready to fold". Apparently McGee sent out a tweet denying the statement, but the statement was recorded by a dozen or so members of the press.

[ElNono]

Good to know that the union is prepared to cut off their own noses in order to bleed all over the owners. This is their plan? To engage the owners in a game of chicken where everyone loses and take solace from the belief that the other side will lose more?

Players are going to bleed regardless. If this is the only way for them to get some leverage on the negotiations, then that's what is going to have to be.

Don't forget that it's the owners that locked out the players, it isn't the players that don't want to play.

[Mel_13]

Players are going to bleed regardless. If this is the only way for them to get some leverage on the negotiations, then that's what is going to have to be.

Don't forget that it's the owners that locked out the players, it isn't the players that don't want to play.

I'm well aware that it's a lockout and I would disagree that this posture creates leverage. IMO, it simply assures greater losses for all involved.

Either end this thing on the best terms you can get or bring out the nukes and sue. These brave words are pointless; they just waste time and money.

[Bruno]

Players actual best weapon is that small market owners and big market owners aren't in the same situation at all. For the moment, Stern is keeping them united but it can change. If each owner start looking at his own interest, a breach, that players could use, will be created.

[ElNono]

I'm well aware that it's a lockout and I would disagree that this posture creates leverage. IMO, it simply assures greater losses for all involved.

Either end this thing on the best terms you can get or bring out the nukes and sue. These brave words are pointless; they just waste time and money.

I think it's just part of the process. When they decertify, if they do, they'll have much better chances of getting that injuction if they can show they negotiated in good faith and exhausted all possibilities for a deal.

I think it's interesting that the mediator said to clear all next week, and Stern decided to only cut it to a single day. I don't think Stern really wants any business with an external mediator. And I think the players sense that.

[Bruno]

A player's league faces far too many obstacles to represent any threat to the owners. To begin with the players don't have the capital, the arenas, or the TV deals. And it just gets harder after that.

I agree that it would have been really hard to do and that's why I said it should had be done on July 1st with all the top players. Capital and TV deals wouldn't have been an issue since investor and TV channel would have been interest by a product that would have been as good as the NBA. Arenas would have been the biggest issue but a lot of them are owned by cities/counties and not by the franchises.

[Mel_13]

I think it's just part of the process. When they decertify, if they do, they'll have much better chances of getting that injuction if they can show they negotiated in good faith and exhausted all possibilities for a deal.

I think it's interesting that the mediator said to clear all next week, and Stern decided to only cut it to a single day. I don't think Stern really wants any business with an external mediator. And I think the players sense that.

They could have demonstrated all that back in July. I know others see it differently, but I'm convinced that the union has squandered huge amounts of time and now will waste even more time and huge amounts of money. They knew exactly what was coming and couldn't come up with a better plan than staring down the owners.

As to the mediator. What if he suggests to split the difference on all issues based on the most recent positions of both sides? So 50/50 on BRI, no hard cap but a firmer cap with a stiffer luxury tax, shorter contracts, and a less lucrative MLE. I think Stern takes that in a heartbeat and sells it to the owners and that Hunter would have a much tougher time selling it to the players. Then where is the union if they're the ones to walk away from the mediator's efforts?

[Mel_13]

I agree that it would have been really hard to do and that's why I said it should had be done on July 1st with all the top players. Capital and TV deals wouldn't have been an issue since investor and TV channel would have been interest by a product that would have been as good as the NBA. Arenas would have been the biggest issue but a lot of them are owned by cities/counties and not by the franchises.

You're more optimistic about such a league than I am. I would agree that any chances would have been better back in July.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm well aware that it's a lockout and I would disagree that this posture creates leverage. IMO, it simply assures greater losses for all involved.

Either end this thing on the best terms you can get or bring out the nukes and sue. These brave words are pointless; they just waste time and money.

They would be foolish to sue while they are using a federal mediator. Hopefully something can come of it. If talks do breakdown and the players file, its going to be months before there is any movement.

With the precedent of the NFL in appellate court concerning injunctions the only recourse is review by SCOTUS and i would not hold my breath. Other than a preliminary injunction itll be next Summer before the trial completes and then that will be appealed.

If you want a quick resolution then you are either going to have to have the players capitulate or have the owners quit trying to lowball and start negotiating on the basis of how things are and not how they want them to be.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They could have demonstrated all that back in July. I know others see it differently, but I'm convinced that the union has squandered huge amounts of time and now will waste even more time and huge amounts of money. They knew exactly what was coming and couldn't come up with a better plan than staring down the owners.

As to the mediator. What if he suggests to split the difference on all issues based on the most recent positions of both sides? So 50/50 on BRI, no hard cap but a firmer cap with a stiffer luxury tax, shorter contracts, and a less lucrative MLE. I think Stern takes that in a heartbeat and sells it to the owners and that Hunter would have a much tougher time selling it to the players. Then where is the union if they're the ones to walk away from the mediator's efforts?

Hes a mediator not an arbitrator.

[Mel_13]

Hes a mediator not an arbitrator.

I know.

[Mel_13]

They would be foolish to sue while they are using a federal mediator. Hopefully something can come of it. If talks do breakdown and the players file, its going to be months before there is any movement.

With the precedent of the NFL in appellate court concerning injunctions the only recourse is review by SCOTUS and i would not hold my breath. Other than a preliminary injunction itll be next Summer before the trial completes and then that will be appealed.

If you want a quick resolution then you are either going to have to have the players capitulate or have the owners quit trying to lowball and start negotiating on the basis of how things are and not how they want them to be.

Clearly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know.

Then I don't get your point about him making suggestions.

[Mel_13]

Then I don't get your point about him making suggestions.

Is he prohibited by his office from doing so? Is he limited to observing and relaying messages between the two sides?

[Mel_13]

How Collective Bargaining Mediation Works
In collective bargaining mediation, FMCS mediators are in touch with both parties even before negotiations actually begin. The contact is triggered by the legally-required notice of intent to open a collective bargaining agreement.

During negotiations, effective mediators use knowledge of the parties and issues "on the table" to guide negotiators through potential deadlocks to a settlement which both sides can accept.

Mediators may make suggestions and offer procedural or substantive recommendations with the agreement of both parties. However, they have no authority to impose settlements. Their only tool is the power of persuasion.

http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=141&itemID=15911

The mediators’ effectiveness derives from their acceptability to both parties, their broad knowledge, experience in the process of collective bargaining, and their status as respected neutrals.

[ElNono]

They could have demonstrated all that back in July. I know others see it differently, but I'm convinced that the union has squandered huge amounts of time and now will waste even more time and huge amounts of money. They knew exactly what was coming and couldn't come up with a better plan than staring down the owners.

