Resuming CBA talks

[ChuckD]

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.

Actually, there are some good, reasonable owners who would actually negotiate a deal. Their just aren't enough of them to control the cartel. Right now, the inmates are running the asylum, and will be at least until the season is lost.

[ChuckD]

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



Dude, you're just making yourself look worse every day. The NBA is SO far away from being a free market, it isn't even funny. It's an exclusive cartel of owners who are given a special anti-trust exemption ONLY if they allow the players to organize and collectively bargain. Any kind of salary cap, soft or hard, is also anti-free market.

[ElNono]

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.

You might find it hard to believe, but owners aren't that hard to find. With the exception being, perhaps, New Orleans, you're not going to be short of people out there willing to buy an NBA team.

On the other hand, there's no league without the star players. The owners can be replaced. The star players simply cannot.


Also, the entertainment level of the league would not be anything without the players.

There won't be an NBA without the top players. It would be called the NBDL and there would be no TV deals, etc.


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 players have every right because they're the actual product, and they're the only thing that's unique here. I also dispute the notion that if there would have been no NBA, a guy like Kobe wouldn't have become a multimillionaire playing basketball, say, in Europe. He probably wouldn't have as much money, but he certainly would've earned a good share.

As a matter of fact, if it wouldn't have been because of Kareen, Magic, Phil Jackson, Kobe, Shaq, etc, the Lakers wouldn't be valued what they're valued, and Buss wouldn't be worth as much as he's worth.


The answer is simple...the owners deserve a higher percentage because it is their league.

Disagree. I think the owners have an important role, but there's no league without the players.


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.

It would be unacceptable for the players because the financial numbers don't bear it out. This is a league that is (or was) in the upswing. And this is a deal for the next 10 years.


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.

You forget that's not the players that make the veiled treats. It's a lockout, not a strike. The only people here threatening to cancel the season is the owners, since they're the only ones that can make that decision.


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?

I realize that you're severely confused about the financials of the league. I also understand that there's more than one solution to this than just putting it all on the player's back. I have no concerns about the Spurs never being profitable again or relocating, because I understand that's not possible with what the union has offered, plus some other revenue sharing propositions that the owners need to work out on their own.

[Mel_13]

I realize that you're severely confused about the financials of the league.

You have a talent for understatement.

[Birn]

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

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



: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.

Wow...do you know how to read? Do you have the capacity to think critically?

Here we go:

1. Just go to Google and type "Tampa Bay Rays". There you'll find numerous articles documenting the financial problems they're having which is making it difficult for them to compete for players.

2. Again, just read my responses. It's very clear. I assume you speak and read in English. It's not unusual for a small market team to compete with shrewd scouting and player development but once they become free agents they can't sign them to long term deals. Evidence is the 2009 Tampa Bay Rays who were unable to keep multiple all stars from a team that just won the pennant in 2008. Can you imagine the outrage in SA if the Spurs drafted good players and found free agent diamonds only to lose them in a couple of years because they were outbid by the Lakers and Mavericks?

3. See #2 above.

4. Nope. My responses...when read for their plain and ordinary meaning...are straight through the uprights for you.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

[Mel_13]

Wow...do you know how to read? Do you have the capacity to think critically?


Questions I would pose to you. Along with the many you have yet to answer.

[Birn]

You might find it hard to believe, but owners aren't that hard to find. With the exception being, perhaps, New Orleans, you're not going to be short of people out there willing to buy an NBA team.

On the other hand, there's no league without the star players. The owners can be replaced. The star players simply cannot.



There won't be an NBA without the top players. It would be called the NBDL and there would be no TV deals, etc.



The players have every right because they're the actual product, and they're the only thing that's unique here. I also dispute the notion that if there would have been no NBA, a guy like Kobe wouldn't have become a multimillionaire playing basketball, say, in Europe. He probably wouldn't have as much money, but he certainly would've earned a good share.

As a matter of fact, if it wouldn't have been because of Kareen, Magic, Phil Jackson, Kobe, Shaq, etc, the Lakers wouldn't be valued what they're valued, and Buss wouldn't be worth as much as he's worth.



Disagree. I think the owners have an important role, but there's no league without the players.



It would be unacceptable for the players because the financial numbers don't bear it out. This is a league that is (or was) in the upswing. And this is a deal for the next 10 years.



You forget that's not the players that make the veiled treats. It's a lockout, not a strike. The only people here threatening to cancel the season is the owners, since they're the only ones that can make that decision.



I realize that you're severely confused about the financials of the league. I also understand that there's more than one solution to this than just putting it all on the player's back. I have no concerns about the Spurs never being profitable again or relocating, because I understand that's not possible with what the union has offered, plus some other revenue sharing propositions that the owners need to work out on their own.

Wow...just pure delusion. I don't want to know what's in that Kool Aid you're drinking. It never occurred to me that a 50/50 BRI split was "putting it all on the players' backs". Whew!!

So tell me what some of these "other solutions" are that you know about. I'm waiting in bated breath. Trust me, if there were other solutions they would've been explored by now. Let me guess...increased ticket prices for everybody...that way the average family can no longer afford to attend any games. Let's see...how about fewer games on free TV!...that way we have to use pay per view to watch Spurs regular season games or a higher cable bill from Time Warner...or, how about higher prices for concessions like $10 for a beer and $7 for a pretzel. Yeah, I get it...go put it on the backs of the fans!!! The players, you know, they can't give back too much. They're entitled to 53%...they're doing the league and its fans a FAVOR by only stealing 53%.

