Resuming CBA talks

[DPG21920]

:lol didn't that happen last time as well

[Birn]

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

LOL!!!

The fact they're going this long is a real good sign in my opinion. I want this crap over so we can focus on free agents, trades, etc. If they can't get this figured out now there won't be a season. Now is the best time to get it done since all the owners are in town for Board of Governor meetings.

[DesignatedT]

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

:lol

[baseline bum]

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

What, did that chick with the enormous ass cheat on him? I'd hate to lose that too.

[Bruno]

13 hours :downspin:

A reason to be optimistic is the bunch of owners at the meeting is mainly composed with owners who are said to be players friendly:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216072/Talks_With_Mediator_Ongoing_For_Over_Eleven_Hours


According to Chris Sheridan, representing the owners are Peter Holt (San Antonio), Clay Bennett (Oklahoma City), Mickey Arison (Miami), Mark Cuban (Dallas), Jim Dolan (New York), Dan Gilbert (Cleveland), Wyc Grousbeck (Boston), Larry Miller (Portland), Robert Sarver (Phoenix), Glen Taylor (Minnesota) Jerry and Jeanie Buss (Lakers) and Bob VanderWeide (Orlando).

[ElNono]

Sheridan is probably dotting the i's on his new article "Why did the mediator work?", shortly followed by a Woj tweet: "Players, owners still seas apart".

[Dex]

What, did that chick with the enormous ass cheat on him? I'd hate to lose that too.

You be the judge. Her last tweet:


AshleyLoganAL Ashley Logan
Hope the Lockout ends! I need to do a new Body Paint Shoot. But Who's Jersey should I paint on me this season?
2 hours ago

[DJ Mbenga]

my guess is cohen just locked the door and and sat there and said so we aint leaving unless you agree. i swallowed the key.

[Ditty]

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



Tuesday has turned into Wednesday in New York, and labor talks push into a 15th hour.

[Dex]

johnschuhmann John Schuhmann
Post-mediation comments will be televised on NBA TV & streamed on NBA.com once the parties emerge. Stand by.
1 hour ago

Some of the funnier tweets....media must be getting bored.


forumbluegold Darius Soriano
I bet the mediation session has turned into an argument over whether Blake Griffin is better than Carmelo. #ReasonsForLongLockoutMeeting
3 minutes ago



TheAkronHammer Adam Reisinger
If you started watching "Phantom Menace" when the NBA mediation began, you'd be finishing "Return of the Jedi" right about now
35 minutes ago


IamaGM IamaGM.com
RT @jake_langbecker: Lockout mediation entering the 840th minute. That's 521 more minutes than Union VP Roger Mason played last year.
40 minutes ago

:lol


johnhollinger John Hollinger
If lockout isn't settled in 14th hour of mediation, they'll have two overtimes and then it goes to penalty kicks.
45 minutes ago


jeskeets J.E. Skeets
Keanu Reeves is not expecting good news from tonight's @NBA mediation talks — bit.ly/oydrhG (http://jeskeets.tumblr.com/post/11639028229)
1 hour ago



j_d_hastings The_real_jd_hastings
Feeling good about the nba mediation. They go this long I expect them to emerge with a comprehensive Israeli-Palestine peace accord
2 hours ago


AschNBA Steve Aschburner
Wondering deep in hour No. 11, NBA labor talks, if first step of fed. mediation is reminding both sides of IRS-dent in that last 3-6% BRI.

[timtonymanu]

Holy Shit. I go to eat out and they are still meeting with each other. LMAO Progress better be made if the meeting has gone this long.

[baseline bum]

You be the judge. Her last tweet:

Someone needs to tweet her to give the obvious answer; a photo shoot sin body-paint.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Someone needs to tweet her to give the obvious answer; a photo shoot sin body-paint.

This bitch is a slut, but if I was a chick, I wouldn't want to date a guy who had bigger titties than me neither.

[spurs10]

What, did that chick with the enormous ass cheat on him? I'd hate to lose that too.
:lol That really did make me laugh out loud! Not that I wish the guy heartache, but your delivery was good.
I'm getting hopeful, again, that they are getting somewhere with this marathon....

[Ditty]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Shouldn't be surprising, but two league sources briefed on meeting say luxury tax on the cap remains the biggest hurdle in talks tonight

[DMC]

There's a ton of money at stake, but the lower level earners are surely thinking "fuck this, I need to get PAID, my grille is ready and I need to pick it up".

[Mr. Body]

Days later, someone thinks of busting down the doors... and find everyone snuck out the back within the first hour.

[Ditty]

Adrian Wojnarowski



15.5 hours later, NBA and NBPA still meeting in NYC Texted official in room and asked if they were winding down. Response: "Hopefully."

[DesignatedT]

lol crazy.

[ElNono]

Supposedly, the way these sessions work, is both sides sit on separate rooms, and the mediator goes back and forth. If they really get to a deal tonight, just goes to show how much they hate their guts.

[Ditty]

Wojnarowski
Sixteen hours....

:lol

[timtonymanu]

Damn.

[Ditty]

Meeting has ended after 16 hours and mediator, NBA and NBPA will be back later on Wednesday to talk more, source says.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Fucking retarded..

[timtonymanu]

"We're still far apart" in 3, 2, 1 .....

[Ditty]

NBA spokesman says mediator has "asked both sides to refrain from making public comments." Neither side will talk to media tonight.

[Ditty]

The NBA, NBPA and mediator will be back at 10 AM to continue talks. NBA owners in town for Board of Governors

[Ditty]

derek fisher slumped on a bench in the hotel lobby, looking like he went three overtimes on a back-to-back.



"See you tomorrow," Fisher says. He means, "See you later today."

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Fisher is in over his head.

[Dex]

Like I said, this is probably about as good of news as we could've hoped for tonight. As long as they are still hammering things out and willing to continue meeting, that means that neither side has dug in completely, and that's what we need to get this shit ended.

[Ditty]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Source who was in meeting on progress made in 16 hour talks: "Very little. Still not anywhere near a deal."

[Dex]

Bah.


WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Source who was in meeting on progress made in 16 hour talks: "Very little. Still not anywhere near a deal."
1 minute ago

Or not.

[ElNono]

Stern threatening to cancel Christmas games if players don't fold tomorrow in 3, 2, 1...

[timtonymanu]

16 hour meeting and still at "very little." Granted, it's a long process but Jesus.

[Duncan2177]

If it didnt go good they wouldnt meet tomrrrow

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Meeting in separate rooms like children, grown millionaires/billionaires acting like spoiled brats screaming in aisle 7 because they can't have their favorite candy bar.

[Ditty]

When asked if sides had closed any gaps, source in meeting tells Y!; "On small stuff. Hard to see where this is going."

[timtonymanu]

I guess we'll see later on. Personally, I think we'll see Stern cancel games tomorrow.

[Duncan2177]

so...basically they sat and argued for 16 hours and made no progress and scheduled more negotiation

[Ryvin1]

After Stern threatening to cancel Christmas, he plans on canceling player's birthdays and magazine subscriptions.

[bus driver]

Fisher is in over his head.



he needs to give a sad story to stern, like the one he gave to utah to get out of that contract.:wakeup

[Giuseppe]

^Never work:::Miller was a Christian...Stern ain't.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Stern is an admitted satanist.

[benefactor]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Bryant-Gumbel-David-Stern-8216-eager-to-be-se;_ylt=AsjuN6xz1fNiEzc3SiY6hW68vLYF?urn=nba-wp9516

Gumbel...giving it to Stern with no lubrication.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Spurs gave season ticket holders an option to hold our money and earn a 5 percent credit for playoffs or next season. Or we could begin to receive money back with one percent interest. I opted to start receiving money back. Maybe with us season ticket holders asking for refunds the owners will feel more inclined to start season.

[DJ Mbenga]

at this point getting basketball in january at the earliest is what you are looking at.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

at this point getting basketball in january at the earliest is what you are looking at.

If the players sue then the season more than likely is gone. If they are to sue then it is most likely to happen after these mediator negotiations.

[spurs10]

So much for being hopeful about the 16 hour meeting. Can't imagine why they are resuming talks today if 'little' got done yesterday.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So much for being hopeful about the 16 hour meeting. Can't imagine why they are resuming talks today if 'little' got done yesterday.

i would recommend not reading overly much into random twitter blurbs.

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Source involved in labor talks to Y! on today's meeting: "No real progress. A lot of jostling, a lot of back and forth...But no progress."

[Dex]

Those idiots should just take pay cuts on both sides, and give the remaining $120 million to me.

[Pistons < Spurs]

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Mediator George Cohen says he will be "making a statement" to media shortly. Stay tuned.

[Giuseppe]

No hard cap. If they have to sit out indefinitely so be it. A hard cap is a death knell to the players. And thank Christ, they know it.

[baseline bum]

Mediator George Cohen says he will be "making a statement" to media shortly. Stay tuned.





Hope you motherfuckers like hockey.

[Pistons < Spurs]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Cohen says labor talks will resume at 2 pm on Thursday after NBA Board of Governors meetings are complete.


KBergCBS Ken Berger
Cohen shed no new light on the status of talks. He emphasized importance of confidentiality and confirmed mediation continues tomorrow.

[Pistons < Spurs]

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Cohen said "everyone is focused" on getting deal done.

Cohen: "the discussions have been direct and constructive."

[ElNono]

:jack

[Spurs Brazil]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
While there was no major breakthrough, progress was made on the BRI revenue split, two sources in NBA labor talks tell Y! Story to come.

[Giuseppe]

:jack

Good idea, El.

[Dex]

While there was no major breakthrough, progress was made on the BRI revenue split, two sources in NBA labor talks tell Y! Story to come.

Perhaps the best news we've heard so far.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Perhaps the best news we've heard so far.

Indeed it is. Everything else is ancillary once they come to terms on that.

[Giuseppe]

Indeed it is. Everything else is ancillary once they come to terms on that.

The BRI is the red herring.

The elephant in the room is a hard cap.

Just watch.

[Kori Ellis]

Perhaps the best news we've heard so far.

Here's the story: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_progress_101911

[Giuseppe]

Here's the story: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_progress_101911

"Still, the biggest hurdle between the two sides remains the luxury tax proposals to punish big-spending teams and discourage them from overpaying players."

That's it. Right there.

[Dex]

"Still, the biggest hurdle between the two sides remains the luxury tax proposals to punish big-spending teams and discourage them from overpaying players."

That's it. Right there.

While I don't disagree with you (as much as it pains me to say it), they're going to have to do something to curtail teams from spending way over the tax, be it a hard cap, more punitive taxes, whatever. Teams abusing things like Bird Rights and the annual or bi-annual exceptions are part of the reason why owners dug themselves in a hole in the first place. The way the leagues become, teams HAD to work these loopholes however they could just to stay competitive with those who were willing to just pay the two-for-one tax to overspend.

Players want teams to be able to spend freely, but they also don't want owners cutting their paychecks to recoup lost profits. Those two things go hand in hand. They can't have it both ways, unless they just want to find themselves back in this position in another five or ten years.

[Mr. Body]

Still, how is this a players' problem? How can they help when the owners constantly overspend and offer contracts that hurt them badly in the end? It seems like the league has gone about this in an overly aggressive, even pugnacious way, when the players aren't the problem. Stern's attitude has been fucking annoying since the start. He's made it seem like an issue with the players, when it's not.

[Bruno]

Even if I don't know if he will be successful, the federal negotiator is putting a lot of efforts to end the lockout. Props to him. :tu

To me, maybe the best news of these past days is the city of Memphis making the first step towards suing the NBA to recover the money they are losing because of the lockout. Cities and counties have given tons of money to build great arenas, especially in small markets. If they start suing the NBA, owners will be fucked. I hope it will help owners realize that risks associated to a lengthy lockout are too high to take them.

[DMC]

Even if I don't know if he will be successful, the federal negotiator is putting a lot of efforts to end the lockout. Props to him. :tu

To me, maybe the best news of these past days is the city of Memphis making the first step towards suing the NBA to recover the money they are losing because of the lockout. Cities and counties have given tons of money to build great arenas, especially in small markets. If they start suing the NBA, owners will be fucked. I hope it will help owners realize that risks associated to a lengthy lockout are too high to take them.

Oddly I have little empathy for Memphis. I don't know what it is, but something about that team causes me to feel that way.

[Giuseppe]

Players want teams to be able to spend freely

That's it and that's all. It's not the player's responsibility to baby sit the owner's knowledge and acumen. The owners can't stop slitting each other throats is their problem and the players hay day(s). If the owners want to governor themselves let them do it independent of the players fortunes, not make the players a conduit in their own financial ruination.

[Giuseppe]

Oddly I have little empathy for Memphis. I don't know what it is, but something about that team causes me to feel that way.

8 & Gasol.

[Mr. Body]

To me, maybe the best news of these past days is the city of Memphis making the first step towards suing the NBA to recover the money they are losing because of the lockout. Cities and counties have given tons of money to build great arenas, especially in small markets. If they start suing the NBA, owners will be fucked. I hope it will help owners realize that risks associated to a lengthy lockout are too high to take them.

Interesting development.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Y! Sources: The owners and players are closing in on agreement on new mid-level exception. tinyurl.com/6fgt3bv (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_101911)
18 minutes ago


:elephant

[baseline bum]

Wow, this is pretty crazy to hear such advancement after a prolonged period of absolutely nothing getting done. :toast I wonder what the shares of the BRI are.

[Giuseppe]

Just keep their ass scratchers off'in a hard cap and I'm right as the mail.

[GB20]

it is funny that stern was sent home with the flu and progress are being made.

[Mr. Body]

it is funny that stern was sent home with the flu and progress are being made.

Straitjacket, probably.

The owners might have realized what bad press they were getting and started getting realistic. Stern may be out.

[Bruno]

I wonder if Stern is really sick...

Anyway, there are some good news coming from the negotiations but as long as they haven't reach a deal, these progresses mean nothing.