No, they couldn't. Because the NBA filed a lawsuit making it really difficult for the union to decertify too quickly. And they did it seeing the NFL going for the nuclear option a few months back, well aware that's where the NBAPA was heading. Basically, the NBA did it so these negotiations would be extensive, thinking the players would fold in the process. The NBA really wanted this dragged out process, because they knew what they are demanding add up to major concessions from the last CBA, and basically, ripping the players off.


As to the mediator. What if he suggests to split the difference on all issues based on the most recent positions of both sides? So 50/50 on BRI, no hard cap but a firmer cap with a stiffer luxury tax, shorter contracts, and a less lucrative MLE. I think Stern takes that in a heartbeat and sells it to the owners and that Hunter would have a much tougher time selling it to the players. Then where is the union if they're the ones to walk away from the mediator's efforts?

I think the mediator would look at it closer to actual points, especially seeing what the previous CBA was. I would expect him to say, owners get their BRI proposal, union gets their soft cap policy. That's how actual negotiations normally work. Each side get some and each side loses some.

There's also the possibility that it will ask for an actual audit of the NBA accounts, and that's where it can get really complicated for Stern.

Which is why I don't think Stern wants any part of it. It gives the players hope that they can drive some of their points as part of a deal, and Stern already bet the house on players folding.

So I don't expect the mediator to work. They're too far apart. But it's part of the process in saying the negotiations have been in "good faith".

[ElNono]

There's also the fact that anything that the mediator says could potentially be used as testimony later down the road, and to use as media ammo. It's already being used by the union, actually.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How Collective Bargaining Mediation Works
In collective bargaining mediation, FMCS mediators are in touch with both parties even before negotiations actually begin. The contact is triggered by the legally-required notice of intent to open a collective bargaining agreement.

During negotiations, effective mediators use knowledge of the parties and issues "on the table" to guide negotiators through potential deadlocks to a settlement which both sides can accept.

Mediators may make suggestions and offer procedural or substantive recommendations with the agreement of both parties. However, they have no authority to impose settlements. Their only tool is the power of persuasion.

http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=141&itemID=15911

The mediators’ effectiveness derives from their acceptability to both parties, their broad knowledge, experience in the process of collective bargaining, and their status as respected neutrals.

I am well aware of their roles. Sure maybe the mediator will recommend that the players take whatever deal the NBA wants them to at that moment but I somehow doubt it.

[ElNono]

“The mediator was suggesting we set next week — the entire week — aside,” Hunter said. “It’s because of the N.B.A. schedule and the commissioner’s alleged inability that he set this superficial, arbitrary deadline.

“I believe the N.B.A. has scheduled a board of governors meeting and other meetings Thursday and Friday,” Hunter added. “So that’s why he limited it to one day and one day only.”

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/sports/basketball/nba-players-union-fights-off-impression-that-it-isnt-united.html?ref=basketball)

[Mel_13]

No, they couldn't.

Always a pleasure, Nono, to go around the block with you on an issue of mutual interest.

We'll agree that the players are on the right side of this mess, that they occupy the moral high ground if one exists. I'm pretty sure that we also share a common understanding of the issues and their history.

As to the question of the competence demonstrated by union leadership over the last several months, we'll have to agree to disagree. We're looking at the same sequence of events and drawing different conclusions.

Not the first time we've reached that point. I doubt it will be the last.


“The mediator was suggesting we set next week — the entire week — aside,” Hunter said. “It’s because of the N.B.A. schedule and the commissioner’s alleged inability that he set this superficial, arbitrary deadline.

“I believe the N.B.A. has scheduled a board of governors meeting and other meetings Thursday and Friday,” Hunter added. “So that’s why he limited it to one day and one day only.”

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/sports/basketball/nba-players-union-fights-off-impression-that-it-isnt-united.html?ref=basketball)

Yeah, I laughed when I first read about that. It's actually fairly representative of the way this whole thing has unfolded. Stern has certainly controlled the calendar up to this point.

[Birn]

Players need to suck it up and take the 50/50 deal and play ball. Even with the 50/50 deal they'll still be paid more than any other group of NBA players in league history. This crap about setting a legacy for future NBA players is garbage. Future players are going to be making more money than present players because the brand continues to grow every year on a global scale. TV revenue increases each year. The main difference is controlling costs. Players want an unheard of percentage of revenue that is never seen in 99% of business contract relationships where the owner is willing to relinquish more than 57% of revenue to the partner. The owner is still responsible for all expenses and the risk of financial loss and exposure to liability. The gravy train for the players is over. It's time to man up and take the 50/50 deal and play basketball.

[ElNono]

Birn, it it's just the BRI. They basically don't agree in one single point.

[baseline bum]

Players need to suck it up and take the 50/50 deal and play ball. Even with the 50/50 deal they'll still be paid more than any other group of NBA players in league history. This crap about setting a legacy for future NBA players is garbage. Future players are going to be making more money than present players because the brand continues to grow every year on a global scale. TV revenue increases each year. The main difference is controlling costs. Players want an unheard of percentage of revenue that is never seen in 99% of business contract relationships where the owner is willing to relinquish more than 57% of revenue to the partner. The owner is still responsible for all expenses and the risk of financial loss and exposure to liability. The gravy train for the players is over. It's time to man up and take the 50/50 deal and play basketball.

The owners are also in a profitable syndicate that doesn't offer free market value to the players. If you want to make that kind of argument that they should be treated as independent businesses then you need to get rid of collusion by the owners for things such as the salary cap, the rookie scale, the maximum contract (both money and length), the caps on raises, etc.

[ElNono]

Always a pleasure, Nono, to go around the block with you on an issue of mutual interest.

We'll agree that the players are on the right side of this mess, that they occupy the moral high ground if one exists. I'm pretty sure that we also share a common understanding of the issues and their history.

Pleasure is all mine. :toast
Ultimately, which side is right or wrong, as you say, will matter little once both sides sign off on a deal. I certainly think players are undergoing a test of principles right now, and their unity is what's going to make that deal another ripoff in the long storied ripoffs of the league over the players, or something they can be proud of going forward. You might characterize that pride as "we're proud on shitting on the owners", but I really do think they've accepted the reality of the economic situation and made tangible concessions to assume some of that reality.


As to the question of the competence demonstrated by union leadership over the last several months, we'll have to agree to disagree. We're looking at the same sequence of events and drawing different conclusions.

Not the first time we've reached that point. I doubt it will be the last.