You see how ridiculous you appear?

If the players and owners agree to just split the baby and get this overwith then fans won't be hurt in the process. However, the players really aren't even thinking about the casual fan. They don't care at all. Owners are willing to sit out the whole season because there's no way they can go back and ask fans to yet again pay more out of pocket. Not in this economy.

Good luck to you, my brother. I hope you're prepared to not have basketball this season which would have possibly been Tim Duncan's last season in SA. He's a free agent after this season. If the players get what they want out of this deal, we won't be able to afford to re-sign Tim. Thanks for nothing NBAPA!!

Greedy bastards! Just accept the 50/50 deal and let's play some basketball!!

[Birn]

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.

Don't get me started on the free market BS the players are trying to put out. Neither the players nor the owners want a pure free market. Each side is looking for guarantees and protections from certain risks that are inherent in the free market. If they want guarantees and protections then they need to be prepared to give up a lot of the potential rewards that a free market offers.

I'm all for a pure free market. My CBA would be no salary cap and all contracts non-guaranteed. You get paid to perform. If you can't perform you get let go. End of discussion. If you perform lights out, you get paid big time!

Players want guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed percentage of revenue. That ain't part of a free market.

[baseline bum]

Don't get me started on the free market BS the players are trying to put out. Neither the players nor the owners want a pure free market. Each side is looking for guarantees and protections from certain risks that are inherent in the free market. If they want guarantees and protections then they need to be prepared to give up a lot of the potential rewards that a free market offers.

I'm all for a pure free market. My CBA would be no salary cap and all contracts non-guaranteed. You get paid to perform. If you can't perform you get let go. End of discussion. If you perform lights out, you get paid big time!

Players want guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed percentage of revenue. That ain't part of a free market.

What's the point of a contract that can be broken at will by the owner? If you want non-guaranteed deals be prepared to see players constantly holding out.

[Mel_13]

I'm all for a pure free market. My CBA would be no salary cap and all contracts non-guaranteed.

Oh, my. You really don't see it, do you? Your pure free market is not a free market.

[ElNono]

Wow...just pure delusion. I don't want to know what's in that Kool Aid you're drinking. It never occurred to me that a 50/50 BRI split was "putting it all on the players' backs". Whew!!

Is that all you have? delusion and Kool Aid? :lol

It's real easy to see why 50/50 is putting it all on the players back: At $38.17 million per BRI point, going 50/50 means the money swing is $267.19 million (7*$38.17). For a league that has audited losses of $300 millions, that mean the players would be covering 89% of the losses with the 50/50 split.

How's that not putting it all on the player's back? Do you need to borrow a calculator?


So tell me what some of these "other solutions" are that you know about. I'm waiting in bated breath. Trust me, if there were other solutions they would've been explored by now.

I presented some here. You probably didn't bother to read. I suggested a 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio increase in the luxury tax, coupled with an improved revenue sharing. The NBA has a terrible revenue sharing model, much worse than the NFL or even the MLB. This is something that will need to be done regardless of what the BRI split is going to be.

And owners will need to cut down in some expenses. Players are aware of the economic situation and have agreed to take a pay cut. Owners should also tighten up their expenses. A 4% reduction in their expenses from last season would cover the other $150 million, and put the league on the black again.


Let me guess...increased ticket prices for everybody...that way the average family can no longer afford to attend any games. Let's see...how about fewer games on free TV!...that way we have to use pay per view to watch Spurs regular season games or a higher cable bill from Time Warner...or, how about higher prices for concessions like $10 for a beer and $7 for a pretzel. Yeah, I get it...go put it on the backs of the fans!!! The players, you know, they can't give back too much. They're entitled to 53%...they're doing the league and its fans a FAVOR by only stealing 53%.

You see how ridiculous you appear?

I never said any of that. Who's ridiculous?


If the players and owners agree to just split the baby and get this overwith then fans won't be hurt in the process. However, the players really aren't even thinking about the casual fan. They don't care at all.

Here you go again pretending it's the players locking out the league. One more time, this isn't a strike, it's a lockout. If there are no games right now, it has everything to do with the owners locking out the players, not the other way around.

Do you understand the difference between a lockout and a strike, right?


Owners are willing to sit out the whole season because there's no way they can go back and ask fans to yet again pay more out of pocket. Not in this economy.

So you're telling me that the owners don't give a shit about the casual fan either... well, we all knew that.


Good luck to you, my brother. I hope you're prepared to not have basketball this season which would have possibly been Tim Duncan's last season in SA. He's a free agent after this season. If the players get what they want out of this deal, we won't be able to afford to re-sign Tim. Thanks for nothing NBAPA!!

I've no skin in this labor fight. I'm not an owner nor a player, and I try to view this from that angle. I understand both owners and players are fighting for what their think it's fair.

As a fan, I would rather watch basketball, but I'm fully aware there might not be a season. It's just basketball, entertainment. There's plenty of other sources of that out there.