[Bender]

Anyway, there are some good news coming from the negotiations but as long as they haven't reach a deal, these progresses mean nothing.
Bruno, with the wet blanket :(

[DPG21920]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Negotiations have broken off in New York and no new meetings are scheduled, league source tells Y! Sports.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Talks on a 50-50 BRI split broke down, and labor talks have ended, source tells Y! No new meetings scheduled. Huge setback in this lockout.
51 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply


Annnd boom goes the dynamite. :(

[Giuseppe]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
[[[Talks on a 50-50 BRI split broke down, and labor talks have ended, source tells Y! No new meetings scheduled. Huge setback in this lockout.
51 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply]]]

A crock of shit. They broke down because once again the two sides worked their way to the issue of a hard cap.

Stay strong players. No capPERIOD

[DPG21920]

http://homeofdarts.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/glasscase.gif?w=320&h=180

[ElNono]

Good. Mediator out of the way. Hope they just move to decertify now.

[DPG21920]

Holt live on NBA TV at the moment.

[DPG21920]

Silver: "we felt me made compromises, we recognize we are disappointing fans around the world and we are having impact on thousands of jobs. we have certain core beliefs we feel are necessary to achieve in order to play basketball. at this time we have no further discussions scheduled. "

Holt: "Competitive issues are just as big as financial issues. Been going back and forth for 2 years and we are still far apart. We want all 30 markets to have an opp to compete and make money. Not a guarantee, but an opportunity. I know me in SA won't make as much as a bigger market. We can't quite bridge the gap and it was very disappointing for us. We have no meeting scheduled, a tough day, tough day. "

[benefactor]

And goodbye season. On to college ball.

[Giuseppe]

Grade school attempt by Cohen,,,get 'em sayin' "yes, yes, yes, yes" and when we bring out the BFH (big fucking hammer) (hard cap) they'll just pass it out of habit.

Uh, uh.

[Giuseppe]

Silver: "we felt me made compromises, we recognize we are disappointing fans around the world."

You ain't disappointin' me, daddy. You ain't bulldoozin' this bunch.

Not by a jugful you ain't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And now the next step is to sue. It makes sense considering that the reason for the impasse is a clear ideological split within the trust.

If that does indeed happen I hope that we go into a 2012 season with a new commissioner.

[baseline bum]

Fffffuuuuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkk!!!!!

[DPG21920]

Questions:

1) You say no meetings scheduled, but you've said that before and met again, do you see that happening?

- Holt: Costs are going up, and it's going to be tougher to get together which hampers the ability to make a deal.

2) Did the mediator exhaust everything he can do?

- Holt: He's done all he can, he gets a lot of credit. We would have liked to keep it going, but both sides realized they were too far apart.

3) Actions on games?

- Silver: We have to regroup with David to determine next steps. No announcement on missed games yet.

4) What was the issue that led to breaking off talks and where was each side?

- Silver: Split of revenue. Back and forth with last formal proposal at 47% for us and 53% for the players. We made an offer yesterday of 50% to compromise and even though we suffered huge losses and their response was to go to 52.5%. They made it clear that if the owners wouldn't move north of 50% there was nothing left to discuss.

5) Progress, even if slow, why not keep going? Why not stick with it?

- Holt: Both sides felt stuck. After 2 years and multiple meetings, we've worn each other out. They are where they are and we are where we are. We need fresh air then we can get back together.

6) Timetable on cancellations?

Silver - Not prepared to answer.

7) System issues still the same huge obstacle?

Silver - I'm not getting into specifics, but we are still very far apart on system issues. Players fell if BRI is lowered, they should get what they are looking for on system issues. They are two independent goals both of which are critically important for our teams. Both economically and competitively and we cannot trade one off for the other. There is no we win one, you win one because we can't have a future in this league. That wouldn't be a sustainable long-term business model. We don't want the outcome to be so controlled by spending so much more than other teams.

8) Any small issues solved, any common ground?

-Holt: We made some progress on smaller issues to be fair. We had hope about today we could close the gap more. Both sides feel like they are banging their heads together and that can lead to an even more emotional negotiation. Emotions running high.

[Bruno]

It certainly isn't a coincidence that talks broke just after an owners meeting.

There aren't 2 sides in this conflict, there are 3 sides:
- The players: they want a players friendly CBA.
- The big market owners: they don't really care about the CBA, they just don't want to give money to small market teams.
- The small market owners: they either want to get some money from big markets or to get a team friendly CBA.

I'm all for new talks with the federal mediator except that it must be this time between small market and big market owners.

[DPG21920]

9) You've done a lot and your still far apart, why would there be a breakthrough now?

Holt: In negotiations like this you have to stay optimistic. You never give up. We're not giving up and they aren't either. We need to figure out a way to make a deal.

10) If you are at 50% and they are at 52.5%, with the calculation on how much you lose, it's more with the missing games than the move, can you explain?

Silver: Your math is wrong because it's not one year, it's 10 years. You can always use the logic of "hey you moved once, move again". We formally proposed a split of 47 to 53% which is 50/50. There were other small concepts involved, but they said they were at 52.5%, and in fairness to them they said they were open to moving if we were and we made it clear this is as far as we are willing to go.

[DPG21920]

11) Are you guys saying that no matter how long this goes, you aren't going above 50%?

Holt: As of today, that is correct. We won't say never, which is why you stay optimistic. We feel a little breathing room would help our side.

12) Do you think you will ever get them from 50? How are you ever going to get them to 50?

Holt: I don't think it's a big jump, obviously do.

13) You don't need to be in NY or LA to win, how has the system changed for you?

Holt: Last 2 years we lost money which wasn't the case before. It was getting worse. SA was going the same route, we just go there a little later. Fortunately Tim Duncan showed up and we won titles. It helped buffer us. If not for that, we would have been losing money even before these last two years.

14) Any other complications with the players 52.5%, was there a band?

Silver: It was a band.

15) When you say there were willing to move on BRI to get system issues, are you?

Silver: In terms of principals, they are independent. One goes to a sustainable business model one is for competition. We have a greater obligation to the game, that its not just about money :lmao, but it's about long term for the league. We see the data as clear. A team that spends 100M vs a team that spends 50M has a big advantage. There's a reason that the NFL and NHL have been successful with hard caps.

[Giuseppe]

15) When you say there were willing to move on BRI to get system issues, are you?

Silver: In terms of principals, they are independent.

Precisely. It's never been about anything else cept the hard cap.

The players told 'em to fuck themselves. And that's what they should do.

[DPG21920]

Shut up

[DPG21920]

Holt and Silver still talking: NHL model is for us.

[DPG21920]

Fisher: I want to make it clear, you guys were lied to earlier.

[lmbebo]

Im on the owners side on this because I want to see the spurs compete for a championship again once duncan retires. I don't want to see superstars leaving in free agency to create talent packed teams where 3-4 teams have a chance to compete for the championship every year.

The big market owners don't care because they are looking to be the destination of these super teams (LA, Miami, NY and Boston).

I see no fun or reason to follow a league and a game that is setup to create such disparity.

[Giuseppe]

Fisher: I want to make it clear, you guys were lied to earlier.

That's what Fisher & the players get. Cohen pulled the same shit on them that Stern has been pullin' for the past 3 years:::treat 'em like "boys" and they'll sop it up like gravy. Only this time unlike when it was a dress code or zero tolerance officiating the players told 'em:::go fuck yourselves.

[Giuseppe]

Im on the owners side on this because I want to see the spurs compete for a championship again once duncan retires. I don't want to see superstars leaving in free agency to create talent packed teams where 3-4 teams have a chance to compete for the championship every year.

The big market owners don't care because they are looking to be the destination of these super teams (LA, Miami, NY and Boston).

I see no fun or reason to follow a league and a game that is setup to create such disparity.

I just hope you don't get your way. Basketball, NBA basketball as it's been concocted & conducted the past 30 years has been a good to a me.

& I'll tell you another thing:::Buss needs to get his ass out in front of this so "I" ain't standin' alone with my dick in my hand. He's vested. Get out of Stern's bed and act like somebody.

[benefactor]

Props to DPG for the play by play. :tu

[Giuseppe]

Props to DPG for the play by play. :tu

Big deal. He's Kori little idiot nephew.

Lucky bastard.

[DPG21920]

Haven't been many questions for the players yet. Fisher came out swinging with his statement and Billy Hunter the same. Basically they are saying owners took a much harder stance and delivered the poison pill. They are bending the truth and they are the ones that said take it or leave. Players were prepared to keep things going, owners saying no.

[DPG21920]

Hunter: Players can't even except 50/50 until they know the system is in place. If we can address the system, maybe the 50/50 looks ok to us then. We offered a band where we were guaranteed no less than 50 BRI and you go no higher than 53%.

[DPG21920]

Hunter: Dan Gilbert just kept saying "trust me" :lmao

[DPG21920]

Hunter: Owners said we won't negotiate on system until you accept 50/50 first.

[Giuseppe]

Hunter: Players can't even except 50/50 until they know the system is in place.

Absolutely. There is no other way. Start with the cap and work back. I said that 10 minutes ago.

[lmbebo]

I just hope you don't get your way. Basketball, NBA basketball as it's been concocted & conducted the past 30 years has been a good to a me.

& I'll tell you another thing:::Buss needs to get his ass out in front of this so "I" ain't standin' alone with my dick in my hand. He's vested. Get out of Stern's bed and act like somebody.


I'm sure if spurs were a big market team and/or we had an owner who didn't mind losing tons of money on the team every year, I'd feel differently. But reality is we don't.

The "golden" age of basketball where its was the lakers and celtics mean nothing to me really. They did a lot for the game and did some amazing things. But in this day and age, we shouldn't have a repeat of those days.

If things stay the same, I don't know how long spurs basketball can survive in san antonio.

I know you don't like it, but things have to change.

[Giuseppe]

I'm sure if spurs were a big market team and/or we had an owner who didn't mind losing tons of money on the team every year, I'd feel differently. But reality is we don't.

The "golden" age of basketball where its was the lakers and celtics mean nothing to me really. They did a lot for the game and did some amazing things. But in this day and age, we shouldn't have a repeat of those days.

If things stay the same, I don't know how long spurs basketball can survive in san antonio.

I know you don't like it, but things have to change.

Let the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough. Why should the players give in on the cap, providing an enormous windfall for the owners and then the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough as well?

They're talking about a $45 million hard cap. That's $3 million per player on a 15 man roster. That's insane.

[DPG21920]

Big deal. He's Kori little idiot nephew.

Lucky bastard.

Shut up pervert.

[DPG21920]

I'm going to have nightmares.


^Bend over. I'll give ya some fuckin' nightmares.


Back off.


Honey, I got 3/4 of an inch of stalk. My boys are gonna have to tie me to your ass for this to even have a chance at success.

[TimmehC]

Holt and Silver still talking: NHL model is for us.

Goodbye, 2011-12 season. :depressed

[lmbebo]

I'd go for a higher cap with a min around 55 mil.

[Giuseppe]

Hunter: Owners said we won't negotiate on system until you accept 50/50 first.

If I were Hunter I'd say:::"Here's the deal, we'll go 49/51 and everything else stays the same for 10 years." Shit, the players would go goose NBA revenue so strongly they'd increase their overall take even at 49/51.

No way the owners will take that. It's not about the BRI. It's never been about that. That's the come on to get the "boys" into the room so the owners can try and take their pants down with a hard cap.

[DPG21920]

Hunter: The big market owners (listed Buss, Cuban....) are the ones that were open to making deals, but they don't have the votes.

[Giuseppe]

I'd go for a higher cap with a min around 55 mil.

That don't do me any good. They're talking about have a the luxury tax hit be 7-1 or even 9-1. Obviously that is untenable. Buss could go at most 2 1/2-1 and if he could live with that---I'd sign that.

[Giuseppe]

Hunter: The big market owners (listed Buss, Cuban....) are the ones that were open to making deals, but they don't have the votes.

No, because those 2 assholes Gilbert & Sarver are hot heads and won't be bamboozled. They got everybody else all lit up and lookin' for blood.

[lmbebo]

Hunter: The big market owners (listed Buss, Cuban....) are the ones that were open to making deals, but they don't have the votes.

Sounds like Hunter is trying to split the owners publicly and place blame on the small market teams (the majority).

Allowing big market teams to overspend the competition is just the status quo. Maybe it gets more luxury tax money, but it still keeps the same competitive balance...maybe makes it slightly smaller on the teams who would overspend.

[TD 21]

Precisely. It's never been about anything else cept the hard cap.

The players told 'em to fuck themselves. And that's what they should do.

Sounds great in theory. But in reality, we all know how this is going to end and it's going to end badly for the players. The longer these things go, it always does. I agree with Stephen A. Smith, in that the players aren't wrong. But it's not about that or showing a united front or the owners needing to be fair or anything but this: Getting the best deal possible. And the best deal possible, is the one they make sooner than later.

So they should go down to whatever number the owners are truly willing to accept, whether it's 51 or 51.5 or a 50-52 range (they'd probably get closer to 52, with revenues projected to rise, particularly once the new TV deal kicks in in a few years), try to get a little less restriction on the "system issues" and take it before they lose another cent they won't recoup and more damage is done to the league. Because the alternative is worse.

lmbebo, not matter how much of a landslide the owners ending up winning this thing by, it'll have little effect on the Spurs ability to contend for championships post-Duncan. This isn't like the NFL, MLB or NHL. In the NBA, with one exception in the past thirty years, every champion has been led by a consensus top 30 all-time player and in most cases, much higher than that. Generally, only once every few years does one of them come along and the odds of the league giving San Antonio another one are slim and none. Because they don't need to, not with what the Duncan-era has done for the team locally. And in the absence of that type of player, no matter how shrewd the management is, it's not going to matter, as it pertains to a championship.

[lmbebo]

Gilbert and Cleveland got screwed by the last CBA and LeBron. Sarver tried to be a big market player but never could stick with it.