Matt Bonner!!! :D
tbqh, I think Stern schooled Hunter so badly before, that he miscalculated this time, by bragging too early on how he was going to school him again. By such early bragging, he allowed players to be prepared. I think the difference this time is that Hunter is in his last legs, and that players like Fisher, who is semi-retired and are a lot more in control, were able to organize the players a lot earlier and better. The union was certainly competent enough to put together documentation on player behavior, educating players on what was coming, etc. And except for McGee last night, they've been mostly following that line. If you think it was hard to keep players's mouth shut back in '99 (with the memorable Ewing, Anderson quotes), imagine what it is now with Twitter, Facebook and all that jazz.

I just think the sides are so far apart only because one started negotiating based on the previous contract, and the other based on some strictly one-sided proposal.


Yeah, I laughed when I first read about that. It's actually fairly representative of the way this whole thing has unfolded. Stern has certainly controlled the calendar up to this point.

And this is where an 'external, neutral' character can work well for the union. Neither side has to agree with the mediator, and most likely won't. But it gives them some ammo they can use against the other side.

[ChuckD]

Players need to suck it up and take the 50/50 deal and play ball. Even with the 50/50 deal they'll still be paid more than any other group of NBA players in league history. This crap about setting a legacy for future NBA players is garbage. Future players are going to be making more money than present players because the brand continues to grow every year on a global scale. TV revenue increases each year. The main difference is controlling costs. Players want an unheard of percentage of revenue that is never seen in 99% of business contract relationships where the owner is willing to relinquish more than 57% of revenue to the partner. The owner is still responsible for all expenses and the risk of financial loss and exposure to liability. The gravy train for the players is over. It's time to man up and take the 50/50 deal and play basketball.

Actually, the last offer I heard by the players was a variance between 51% and 53%. Since they've never gotten less than 53% in ANY CBA in the salary cap era, the owners wanting 50% is the unprecedented position.

The owners need to get THEIR shit together and share more revenue amongst themselves. Their revenue sharing is in the neighborhood of 20 something percent of all revenues. The NFL shares in the 60th percentile. I guarantee you that with more comprehensive revenue sharing, zero NBA teams would lose money.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The owners are also in a profitable syndicate that doesn't offer free market value to the players. If you want to make that kind of argument that they should be treated as independent businesses then you need to get rid of collusion by the owners for things such as the salary cap, the rookie scale, the maximum contract (both money and length), the caps on raises, etc.

a free market doesnt benefit the owners besides the greedy player gettin overpaid, hence only big clubs would overpay...then again if these clowns wanted to be overpaid might as well head to europe......they wanna get paid 50m a season? they playin the wrong sport

[wildbill2u]

I've been in mediation several times. In every case both sides were told by the mediator that nothing that is said during mediation by either side can be used later as it is supposed to be confidential.

Doesn't mean that folks couldn't violate the confidentiality agreement or that they could find some way around it to stay within the strict guideline.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Players need to suck it up and take the 50/50 deal and play ball. Even with the 50/50 deal they'll still be paid more than any other group of NBA players in league history. This crap about setting a legacy for future NBA players is garbage. Future players are going to be making more money than present players because the brand continues to grow every year on a global scale. TV revenue increases each year. The main difference is controlling costs. Players want an unheard of percentage of revenue that is never seen in 99% of business contract relationships where the owner is willing to relinquish more than 57% of revenue to the partner. The owner is still responsible for all expenses and the risk of financial loss and exposure to liability. The gravy train for the players is over. It's time to man up and take the 50/50 deal and play basketball.

There is a reverse to that. The owners would be getting the sweetest deal in pro sports. its called market forces. it could just as easily be said that the NBA and Stern should take the 53% deal and be getting the highest percentage in pro sports.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

a free market doesnt benefit the owners besides the greedy player gettin overpaid, hence only big clubs would overpay...then again if these clowns wanted to be overpaid might as well head to europe......they wanna get paid 50m a season? they playin the wrong sport

A free market is the American way.

Its also the Australian Way:

http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/legislation.html

[Birn]

Actually, the last offer I heard by the players was a variance between 51% and 53%. Since they've never gotten less than 53% in ANY CBA in the salary cap era, the owners wanting 50% is the unprecedented position.

The owners need to get THEIR shit together and share more revenue amongst themselves. Their revenue sharing is in the neighborhood of 20 something percent of all revenues. The NFL shares in the 60th percentile. I guarantee you that with more comprehensive revenue sharing, zero NBA teams would lose money.

Perhaps the players should start sharing THEIR basketball related revenue (i.e. endorsements) with each other. Once they do that FIRST, then they would have standing to argue the owners need to share their revenue.

[baseline bum]

Perhaps the players should start sharing THEIR basketball related revenue (i.e. endorsements) with each other. Once they do that FIRST, then they would have standing to argue the owners need to share their revenue.

Um, the last 2 collective bargaining agreements have been all about the high end players sharing their revenue with the average players. Before the lockout Jordan was pulling $30 million (in 1998 dollars). Ewing was pulling $20.5 million. Now the closest is Kobe at $25M in 2011 dollars. The salaries are far more balanced than they ever were under the pre-lockout collective bargaining agreements.

[Birn]

Um, the last 2 collective bargaining agreements have been all about the high end players sharing their revenue with the average players. Before the lockout Jordan was pulling $30 million (in 1998 dollars). Ewing was pulling $20.5 million. Now the closest is Kobe at $25M in 2011 dollars. The salaries are far more balanced than they ever were under the pre-lockout collective bargaining agreements.

You're still talking salaries. The post I responded to dealt with all basketball related revenue. The players have no right to demand the owners share more off court revenue with each other. If the players want more money, they should look to share with each other first. I can't imagine Lebron James willing to share his $100 million in endorsements with 12th men on each team. He shouldn't have to do that and the owners shouldn't have to do that either with their off court revenue.

[Birn]

There is a reverse to that. The owners would be getting the sweetest deal in pro sports. its called market forces. it could just as easily be said that the NBA and Stern should take the 53% deal and be getting the highest percentage in pro sports.

Uh, the players are not offering 53% to the owners. It is 47% and it is NOT the highest percentage in sports. The players need to get over themselves and accept a deal this Tuesday so we can enjoy some NBA ball this season. Once the BRI percentage is agreed, the rest of the "system" issues can be worked out in about an hour.

[baseline bum]

You're still talking salaries. The post I responded to dealt with all basketball related revenue. The players have no right to demand the owners share more off court revenue with each other. If the players want more money, they should look to share with each other first. I can't imagine Lebron James willing to share his $100 million in endorsements with 12th men on each team. He shouldn't have to do that and the owners shouldn't have to do that either with their off court revenue.

TV deals are off-court revenue?

[ElNono]

Perhaps the players should start sharing THEIR basketball related revenue (i.e. endorsements) with each other. Once they do that FIRST, then they would have standing to argue the owners need to share their revenue.

The players aren't going broke. Heck, the players aren't on strike. It's some owners allegedly going broke and locking out the league.
Those owners want the players to bail them out. The players already offered to cover half of those loses. The rest of the owners need to step up and cover the other half.