I think Tim should just retire, tbh... but he's earned the right to do whatever he wants to do.


Greedy bastards! Just accept the 50/50 deal and let's play some basketball!!

:rolleyes

[Mr. Body]

For Birn's 'free market basketball' to actually be free market, it would mean that the players could play for anybody, not just the current 30 teams. That means they could play for Rosie O'Donnell, if she suddenly started a team in St. Sault Marie or George Clooney if he decided to rent out Madison Square Garden every day there's not a Knick game, hire up Kobe Bryant and LeBron James away from their teams to play whenever they're not playing for their respective teams, and play against high school teams or Euroleague teams or whoever the hell they wanted.

But no. Birn's idea of a free market is just a market where labor has no rights and continually has to prove itself in order to gain any sort of self-sustaining stability.

That is, Birn's idea of a 'free market' is far from a free market. And like most free market Mouseketeers, he uses the phrase as a way of supporting owners over labor. And, in this case, supporting the NBA ownership over the players he purports to love.

[Birn]

Oh, my. You really don't see it, do you? Your pure free market is not a free market.

Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.

[ElNono]

Forget about the Spurs being competitive, in Birn's idea of a free market the Spurs wouldn't exist, period.

[ElNono]

Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.

That's actually not true. You should start by reading up the federal FMLA for starters.

[Mel_13]

Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.

And if my resume were sufficiently impressive, I could negotiate a multi-year, guaranteed contract.

I swear it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[ElNono]

And if my resume were sufficiently impressive, I could negotiate a multi-year, guaranteed contract.

I swear it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Said it about 3 pages ago:


This is a star driven league. Until that gets through your head, you're going to remain confused.

[Birn]

For Birn's 'free market basketball' to actually be free market, it would mean that the players could play for anybody, not just the current 30 teams. That means they could play for Rosie O'Donnell, if she suddenly started a team in St. Sault Marie or George Clooney if he decided to rent out Madison Square Garden every day there's not a Knick game, hire up Kobe Bryant and LeBron James away from their teams to play whenever they're not playing for their respective teams, and play against high school teams or Euroleague teams or whoever the hell they wanted.

But no. Birn's idea of a free market is just a market where labor has no rights and continually has to prove itself in order to gain any sort of self-sustaining stability.

That is, Birn's idea of a 'free market' is far from a free market. And like most free market Mouseketeers, he uses the phrase as a way of supporting owners over labor. And, in this case, supporting the NBA ownership over the players he purports to love.

Silly Marxist! The free market is inherent with risks and in order to participate and reap the rewards that it offers you must be man enough to accept the risks that are presented and work your ass off to perform. That's a beautiful thing my brother. Everyone that owns a business entered into that business with no guarantee of success.

Socialism is not the answer, my brother.

[Mr. Body]

Birn, I think I'm going to ignore you. You don't really understand the issue. You keep using terms that you don't understand, the least of which is 'Marxist' and 'socialism', much less this canard of a free market. I think you're either a troll or somebody who needs to step back and start learning a bit more about economics, business, and labor relations, because otherwise you're basically demanding everyone listen to your discussions about the care and feeding of unicorns. It's not worth it and you're clearly not listening to anybody.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.

Not contracted labor. You are pretty ignorant across the board. Its about time to just mock you.

[Birn]

That's actually not true. You should start by reading up the federal FMLA for starters.

FMLA relates to medical conditions that prevent you from performing your job. I'm talking about just simply unable or unwilling to perform the essential functions of your job.

[Mel_13]

I'm talking about just simply unable or unwilling to perform the essential functions of your job.


. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7fyG2TcUNUg/TiVuGtyggsI/AAAAAAAAGNQ/uDbKNivUPGU/s1600/goalposts.jpg

[ElNono]

Same as in any other profession, my brother. If you show up for your job tomorrow and for whatever reason you're unable to perform the essential functions of your job your employer has the right to terminate you.


FMLA relates to medical conditions that prevent you from performing your job.

Emphasis mine, tbh

[ElNono]

Birn, I think I'm going to ignore you. You don't really understand the issue. You keep using terms that you don't understand, the least of which is 'Marxist' and 'socialism', much less this canard of a free market. I think you're either a troll or somebody who needs to step back and start learning a bit more about economics, business, and labor relations, because otherwise you're basically demanding everyone listen to your discussions about the care and feeding of unicorns. It's not worth it and you're clearly not listening to anybody.

:lol

[Birn]

Birn, I think I'm going to ignore you. You don't really understand the issue. You keep using terms that you don't understand, the least of which is 'Marxist' and 'socialism', much less this canard of a free market. I think you're either a troll or somebody who needs to step back and start learning a bit more about economics, business, and labor relations, because otherwise you're basically demanding everyone listen to your discussions about the care and feeding of unicorns. It's not worth it and you're clearly not listening to anybody.

Whatever, Marxy. Don't feel bad...I've out-debated much smarter people than you.

Cheers!

[Birn]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7fyg2tcunug/tivugtyggsi/aaaaaaaagnq/udbknivupgu/s1600/goalposts.jpg

lol!!!!!