[Dex]

Let the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough. Why should the players give in on the cap, providing an enormous windfall for the owners and then the owners feed at the revenue sharing trough as well?

They're talking about a $45 million hard cap. That's $3 million per player on a 15 man roster. That's insane.

Why should successful owners have to bail out the non-successful ones? Why should large markets have to give up earned profits to small markets just to make the league viable? If owners are supposed to be responsible for their own teams, then why should they also have to be responsible for all the others?

It's pretty obvious that the system is broken. If you set a limit to spending, teams are going to spend up to that limit, and use any wiggle room they have to circumvent it. Owners aren't going to intentionally underspend, otherwise fans will be up in arms against the team for "not trying". Peter Holt has been called cheap for many a year for not going over the tax, then he finally did and shot himself in the foot for Richard freaking Jefferson. Still, when it happens, Spurs fans were glad to see him finally opening his wallet, because that is what fans want.

That's why the system has to change to make the league a business model that owners want to invest in. I agree, it sucks that the players would have to take a pay cut or accept smaller salaries to make it happen, but a) they would still be some of the highest paid figures in sports after the cut b) they would still remain ridiculously overpaid as compared to the average worker. The reason they are in this situation now, both owners and players, is because they over-stepped their bounds with the last CBA, and now they need to take a step back, but the players want to act like doing that is unfair. IMO, they need to just realize that they've been making off like bandits for the past 10 years, and that can't continue.

[Giuseppe]

Gilbert and Cleveland got screwed by the last CBA and LeBron. Sarver tried to be a big market player but never could stick with it.

& they're both mean spirited. They're like rabid dogs who bite and then won't let go.

It's personal with Gilbert & Sarver. That is going to be very difficult.

[Giuseppe]

Sounds great in theory. But in reality, we all know how this is going to end and it's going to end badly for the players.

If so, and you're probably correct, for players it will end badly either way. The players should drag them down into the caca and bloody their fuckin' noses with it. I would not go quietly to my financial doom.

[lmbebo]

Sounds great in theory. But in reality, we all know how this is going to end and it's going to end badly for the players. The longer these things go, it always does. I agree with Stephen A. Smith, in that the players aren't wrong. But it's not about that or showing a united front or the owners needing to be fair or anything but this: Getting the best deal possible. And the best deal possible, is the one they make sooner than later.

So they should go down to whatever number the owners are truly willing to accept, whether it's 51 or 51.5 or a 50-52 range (they'd probably get closer to 52, with revenues projected to rise, particularly once the new TV deal kicks in in a few years), try to get a little less restriction on the "system issues" and take it before they lose another cent they won't recoup and more damage is done to the league. Because the alternative is worse.

lmbebo, not matter how much of a landslide the owners ending up winning this thing by, it'll have little effect on the Spurs ability to contend for championships post-Duncan. This isn't like the NFL, MLB or NHL. In the NBA, with one exception in the past thirty years, every champion has been led by a consensus top 30 all-time player and in most cases, much higher than that. Generally, only once every few years does one of them come along and the odds of the league giving San Antonio another one are slim and none. Because they don't need to, not with what the Duncan-era has done for the team locally. And in the absence of that type of player, no matter how shrewd the management is, it's not going to matter, as it pertains to a championship.

We've always gotten talent from the draft. Never free agency under the old system. I can't see that chaining in the new system. But a new CBA that helps the home team keep talent will help teams like ours.

Remember the days when people thought David Robinson would just ignore SA and sign with the Lakers once he completed his naval assignment. Or in 2000 when Orlando when they courted Duncan (and were close to getting him).

How would the team have faired if they had left? You think the current owners could keep this team afloat making a loss?

I know we may never be the city stars flock to, but when we get lucky in the draft we need to have the means to keep those players here as best we can. Can't always keep people from leaving. But if you had put Lebron in Robinson's shoes 20? years ago, no way he would have signed with us.

But a system change will give us a chance, no matter how slim. I think our chances are slimmer if things stay the same.

[GB20]

Fisher: I want to make it clear, you guys were lied to earlier.

yeah! the same way he(fisher) lied to Utah.

[Giuseppe]

yeah! the same way he(fisher) lied to Utah.

He didn't lie. Fish just picked & worked a Christian like a part time job.

tee, hee.

[TD 21]

Giuseppe, it'll end worse for the players later than sooner. And there is no "financial doom" when you make as much on average as they'll still make.

It's real simple. They either take a bad deal now, don't lose another cent that they won't recoup and don't contribute to doing further damage to the league or they take a worse deal later, lose more money and do further damage to the league.


We've always gotten talent from the draft. Never free agency under the old system. I can't see that chaining in the new system. But a new CBA that helps the home team keep talent will help teams like ours.

Remember the days when people thought David Robinson would just ignore SA and sign with the Lakers once he completed his naval assignment. Or in 2000 when Orlando when they courted Duncan (and were close to getting him).

How would the team have faired if they had left? You think the current owners could keep this team afloat making a loss?

I know we may never be the city stars flock to, but when we get lucky in the draft we need to have the means to keep those players here as best we can. Can't always keep people from leaving. But if you had put Lebron in Robinson's shoes 20? years ago, no way he would have signed with us.

But a system change will give us a chance, no matter how slim. I think our chances are slimmer if things stay the same.

The Spurs haven't had a problem keeping their talent. I'm not talking about that though, I'm talking about getting the next Duncan in the first place. They can make it more accommodating for the smaller markets all they want, but without an all-time great, it's not going to matter, as it pertains to a championship.

A lot of fans seem to have this idea that through lottery luck and shrewd management, they'll be able to get back to the top. But it doesn't work that way in a small market. What we've witnessed in the Duncan era is an aberration. The league has no reason, at this point, to give San Antonio another all-time great in the making via the draft and no all-time great in their prime is going to sign in San Antonio, either. No system change is going to change that.

[lmbebo]

Don't expect an all time great to drop in our lap. Never said I did.

All I said was given the chance to compete for a championship. Fielding a solid team. A good team can make it far in this league. May not get to the finals, but can get to the 2nd round or conference finals from time to time.

It may take 5-8 years, but its possible.

[ElNono]

It's real simple. They either take a bad deal now, don't lose another cent that they won't recoup and don't contribute to doing further damage to the league or they take a worse deal later, lose more money and do further damage to the league.

Not sure how you figure this is the only way this can play out?

[ElNono]

Why should successful owners have to bail out the non-successful ones? Why should large markets have to give up earned profits to small markets just to make the league viable? If owners are supposed to be responsible for their own teams, then why should they also have to be responsible for all the others?

Why should the players, and only the players, be responsible for this?
Maybe those successful owners should've said NO when voting to expand the league. Maybe what they should start discussing is contracting the league. I think the hit should come evenly for both sides. Whoever is asking the other side to eat the whole shit pie is being an asshole.


It's pretty obvious that the system is broken. If you set a limit to spending, teams are going to spend up to that limit, and use any wiggle room they have to circumvent it. Owners aren't going to intentionally underspend, otherwise fans will be up in arms against the team for "not trying".

Like teams tanking entire seasons? Why shouldn't the owners that decided to do that not be financially penalized?

tbqh, the only side that has made concessions here (from the last CBA, which SHOULD be the reference, since it was the last agreement a league run on) are the players. They went from 57% to 52.5%. Over a 10 year period, that's a boatload of money. Offered to cut a year off the contracts (IIRC). What else do the owners want?

[Giuseppe]

Not sure how you figure this is the only way this can play out?

True. They sat out last time and got a lopsided deal.

[Giuseppe]

What else do the owners want?

They want the hard cap. That fixes everything. No more negotiating:::just throw the $45 million into a room where the 15 man roster is and let them divy it up.

[DPG21920]

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

[DPG21920]

Spurs fans surprisingly quiet on that piece of news :lol

[lefty]

Fuck holt

Im watching the press conf on NBA TV

What a cheap bastard


Speaking of NBA TV, they are running and re-running labor talk press conferences in place of the scheduled Hardwood Classic games



FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

[ChuckD]

from twitter

Woj is big time RT @BreakingNews: Source tells @YahooSports NBA negotiations have broken off in NY, no new meetings scheduled - @WojYahooNBA

[ulosturedge]

The small market owners want a hard cap. They know it's an uphill battle trying to compete with the old CBA. Those big market teams will always be able to take more risks then their counterparts. Their revenues allow them not to be hit hard by poor decisions. Smaller market teams don't have the same buffer. Unless the smaller market team has a billonaire as an owner you ain't gonna see them willing to toss good money away on hunches.

check this article out and the responses and the article writers rebuttals to these comments.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/06/why-the-nba-needs-a-hard-cap/

Giuseppe cracks me up. He obviously knows the Lakers are fucked if somehow the owners get the hard cap they are looking for. Or any team for that matter that likes to shoot far north of the cap. Not saying it won't hurt the Spurs to some degree, but overall it would make the league a much more leveled playing field.

It works for the NFL; no reason why it wouldn't work in the NBA.

[TimmehC]

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

Highly suspicious of this. Doesn't sound like something the man in charge of the Spurs organization would say. But, none of us were there.

[DPG21920]

I agree, I'm a little suspicious, but he did seem flustered during the interview like he was having to think of what to say vs the players who just spoke freely.

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe cracks me up. He obviously knows the Lakers are fucked if somehow the owners get the hard cap they are looking for.

I know where my bread is buttered. I don't portend to be altruistic.

[ChuckD]

The flaw with the "hockey model" is that hockey isn't NEAR as popular as the NBA is, and neither are the players.

Time to de-certify. It's crystal clear that the owners are not anywhere near negotiating, and are simply taking advantage of their anti-trust exemption. Fuck 'em. I guarantee they lose that little suit they filed to attempt to stop the de-certification of the union. In the mean time, barnstorm your asses off and make bank, NBAPA. That's something the hockey players really couldn't do.

The NBA also has to pay back the TV revenue advances they are receiving, which is why they are hell-bent on making the deal worse as time goes along. Good luck with that. I'd actually like to see another league form, and put David Stern in his grave.

[lefty]

You have upset the canadian in me

[ChuckD]

The small market owners want a hard cap. They know it's an uphill battle trying to compete with the old CBA. Those big market teams will always be able to take more risks then their counterparts. Their revenues allow them not to be hit hard by poor decisions. Smaller market teams don't have the same buffer. Unless the smaller market team has a billonaire as an owner you ain't gonna see them willing to toss good money away on hunches.

check this article out and the responses and the article writers rebuttals to these comments.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/06/why-the-nba-needs-a-hard-cap/

Giuseppe cracks me up. He obviously knows the Lakers are fucked if somehow the owners get the hard cap they are looking for. Or any team for that matter that likes to shoot far north of the cap. Not saying it won't hurt the Spurs to some degree, but overall it would make the league a much more leveled playing field.

It works for the NFL; no reason why it wouldn't work in the NBA.

The NFL clubs share north of 60% of NFL revenues. The NBA clubs share south of 30% of NBA revenue. If they followed the NFL revenue sharing model, no clubs would lose money.

[therealtruth]

Why should successful owners have to bail out the non-successful ones? Why should large markets have to give up earned profits to small markets just to make the league viable? If owners are supposed to be responsible for their own teams, then why should they also have to be responsible for all the others?

It's pretty obvious that the system is broken. If you set a limit to spending, teams are going to spend up to that limit, and use any wiggle room they have to circumvent it. Owners aren't going to intentionally underspend, otherwise fans will be up in arms against the team for "not trying". Peter Holt has been called cheap for many a year for not going over the tax, then he finally did and shot himself in the foot for Richard freaking Jefferson. Still, when it happens, Spurs fans were glad to see him finally opening his wallet, because that is what fans want.

That's why the system has to change to make the league a business model that owners want to invest in. I agree, it sucks that the players would have to take a pay cut or accept smaller salaries to make it happen, but a) they would still be some of the highest paid figures in sports after the cut b) they would still remain ridiculously overpaid as compared to the average worker. The reason they are in this situation now, both owners and players, is because they over-stepped their bounds with the last CBA, and now they need to take a step back, but the players want to act like doing that is unfair. IMO, they need to just realize that they've been making off like bandits for the past 10 years, and that can't continue.

Exactly. As much as the players want to make it seem like they are the only ones making concessions they were the ones that made out like bandits since the last CBA. They're trying to bargain from their position of power and make it seem like the owners are the the only unreasonable guys. Players will try to use players that are being underpaid for their arguments but it seems there much more players that are overpaid and sometimes overpaid by alot. Some of it is on the owners for agreeing to those contracts and that's why they're trying to address it through the CBA. You only need one crazy spending or badly managed team to inflate the market value for players.

[PublicOption]

Look, the owners are right to make this fair, but the players are just a little spoiled. They will take the hit on the split, but they don't want a hard cap. The league wants both, because I think they don't want to end up like MLB. where the haves>havenots every year.

Kansas City had a great team during the George Brett years, now that MLB is a who got the most money league you never see them anymore......it is sad.

for all teams to be competitive, the league has to do this. If not it becomes more of joke then it already is to some people.

[PublicOption]

Fisher: I want to make it clear, you guys were lied to earlier.


Fisher is a sorry fuck......cries to the league to let him go to LA, and now he back stabs them.

[Kori Ellis]

"Paul Allen, Peter Holt, Wyc Grousbeck, Robert Sarver and Dan Gilbert are all hardliners. They are stopping the progress," said NBPA source.

The same source said that several owners from larger markets, specifically James Dolan and Mark Cuban, seem ready to make a deal.

http://twitter.com/#!/AlexKennedyNBA

Now Mavs fans can hate Spurs fans even more for having a cheap owner ;)

[PublicOption]

well maybe Dan Gilbert can dissolve the league and really show Lebron who the boss is.

[ulosturedge]

"Paul Allen, Peter Holt, Wyc Grousbeck, Robert Sarver and Dan Gilbert are all hardliners. They are stopping the progress," said NBPA source.