[benefactor]

The players aren't going broke. Heck, the players aren't on strike. It's some owners allegedly going broke and locking out the league.
Those owners want the players to bail them out. The players already offered to cover half of those loses. The rest of the owners need to step up and cover the other half.
Nono...the goods, per usual, tbh, fwiw.

[Birn]

TV deals are off-court revenue?

Yep, local TV deals are the sole property of the franchise. The national network deals with ESPN, ABC, TNT are shared revenue because those deals are struck by the league on behalf of all the teams. Local and regional TV and radio deals are the sole property of the franchises. Those are considered 2nd tier network deals. LA, Chi, NY, Miami make $100's of millions of dollars in local TV contracts. SA, OKC and other small market teams don't make anything close to that with their local TV contracts.

If players are going to start demanding this money get lumped into BRI then they need to be prepared to lump in their endorsement income as well. They won't go there because they know they have no right to demand that from owners.

This crap needs to get resolved this week. Players have to stop being greedy and accept the concessions from the owners to make them the highest paid NBA players in league history. Of course, dumbasses like Kevin Garnett think they need to hold out for more money for the benefit of "future NBA players" which is all total BS. KG, Melo, Wade and all the other greedy bastards need to wake up and understand that millions of people are out of work and struggling in this economy. Their lack of common sense and greed is simply astounding. Accept the deal and let's play ball!

[baseline bum]

Yep, local TV deals are the sole property of the franchise. The national network deals with ESPN, ABC, TNT are shared revenue because those deals are struck by the league on behalf of all the teams. Local and regional TV and radio deals are the sole property of the franchises. Those are considered 2nd tier network deals. LA, Chi, NY, Miami make $100's of millions of dollars in local TV contracts. SA, OKC and other small market teams don't make anything close to that with their local TV contracts.

If players are going to start demanding this money get lumped into BRI then they need to be prepared to lump in their endorsement income as well. They won't go there because they know they have no right to demand that from owners.

This crap needs to get resolved this week. Players have to stop being greedy and accept the concessions from the owners to make them the highest paid NBA players in league history. Of course, dumbasses like Kevin Garnett think they need to hold out for more money for the benefit of "future NBA players" which is all total BS. KG, Melo, Wade and all the other greedy bastards need to wake up and understand that millions of people are out of work and struggling in this economy. Their lack of common sense and greed is simply astounding. Accept the deal and let's play ball!

You're wrong. Local TV deals were absolutely part of BRI under previous collective bargaining agreements. You can read it in the Article VII of the 2005 CBA



http://www.nbpa.org/cba/2005/article-vii-basketball-related-income-salary-cap-minimum-team-salary-and-escrow-arrangement
(a) Basketball Related Income.

...

(ii) all proceeds of any kind, net of reasonable and customary expenses related
thereto, from the broadcast or exhibition of, or the sale, license or other
conveyance or exploitation of the right to broadcast or exhibit, NBA preseason,
Regular Season and Playoff games and summer league and other NBA-related
off-season games involving Players, highlights or portions of such games, and
non-game NBA programming, on any and all forms of radio, television,
telephone, internet, and any other communications media, forms of reproduction
and other technologies, whether presently existing or not, anywhere in the world,
whether live or on any form of delay, including, without limitation, network,
local, cable, direct broadcast satellite and any form of pay television, and all other
means of distribution and exploitation, whether presently existing or not and

[Birn]

The players aren't going broke. Heck, the players aren't on strike. It's some owners allegedly going broke and locking out the league.
Those owners want the players to bail them out. The players already offered to cover half of those loses. The rest of the owners need to step up and cover the other half.

The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.

I love my Spurs and want them to remain competitive. If you also love your Spurs, then you would be for the owners on this deal.

This deal is all on the players. They have no right to demand more than 50% of the revenue from the owners. They have no right to keep demanding to keep 57% from owners unless they also take 57% of the operating costs from the owners. You people need to wake up and realize just how greedy and selfish these players really are. It is disgusting, despicable, and sickening to see them acting this way in this current economy with millions of people out of work and striving for some kind of entertainment to take their minds off of their problems in trying to keep their families together.

Greedy Bastards!! Accept the 50/50 deal and play ball now!!!

[baseline bum]

I love my Spurs and want them to remain competitive. If you also love your Spurs, then you would be for the owners on this deal.

You should look into a career in politics tbh.

[Giuseppe]

The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only.

Birn with the bitter truth.

Good stuff, Birn.

[Birn]

You're wrong. Local TV deals were absolutely part of BRI under previous collective bargaining agreements. You can read it in the Article VII of the 2005 CBA

Those deal exclusively with "league related entities" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related entity since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be entitled to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are entitled to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!

Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BASTARDS!!!!

[Birn]

You should look into a career in politics tbh.

LOL!! I would get CLOBBERRED!! I'm not politically correct enough.

[ElNono]

The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.

I love my Spurs and want them to remain competitive. If you also love your Spurs, then you would be for the owners on this deal.

This deal is all on the players. They have no right to demand more than 50% of the revenue from the owners. They have no right to keep demanding to keep 57% from owners unless they also take 57% of the operating costs from the owners. You people need to wake up and realize just how greedy and selfish these players really are. It is disgusting, despicable, and sickening to see them acting this way in this current economy with millions of people out of work and striving for some kind of entertainment to take their minds off of their problems in trying to keep their families together.

Greedy Bastards!! Accept the 50/50 deal and play ball now!!!


The bottom line is that players would be playing if the old CBA was renewed. Heck, they would be playing if the league accepted the union concessions, which covered half the losses.

What do you mean 'players have no right'? This is a star driven league. Stern made that bed, now he has to lay on it.

I'm not opposed to some contraction, btw. I think teams like the Spurs can still make ends meet with the last union proposal. And ultimately, why do solely the players have to subsidize small market teams? They didn't create those teams or relocate them there. That was entirely approved by owners. Again, it's time for the owners to step up to the plate and either cover the other half of the losses by better redistribution or simply axe a few teams.

[ElNono]

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be entitled to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are entitled to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

But they did. They offered to cover half the alleged owner's losses from the get go.

Again, why should players subsidize owner's bad decisions?

[baseline bum]

Those deal exclusively with "league related entities" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related entity since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.


That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.



Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be entitled to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are entitled to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.


Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is entitled to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.



Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!


I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.



Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BASTARDS!!!!

They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.

[ChuckD]

The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.



The bottom line is that owners who paid $200-300M aren't going to allow their teams to be contracted. They'll claw back more shared revenue from the other owners first.

[Birn]

That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.



Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is entitled to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.



I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.



They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.