[ElNono]

To sum up a bit:
- Players did offer to cover 50% of the losses
- Players are indeed being asked to cover north of 85% of the losses
- Owners without star players don't have a league
- Owners have no more 'right' than players to ask for whatever they want to ask
- Decertification worked well for the NFL union/players
- You can't fire employees for 'whatever reason'
- There's no such thing as capitalism in the NBA. Owners don't want it either.

[ElNono]

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.

Everyone suspects the NBA cooks the books one way or another. Be it using tax loops, or fishy accounting. That said, there's a possibility that such accounting also favors the players.

Ultimately, not making their finances public obviously cast a bigger shadow instead of clearing things up.

[SpursIndonesia]

Why is this discussion turning into an ideological debate, that one of the party keeps on insisting his version of slavery, ooops, "capitalism ideals" ? But okay, it's quite entertaining actually, LOL.

[Birn]

Emphasis mine, tbh

If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies, and many of them have. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

Once again, your ignorance is proven beyond reproach.

[ElNono]

If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you.

So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...

The FMLA is a federal law and supersedes whatever state law there is.

lol ignorant

[Birn]

Forget about the Spurs being competitive, in Birn's idea of a free market the Spurs wouldn't exist, period.

Actually, in a pure free market the Spurs would thrive as would every other small market team. The playing field would be leveled and every team would have an equal opportunity to compete for a championship.

[Mel_13]

Actually, in a pure free market the Spurs would thrive as would every other small market team. The playing field would be leveled and every team would have an equal opportunity to compete for a championship.


Oh, my.

[baseline bum]

If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies, and many of them have. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

Once again, your ignorance is proven beyond reproach.

LOL @ looking at NBA players like they're easily replaced KFC cashiers.

[ElNono]

Actually, in a pure free market the Spurs would thrive as would every other small market team. The playing field would be leveled and every team would have an equal opportunity to compete for a championship.


My CBA would be no salary cap and all contracts non-guaranteed.

Which means a team like the Spurs would simply not exist, because Holt is amongst the less wealthy owners out there, and would simply be unable to pay for star talent to fill up an arena. As a matter of fact, under 'your' CBA, the league would be extremely tilted towards the extremely rich owners, and the playing field would be even more tilted than it is right now.

lol don't understand basic economics
lol capitalist warrior doesn't understand supply-demand

[baseline bum]

Which means a team like the Spurs would simply not exist, because Holt is amongst the less wealthy owners out there, and would simply be unable to pay for star talent to fill up an arena. As a matter of fact, under 'your' CBA, the league would be extremely tilted towards the extremely rich owners, and the playing field would be even more tilted than it is right now.

lol don't understand basic economics
lol capitalist warrior doesn't understand supply-demand

Haha... Duncan would have been pulling minimum $40 million a year from 98 to 08 with no salary cap and no max salaries.

[Birn]

So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...

The FMLA is a federal law and supersedes whatever state law there is.

lol ignorant

FMLA is very limited my brother. Only applies to employers with more than 50 employees and the employee must provide the employer with adequate notice of a need for leave that qualifies under FMLA.

Your assertion that an employee just yells "FMLA" when they're about to be terminated is ignorant and utterly stupid.

Long story short, most states are employment at will. Employers can terminate for any reason and employees can leave for any reason. That's how the free market for labor works my brother.

It's incredible how little you know about basic employment practices.

LOL!!!!!

[ElNono]

FMLA is very limited my brother.

So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...


It's incredible how little you know about basic employment practices.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

lol the perfect example of ignorant
lol still spinning that shit

[benefactor]

Some pretty epic self-ownage in this thread. ST hasn't seen the likes in quite some time.

Refreshing, actually. :)

[ElNono]

To sum up a bit:
- Players did offer to cover 50% of the losses
- Players are indeed being asked to cover north of 85% of the losses
- Owners without star players don't have a league
- Owners have no more 'right' than players to ask for whatever they want to ask
- Decertification worked well for the NFL union/players
- You can't fire employees for 'whatever reason'
- There's no such thing as capitalism in the NBA. Owners don't want it either.

[ElNono]

Some pretty epic self-ownage in this thread. ST hasn't seen the likes in quite some time.

Refreshing, actually. :)

:lol shitty troll, tbh...

I mean, even KBP at least would accidentally be right sometimes...

[benefactor]

Yeah...I'm starting to get that feeling too. He was working it decently at first but he's gone off the deep end and outed himself in the last few pages.

[Dex]

I'll give the guy points for persistence. He's been trying to dig upwards for a few pages now.

[Birn]

So you can't be terminated for 'whatever reason'...



:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

lol the perfect example of ignorant
lol still spinning that shit


It's the truth brother! If you worked for me I could terminate you tomorrow just for being an asshole. Now explain to all how FMLA could prevent me from doing that?

The fact is that it can't unless you first provide notice days or months prior to your termination that you have a medical condition preventing you from performing the essential functions of your job.

I know it's a little difficult for you to grasp basic economics, basic employment law, and free market principles with your Edgewood High School education but I hope that I've been of some service to you.

Cheers!!

[ElNono]

It's the truth brother!

It's not brother!


If you worked for me I could terminate you tomorrow just for being an asshole.

No you couldn't brother! :lmao


I know it's a little difficult for you to grasp basic economics, basic employment law, and free market principles

You need to pick up the trolling, tbh... this is weak shit right here

smh

[xellos88330]

The last pages of this thread are proving to be quite entertaining.