The same source said that several owners from larger markets, specifically James Dolan and Mark Cuban, seem ready to make a deal.

http://twitter.com/#!/AlexKennedyNBA

Now Mavs fans can hate Spurs fans even more for having a cheap owner ;)

Well obviously lol. James Dolan and the other big owners can get back to making money while Mark Cuban with his deep pockets and championship team can also get back to fame and fortune. The people who stand to lose the most is the small market owners if they give in. Unfortunately going after a hard cap also hurts the players in some respects. At least in comparison to the living standards they were accustom to under the previous CBA.

You notice how Holt talks about staying competitive. He's right. It's a vicious cycle going after talent in the NBA. The more money some of these owners toss at NBA talent the more every other owner has to follow suit to keep up. It's futile for a lot of these owners to try and keep up with the joneses.

I want to see NBA basketball as much as the next guy, but I get where the owners are coming from. This is all about smaller market teams having a fair chance at competing for a championship without needing to go deep into their pockets to do so. Unfortunately the players are caught in the crossfire and probably stand to lose the most from this.

[lefty]

Spurs relocation to a bigger market ?

:D

[Dex]

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis sucks.

Spurs would've had a meaningless game against Orlando tonight. :bang We could be watching scrubs right now, dammit!

[timtonymanu]

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis sucks.

Spurs would've had a meaningless game against Orlando tonight. :bang We could be watching scrubs right now, dammit!

Yep. I would have really liked that. We could have been seeing the growth of Splitter and Neal, the comeback of James Anderson, and our new rookies Leonard, Joseph, and whoever Spurs would have picked up for training camp. This lockout is bullshit.

[DirkDoesWork]

Maybe if the Owners would hire competent people in their front office and not hand out horrible contracts to bums, they wouldn't lose money like they do.

I think it's hilarious that the owners and Stern are throwing this off on the players when they've created this themselves. They want to change everything and expect the union to just kneel down and give in. The players have made some concessions and the owners don't seem to know what concession is.

[Mr. Body]

If the owners had their shit together, they could have solved this problem themselves. Instead they've pushed a big problem between the big and small market teams onto the players and made it their issue. The players, in response, conceded a lot of ground. It's still not enough.

David Stern really has done an abominable job with this. He's been a major league asshole for ringleading such a shit show. If the teams addressed the real issues - revenue sharing, perhaps contraction - we'd have a season, happier players, and happy fans. Instead you have this dysfunctional bullshit.

[Bruno]

Holt can whine as much as he wants about the old CBA but the true reason why Spurs have lost money lately is because of bad decisions made by Spurs front office.

When you make mistakes as huge as giving $50M to Jefferson+Bonner last summer, it's logical that you lose money. In an healthy business, you lost money when you do bad choices. NBA owners should accept that instead of trying to have a system that cover all the brain farts made by teams front offices.

[Dex]

Holt can whine as much as he wants about the old CBA but the true reason why Spurs have lost money lately is because of bad decisions made by Spurs front office.

When you make mistakes as huge as giving $50M to Jefferson+Bonner last summer, it's logical that you lose money. In an healthy business, you lost money when you do bad choices. NBA owners should accept that instead of trying to have a system that cover all the brain farts made by teams front offices.

Not to defend Holt's actions or to say that the owners are in the right, because they aren't....but if it weren't Jefferson or Bonner, it would've just been somebody else. They might have gotten better players or better production for their buck, but the cost would be the same.

The problem is (albeit not the only problem), the bar is set too high. Owners are going to keep reaching for it as long as it's up there, and that's evidenced by the fact that they just had an amnesty clause like five years ago, and they already need another one to let every team cut some bozo contract from their books (which nearly every team would probably jump at the chance to do so because overpaying has become standard practice). The bar needs to be lowered, if for no other reason than to protect the owners from themselves.

If you let a five-year old kid fill his cup to the rim with milk, milk is gonna get spilled.

[ElNono]

Not to defend Holt's actions or to say that the owners are in the right, because they aren't....but if it weren't Jefferson or Bonner, it would've just been somebody else. They might have gotten better players or better production for their buck, but the cost would be the same.

The problem is (albeit not the only problem), the bar is set too high. Owners are going to keep reaching for it as long as it's up there, and that's evidenced by the fact that they just had an amnesty clause like five years ago, and they already need another one to let every team cut some bozo contract from their books (which nearly every team would probably jump at the chance to do so because overpaying has become standard practice). The bar needs to be lowered, if for no other reason than to protect the owners from themselves.

If you let a five-year old kid fill his cup to the rim with milk, milk is gonna get spilled.

Then make it more painful to spill the milk. What they're doing is akin to saying you shouldn't give the kid milk anymore. They went from one extreme to the other. Right now the lux tax redistribution is one dollar for each dollar spent on the lux tax. Make it two or three dollars. The more big bucks owners want to tap on that lux tax, the more it hurts them and the more money flows to the smaller market teams, which in turn can both balance their sheets, or use the extra money to play the luxury tax game too if they so choose (A guy like Sterling will probably cheap out and keep the money, but I digress).

The whole 8-1 ratio is virtually a hard cap, and basically a complete shift to the other side of the spectrum. That's not negotiating. Players oppose a hard cap. If you instead offer a little harder soft cap, then I'm sure they'll take it. They already conceded almost everything else (5% BRI, one year contracts on both bird and non-bird contracts). Players already bent over and are leaving a lot of money on the table.

I also agree with Bruno that owners that make shit decisions should expect to take a financial hit. It happens to every single one of us when we make the wrong choice in business. Why would it be different for them?

[Mel_13]

But as for me, I'm out of optimism. I'm done analyzing payrolls and trying to fit economic concessions that would shift more than $1 billion to the owners over six years into the system changes they say they need to achieve competitive balance. If the owners don't want to try to blend those two crucial, inseparable, inexorably linked topics together at the bargaining table, why should I waste my time doing it?

"One goes to the total amount we pay the players and our ability to have a sustainable business," Silver said. "The other goes to a system in which all 30 teams can compete. And so we see them as completely unrelated."

If they want to set $800 million aflame -- the total carnage once the next two weeks of games are canceled -- over a $100 million annual difference in BRI, why should I try to stop them? Silver reminded me Thursday that $100 million a year is $1 billion over 10 years, which is true. But it's also true that the NBA and its players will lose 80 percent of that simply by canceling one month of games.

They have a name for this. It's called asshattery. Asshattery with a circus tent over it, and soon, no audience -- no one left who cares.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15775427/after-latest-nba-impasse-good-luck-finding-someone-who-cares

[Mel_13]

Spurs gave season ticket holders an option to hold our money and earn a 5 percent credit for playoffs or next season. Or we could begin to receive money back with one percent interest. I opted to start receiving money back. Maybe with us season ticket holders asking for refunds the owners will feel more inclined to start season.

I'll be calling to request my refund today.

[baseline bum]

Not to defend Holt's actions or to say that the owners are in the right, because they aren't....but if it weren't Jefferson or Bonner, it would've just been somebody else. They might have gotten better players or better production for their buck, but the cost would be the same.


No it wouldn't have been. The Spurs were way over the cap and wouldn't have had much left to spend after giving Splitter a share of the MLE.

[Mark in Austin]

holt can whine as much as he wants about the old cba but the true reason why spurs have lost money lately is because of bad decisions made by spurs front office.

When you make mistakes as huge as giving $50m to jefferson+bonner last summer, it's logical that you lose money. In an healthy business, you lost money when you do bad choices. Nba owners should accept that instead of trying to have a system that cover all the brain farts made by teams front offices.

+1

[baseline bum]

Holt can whine as much as he wants about the old CBA but the true reason why Spurs have lost money lately is because of bad decisions made by Spurs front office.

When you make mistakes as huge as giving $50M to Jefferson+Bonner last summer, it's logical that you lose money. In an healthy business, you lost money when you do bad choices. NBA owners should accept that instead of trying to have a system that cover all the brain farts made by teams front offices.

Who else was going to give Jefferson $40 million and Bonner $14 million after the horrible seasons they had? It's still ridiculously mind-boggling how he signed off on those two deals. :pctoss

Holt has no one to blame.

[dbestpro]

Funny how people say it's the owners fault. So what? That's part of being an owner. You got the guts, you take the risk, and do what you need to do to stay afloat whether you have made good or bad decisions. it happens in every business all the time.

[Dex]

Then make it more painful to spill the milk. What they're doing is akin to saying you shouldn't give the kid milk anymore. They went from one extreme to the other. Right now the lux tax redistribution is one dollar for each dollar spent on the lux tax. Make it two or three dollars. The more big bucks owners want to tap on that lux tax, the more it hurts them and the more money flows to the smaller market teams, which in turn can both balance their sheets, or use the extra money to play the luxury tax game too if they so choose (A guy like Sterling will probably cheap out and keep the money, but I digress).

The whole 8-1 ratio is virtually a hard cap, and basically a complete shift to the other side of the spectrum. That's not negotiating. Players oppose a hard cap. If you instead offer a little harder soft cap, then I'm sure they'll take it. They already conceded almost everything else (5% BRI, one year contracts on both bird and non-bird contracts). Players already bent over and are leaving a lot of money on the table.

I also agree with Bruno that owners that make shit decisions should expect to take a financial hit. It happens to every single one of us when we make the wrong choice in business. Why would it be different for them?

I agree that a hard cap is going to be unreasonable. A firm cap, as it were, is probably the solution, but it's still not a solution that doesn't come with pitfalls. For one, the players will still oppose it, because they still want their big checks, and teams need to be able to spend freely to get those. Secondly, unless you find a way to severely punish those are spending WAY over the cap, guys like Cuban will be content to pay 3:1 instead of 2:1 to keep abusing the system, whereas guys like Holt will only be further limited by it, creating further disparity. I think that's where the whole 8:1 idea comes in; the intentions are right, but I agree that it's overshooting things by a wide margin.

Also, a lot of people blame the owners for burdening themselves with these contracts, but you can't deny that the players influence the market. The owners may be the ones cutting these checks and inking these deals, but they almost have to do it out of necessity. Players (and more so, their agents) know how to play the money-grab game and get top dollar for their talents, which explains why guys like Jamison, Ariza, and anybody over 6'9 is able to grab these huge contracts even if it doesn't correspond with what they are bringing to the table. If one team isn't willing to shell out the big bucks, another team will, which unnecessarily drives up the value of these players. Owners either have to bite the hook, or end up with inferior talent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The owners jsut want their cake and eat it too because of the two factions adn are going to get sued and lose because of it.

Thats the thing that they do not consider in their calculations. Holt needs to step the fuck back and realze that if they go to federal court there are about 40+ years of precedence indicating they will lose and then the Lakers and Bulls can spend whatever they want and he gets nothing whatsoever. If the players also go after revenue sharing he is doubly fucked.

Its pretty clear that the players are willing to hold out the 9 months to a year to get it through tot he appellate level and if the lower courts cite the multitudes of SCOTUS precedence he can have fun trying to appeal that.

Jerry Krause is not Jerry Jones and does not see the benefit in sharing the preponderance of revenue and as much as Holt might want to he cannot hide behind a trust to try and stick it to labor. Its illegal the moment the CBA expired and they decertify.

They have hired Jeffrey Kessler who took on and defeated the NFL who had a much more entrenched and solidified position. Hes fucked and whining about his perceived injustice does not change the reality of the circumstances. The only sane explanation for his behavior is the thought that he can starve the players out.

Good luck with that too. It sucks being the little guy but if the wealthier owners nor the players want to subsidize then he just needs to deal with it.

[Bruno]

Not to defend Holt's actions or to say that the owners are in the right, because they aren't....but if it weren't Jefferson or Bonner, it would've just been somebody else. They might have gotten better players or better production for their buck, but the cost would be the same.

The problem is (albeit not the only problem), the bar is set too high. Owners are going to keep reaching for it as long as it's up there, and that's evidenced by the fact that they just had an amnesty clause like five years ago, and they already need another one to let every team cut some bozo contract from their books (which nearly every team would probably jump at the chance to do so because overpaying has become standard practice). The bar needs to be lowered, if for no other reason than to protect the owners from themselves.

If you let a five-year old kid fill his cup to the rim with milk, milk is gonna get spilled.

Well, almost all Spurs fans agreed Bonner's and RJ's deals were horrible the day they signed their new contract. This wasn't the typical "hindsight is always right" case. Giving these contracts to these players is a huge professional mistake and Spurs must pay the prize for it.

For the rest, that's capitalism and the law of supply and demand. If players are paid that much, it's because some people are ready to pay them that amount. I find it especially ironic to see owners bitching about that. Their fortune comes is a result of capitalism and when they are on the other side, they are turning away from capitalism and try to turn NBA more into an entity lead by socialism values. What is even more ironic is that it is Paul Allen and Peter Holt who are the leader of all of that. Paul Allen is one of the wealthiest because of Microsoft, that is a prime example of a capitalism success. Peter Holt has abused of the free market law by threatening to relocate Spurs to get a great arena deal by the county. Bexar county should sue his ass.

[spurs10]

If Peter Holt did indeed make those statements about the "players not feeling enough pain yet", then he has done a great disservice to all the people who have worked so hard to build a wonderful reputation for the Spurs organization.
Sounds like a major asshole and should probably get a pr firm to start doing damage control. Sounds like something an ignorant politician would say. Pop, Tim, Manu, and many others are probably not too thrilled with this either.
:ihit

[Giuseppe]

Well, almost all Spurs fans agreed Bonner's and RJ's deals were horrible the day they signed their new contract. This wasn't the typical "hindsight is always right" case. Giving these contracts to these players is a huge professional mistake and Spurs must pay the prize for it.