If I knew how to copy and paste from a PDF document I would show you. It's a couple of paragraphs before the one you cited. It explains it all right there.

Your premise that the players will be "subsidizing" the owners is incredibly flawed. In order for one entity to "subsidize" another, the subsidizing party must own the process. The NBA players in this case don't own the process, the NBA franchise owners do. The fact is there would be no NBA without the owners putting up all of their capital. As much as people like to say this is "players league" it really isn't....the league belongs to the owners in all reality. It's important that we always deal with fact and reason.

The concept of free market is perfectly applicable in this case. A free market is where two parties enter into an agreement with each other in order to serve their own self-interest. In order for this to work, each party must be willing to accept each other's terms. If one party doesn't accept the other's terms, there's no deal and there should be no compulsion for either party to accept the other's terms. That's why it is called a free market. Either side is free to accept or reject the other's terms. The owners are telling the players that their terms are simply unacceptable.

The league is not making money hand over fist as you suggest. This is a serious situation for the NBA and its future especially for small market teams like the Spurs. Some teams made money while others lost a lot of money. The point of the whole lockout is that salaries are growing at a much faster rate than the revenues generated by the league and it just can't be sustained into the foreseeable future. Believe it or not, the NBA is a private enterprise that must earn and account for all of it's money. This is not the federal government where you just print money if you run out.

On the concept of revenue sharing, it is not up to the owners to share more of their own revenue with each other. They don't need to share anything and nobody is entitled to their independent revenue. Same is true for the players - they don't have to share their endorsement income with anybody. However, the players keep talking about the importance of unity and solidarity - if that's the case then they should share their own money with each other. If they really and truly believe they are unified they would share each other's money. It would be stupid for them to actually do that because they would not be realizing their full earning potential. That's not how it works in a free market.

The owners and players are involved in a true partnership that can be very prosperous for all involved. Like any other partnership, a 50/50 split of the revenues is fair and more than reasonable.

[baseline bum]

If I knew how to copy and paste from a PDF document I would show you. It's a couple of paragraphs before the one you cited. It explains it all right there.


OK, thanks (saw it in the 1st subsection). Hard to believe Spurs Sports and Entertainment could draw more than 50% of their income from the Silver Stars and so on, but if there have been ways to snake out of putting local TV deals in the BRI in previous CBAs, that sets precedent for the league to negotiate from and thus reject player's demands for more revenue sharing driven mainly by the local TV deals.

[ElNono]

The point of the whole lockout is that salaries are growing at a much faster rate than the revenues generated by the league and it just can't be sustained into the foreseeable future.

But this is what's baloney. Salaries are tied to a percentage of income. That's exactly what the 'share of BRI' is. If income goes down, salaries go down too.
Conversely, if income goes up, then there's more money to split on salaries.

And this is exactly why players are already 'revenue sharing'. Since the salary pool is a relatively-fixed amount, and the amount of players on teams is already a fixed amount too, the $5 million/season Roger Mason gets is the extra $5 million Lebron should be getting (I think there's little doubt that in a true free market economy, NBA star players are generally underpaid. How much is a guy like Kobe worth to LA?).

[Birn]

That doesn't appear to be the case at all according to the text of the collective bargaining agreement. If you can show the section that establishes what you're saying I'll gladly concede the point.



Your argument would be more convincing if the league was losing money, but it's not. I don't understand why that profit for small market teams should come as a subsidy primarily from the players. It doesn't make sense to divorce the teams of the NBA syndicate as a whole. The stance I keep hearing here is free market when it comes to my profits, but not when it's my expenses. If you really believe every team is entitled to its profits over the common good of the rest of the league then you should also apply those kind of free market principles to player compensation. Of course that would be disastrous for the league though; we'd lose the small market teams and the big market teams would then start making less with fewer teams to play against, lower merchandise and national broadcast revenues, and so on while paying true market value for the LeBron James and Kobe Bryants of the league.



I can't think of many businesses that are filled with 1 in a million talent as bit players like every NBA roster is. Especially ones that need to expose their employees and their work directly to the public the way professional sports have to. The fans get attachments to players they can see directly, they can read about on ESPN.com, and so on.



They don't owe it to you to take a huge paycut when the product they're putting out is generating profit.


But this is what's baloney. Salaries are tied to a percentage of income. That's exactly what the 'share of BRI' is. If income goes down, salaries go down too.
Conversely, if income goes up, then there's more money to split on salaries.

And this is exactly why players are already 'revenue sharing'. Since the salary pool is a relatively-fixed amount, and the amount of players on teams is already a fixed amount too, the $5 million/season Roger Mason gets is the extra $5 million Lebron should be getting (I think there's little doubt that in a true free market economy, NBA star players are generally underpaid. How much is a guy like Kobe worth to LA?).

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very competitive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

[Dex]

So should we start a pool on if the NBA/NBPA will actually make any progress tomorrow? At least make this shit interesting...

[spurs10]

I would think protecting guaranteed contracts is at the top of the union's list. These players all know they have relatively short careers in the NBA. If any one of them can be easily discarded when they suffer an injury, then all of them are standing on shaky ground. The whole purpose of a union is to protect their players from getting kicked to the curb when they are no longer able to perform due to unintentional injuries etc. Most contracts in every field protect people in this way. Tim Duncan is getting paid well for what he's done for our team as much as what he will do in the future for our team. That being said, the owners have no motivation to continue losing large sum of money. That's likely why Stern doesn't want to spend more than one day negotiating with a mediator present. They already know they won't accept a 53/47 split.

[ElNono]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very competitive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

I don't disagree with this. I'm just not sure it would maximize returns for the league, but that's certainly debatable.

The whole situation sucks, and quite frankly, hearing about owners like Sarver and Gilbert taking a leading role after making shit decisions over and over is frankly the epitome of hypocrisy. Badly managed teams SHOULD lose money and should potentially disappear or be sold to better management.

[Giuseppe]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very competitive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster.

Birn again, with the indominable goods.

[Mr. Body]

The purest system we can have is where all players are limited to non-guaranteed one year contracts with no salary cap. That way teams are not locked in to albatross contracts and players are paid their true market value. Some would think the richest owners would just overpay the best players to be on their roster. However, most players are very competitive and want to play and showcase their skills. I don't think they would want to be paid a bunch of money to just sit on the bench or play spot minutes. This system also puts pressure on teams' scouting departments to find the best diamonds in the rough to complement their roster. The best run teams and most respected organizations like the Spurs would benefit from such a system.

Vastly to the benefit of the owners, although it seems you're heavily in their favor. Your idea is very silly.