Good to see that some people still know how to troll intelligently.

[Birn]

It's not brother!



No you couldn't brother! :lmao



You need to pick up the trolling, tbh... this is weak shit right here

smh

Nope. I own you on this one. I've proven my point repeatedly.

Now, getting back to the original point...the NBAPA needs to understand they have no leverage and they should agree to the 50/50 split so we can enjoy some basketball this season and SA can enjoy having the Spurs compete well into the future. It is absolutely ridiculous how greedy and ignorant the players are being. I should say the NBAPA leadership is being greedy and ignorant. The rank and file players are ready to play and would gladly accept a 50/50 deal if presented to them by a vote. This whole dispute is all about the star players and their agents. That's wrong! They may be stars but they have no right to decide for the rest of the players what kind of deal to accept. Each player is worth only one vote regardless of status or income. The NBAPA has morphed into a dysfunctional group of the HAVES versus the HAVE NOTS. It's very sad and it's hurting fans and people's livelihoods all over the country.

It's wrong for the NBAPA to only represent the views of star players just as it is wrong for the owners to just represent the views of big market owners who want to overspend and buy championships.

Greedy Bastard players!! Accept the deal and let's play some basketball!!

[ElNono]

Nope. I own you on this one.

Nope. I own you brother! :lmao


I've proven my point repeatedly.

You've proven you're a hack.

But lesson learned for you... You bring the weak shit, we'll make you roll in it :lmao

[ElNono]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand:


To sum up a bit:
- Players did offer to cover 50% of the losses
- Players are indeed being asked to cover north of 85% of the losses
- Owners without star players don't have a league
- Owners have no more 'right' than players to ask for whatever they want to ask
- Decertification worked well for the NFL union/players
- You can't fire employees for 'whatever reason'
- There's no such thing as capitalism in the NBA. Owners don't want it either.

[wildbill2u]

Why haven't the players asked to decertify their union? That would bring anti-trust law into play if the owners continued a lockout.

Some say it would give the individual players more leverage. I don't understand how that could be because the owners wouldn't be contractually obligated to keep salaries at ANY percentage of revenues.

Anyone know what the situation would be if they did that--and stuck with it?

[ElNono]

Why haven't the players asked to decertify their union? That would bring anti-trust law into play if the owners continued a lockout.

Some say it would give the individual players more leverage. I don't understand how that could be because the owners wouldn't be contractually obligated to keep salaries at ANY percentage of revenues.

Anyone know what the situation would be if they did that--and stuck with it?

I think the union is waiting for the NLRB ruling. If the NLRB rules for them, they can have a judge issue an injunction and lift the lockout. Then it gets messy for the owners, because they have to go argue against the board.

If the union decertifies before the NLRB ruling, then the NLRB action ceases, since it was brought by the union, and the union would be no more.

So I think they're going to wait a couple weeks to see what the ruling is. If the NLRB rules against the players, I expect them to use the nuclear option.

[ElNono]

Obviously, if the owners have a change of heart and want to sit down and actually negotiate while all this happens, then I'm sure the union would be happy to sit down and come to an agreement. I think certain owners are ready to cut a deal. The thing is to get enough votes away from the hardliners.

[ElNono]

BTW, the 50/50 split wasn't necessarily off the table by the union. But in order for them to accept the 50/50 split, they would need concessions from the owners on the other 'system' issues.

[Axe Murderer]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_olsFfdGggLA/SxUt0sVu-AI/AAAAAAAAAfc/UIb8RFiAUpU/s1600/Stoops+Lays+Eggs.jpg

[Birn]

Why haven't the players asked to decertify their union? That would bring anti-trust law into play if the owners continued a lockout.

Some say it would give the individual players more leverage. I don't understand how that could be because the owners wouldn't be contractually obligated to keep salaries at ANY percentage of revenues.

Anyone know what the situation would be if they did that--and stuck with it?

The problem with decertification is it would take years to get through the courts if players actually sued for anti-trust damages. Not only that but it is no certainty that the players would even win such a case. Especially since the owners struck first with an NLRB complaint earlier this year alleging the players were not negotiating in good faith. The bottomline is it would take too long to get an outcome and the outcome may not necessarily be a good one for the players.

[ChuckD]

The problem with decertification is it would take years to get through the courts if players actually sued for anti-trust damages. Not only that but it is no certainty that the players would even win such a case. Especially since the owners struck first with an NLRB complaint earlier this year alleging the players were not negotiating in good faith. The bottomline is it would take too long to get an outcome and the outcome may not necessarily be a good one for the players.

You're pretty dumb, Birn. You only see the surface. If the players DO de-certify, the league cannot do business while the case is being heard. As you said, that could take a couple of years. The owners may not mind dumping one season, but they will NOT put up with their doors being shut for multiple seasons. They would then have to actually negotiate in order to get the players to drop their suit.

The players don't have to win their suit, they just have to file it, and get all owners motions to dismiss denied. Once that happens, their could be a resolution in weeks.

[Birn]

I think the union is waiting for the NLRB ruling. If the NLRB rules for them, they can have a judge issue an injunction and lift the lockout. Then it gets messy for the owners, because they have to go argue against the board.