For the rest, that's capitalism and the law of supply and demand. If players are paid that much, it's because some people are ready to pay them that amount. I find it especially ironic to see owners bitching about that. Their fortune comes is a result of capitalism and when they are on the other side, they are turning away from capitalism and try to turn NBA more into an entity lead by socialism values. What is even more ironic is that it is Paul Allen and Peter Holt who are the leader of all of that. Paul Allen is one of the wealthiest because of Microsoft, that is a prime example of a capitalism success. Peter Holt has abused of the free market law by threatening to relocate Spurs to get a great arena deal by the county. Bexar county should sue his ass.

Bruno

[ElNono]

I agree that a hard cap is going to be unreasonable. A firm cap, as it were, is probably the solution, but it's still not a solution that doesn't come with pitfalls. For one, the players will still oppose it, because they still want their big checks, and teams need to be able to spend freely to get those. Secondly, unless you find a way to severely punish those are spending WAY over the cap, guys like Cuban will be content to pay 3:1 instead of 2:1 to keep abusing the system, whereas guys like Holt will only be further limited by it, creating further disparity. I think that's where the whole 8:1 idea comes in; the intentions are right, but I agree that it's overshooting things by a wide margin.

But that's a revenue sharing problem. There's always going to be owners that are either on bigger markets or have more money to spend. So the question is how you address that situation so small markets are not just token franchises but at the same time you don't drag down the entire league to the small market budgets (teams with more money should be able to spend more, but should also provide more towards revenue sharing).

The soft cap system made the revenue sharing mandatory by the way of the lux tax: The more teams spent on the lux tax, the more money was shipped to non lux paying teams. Maybe that redistribution isn't enough, and it needs to be increased (2:1, 3:1). The players will likely take a small hit on that, but it's much more reasonable than just drop the entire league to the lowest denominator.


Also, a lot of people blame the owners for burdening themselves with these contracts, but you can't deny that the players influence the market. The owners may be the ones cutting these checks and inking these deals, but they almost have to do it out of necessity. Players (and more so, their agents) know how to play the money-grab game and get top dollar for their talents, which explains why guys like Jamison, Ariza, and anybody over 6'9 is able to grab these huge contracts even if it doesn't correspond with what they are bringing to the table. If one team isn't willing to shell out the big bucks, another team will, which unnecessarily drives up the value of these players. Owners either have to bite the hook, or end up with inferior talent.

At the end of the day, the salary pool is more or less fixed at a certain amount (percentage of the BRI at a given season). If certain free agents fetch a ton, that automatically pulls dollars away from another free agent.
This isn't a free market. The owners that make bad decisions should have to deal with them. Players already agreed to cut a year off the contracts, which should mitigate that a bit. Owners want to pay little and bail out quicker when they fuck up, and they want the players to assume all of that. It just isn't right.

[TimmehC]

I hope all the arena staff that have been laid off sue the shit out of the NBA for lost wages, the city of Memphis follows through on its threatened lawsuit, and the players' union decertifies and sues the shit out of them, too. Only when the owners start feeling all the financial pain they've caused by locking out the players and other staff will they negotiate in good faith.

[Dex]

Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for. :toast

I'd still be rather be arguing over which scrub deserves to be the 15th man in our rotation, though.

[ElNono]

Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for. :toast

I'd still be rather be arguing over which scrub deserves to be the 15th man in our rotation, though.

No doubt. Players aren't saints either, especially when you know there's some fancy agents pulling strings too. It just that owners decided to go full blown darth vader right now.

[DPG21920]

"Luke Walton, I am your father"

- Lefty

[Giuseppe]

Valid points all the way around. The further this draws out and the more details that come to surface, the more I sympathize for the player's position, but that is in no small part due to the excellent debate this forum allows for. :toast

Dex is correct. It's been a pure delight.

:toast

[Birn]

If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.

What's going on here is the big time star players, the large market owners and the big time agents are all on the same page and could put a deal together in about one hour. The Commissioner and small market owners are trying to restore the competitive balance of the league to avoid a system like MLB where small market teams literally have zero chance of competing. Most players who are not superstars would have no problem with a 50/50 deal because their individual market value is well covered in a 50/50 split of revenue. The big star players are the ones taking the hit with a 50/50 split.

I guarantee that most NBA players would approve a 50/50 split if that were brought to them today for vote. The NBAPA and the star players are doing everything they can to protect their interests and nobody else's. That's not collective bargaining...that's protecting special interests and it's not right to the rank and file NBA player who is thankful for the privilege to play in the league.

The owners are simply exercising their right in a capitalistic system to refuse to pay ridiculous salaries. What's wrong with that? You guys have been saying all along that it's the fault of the owners for paying crazy salaries and that's exactly what they're trying to fix. In a capitalistic system, the owners will pay what they're willing to pay and that's it. The players can accept it or not. They will never make this much money anywhere else.

The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They have zero leverage. Where are they going to go to make the kind of money they make now? The beautiful thing about capitalism is the players don't have to accept the league's offer and they can form their own league. They won't. Why? Because they will never come close to making the money they make now. The players are going to have to take the deal being offered by the league. They have no choice. The only form of leverage they have is to try and hold out without receiving paychecks for as long as possible. That will not last. At some point they have to pay bills and support their families. Their unity won't last. Unity never lasts in a collective society. That's totally un-American. American capitalism is about individualism and serving your own self-interest. That's the only morally acceptable way to do business. That's why collective bargaining is so ineffective.

The league has been very fair and is making them a deal that will pay them more money than any other group of NBA players in the history of the league. The problem is with the star players and big market owners. The large market owners don't want a competitive balanced league. They want to eliminate their competitors at the bargaining table. That is the worst kind of system if you're a Spurs fan. I don't want my Spurs to become the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats. We must remain competitive and we need a system that will allow us to do that.

[lmbebo]

Player debates are more welcome than this.

I hope every city/small business owner who makes a living off of the NBA sues the owners.

Just as I hope the owners get a better system that makes the league more competitive in the future.

I'd give the players a higher BRI with a hard cap personally.

The yahoo article about Allen going with the small market teams is surprising. Good read though.

[lmbebo]

If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.

What's going on here is the big time star players, the large market owners and the big time agents are all on the same page and could put a deal together in about one hour. The Commissioner and small market owners are trying to restore the competitive balance of the league to avoid a system like MLB where small market teams literally have zero chance of competing. Most players who are not superstars would have no problem with a 50/50 deal because their individual market value is well covered in a 50/50 split of revenue. The big star players are the ones taking the hit with a 50/50 split.

I guarantee that most NBA players would approve a 50/50 split if that were brought to them today for vote. The NBAPA and the star players are doing everything they can to protect their interests and nobody else's. That's not collective bargaining...that's protecting special interests and it's not right to the rank and file NBA player who is thankful for the privilege to play in the league.

The owners are simply exercising their right in a capitalistic system to refuse to pay ridiculous salaries. What's wrong with that? You guys have been saying all along that it's the fault of the owners for paying crazy salaries and that's exactly what they're trying to fix. In a capitalistic system, the owners will pay what they're willing to pay and that's it. The players can accept it or not. They will never make this much money anywhere else.

The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They have zero leverage. Where are they going to go to make the kind of money they make now? The beautiful thing about capitalism is the players don't have to accept the league's offer and they can form their own league. They won't. Why? Because they will never come close to making the money they make now. The players are going to have to take the deal being offered by the league. They have no choice. The only form of leverage they have is to try and hold out without receiving paychecks for as long as possible. That will not last. At some point they have to pay bills and support their families. Their unity won't last. Unity never lasts in a collective society. That's totally un-American. American capitalism is about individualism and serving your own self-interest. That's the only morally acceptable way to do business. That's why collective bargaining is so ineffective.

The league has been very fair and is making them a deal that will pay them more money than any other group of NBA players in the history of the league. The problem is with the star players and big market owners. The large market owners don't want a competitive balanced league. They want to eliminate their competitors at the bargaining table. That is the worst kind of system if you're a Spurs fan. I don't want my Spurs to become the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats. We must remain competitive and we need a system that will allow us to do that.

wish we had a like button.

[ElNono]

If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.

I disagree.


What's going on here is the big time star players, the large market owners and the big time agents are all on the same page and could put a deal together in about one hour. The Commissioner and small market owners are trying to restore the competitive balance of the league to avoid a system like MLB where small market teams literally have zero chance of competing. Most players who are not superstars would have no problem with a 50/50 deal because their individual market value is well covered in a 50/50 split of revenue. The big star players are the ones taking the hit with a 50/50 split.

Big time star players (and that would include Robinson and Duncan) are what make this league. Nobody goes to watch the players you claim would take the 50/50 split.


I guarantee that most NBA players would approve a 50/50 split if that were brought to them today for vote. The NBAPA and the star players are doing everything they can to protect their interests and nobody else's. That's not collective bargaining...that's protecting special interests and it's not right to the rank and file NBA player who is thankful for the privilege to play in the league.

The players already offered a 50%-53% band, and the league rejected them.


The owners are simply exercising their right in a capitalistic system to refuse to pay ridiculous salaries. What's wrong with that? You guys have been saying all along that it's the fault of the owners for paying crazy salaries and that's exactly what they're trying to fix. In a capitalistic system, the owners will pay what they're willing to pay and that's it. The players can accept it or not. They will never make this much money anywhere else.

The owners don't want a capitalistic (sic) system. Otherwise they would have to pay through the nose in salaries. Guys like Kobe or Lebron are worth much more than $25-$30 million for their respective teams. If they already overspend when there's an actual penalty for doing so (lux tax), then on a true capitalist system, without barriers, penalties or regulations, they would throw the kitchen sink at the stars. Which takes us back to the first point: This is a star driven league. There's no way around it.


The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They have zero leverage. Where are they going to go to make the kind of money they make now? The beautiful thing about capitalism is the players don't have to accept the league's offer and they can form their own league. They won't. Why? Because they will never come close to making the money they make now. The players are going to have to take the deal being offered by the league. They have no choice. The only form of leverage they have is to try and hold out without receiving paychecks for as long as possible. That will not last. At some point they have to pay bills and support their families. Their unity won't last. Unity never lasts in a collective society. That's totally un-American. American capitalism is about individualism and serving your own self-interest. That's the only morally acceptable way to do business. That's why collective bargaining is so ineffective.

I disagree that players have no leverage or no better options than just wait it out.
On the wait it out front, they realize some owners and knee deep in debt and can't afford to just sit a season, while the big market owners are losing money and want to roll. It only takes so many owners votes to get a deal in place.
On the not waiting it out front, they can decertify, then sue the NBA on anti-trust grounds. There's a long precedent on that, with the NFL lockout being the closest example of how that route can bring the owners to quickly sit down and negotiate in good faith.


The league has been very fair and is making them a deal that will pay them more money than any other group of NBA players in the history of the league. The problem is with the star players and big market owners. The large market owners don't want a competitive balanced league. They want to eliminate their competitors at the bargaining table. That is the worst kind of system if you're a Spurs fan. I don't want my Spurs to become the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats. We must remain competitive and we need a system that will allow us to do that.

Not really. The deal being offered would be worse than the previous CBA. Which in turn was worse than the CBA before it. Players know they'll have to give something up, and they have. The league is both locking out the players and attempting to implement a brand new system basically unilaterally.

[Mr. Body]

Birn, no offense, but I see very little that's right in your posts. It's amazing how continuously wrong you are.

[Birn]

I disagree.



Big time star players (and that would include Robinson and Duncan) are what make this league. Nobody goes to watch the players you claim would take the 50/50 split.



The players already offered a 50%-53% band, and the league rejected them.



The owners don't want a capitalistic (sic) system. Otherwise they would have to pay through the nose in salaries. Guys like Kobe or Lebron are worth much more than $25-$30 million for their respective teams. If they already overspend when there's an actual penalty for doing so (lux tax), then on a true capitalist system, without barriers, penalties or regulations, they would throw the kitchen sink at the stars. Which takes us back to the first point: This is a star driven league. There's no way around it.



I disagree that players have no leverage or no better options than just wait it out.
On the wait it out front, they realize some owners and knee deep in debt and can't afford to just sit a season, while the big market owners are losing money and want to roll. It only takes so many owners votes to get a deal in place.
On the not waiting it out front, they can decertify, then sue the NBA on anti-trust grounds. There's a long precedent on that, with the NFL lockout being the closest example of how that route can bring the owners to quickly sit down and negotiate in good faith.



Not really. The deal being offered would be worse than the previous CBA. Which in turn was worse than the CBA before it. Players know they'll have to give something up, and they have. The league is both locking out the players and attempting to implement a brand new system basically unilaterally.

Disagree 100%. The players have had it too good for too long. The owners are simply refusing to pay the levels of salary the players want. That's capitalism. They can't be forced to pay what the players are demanding. If the players don't like what's being offered they should go to Europe or form their own league. Previous CBA's have nothing to do with this. The fact is the league is still growing despite a bad economy. 50% of a Billion is a lot better than 57% of $600-700 million. Sure the Lakers and Knicks may want to pay players $30 million in salary but that is not what the league is willing to pay. The league has an obligation to all teams to provide a healthy and competitive environment where everyone has an opportunity to compete for a championship. Don't confuse Kobe and Lebron's market value on their individual brand to their value as basketball palyers. Kobe and Lebron are worldwide marketing brands and will continue to capitalize on their brands outside of the NBA. That is completely separate and apart from what the league is willing to pay them to play basketball. Their brands are worth a lot more than their basketball salary. Apples and oranges my brother. As I've mentioned in the past, if the players want a true split of BRI then they need to also include the BRI generated off court by the players in endorsements and marketing income. If they did that, I'm sure the owners would be glad to let them keep 57%.

The owners have way more leverage than the players. Even if some teams are heavily debt ridden the NBA will carry them with loans and lines of credit to get through a missed season. Players don't have such access unless you're a star player. Banks aren't going to loan money to an unemployed rank and file pro basketball player. The lack of leverage will break the players. Same thing happened in 1999 as well as the NHL lockout in 2005. Just go read the articles by NHL players about their advice to NBA players. They're warning them to take the deal now. Sitting out the season was the worst decision they made in their professional lives. Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter and the rest of negotiating committee are getting their asses kicked by a bunch of pros. It's like men against boys in the boardroom. This is the big leagues and they're acting like amateurs.