Regardless, the best players wouldn't sign unless they were offered multiple years. The teams would have to accept in order to sign them. Then the rest of the players would start holding out in the same way, so the the teams missing out on the first run of players would have to do the same for the second run, and on down the line. Besides, the teams would want multiple year contracts, anyway - it helps to not have to negotiate tirelessly every year for the same players. Not only does this put a lot of hazard for teams to not play their best players, it ignores the enormous benefit of keeping players in the community, marketing them to fans who want to see them year in and year out, etc., and keeping a team together to build cohesion and experience.

The massive problem the owners have - and have always had, in this league -is that they substantially bid against themselves. Stupid owners/stupid GMs make things hard enough as it is, but then the very process of negotiation and the small number of players per team pushes the value of players higher in any given summer market.

This isn't the players' fault, but of course Stern wants it to be their fault. He's won a lot of concessions in the last ten to fifteen years to ameliorate this situation, and the players have conceded to them (rookie scale, Bird rights, luxury tax, etc...). But now you have the league saying teams aren't solvent for basically is the same problem they've created for themselves. If they weren't paying out exorbitant contracts, they wouldn't have this problem. You're making the same argument they are, and it's a bit daft.

[Birn]

Vastly to the benefit of the owners, although it seems you're heavily in their favor. Your idea is very silly.

Regardless, the best players wouldn't sign unless they were offered multiple years. The teams would have to accept in order to sign them. Then the rest of the players would start holding out in the same way, so the the teams missing out on the first run of players would have to do the same for the second run, and on down the line. Besides, the teams would want multiple year contracts, anyway - it helps to not have to negotiate tirelessly every year for the same players. Not only does this put a lot of hazard for teams to not play their best players, it ignores the enormous benefit of keeping players in the community, marketing them to fans who want to see them year in and year out, etc., and keeping a team together to build cohesion and experience.

The massive problem the owners have - and have always had, in this league -is that they substantially bid against themselves. Stupid owners/stupid GMs make things hard enough as it is, but then the very process of negotiation and the small number of players per team pushes the value of players higher in any given summer market.

This isn't the players' fault, but of course Stern wants it to be their fault. He's won a lot of concessions in the last ten to fifteen years to ameliorate this situation, and the players have conceded to them (rookie scale, Bird rights, luxury tax, etc...). But now you have the league saying teams aren't solvent for basically is the same problem they've created for themselves. If they weren't paying out exorbitant contracts, they wouldn't have this problem. You're making the same argument they are, and it's a bit daft.

I agree my idea of a pure system will never happen. However, it's in no way silly or "daft", whatever the hell that means. Many people on the side of the players talk incessantly about how they just want the free market to work for the players. My opinion on a pure free market system is that players should have to prove their worth every year. If injuries happen, that's too bad. They just have to rehab and get back in shape so they can become marketable again. I realize that's not going to happen but it's the purest form of a free market.

I'm glad to know you agree that player salaries have become exorbitant. Now we just need to focus on how to fix it. Owners can't just decide to pay less in the current system because the union will cry collusion and seek damages through the courts. In the current system, the owners have no choice but to pay crazy salaries because that is the way the current system is set up. If an owner wants to field a competitive team they have to pay pretty much what the players are demanding. The way to fix that is to correct the flaws in the system. Basically, move away from a 43/57 split to a 50/50 split. NBA players will still be the highest paid players in all major sports and the highest paid NBA players in the history of the league.

This is really a no brainer for the players. If no progress is made tomorrow, there's a strong likelihood there will be no basketball this season.

[therealtruth]

I agree with Birn. The players should have to prove their worth. It's kind of silly for players to say owners are stupid to pay Eddie Curry a long deal and then offer no alternative. It makes it easy for them to get a long term deal and then take it easy. We've seen the contract year phenomenon so much. If players actually played like that every year the league would be much more competitive. I can't think of a good argument for allowing long term deals and allowing players not to live up to it. Shorter contracts also rewards players for getting better and working on their skills. They can get a pay raise by improving. Right now if a player is locked into a deal there's no real motivation for them to get better till the contract year.

One idea is adding more conditions that measure performance/effort into contracts.That's why I liked it when the Grizzlies started doing that with their rookies. It may seem a little controversial because not everything is under a player's control.

[Dex]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/nba/nba-lockout-update-more-bad-david-stern-spin


NBA Lockout Update: More Bad David Stern Spin

I have Mike and Mike to thank for making my morning commute just a little brighter. A few days ago they had David Stern on, which wasn’t good for my happiness level. Here were some of David Stern’s points.

1. The Owners are being more cooperative than the players

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. We need to remember that this is a lockout! That means the owners started it! Why should the players be as cooperative as the owners here? By being cooperative the owners get more money. By being more cooperative the players lose money.

2. The world has changed and the owners are losing money

David Stern pointed out 57% is no longer feasible. Now let’s point out that number is tied to revenue! That means the players salaries stay flat relative to how the league is doing. The NBA may be losing money but it isn’t due to the player salaries, it’s due to external costs. Stern brought up two, which I’ll go into more detail below.

3. Charter jets are expensive

This is an ever popular topic. Oil prices have gone up and planes use oil so this is an unforseen cost that can explain the issue teams are having with money! I decided to look up the cost for a charter jet (I used a 737-200 and 727-200 as my plane type) the prices I’ve seen are around $7,000 hourly. I decided to go ahead and up the cost to $10,000 hourly to adjust for any fuel arguments. A round trip flight to Boston to Los Angeles is around 11 hours (courtesy of Google Flights) Using these two numbers we can get a fun upper bound estimate. If every team paid $10,000 an hour per flight and every flight was a Boston-Los Angeles length flight then the total flight budget for the regular season(41 flights for 30 teams) would be $135 million. The league is claiming losses of over $300 million. In the worst case flights only explain $135 million in total cost! That means the actual hit would have to be somewhere between what the NBA actually expected the flights to cost and the increase in value. In short even if we buy that the NBA was shocked by changing fuel prices and that they paid top dollar for the flights and every flight was as long as can be they still come up over $200 million short. That means every other excuse the NBA is using would have to cover the rest of those costs. That brings me to another point.

4. The NBA needed more employees to handle ticket sales.

David Stern said that demand for the game had dropped. Of course this isn’t true. The way he sold it was that because people were buying tickets in smaller bundles (e.g. sets of 10 instead of sets of 40) that more employees were needed to handle sales. His two main cost points were charter jets (see above) and this! First off are we expected to believe that low wage workers to sell tickets could even make a decent dent in $300 million? Second, do we really believe the NBA is losing costs to employees? Employees were one of the first casualties of the lockout. The NBA has shown no problem cutting employees to cut costs. If they were losing money since the last CBA does Stern really expect us to believe they’d be content losing costs to employees?