If the union decertifies before the NLRB ruling, then the NLRB action ceases, since it was brought by the union, and the union would be no more.

So I think they're going to wait a couple weeks to see what the ruling is. If the NLRB rules against the players, I expect them to use the nuclear option.


It's going to take more than just a couple of weeks. That's just the first of several steps the players need to take to try and get the government to forcibly end the lockout. Even if the NLRB rules in favor of the players and the lockout is lifted, they still need to agree to a new CBA. Also, the owners would exercise their right to appeal the NLRB ruling.

For the players to win and force the NBA to reopen, the NLRB would have to issue a complaint against the owners, ruling that the league did engage in unfair labor practices. Then it would have to convince a federal court that, among other things, the players have been caused irreparable damage during the lockout.

At that point, the only remedy for the NBA would be to file an appeal, which it would have to lose. If all that happens, then the NBA would reopen, with free agency being conducted under the old system, along with the players getting back the old 57-43 split of revenue they enjoyed in the last collective bargaining agreement.

We would have a season this year but then we're right back in the same boat after the season. This time it is neither a lockout nor a strike.

NLRB ruling is the players last ditch effort since most of those appointees were placed by our socialist President Barack Hussein Obama. His appointees are all anti-business and pro-union corruption.

Bottomline is this is a long shot for the players since the NLRB has traditionally not been involved in sports disputes. Also, the NLRB has not issued a timetable by which they would decide whether or not to even file a complaint against the owners. By the time this all plays out, we would have lost most of the season.

NLRB is a federal agency (i.e. U.S. taxpayer funded) and should not hold adjudicatory power to settle disputes. USA taxpayers should not be funding the legal advocacy costs for millionaires, period. If the players have a dispute, they should pursue their remedy like everyone else in America - through the regular US court system.

As I've said all along...the players have little leverage to use. They need to just man up and accept the 50/50 deal and play basketball. It's a real shame how the NBAPA is doing such a dis-service to its members and basketball fans all over the world.
If they don't get the NLRB ruling

[DPG21920]

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

NLRB now holds key to NBA lockout

Surface bargaining. System changes. Draconian demands. Yep, it's the language of labor; and as far as we're concerned here in our Courtside Seat, that kind of lingo is a labor of love. Of course, we're talking about the 'L' word again: Lockout. We'll get to some juicy obstruction of justice and misdemeanor battery a little later; but today, we start with another capital letter. We start with …
The X Factor in the Lockout

In a flurry of acrimony and accusation, negotiations between NBA players and owners have collapsed. Even the assistance of a skilled mediator, George Cohen, did not draw the warring factions closer together, and might even have pushed them further apart. But there is still a ray of hope. A federal agency -- an unlikely agency, in that it doesn't have a long history of being effective in sports labor disputes -- has a chance now to make a difference as it is preparing a decision that could bring the lockout to a sudden end.

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."

Click link to continue...

[spurs10]

I think the union is waiting for the NLRB ruling. If the NLRB rules for them, they can have a judge issue an injunction and lift the lockout. Then it gets messy for the owners, because they have to go argue against the board.

If the union decertifies before the NLRB ruling, then the NLRB action ceases, since it was brought by the union, and the union would be no more.

So I think they're going to wait a couple weeks to see what the ruling is. If the NLRB rules against the players, I expect them to use the nuclear option.
Is this the time frame for the NLRB, a couple weeks? It seems to be the best shot of ending this logger jam of a lockout and salvaging any chance of season.

[Giuseppe]

If the players DO de-certify, the league cannot do business while the case is being heard. As you said, that could take a couple of years. The owners may not mind dumping one season, but they will NOT put up with their doors being shut for multiple seasons. They would then have to actually negotiate in order to get the players to drop their suit.

The players don't have to win their suit, they just have to file it, and get all owners motions to dismiss denied. Once that happens, their could be a resolution in weeks.

I've been wanting to ask how decertifying would aid the union, but, knew I'd be ridiculed if I did, + I wouldn't get the answer, so this is swell.

Solid stuff, Chuck.

[DPG21920]

Cowardice move, Seppe.

But I'm glad to see you know your place on this side of town. Keep tiptoeing daisy.

[Giuseppe]

^Please.

[ElNono]

It's going to take more than just a couple of weeks.

shhhh girl... adults talking here

[ElNono]

Is this the time frame for the NLRB, a couple weeks? It seems to be the best shot of ending this logger jam of a lockout and salvaging any chance of season.

Rumor is that it's coming any day now (http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216150/NLRB_Ready_To_Rule_On_Unions_Claim_Against_NBA).

[ElNono]

You're pretty dumb, Birn. You only see the surface. If the players DO de-certify, the league cannot do business while the case is being heard. As you said, that could take a couple of years. The owners may not mind dumping one season, but they will NOT put up with their doors being shut for multiple seasons. They would then have to actually negotiate in order to get the players to drop their suit.

The players don't have to win their suit, they just have to file it, and get all owners motions to dismiss denied. Once that happens, their could be a resolution in weeks.

Or it could work like the NFL, where a judge will force them to negotiate or the judge himself will rule on what the agreement should be. Seeing that owners want to have a say on the agreement, they'll have to actually sit down and negotiate, instead of eating up whatever the judge might rule (which is what forced the hand on the NFL's owners case).