The players are making a huge mistake trying to win the PR battle in this dispute. The players are spending a lot of money on PR firms and trying hard to gain public sympathy while the owners are focused on getting what they want out this deal. The players fail to realize that nobody cares about these negotiations so they are best advised to stop whining about how the owners are treating them.

The threat of decertification is not really an option for the players. Hunter and Fisher don't want it because they know that legal action will take YEARS to play out and there's no guarantee they will even prevail. The rank and file members of the players union don't want to wait that long for a resolution. The owners are not afraid of decertification and lawsuits at all. The facts are on their side...an offer of a 50/50 split of revenues will never be found as bargaining in bad faith. That course of action is WAY too risky for the players.

The NFL lockout was not resolved as a result of the lawsuit by the players. If you recall, the judge failed to issue a ruling for the players and ordered the parties to negotiate a deal or he was going to settle it himself. That's what brought them together. The NFL owners ended up getting pretty much everything they wanted since the judge sent clear signals to the players that they're litigation was not going to be as successful as they thought. This is why Hunter wants no part of suing the owners. He knows the risks are too high and he may end up screwing the players with a deal that's even worse than what the owners are proposing.

As far as the 50% to 53% band, that is entirely different than a pure 50/50 split. No way the owners go for that. What's wrong with 50/50. What is it that makes players think they're entitled to take 57% from the owners? Why not 57% to the owners? It just makes the players seem incredibly ridiculous and childish when they can't even agree to a basic 50/50 arrangement to split a billion dollars. Just incredible how greedy and ignorant the players are being. They need to realize that this is not a game the owners are playing. They will cancel the season and will wait a year to get what they need.

This is absolutely all on the players to take it or leave it. The owners are making it very clear to the players that this is THEIR league and the players should be blessed with the privilege to play in it.

I fully expect the players to crack and we'll probably see the season begin sometime in January.

[Birn]

Birn, no offense, but I see very little that's right in your posts. It's amazing how continuously wrong you are.

Show me where you think I'm wrong. Point by point please.

[ChuckD]

If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.

What's going on here is the big time star players, the large market owners and the big time agents are all on the same page and could put a deal together in about one hour. The Commissioner and small market owners are trying to restore the competitive balance of the league to avoid a system like MLB where small market teams literally have zero chance of competing. Most players who are not superstars would have no problem with a 50/50 deal because their individual market value is well covered in a 50/50 split of revenue. The big star players are the ones taking the hit with a 50/50 split.

I guarantee that most NBA players would approve a 50/50 split if that were brought to them today for vote. The NBAPA and the star players are doing everything they can to protect their interests and nobody else's. That's not collective bargaining...that's protecting special interests and it's not right to the rank and file NBA player who is thankful for the privilege to play in the league.

The owners are simply exercising their right in a capitalistic system to refuse to pay ridiculous salaries. What's wrong with that? You guys have been saying all along that it's the fault of the owners for paying crazy salaries and that's exactly what they're trying to fix. In a capitalistic system, the owners will pay what they're willing to pay and that's it. The players can accept it or not. They will never make this much money anywhere else.

The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They have zero leverage. Where are they going to go to make the kind of money they make now? The beautiful thing about capitalism is the players don't have to accept the league's offer and they can form their own league. They won't. Why? Because they will never come close to making the money they make now. The players are going to have to take the deal being offered by the league. They have no choice. The only form of leverage they have is to try and hold out without receiving paychecks for as long as possible. That will not last. At some point they have to pay bills and support their families. Their unity won't last. Unity never lasts in a collective society. That's totally un-American. American capitalism is about individualism and serving your own self-interest. That's the only morally acceptable way to do business. That's why collective bargaining is so ineffective.

The league has been very fair and is making them a deal that will pay them more money than any other group of NBA players in the history of the league. The problem is with the star players and big market owners. The large market owners don't want a competitive balanced league. They want to eliminate their competitors at the bargaining table. That is the worst kind of system if you're a Spurs fan. I don't want my Spurs to become the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats. We must remain competitive and we need a system that will allow us to do that.

The Spurs are locked in airtight at the ATT center for many more years. I think their initial lease locked them in for 25 years in 2002, and then they had to extend an additional 5 years on the original lease in order to get upgrades funded by the city in 2007 or 2008.

Stop being such a total pussy. You are most definitely the owner's target audience to frighten.

[Bruno]

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111021/nlrb-complaint-nba-players-best-chance-end-lockout-now


Officials of the National Labor Relations Board, sources say, appear to be ready to act on a players' union claim that NBA owners are guilty of unfair labor practices in their demands for "draconian demands and changes" and the declaration of a lockout when there was "no impasse in bargaining."

With board members appointed by President Obama in control, the NLRB has been leaning toward unions in most disputes. If the board agrees with the players that the owners have been guilty of bad faith in their bargaining and their lockout, the board would ask a federal judge for an injunction that would stop the lockout.

This is our last real hope to have the NBA season starting soon.

[timtonymanu]

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111021/nlrb-complaint-nba-players-best-chance-end-lockout-now



This is our last real hope to have the NBA season starting soon.

I hope so. Although I have been disappointed time and time throughout this lockout.

[ElNono]

Disagree 100%. The players have had it too good for too long. The owners are simply refusing to pay the levels of salary the players want. That's capitalism.

And the owners can do as they please, as long as it's legal. In this country, under Federal labor laws, owners can only hire temporary workers under a lockout. So, if they want to pay pennies, lets see them run the league with temp talent, and see how it works for them.

This league starts with star talent and ends with start talent.


They can't be forced to pay what the players are demanding. If the players don't like what's being offered they should go to Europe or form their own league.

They're not being forced to pay anything. If anything, in due time, they will be forced to negotiate in good faith, something they've not done yet.


Previous CBA's have nothing to do with this. The fact is the league is still growing despite a bad economy.50% of a Billion is a lot better than 57% of $600-700 million.

But this is retarded. The league was growing even with the old CBA. Since growth isn't seemingly tied to the CBA, 57% of a billion is a lot better than 50% of a billion. Heck, 53% of a billion is a lot better than 50% of a billion.

Furthermore, the players are being flexible here. If the league growth slows down, they're willing to go down to 50%. But if the league does continue to grow, why should only the owners reap the benefits?


Sure the Lakers and Knicks may want to pay players $30 million in salary but that is not what the league is willing to pay.

The Lakers and Knicks are part of the league and their markets and dollars are not going anywhere. The fact that they CANNOT pay whatever they want is simply because the system that runs the league ISN'T a free-market, capitalist system. You know, the one you keep claiming the owners want, but that in reality they want no part of.


The league has an obligation to all teams to provide a healthy and competitive environment where everyone has an opportunity to compete for a championship.

This is where you got it all wrong. The league only fiduciary duty is to it's board of governors (owners). It's a business. The league simply will try to put out there the best product it can put. Obviously, the league has to have a certain degree of transparency and competitiveness, or people will simply lose interest. There's no obligation though, it's simply in the league best interest that there's a certain degree of competitiveness out there.

Now, you could argue that owners feel the current structure does not favor a competitive environment (very debatable). If that's the premise, there's different ways to address that. But the question is, why do the players, and only the players, have to take the full hit? And the answer is that this isn't about revenue sharing, or competitiveness. This is about money.


Don't confuse Kobe and Lebron's market value on their individual brand to their value as basketball palyers. Kobe and Lebron are worldwide marketing brands and will continue to capitalize on their brands outside of the NBA. That is completely separate and apart from what the league is willing to pay them to play basketball. Their brands are worth a lot more than their basketball salary. Apples and oranges my brother. As I've mentioned in the past, if the players want a true split of BRI then they need to also include the BRI generated off court by the players in endorsements and marketing income. If they did that, I'm sure the owners would be glad to let them keep 57%.

You're the one that's confused or disconnected from reality. Having players like Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, Jordan, etc wearing your team colors raises your team brand astronomically. Hell, it makes or breaks entire franchises. Jersey sales, ticket prices, tv deals. The same owners that you claim don't want to pay more keep outbidding each other every time there's a star free agent out there. See Miami. Heck, if this would be a true capitalist system, Kobe, Lebron, etc would easily be making much more than what they're making. Conversely, on a true capitalist system, scrubs would be getting pennies, not millions. One of the reasons owners don't want a capitalist system is because as much as they want to get rid of bad decisions quickly, they also want to lock in whatever star they get. This is a star driven league. Until that gets through your head, you're going to remain confused.


The owners have way more leverage than the players. Even if some teams are heavily debt ridden the NBA will carry them with loans and lines of credit to get through a missed season. Players don't have such access unless you're a star player. Banks aren't going to loan money to an unemployed rank and file pro basketball player. The lack of leverage will break the players. Same thing happened in 1999 as well as the NHL lockout in 2005. Just go read the articles by NHL players about their advice to NBA players. They're warning them to take the deal now. Sitting out the season was the worst decision they made in their professional lives. Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter and the rest of negotiating committee are getting their asses kicked by a bunch of pros. It's like men against boys in the boardroom. This is the big leagues and they're acting like amateurs.

Actually, it's nothing like that. The NHL prior to the lockout spent 76% of gross income on salaries. The salaries were not tied to league revenue. There was no luxury tax. Teams had mediocre TV deals in the US. A very, very different contractual situation from the $4 billion league that's the NBA.

I do agree that owners have more leverage. I don't necessarily agree that players have no leverage at all.


The players are making a huge mistake trying to win the PR battle in this dispute. The players are spending a lot of money on PR firms and trying hard to gain public sympathy while the owners are focused on getting what they want out this deal. The players fail to realize that nobody cares about these negotiations so they are best advised to stop whining about how the owners are treating them.

:lol says who? you?

The PR will matter little the way this looks to be headed. Which, IMO, is towards a court. Ultimately, the popularity contest isn't as important as in leagues like the NFL. Very few will miss the NBA much.


The threat of decertification is not really an option for the players. Hunter and Fisher don't want it because they know that legal action will take YEARS to play out and there's no guarantee they will even prevail. The rank and file members of the players union don't want to wait that long for a resolution. The owners are not afraid of decertification and lawsuits at all. The facts are on their side...an offer of a 50/50 split of revenues will never be found as bargaining in bad faith. That course of action is WAY too risky for the players.

I'm sure the union would rather sit down an negotiate. But there's nothing to negotiate if only one side has to concede everything. Plus the BRI split is only one aspect of the entire negotiation. There's the hard cap. The contract lengths. The players already pretty much conceded something on every single item.

It only took one month to get an injunction for the NFL players, not sure where are you getting the 'years' from. And they weren't even talking about negotiating in bad faith, since the union basically decertified from the get go, and the league only locked them out then.

The move might be risky for the players, but it's the only route they might end up having to force the issue with the owners. It worked for the NFL players.


The NFL lockout was not resolved as a result of the lawsuit by the players. If you recall, the judge failed to issue a ruling for the players and ordered the parties to negotiate a deal or he was going to settle it himself. That's what brought them together. The NFL owners ended up getting pretty much everything they wanted since the judge sent clear signals to the players that they're litigation was not going to be as successful as they thought. This is why Hunter wants no part of suing the owners. He knows the risks are too high and he may end up screwing the players with a deal that's even worse than what the owners are proposing.

But that's not how it worked out. At all. It actually worked well for the players. The players offered a 50/50 split. The owners also wanted a 50/50 split, but after skimming $2 billion from the top. That effectively made it 38.9% for the players. Well, the new CBA gives the players 48%. Not quite the 50% they wanted, but 10% more than what the owners were originally offering.

Remember that 18 game schedule the owners wanted and the players didn't? Well, guess who won that one?

Minimum salaries went up. Fewer practices. It was an all around win for the players (http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-lockout-winners-losers-2011-7#winner-the-players-1).


As far as the 50% to 53% band, that is entirely different than a pure 50/50 split. No way the owners go for that.

Why not? What's so different? Why wouldn't the owners go for that?
Please elaborate.


What's wrong with 50/50. What is it that makes players think they're entitled to take 57% from the owners? Why not 57% to the owners? It just makes the players seem incredibly ridiculous and childish when they can't even agree to a basic 50/50 arrangement to split a billion dollars. Just incredible how greedy and ignorant the players are being. They need to realize that this is not a game the owners are playing. They will cancel the season and will wait a year to get what they need.

The players haven't asked for 57% from the get go. They even agreed to a 50%-53% band. They feel that if the league keeps growing, in part because of the work they do, they should reap some of the benefits of that growth. And if the league doesn't grow, they will share the pain with the owners. Sounds pretty fair to me. Why should the players strap themselves for the next 10 years? Especially since the league has been growing at a good pace.


This is absolutely all on the players to take it or leave it. The owners are making it very clear to the players that this is THEIR league and the players should be blessed with the privilege to play in it.

I fully expect the players to crack and we'll probably see the season begin sometime in January.

But this isn't solely the owner's league. It's as much the owners as it's the players. This is a star driven league. No stars, no league. Furthermore, what's really crippling the negotiations now are the small market owners. I'm sure if this was up to Buss, Dolan and Cuban, we would be playing games now.

Maybe the players will fold. I don't know. Nobody knows. I think they look pretty united, and the way the league has been conducting negotiations, I think they have a fair shot at decertification. They even have hired the NFL lawyer IIRC. I think it's quite likely that's where this is heading.

[ElNono]

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111021/nlrb-complaint-nba-players-best-chance-end-lockout-now

This is our last real hope to have the NBA season starting soon.

Agree. If they go the decertification route, you can kiss the season goodbye. Unlike the NFL, it's already pretty late in the game.

[Giuseppe]

Agree. If they go the decertification route, you can kiss the season goodbye. Unlike the NFL, it's already pretty late in the game.

That's a pussy article & a pussy route.