David Stern isn’t addressing anything

I didn’t hear David Stern explain how the NBA was going to try and curb the uncontrolled costs. I didn’t hear David Stern explain how the NBA would try to increase revenue. I heard David Stern say the players need to fork over money to help the owners. The issues put forward by the owners seem flimsy. Also if the issues are enough to put the NBA in danger, why aren’t the owners trying to do anything to deal with them in this CBA? David Stern and the owners have done nothing to address the issues and have essentially asked the players for a check. The negotiations have nothing to do with the issue in fact! They have everything to do with the size of the check.

As an NBA fan I want this lockout to end. That said, when I hear David Stern talk, I can’t help but feel more upset at the fact that I am being lied to and the wrong people are being blamed. Instead of locking out the players perhaps the owners should have locked themselves out and hired a new commissioner.

-Dre

Another perspective, and a few factors that I haven't really seen brought up yet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those deal exclusively with "league related entities" that derive 50% or more income from the NBA. Spurs Sports and Entertainment Inc is not considered a league related entity since they also derive income from the Silver Stars, The Rampage, Monster Truck Shows, Home Shows, Concerts, etc. and The Toros.

Even if we were to assume you were correct, the players shouldn't be entitled to that revenue unless they also pay into the costs borne by the owners. They love to talk revenue but always forget about costs and exposure to liability. Remember, the owners get paid last. All expenses, salaries, operating costs, etc, get paid first. On the other hand, the players are only talking about salaries - no costs. They would have more credibility if they were mature enough to accept that owners are taking great risks to run their businesses and are entitled to earn a profit. They MUST earn a profit in order to remain in business. If the players are so concerned about having a league in the future they would understand that concept and work with the owners to get this deal done this week.

Just look at Michael Jordan as perfect example. Now that he's an owner and has to operate a business on a day to day basis he fully understands what is going on. Notice he isn't saying much about the players' position. If he was a player that truly felt this way about revenue sharing then why isn't he doing it as an owner? Same for many of these players who own businesses themselves. Do you really think they believe in sharing 57% of their total business income on salaries for THEIR employees? Before expenses are even deducted? Heck no! Talk about hypocrisy!

Players need to get a grip on reality and get this deal done on Tuesday!

Greedy BASTARDS!!!!

You do not understand market economics or the basis for the need for a CBA in the first place. The owners do not want free market instead want the market fixed to a particular value. Thats why the issue of BRI comes up.

Pro sports is a business unlike any other. Scarce labor. Think about it and maybe you will finally get the baseline.

The players are entitled to a free market. The onwers don't want one.

[ElNono]

I agree with Birn. The players should have to prove their worth. It's kind of silly for players to say owners are stupid to pay Eddie Curry a long deal and then offer no alternative. It makes it easy for them to get a long term deal and then take it easy. We've seen the contract year phenomenon so much. If players actually played like that every year the league would be much more competitive. I can't think of a good argument for allowing long term deals and allowing players not to live up to it. Shorter contracts also rewards players for getting better and working on their skills. They can get a pay raise by improving. Right now if a player is locked into a deal there's no real motivation for them to get better till the contract year.

You can solve that with bonuses/incentives, which, BTW, are already part of the league. Focusing on just shitty deals and shitty players overlooks the players that season in and out come out to play, and there's probably just as many of them. For every Toronto's Vince Carter, there's a LA's Kobe.

[Birn]

I don't disagree with this. I'm just not sure it would maximize returns for the league, but that's certainly debatable.

The whole situation sucks, and quite frankly, hearing about owners like Sarver and Gilbert taking a leading role after making shit decisions over and over is frankly the epitome of hypocrisy. Badly managed teams SHOULD lose money and should potentially disappear or be sold to better management.

Agree 100%. Both owners and players have to accept all the risks that come with a pure free market.

[Birn]

You do not understand market economics or the basis for the need for a CBA in the first place. The owners do not want free market instead want the market fixed to a particular value. Thats why the issue of BRI comes up.

Pro sports is a business unlike any other. Scarce labor. Think about it and maybe you will finally get the baseline.

The players are entitled to a free market. The onwers don't want one.

I agree the current system in no way resembles a "free" market. However, it is both the owners and the players that don't want a purely free market. Each side wants protections and guarantees that strip away all the risks that come with a free marketplace. My position is simple - players are given 1 year non-guaranteed deals with no salary cap limitations. Owners are then free to spend as much or as little as they're willing to spend. This is not realistic and will never be considered but nobody should ever try to argue that the players only want the free market to work. That's all BS...they want nothing close to a free market...they want guarantees and protections. If the players want those guarantees then they have to be prepared to give up some of the rewards that come with a free market. If the players truly understood the concept of a free market, they would make more money than they ever imagined. Same with the owners. Reason is because both sides are always accountable to perform at the highest levels. This makes better players and better teams to put on the floor to sell tickets and TV advertising.

[Mel_13]

I agree the current system in no way resembles a "free" market. However, it is both the owners and the players that don't want a purely free market. Each side wants protections and guarantees that strip away all the risks that come with a free marketplace. My position is simple - players are given 1 year non-guaranteed deals with no salary cap limitations. Owners are then free to spend as much or as little as they're willing to spend. This is not realistic and will never be considered but nobody should ever try to argue that the players only want the free market to work. That's all BS...they want nothing close to a free market...they want guarantees and protections. If the players want those guarantees then they have to be prepared to give up some of the rewards that come with a free market. If the players truly understood the concept of a free market, they would make more money than they ever imagined. Same with the owners. Reason is because both sides are always accountable to perform at the highest levels. This makes better players and better teams to put on the floor to sell tickets and TV advertising.

That position doesn't describe a free market. It's every bit as contrived as the current situation, just with different projected outcomes.

[Mr. Body]

Birn, your 'one-year contracts' is silly and completely beside the point. No one in their right mind would consider it, least of all the owners, who want longer-term certainty. The players, who have families they'd have to move, would hate it. The fans, who like to follow their favorite players, would hate it. The local businesses, who like to hire these athletes for endorsements, would hate it.

It's an utterly daft idea and hopefully you'll stop flogging it.

[Birn]

Birn, your 'one-year contracts' is silly and completely beside the point. No one in their right mind would consider it, least of all the owners, who want longer-term certainty. The players, who have families they'd have to move, would hate it. The fans, who like to follow their favorite players, would hate it. The local businesses, who like to hire these athletes for endorsements, would hate it.

It's an utterly daft idea and hopefully you'll stop flogging it.

I agree with you. Read my post again and notice where I clearly state that it is not realistic and will never happen. Feel free to bold it and highlight it if you wish. My point is that the players keep harping that they just want the free market to work for them when they have no clue what a free market really is. They're demanding a lot of guarantees and protections which are fine but in order to get those things they need to realize they have to give up some of the potential rewards that a free market offers.