It's not a slam dunk for the union, but it looks like the route to follow if the NLRB doesn't give them a favorable ruling.

[DPG21920]

What I don't get is that the owners aren't dumb and they know the NLRB won't be favorable for them, so why drag this out like that? Just on the off chance they will get a ruling in their favor?

[ElNono]

What I don't get is that the owners aren't dumb and they know the NLRB won't be favorable for them, so why drag this out like that? Just on the off chance they will get a ruling in their favor?

There's a few billions on the line here. I don't know that the NLRB is a sure thing for the players either. It's a government entity, and as such, it can be influenced.

The reality is that the owners are in no hurry to sit down and negotiate in union's terms until there's an actual risk of the lockout being lifted.

[spurs10]

Or it could work like the NFL, where a judge will force them to negotiate or the judge himself will rule on what the agreement should be. Seeing that owners want to have a say on the agreement, they'll have to actually sit down and negotiate, instead of eating up whatever the judge might rule (which is what forced the hand on the NFL's owners case).

It's not a slam dunk for the union, but it looks like the route to follow if the NLRB doesn't give them a favorable ruling.
:toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the NLRB complaint doesn't stick and they decertify, Kessler will sue and request and immediate injunction that would be almost certainly be denied because of the appellate court from the last NFL case. They would then also appeal that to SCOTUS but who knows what their docket looks like.

It is very unlikely because of that precedent that a lower court would grant an injunction or if they did that an appellate court would not just shut it down. SCOTUS is the only recourse there.

[ChuckD]

Why haven't the players asked to decertify their union? That would bring anti-trust law into play if the owners continued a lockout.

Some say it would give the individual players more leverage. I don't understand how that could be because the owners wouldn't be contractually obligated to keep salaries at ANY percentage of revenues.

Anyone know what the situation would be if they did that--and stuck with it?

If they de-certify, the NLRB route is closed to them immediately.

[Mel_13]

Sheridan reports that progress was made on several salary cap system issues before negotiations were suspended:

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/10/23/nba-lockout-remaining-issues/

[DPG21920]

We all knew they made some progress on some of the issues, but ultimately it doesn't really change where they are at overall unfortunately. Some really interesting concepts though...

[TD 21]

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.

No matter how the new CBA is structured, in the absence of a player of that caliber, there is virtually no shot at contending for a championship. A good team that "can get to the 2nd round or conference finals from time to time" isn't the same as competing for a championship.


ElNono, it'll end that way because the longer it goes, the more leverage the owners will have, because they can afford to hold out longer. If the union drop to the number the owners would accept (they claim 50, but that could be a negotiating ploy to get the union as close to 50 as possible), they'll probably be able to salvage a few more things they're seeking than they might at a later date.

The union can say that they've been more than fair on the amount of BRI they've conceded and they're right, but again, it's not about what's fair, it's about getting the best possible deal. 52.5 isn't getting a deal done. They'll have to go even lower and they might as well do it before they lose hundreds of millions more and contribute to doing damage to the league.

[ElNono]

ElNono, it'll end that way because the longer it goes, the more leverage the owners will have, because they can afford to hold out longer. If the union drop to the number the owners would accept (they claim 50, but that could be a negotiating ploy to get the union as close to 50 as possible), they'll probably be able to salvage a few more things they're seeking than they might at a later date.

The union can say that they've been more than fair on the amount of BRI they've conceded and they're right, but again, it's not about what's fair, it's about getting the best possible deal. 52.5 isn't getting a deal done. They'll have to go even lower and they might as well do it before they lose hundreds of millions more and contribute to doing damage to the league.

tbqh, I'm pretty sure the union is ready to take the 50/50 *IF* the owners are willing to soften the proposed hard cap a bit. See, Hunter et all didn't say they wouldn't take the 50/50, they said let's try to find some common ground on the system issues and then once we have that we'll talk about the 50/50. But that's when the owners said you take the 50/50 or we'll stop talking, and that's why we're here.

imo, the union is only holding on because of the NLRB decision, otherwise they would've decertified already. Don't forget that while Hunter/Fish might not want decertification, their hand can be forced by the players with a vote (or really, the agents behind the players).

The tactic for the union right now is to force the lockout lifted. They might not even need an actual order. Just to have the possibility of obtaining an order like that might be enough to have the owners sit down and drop the hard line.

Obviously, if they can't get close to that it's going to get ugly.

My 2c.

[DPG21920]

I agree completely The Nono, I'm still surprised the owners want to drag it out so much seeing as what we spoke about is the most likely outcome anyways (a ruling in favor of the players). Which if that is the case and they know that, it really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[ElNono]

And BTW, once everything is said and done, the union might end up with *less* than 50/50, but if they can override the hard cap and muscle out keeping the contract years, they'll probably take it, since owners have shown the willingness to spend, and they can make up the BRI difference there.