[Buddy Holly]

If there's no major systemic change in the current CBA we will definitely lose our beloved Spurs to another city. This is a very important time for the future of the Spurs and the City of San Antonio.

That's just complete and utter stupid nonsense. No offense.

What gets small or medium sized teams in financial trouble is not the CBA in relation to their market size, it's how good or not good their front office is. Being inept at the job of making your team a winner or loser is what gets teams relocated.

Paying a shit ton of money to marginal players, drafting poorly, scouting poorly. That does it in for teams.

Not whether the team is in OKC, SLC, Memphis or New York, Los Angeles, Chicago.

When teams in major markets suck for long periods of time because of ineptness, they relocate too... Los Angeles (Rams, Raiders).

Also, as stated by ChuckD, the Spurs have over two decades on their lease with the at&t center.

[benefactor]

Birn = Peter Holt?

[Mel_13]

Birn = Peter Holt?

Nah, pretty sure that Holt isn't so confused as to what constitutes capitalism.

[DPG21920]

:lol

[ploto]

The whole thing is simply making me not care at all about the NBA. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players while people can't find jobs and are losing their houses. I think many people don't side with either of them. On one hand, we have a bunch of businessmen who have so much money that they can buy a professional sports franchise. On the other side, we have a bunch of guys who get paid ridiculous sums of money to play a sport while they fly around on charter planes and stay in fancy hotels. All the while, people who get paid $8 an hour to work the games are hurting and I blame both sides.

[Mel_13]

The whole thing is simply making me not care at all about the NBA. Billionaire owners fighting with millionaire players while people can't find jobs and are losing their houses. I think many people don't side with either of them. On one hand, we have a bunch of businessmen who have so much money that they can buy a professional sports franchise. On the other side, we have a bunch of guys who get paid ridiculous sums of money to play a sport while they fly around on charter planes and stay in fancy hotels. All the while, people who get paid $8 an hour to work the games are hurting and I blame both sides.

Well said.

With all the fighting over the portion of the pie each side will get, both sides may be looking at a smaller pie when this is all said and done.

[DPG21920]

This is just one of the many things that people as outside observers see as not making any sense, but yet it continues to happen. This is with incredibly wealthy and smart people as well, not some random dummy's that don't know anything.

For whatever reason, these types of things happen in government, business & many other areas where other smart people look at the situation from the outside but miss the true motive which leads to what we deem as "illogical".

[pjjrfan]

The Players play and that's all they do. They don't pay the rent, they don't pay for transportation, they don't runt he concessiones, they don't provide security, they don't pay any bills, a small majority of them make a ton of money, and those that don't make a hell of a lot of money. The hell with them as poor as I am I side with the owners, a 50-50 split is more than fair in my view, they were crazy to give them that 57 percen in the first place. And the majority of these players no longer love this game, they love the money. OK the hell with them is kinda strong, it's a just a game and a business. Birn makes a strong point when he says that the players won't start their own league, why, because it takes money because they will have to spend a lot of it to make it work. And my quess they won't be giving any of their employees a 50-50 split.

[DPG21920]

If you take the owners away, the players can still have a league. Even if you want to argue the merits of how successful that would be, the fact remains there would be a chance.

If you take the players away, there is no league. Period.

[dbestpro]

It's strange but most of the owners i have met over the years have been cordial and nice, while too many players treat way too many people as inferior. I think this is why many do not feel for the players as much as they probably should because they are now getting their comeuppance.

[Bruno]

In theory, a 50/50 BRI split would look great with players and owners getting the same amount of money. Both sides would be at a equal level.

In practice, it's more complicate than that. There are 2 BRIs: the true one and the one calculated according to a formula in the CBA. For example, 60% of luxury suites proceeds aren't included in the BRI and, with new arenas getting more and more suites, it makes a lot of money. Don't be fooled by the whole 50/50 thing because at the end, owners will get the biggest share. Players proposal of a 53/47 split is likely closer to a equal share than the 50/50 proposal made by owners.

[baseline bum]

Which players have been assholes? The only two I have met that I'd classify as jerks were Kareem and Bird. Another era I know, but guys like Erving, Gervin, Robinson, Magic, Barkley, Olajuwon, Jordan, Pippen, McHale... hell, even Malone, have been pretty cool to their fans.

[baseline bum]

In theory, a 50/50 BRI split would look great with players and owners getting the same amount of money. Both sides would be at a equal level.

In practice, it's more complicate than that. There are 2 BRIs: the true one and the one calculated according to a formula in the CBA. For example, 60% of luxury suites proceeds aren't included in the BRI and, with new arenas getting more and more suites, it makes a lot of money. Don't be fooled by the whole 50/50 thing because at the end, owners will get the biggest share. Players proposal of a 53/47 split is likely closer to a equal share than the 50/50 proposal made by owners.

Don't forget the local TV deals that Birn showed were not part of the BRI if the team can setup a shadow company like Spurs Sports and Entertainment.

[ElNono]

With all the fighting over the portion of the pie each side will get, both sides may be looking at a smaller pie when this is all said and done.

Hope they will be. Both sides need to learn that stopping the league has serious consequences beyond the immediate economic impact. I mean this is the 4th lockout in league history and 2nd in the past 12 years alone.

This can't happen every other CBA negotiation.


The Players play and that's all they do. They don't pay the rent, they don't pay for transportation, they don't runt he concessiones, they don't provide security, they don't pay any bills, a small majority of them make a ton of money, and those that don't make a hell of a lot of money. The hell with them as poor as I am I side with the owners, a 50-50 split is more than fair in my view, they were crazy to give them that 57 percen in the first place. And the majority of these players no longer love this game, they love the money. OK the hell with them is kinda strong, it's a just a game and a business. Birn makes a strong point when he says that the players won't start their own league, why, because it takes money because they will have to spend a lot of it to make it work. And my quess they won't be giving any of their employees a 50-50 split.

But the players accepted a 50% split, with the condition that there's also a 0% to a 3% bonus tied to league growth. They're negotiating for a 10 year deal. They already came all the way down from 57%.

[dbreiden83080]

If the season goes away when do they even start talking again? IF they get to the point where they walk away from the tables for good, they are still gonna have the same issues months later they'll just be even more pissed at eachother. You can't lose the whole season over this. They have to figure out a way to play at least half the season. Good luck getting people to come back to the NBA after they have missed an entire year. It will take the length of the new CBA to get the fans back they lost..

[ChuckD]

Woj - The owner's hidden agenda: exit strategy (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_owners_paul_allen_lockout_102111)

[Buddy Holly]

If you take the owners away, the players can still have a league. Even if you want to argue the merits of how successful that would be, the fact remains there would be a chance.

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

the OWS could manage the league, and all the games would be free, and everyone would be paid equally, and there'd be no penalties, and the score would always be love-love, and the championship would be shared equally by all teams, and the MVP would always be everybody

[DPG21920]

Tree. Of. Woj.

[DPG21920]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

No, youre out of your mind to think there wouldn't numerous people lined up to be owners in a new league. There are plenty of deep pockets which is why you see so many people bidding on low level franchises for all time high prices.

Fact remains it would take planning and time, but it could be done.

Without the players there is not even a debate.

[ElNono]

Let's watch Adam Silver dunk that shit!!!!!

[ElNono]

BTW, people forget that it was Stern that introduced the salary cap to the NBA (along with mandatory drug testing) in the '80s and that change basically made union and owners 'partners', or so he sold it back then.

There's also the fact that the reason the union received a small bump in revenue in the 2005 CBA was after they conceded to include a minimum age requirement that Stern wanted too.

[jag]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/he_smiles.gif

[Mr. Body]

You're out of your mind if you think there'd be a salvageable or successful league without the deep pockets of the owners.

There are multi-millionaires everywhere. Many of them would be far better sports owners than some of the current crop.

The owners would be nowhere without spectacular players. It would be a little dipshit league no one watched.

Here's hoping a new model of sports ownership, a la Green Bay, could somehow emerge. One where rich businessmen didn't threaten and gouge municipalities to build them expensive stadiums to fatten their accounts.

[Mr. Body]

That Wojnarowski article posted above is simply amazing. What an utter asshole Paul Allen looks to be. The personalities involved in this whole mess are combustible and there doesn't look to be a single good soul among the owners and the league willing to stand up for the good of the professional sport as a whole.

[benefactor]

That Wojnarowski article posted above is simply amazing. What an utter asshole Paul Allen looks to be. The personalities involved in this whole mess are combustible and there doesn't look to be a single good soul among the owners and the league willing to stand up for the good of the professional sport as a whole.
You'll love this too then...

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32841752

Allen is probably the worst possible person the owners could have put up there to deliver this message. He represents everything that is wrong with professional sports owners.

[Birn]

As I've said many many time before, neither side is interested in a pure free market system where all risks, costs, and rewards are unrestricted. Neither side wants it so please stop trying to insist that all the players want is a chance to earn their true market value. The players are demanding guarantees and protections to minimize their exposure to risk. The owners are seeking protections as well. This is not a free market at all. If they truly wanted a free market with players and owners in partnership with each other then you would have no guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. If owners ever wanted to get rid of someone they would just let them go and they would no longer be responsible for paying them. If players get hurt...too bad. They would be released and would have to rehab their way back to top playing shape. This is not realistic because the players want protections from such risk. In order to have these protections they have to give up some of the potential rewards that a true free market provides. Also, if this were truly a partnership as the NBAPA says it is then they should also have to pay for a share of the expenses paid by the owners. They talk exclusively of BRI (basketball related income) but forget about BRE (basketball related expenses). The players are just plain ignorant and greedy when it comes to understanding business. I'm sure the owners would be happy to give them 57% of BRI if the players also picked up 57% of the expenses. That won't ever happen because the players only want guarantees on income...which is fine but they will have to give their free market values in exchange for those guarantees. They can't have it all.

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%? How come the players feel entitled to take 53%? What's wrong with 50%? I've still not seen a valid reason as to why the players have to take more than 50% of the pie with no contribution toward expenses. That silly offer of a flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Nothing close to it.

All of you people that are siding with the players are missing the whole point of the negotiations from the perspective of the Spurs. IF THE CBA IS NOT CHANGED SO THAT SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN COMPETE FINANCIALLY IN THE FUTURE THEN IT IS NO LONGER CONCEIVABLE FOR THE SPURS TO REMAIN IN SAN ANTONIO. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE TO OWN A COMPETITIVE TEAM IN A SMALL MARKET THEN HOLT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL THE TEAM. HE DOESN'T OWN THE TEAM JUST FOR HIS PURE ENJOYMENT. HE NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY. IT'S PURE AND SIMPLE...THE SPURS NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROFITABLE IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN SA. IF THIS CBA FAILS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE SPURS ARE GONE. THE AT&T LEASE WON'T STOP A NEW OWNER TO MOVE THEM OUT OF TOWN. THEY WOULD JUST PAY THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LEASE. IT'S THAT SERIOUS PEOPLE.

[Mel_13]

Lol capital letters

[Mr. Body]

Birn, dude, no one EVER wants a free market. IN ANY INDUSTRY. It's just a stupid political fable.

All actors want things in their favor. And they want stability as much as anything, which is why you have multi-year contracts. BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

You don't get the players accepting below 53% at this point because they were at 57% last CBA. Why would they give up 7 points to get to 50/50 just for no reason at all? Just because the owners say so? That's crazy. Crazy in the short term, crazy in the medium term, and just means in the long term the owners will expect to rape the hell out of you again next time around.

And... yes, there's a good chance San Antonio loses the Spurs. It's always been the case. If they hadn't drafted Duncan the team would be gone by now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are multi-millionaires everywhere. Many of them would be far better sports owners than some of the current crop.

The owners would be nowhere without spectacular players. It would be a little dipshit league no one watched.

Here's hoping a new model of sports ownership, a la Green Bay, could somehow emerge. One where rich businessmen didn't threaten and gouge municipalities to build them expensive stadiums to fatten their accounts.

Lambeau had vision. Unfortunately those with vision in this era are few and far between.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As I've said many many time before, neither side is interested in a pure free market system where all risks, costs, and rewards are unrestricted. Neither side wants it so please stop trying to insist that all the players want is a chance to earn their true market value. The players are demanding guarantees and protections to minimize their exposure to risk. The owners are seeking protections as well. This is not a free market at all. If they truly wanted a free market with players and owners in partnership with each other then you would have no guaranteed contracts and no salary cap. If owners ever wanted to get rid of someone they would just let them go and they would no longer be responsible for paying them. If players get hurt...too bad. They would be released and would have to rehab their way back to top playing shape. This is not realistic because the players want protections from such risk. In order to have these protections they have to give up some of the potential rewards that a true free market provides. Also, if this were truly a partnership as the NBAPA says it is then they should also have to pay for a share of the expenses paid by the owners. They talk exclusively of BRI (basketball related income) but forget about BRE (basketball related expenses). The players are just plain ignorant and greedy when it comes to understanding business. I'm sure the owners would be happy to give them 57% of BRI if the players also picked up 57% of the expenses. That won't ever happen because the players only want guarantees on income...which is fine but they will have to give their free market values in exchange for those guarantees. They can't have it all.

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%? How come the players feel entitled to take 53%? What's wrong with 50%? I've still not seen a valid reason as to why the players have to take more than 50% of the pie with no contribution toward expenses. That silly offer of a flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Nothing close to it.

All of you people that are siding with the players are missing the whole point of the negotiations from the perspective of the Spurs. IF THE CBA IS NOT CHANGED SO THAT SMALL MARKET TEAMS CAN COMPETE FINANCIALLY IN THE FUTURE THEN IT IS NO LONGER CONCEIVABLE FOR THE SPURS TO REMAIN IN SAN ANTONIO. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS NO LONGER PROFITABLE TO OWN A COMPETITIVE TEAM IN A SMALL MARKET THEN HOLT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL THE TEAM. HE DOESN'T OWN THE TEAM JUST FOR HIS PURE ENJOYMENT. HE NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY. IT'S PURE AND SIMPLE...THE SPURS NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PROFITABLE IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN SA. IF THIS CBA FAILS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE SPURS ARE GONE. THE AT&T LEASE WON'T STOP A NEW OWNER TO MOVE THEM OUT OF TOWN. THEY WOULD JUST PAY THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LEASE. IT'S THAT SERIOUS PEOPLE.