If you want to see our Spurs play ball this year you need to hope the mediator finally convinces the players they will never see anything close to 53% of BRI. As long as the players show they're willing to negotiate, the owners will keep negotiating so the deal can get done. I would expect to see the new deal start at 53% in year 1 with a sliding scale that eventually reduces the BRI to an even 50/50 split after about 4 years. If the players don't accept something like that then they are even more stupid and selfish than I first thought.

Greedy Bastards!! Sign the deal and play some ball!!!

[Mark in Austin]

I'm still trying to figure out how the players are the greedy ones when they've already agreed to a billion dollars in salary reductions.

[ElNono]

I'm still trying to figure out how the players are the greedy ones when they've already agreed to a billion dollars in salary reductions.

Yeah, and the issue is far from just the BRI split. IIRC, the players also agreed to cut one year from both Bird and non-Bird contracts, but owners want to chop two... those greedy players!

[Birn]

I'm still trying to figure out how the players are the greedy ones when they've already agreed to a billion dollars in salary reductions.

The problem with your logic is there won't be a billion dollars to give back if we continue with the current system. The league will have to contract by about 7-10 teams and about 150 players will be out of work. If the players union really wants to protect the interests of all its members then it would accept a deal that ensures the long term viability for the whole league. The truth is the players association is only looking after the star players who earn the big money deals.

[DJ Mbenga]

stern was on that new cnn show with erin burnett. mostly a useless interview, you could tell she knew nothing about the nba, as evidenced by calling it a strike. i think the only thing work noting was stern said revenue was smaller than expected, yet since its based on percentage the nba had to send a check to the NBPA. other than that he looked to have this angry smirk or something when he mentioned the mediator. its not going to be a good day tomorrow in my view.

[ElNono]

other than that he looked to have this angry smirk or something when he mentioned the mediator. its not going to be a good day tomorrow in my view.

IMO, Stern wants nothing to do with external interference...

[Mel_13]

The problem with your logic is there won't be a billion dollars to give back if we continue with the current system. The league will have to contract by about 7-10 teams and about 150 players will be out of work.

Any basis for that assertion?


If the players union really wants to protect the interests of all its members then it would accept a deal that ensures the long term viability for the whole league.

The players would contend that they have already made an offer that accomplishes that objective


The truth is the players association is only looking after the star players who earn the big money deals.

If you believe that, then you haven't paid attention to the changes made in the 1999 and 2005 CBAs.

[Mr. Body]

stern was on that new cnn show with erin burnett. mostly a useless interview, you could tell she knew nothing about the nba, as evidenced by calling it a strike.

CNN and Erin Burnett in particular normally side heavily with ownership in most every case, never labor, so it's not surprising she would call it a strike.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree the current system in no way resembles a "free" market. However, it is both the owners and the players that don't want a purely free market. Each side wants protections and guarantees that strip away all the risks that come with a free marketplace. My position is simple - players are given 1 year non-guaranteed deals with no salary cap limitations. Owners are then free to spend as much or as little as they're willing to spend. This is not realistic and will never be considered but nobody should ever try to argue that the players only want the free market to work. That's all BS...they want nothing close to a free market...they want guarantees and protections. If the players want those guarantees then they have to be prepared to give up some of the rewards that come with a free market. If the players truly understood the concept of a free market, they would make more money than they ever imagined. Same with the owners. Reason is because both sides are always accountable to perform at the highest levels. This makes better players and better teams to put on the floor to sell tickets and TV advertising.

That is not the case either. Sports franchises have never been a free market from the get go. The NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL colluded from the word go. Free market exists over in Europe where a football player can go from Barcelona to Chelsea with no club interference by collusion. They don't draft. They just play the game.

I can certainly understand not wanting a competitive disparity like you see there but the clubs and players there make gobs of cash. The ones that can survive that is.

What percentage of revenues do you think that they would have gotten had there been no artificial ceiling? They were at 57% with price controls. i would put the over/under at 65%. 8 points is just imaginary but the trend would be upwards. Mark Cuban and Paul Allen like to pay out to some ducats.

All you are wanting is to fix the market MORE in the owners favor. If you care about small market franchises then revenue sharing and national TV contracts are the way to go. 4 points do not matter so much when you're competitors can still pay out 25% or more.

[Dex]

So how long before the mediator comes out and says, "After extensive discussions, I've determined that they are far apart on virtually all issues"?

[Bruno]

So how long before the mediator comes out and says, "After extensive discussions, I've determined that they are far apart on virtually all issues"?

Right now, they have been talking for 6 hours so results of this meeting should come soon.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Wish I could do better than this, but....meeting with federal mediator, NBA and NBPA has now passed six hours in New York

[Duncan2177]

Them meeting for six hours and counting is hopefully a good sign.

[baseline bum]

So how long before the mediator comes out and says, "After extensive discussions, I've determined that they are far apart on virtually all issues"?

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right now, they have been talking for 6 hours so results of this meeting should come soon.

Unfortunately the 'results' will be from the vantage point of the partisans. i would be shocked if the mediator or his office spoke publicly.

More media posturing does not give insight as to what is really going on.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Source in labor talks tells Y!: "My gut is progress will be made but not sure to what degree...(meeting) going to go well into night."
2 minutes ago

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
NBA-NBPA labor meeting with federal mediator lurching toward nine hours here in New York. It isn't expected to end soon.
31 minutes ago

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Dinner just arrived for the league and union officials, and talks push into a 12th hour in New York
14 minutes ago


Easily the longest meeting between the two sides since this whole thing started. Will anything come of it? Only time will tell.

I sincerely doubt they will come out popping champagne bottles or anything. The best we can probably hope to hear tonight is that talks will be continued tomorrow or in the near future, but even that would be a far cry from the "we haven't fixed shit" reports that we've been getting from all of their past debates.

[timtonymanu]

Wow! How much longer until we hear "We're very, very far apart on virtually all issues, " or Broussard saying "So and so just got out of the meeting. Doesn't look too good."

[ElNono]

Mediator: "Both teams played hard"

[Dex]

Mediator: "Both teams played hard"

:lol

[ElNono]

Mediator: "Owners read Birn's posts, and are waiting for players to bend over"

[Dex]

Meanwhile, Blair's twitter has gone all-out middle school mode:



DeJuan45 DeJuan Blair
The thing that hurts the most is pretending that it doesn't.
33 minutes ago

DeJuan45 DeJuan Blair
Im not like the others..
28 minutes ago

DeJuan45 DeJuan Blair
It's hard to forget someone who gave you so much to remember.
34 minutes ago

[ElNono]

Hope he's not depressed and near a Whataburger... FML

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Meeting is ending now.

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Wait. "False alarm," official says. Meeting isn't over.