You have no basis for this. The Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's et al all say hello. Baseball has about the same amount of revenue sharing and no cap whatsoever yet those markets still have teams.

You have this make believer world in your head please stop trying to pas it off as fact.

[Birn]

Birn, dude, no one EVER wants a free market. IN ANY INDUSTRY. It's just a stupid political fable.

All actors want things in their favor. And they want stability as much as anything, which is why you have multi-year contracts. BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

You don't get the players accepting below 53% at this point because they were at 57% last CBA. Why would they give up 7 points to get to 50/50 just for no reason at all? Just because the owners say so? That's crazy. Crazy in the short term, crazy in the medium term, and just means in the long term the owners will expect to rape the hell out of you again next time around.

And... yes, there's a good chance San Antonio loses the Spurs. It's always been the case. If they hadn't drafted Duncan the team would be gone by now.

Mr. Body, everybody that lives in our country wants free market capitalism in all industries. Silly Socialist!!

I stand corrected...everybody except the NBA players and owners and Barack Obama.

Once again, just because the players raped the owners for 57% in the last CBA doesn't set any precedent at all. I could understand it more if the players had ownership stakes in these teams but they don't. The fact is there would be no NBA without the owners. 50/50 is the only reasonable solution and compromise to get this thing over with. The players will still be paid more money under a 50/50 system than they ever received in a 57/43 system. That's what is making this so frustrating for average fans...they just don't understand why the players have to be so greedy. They're going to lose big time!

Nothing is going to get done until it is confirmed that they can't play an 82 game schedule. Once they officially start losing games then that's when the players crack. Owners are giving them every opportunity to get a deal done but the players are being too petulant and childish about 53% of BRI. They've drawn a line in the sand and said they won't move any further. Owners see that and think "OK, see you next season". Players have zero leverage. Once games are lost for good they will fold up like a cheap tent. The players are pure amateurs at negotiating.

[Birn]

You have no basis for this. The Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's et al all say hello. Baseball has about the same amount of revenue sharing and no cap whatsoever yet those markets still have teams.

You have this make believer world in your head please stop trying to pas it off as fact.

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

[Birn]

Lambeau had vision. Unfortunately those with vision in this era are few and far between.

AAAAHHHHH...gotta love that Socialism!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

You said compete financially. Now you are just whining for guarantees. You probably think of yourself as conservative too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AAAAHHHHH...gotta love that Socialism!

I guess. Its the NFL not the steel industry.

They are most assuredly Green Bays team. Screw Peter Holt.

[Birn]

No, youre out of your mind to think there wouldn't numerous people lined up to be owners in a new league. There are plenty of deep pockets which is why you see so many people bidding on low level franchises for all time high prices.

Fact remains it would take planning and time, but it could be done.

Without the players there is not even a debate.

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.

[ChuckD]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

Have any of them moved? Case dismissed...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/PaulAllen.jpg

He did most certainly. He is just mad now that hes come down off his manic phase.

Its a pro SPORTS league. Think gambling industry and think about it for a little bit.

[Mel_13]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

[Mel_13]

50/50 is the only reasonable solution and compromise to get this thing over with. The players will still be paid more money under a 50/50 system than they ever received in a 57/43 system.

Do you have any factual foundation for either of these assertions?

[ElNono]

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%?

THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED H... oops. That has been answered here, many times already. Owners can ask whatever they want, and so do players. Eventually, if they want to play the games, they're going to have to find a common ground.

You still haven't answered why owners wouldn't accept a 50%-53% band and elaborate why such band is so different from a strict 50/50 split...

[ElNono]

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.

But they've been making money. And for those that have had problems, player offered to cover half the losses. So this point is really moot.

[ElNono]

Do you have any factual foundation for either of these assertions?

Been asking that question twice now...

[ElNono]

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

You and your silly facts getting in the way of his unfounded arguments...

[ElNono]

Report: David Stern Told ESPN and TNT That 82-Game Season Still Possible (http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2011/10/report-david-stern-telling-espn-and-tnt-82-games-still-possible/)

[Birn]

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

I'm glad you brought up the TB Rays. You walked right into my argument. in 2009, the year after they won the pennant the owner of the Rays had to slash payroll since they could not afford to pay any high priced free agents. Evan Longoria is the only holdover from the all stars that were on that roster. Carl Crawford, Jason Bartlett, Ben Zobrist, Scott Kazmir, and Carlos Pena were all let go in free agency or traded for prospects. Why did that happen? Because the way MLB is structured there is no chance for small market teams to compete financially. Until MLB negotiates a better deal with the players union, the only contenders from here on out are going to be the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Rangers, Phillies, Mets, Braves and Giants. Once the Dodgers get their ownership in place they will be on that list as well. Those are the teams with deep pocket owners who will outspend everybody. That's great for the players but bad for small market teams with owners who aren't mega wealthy. In fact, TB Rays ownership has talked openly about the need to possibly relocate away from Tampa Bay. Don't be surprised to see them in another city in a couple of years.

It's certainly possible for a small market team to occasionally win a division title based solely on shrewd scouting and player development. However, once those players become stars those teams can no longer afford their services.

Thanks for allowing me to prove my point once again.

[Mel_13]

I'm glad you brought up the TB Rays. You walked right into my argument. in 2009, the year after they won the pennant the owner of the Rays had to slash payroll since they could not afford to pay any high priced free agents. Evan Longoria is the only holdover from the all stars that were on that roster. Carl Crawford, Jason Bartlett, Ben Zobrist, Scott Kazmir, and Carlos Pena were all let go in free agency or traded for prospects. Why did that happen? Because the way MLB is structured there is no chance for small market teams to compete financially. Until MLB negotiates a better deal with the players union, the only contenders from here on out are going to be the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Rangers, Phillies, Mets, Braves and Giants. Once the Dodgers get their ownership in place they will be on that list as well. Those are the teams with deep pocket owners who will outspend everybody. That's great for the players but bad for small market teams with owners who aren't mega wealthy. In fact, TB Rays ownership has talked openly about the need to possibly relocate away from Tampa Bay. Don't be surprised to see them in another city in a couple of years.

It's certainly possible for a small market team to occasionally win a division title based solely on shrewd scouting and player development. However, once those players become stars those teams can no longer afford their services.

Thanks for allowing me to prove my point once again.

:rollin

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

[ElNono]

:rollin

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

Not to mention that unlike the MLB, the NBA does have a salay cap.

[Birn]

But they've been making money. And for those that have had problems, player offered to cover half the losses. So this point is really moot.

That is just totally untrue. Please cite your source. You're confusing projected revenues with covering expenses. The players never offered to cover half of their losses. The players are trying to spin a reduction of BRI from 57% to 53% as a "giveback" in salaries. I have news for you...you can't give back something that hasn't been earned. How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future? There's still a TV deal that has to be negotiated in the next couple of years with ESPN and TNT. With the way our economy is tanking do you expect ESPN and TNT to shell out the same kind of big bucks? I doubt it. They're business people too and they aren't going to pay the league a billion dollars if there's no decent return for them from advertisers. The players are idiots if they just assume that all future TV and marketing rights deals will always remain the same or will always grow. Once again, the players just repeatedly display their ignorance and stupidity when it comes to running a business.

Wise fools, my friend.

[Mel_13]

How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future?

I suppose the same way that you seem to know that the players will make more under a 50/50 split than a 57/43 split.

:rolleyes

[Birn]

:rollin

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

Yep, I sure did. Here's a little piece quoted in Wikipedia:

"In 2011, Tampa Bay was eliminated in the ALDS by the Texas Rangers, three games to one. After the elimination, owner Stuart Sternberg expressed concern about the team's viability in Florida after the team's last playoff game failed to sell out; he has indicated he may relocate the team to another market, although he did not specify which market."

He can't sell out his stadium because they can't afford any high priced star players to put people in the stands.

One more time, I rest my case. Plain as day for you, my brother.

[baseline bum]

Once again, the players just repeatedly display their ignorance and stupidity when it comes to running a business.

Can't be any dumber than Holt bidding against himself for Jefferson and Bonner last summer.

[Mel_13]

Yep, I sure did. Here's a little piece quoted in Wikipedia:

"In 2011, Tampa Bay was eliminated in the ALDS by the Texas Rangers, three games to one. After the elimination, owner Stuart Sternberg expressed concern about the team's viability in Florida after the team's last playoff game failed to sell out; he has indicated he may relocate the team to another market, although he did not specify which market."

He can't sell out his stadium because they can't afford any high priced star players to put people in the stands.

One more time, I rest my case. Plain as day for you, my brother.

Have you ever been to Tropicana Field? I have.

Tampa's attendance problems have little or nothing to do with the quality of the team they're putting on the field.

You keep moving the goalposts, but the results remain the same.

[Birn]

THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED H... oops. That has been answered here, many times already. Owners can ask whatever they want, and so do players. Eventually, if they want to play the games, they're going to have to find a common ground.

You still haven't answered why owners wouldn't accept a 50%-53% band and elaborate why such band is so different from a strict 50/50 split...

That's an easy one....let me indulge you...because the owners actually own the teams. I know you're going to find this really hard to believe but there would be no league without the owners. Also, the entertainment level of the league would not be anything without the players. Having said that, if there's any group that has the right to earn a higher percentage of revenues its the owners because they put forth their own assets and capital to make the league viable and make it possible for the players to earn salaries they will never see in their lifetimes. The answer is simple...the owners deserve a higher percentage because it is their league. However, in the spirit of compromise and good faith negotiations the owners and players should just split the baby and move on so we can enjoy some basketball. A flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Suppose the owners offered a flex band of 47% to 50%? The players would find that to be unacceptable of course. That would be no more unacceptable for them as it is for the owners. There's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the players need to have 53% except for just pure greed. The players are going to end up costing themselves more than just a couple of weeks of games. I guarantee these players will not miss the season. They're underestimating the owners when they threaten to cancel the season. It can and will happen unless the players start acting reasonable. I also find it hard to believe that you profess to be a Spurs fan and yet favor the players in these negotiations. You do realize you are rooting for the Spurs to never be profitable and ripe for relocation? You do realize that don't you?

[Mel_13]

There's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the players need to have 53% except for just pure greed.

Just as there's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the owners need to have 50% except for just pure greed.

[Birn]

Have you ever been to Tropicana Field? I have.

Tampa's attendance problems have little or nothing to do with the quality of the team they're putting on the field.

You keep moving the goalposts, but the results remain the same.

Nope. Just look at the facts. Attendance through 2008 was pretty decent for them. Why? They were competitive and they had multiple all stars on their roster. In 2009, only Evan Longoria returned and everyone else was traded away or failed to re-sign. Fans lose interest when their favorite players are let go and the team fails to produce at a championship level. As a result, they just can't afford to sign any star players.

There's no way you're going to say with a straight face that Tampa Bay will compete for a championship each year in MLB's current system. The fact is they can't compete financially with the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, et al.

[Birn]

Just as there's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the owners need to have 50% except for just pure greed.

Then why don't both the owners and players get 50% each and they can both be greedy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a basis for the players getting MORE than 57% because that is what free market forces demonstrated. The free market is the basis not an arbitrary number. At least in this country it is.

I love self-styled conservatives who turn on the free market the moment their corporate overlords are ever at risk.

[ElNono]

That is just totally untrue. Please cite your source. You're confusing projected revenues with covering expenses. The players never offered to cover half of their losses.

I'm being generous and using the NBA as the source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/07/06/audited-numbers-show-nba-lost-over-1-5b-over-last-five-years/). Their claim is that their last audited loss (10-11) added up to $300 millions. The NBA’s BRI in 10-11 was $3.817 billion (http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/final-nba-revenue-numbers-in-from-last-season/), which at a 57/43 split ended up being $2.176 billion in salaries while owners received $1.641 billion in revenues. Each 1% of BRI amounts to $38.17 millions.

The union offered to come down 4%, from 57% to 53%, which means 4 * $38.17 millions = $152.68 millions, or a little over half the reported losses by the NBA.

Now show me your numbers.


The players are trying to spin a reduction of BRI from 57% to 53% as a "giveback" in salaries. I have news for you...you can't give back something that hasn't been earned. How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future?

They don't. That's why they're being flexible, and if the revenue drops they're willing to go all the way down to 50%. Now, if the revenue stays steady or, as it's been in the last few seasons, picks up, why shouldn't they get 53%? Why wouldn't owners be interested in offering a bonus if the league does well? After all, people pay to watch the players, not the owners.

[Mel_13]

Nope. Just look at the facts. Attendance through 2008 was pretty decent for them. Why? They were competitive and they had multiple all stars on their roster. In 2009, only Evan Longoria returned and everyone else was traded away or failed to re-sign. Fans lose interest when their favorite players are let go and the team fails to produce at a championship level. As a result, they just can't afford to sign any star players.

Once again, the facts don't support your assertions. They're all here if actually care:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/


There's no way you're going to say with a straight face that Tampa Bay will compete for a championship each year in MLB's current system. The fact is they can't compete financially with the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, et al.

:rollin

So, let's recap how you've moved the goalposts:

1. First, it was that teams couldn't compete financially. Shot down

2. Then it was that such teams hadn't competed for a pennant recently. Shot down twice.

3. Then it was that such teams, even when they succeeded, would still be likely candidates for relocation because they couldn't keep star players. Shot down.

4. Now you've moved the goalposts even further. Now teams must be able to compete for championships every year.

Hard to believe you actually typed that with a straight face.

[Mel_13]

Then why don't both the owners and players get 50% each and they can both be greedy?

What's your foundation for your assertion that 50/50 is a fair split? You've never answered that.