[TD 21]

tbqh, I'm pretty sure the union is ready to take the 50/50 *IF* the owners are willing to soften the proposed hard cap a bit. See, Hunter et all didn't say they wouldn't take the 50/50, they said let's try to find some common ground on the system issues and then once we have that we'll talk about the 50/50. But that's when the owners said you take the 50/50 or we'll stop talking, and that's why we're here.

imo, the union is only holding on because of the NLRB decision, otherwise they would've decertified already. Don't forget that while Hunter/Fish might not want decertification, their hand can be forced by the players with a vote (or really, the agents behind the players).

The tactic for the union right now is to force the lockout lifted. They might not even need an actual order. Just to have the possibility of obtaining an order like that might be enough to have the owners sit down and drop the hard line.

Obviously, if they can't get close to that it's going to get ugly.

My 2c.

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.

[spurs10]

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.
This is the question I've been asking myself. The owners seem to believe the NLRB won't rule in the unions favor, while one would think they'd be likely to. It does seem like not a lot of negotiating is being done "in good faith." Hopefully it's a false sense of security.

[ElNono]

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

I think it comes down to the union not wanting to pre-agree to a 50/50 and then lose the hard cap battle too. I mean, when you think about the union, you have to think about the players who need to vote to approve a deal and their agents pulling strings there. The union line is pretty straightforward: they're going to lose ground with this CBA in whatever shape or form, so at least try to save either the positive BRI or avoid the hard cap.

Whether they'll pull it off or not at this stage hinges a lot in their ability to force a resolution from an external entity like the NLRB or a court.


The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

I don't really agree. And I don't think the decision to decertify will be up to Hunter/Fisher. What I expect happening is agents are going to have to vote for either whatever deal Hunter/Fisher can get if the NLRB claim is not successful or to decertify the union. I think the decision will happen then.


If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.

Normally, you don't really hear about management on these NLRB disputes early on, but the NBA has been sending info to the board early and often too just to try to influence the decision a bit. Let's be frank here. If the owners wanted to cut a deal tomorrow with the union, they probably could (and it could even include the 50/50 split).

So right now owners are in relatively no hurry. They're on the driver's seat and have no reason to soften their stance. A NLRB resolution or decertification could change that. (Notice *could*, not necessarily *will*)

[Birn]

This is the question I've been asking myself. The owners seem to believe the NLRB won't rule in the unions favor, while one would think they'd be likely to. It does seem like not a lot of negotiating is being done "in good faith." Hopefully it's a false sense of security.

The NLRB ruling is a long shot for the players. It's just too late in the game. Even if the NLRB agrees to file a complaint against the NBA they would have to get a judge to agree to issue an injunction to lift the lockout then the owners would file an appeal to drag it out even further. There's just not enough time plus the NLRB may not even have standing to rule on this issue since the NBA filed a pre-emptive complaint against the union a few months ago and that complaint has yet to be addressed by the NLRB.

The owners are in a much better position to wait out the process than the players. The so called "threat" of the NLRB ruling really doesn't change much for the owners. They know it will take months before the lockout is officially lifted and it would be too late to have a season at that point.

The players just need to accept the precondition of a 50/50 split and finish up all the system issues with the salary cap, contract lengths, etc. For some weird reason, the players want to negotiate the system issues first then negotiate the BRI split. Those are two independent issues and don't really relate to each other.

The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They're betting on a favorable NLRB ruling by bureacrats appointed by Obama who are friendly to unions. However, the law still needs to be followed. With the NBA filing their pre-emptive complaint it creates a reversible error if the NLRB rules for the players. The issue would then go to the courts for final resolution which could take several months at the earliest.

It's just not looking too good for the players. Once it is confirmed that there will not be an 82 game season, things will get ugly for the players. Their union will likely crack since the star players will be at odds with the rank and file players. That's a messy situation for the players. This is not going to end pretty for the players association.

[TD 21]

I think it comes down to the union not wanting to pre-agree to a 50/50 and then lose the hard cap battle too. I mean, when you think about the union, you have to think about the players who need to vote to approve a deal and their agents pulling strings there. The union line is pretty straightforward: they're going to lose ground with this CBA in whatever shape or form, so at least try to save either the positive BRI or avoid the hard cap.

Whether they'll pull it off or not at this stage hinges a lot in their ability to force a resolution from an external entity like the NLRB or a court.

That's obviously what it comes down to. The owners need to drop the pre-condition for a 50/50 split though. I realize it's a stall tactic, but as you said, they might be able to get the 50/50 split anyway, if they present the union with a system that is slightly less restrictive and offers slightly more security. Eventually, if the owners stall long enough, they'll probably get both, but at what cost? Hundreds of millions down the drain and every ounce of momentum the league has generated in recent years gone.


I don't really agree. And I don't think the decision to decertify will be up to Hunter/Fisher. What I expect happening is agents are going to have to vote for either whatever deal Hunter/Fisher can get if the NLRB claim is not successful or to decertify the union. I think the decision will happen then.I heard a few weeks ago that if they were to do it then, they'd essentially be cancelling the season. Which is why the hardline agents who were initially pushing for it supposedly backed off.


Normally, you don't really hear about management on these NLRB disputes early on, but the NBA has been sending info to the board early and often too just to try to influence the decision a bit. Let's be frank here. If the owners wanted to cut a deal tomorrow with the union, they probably could (and it could even include the 50/50 split).

So right now owners are in relatively no hurry. They're on the driver's seat and have no reason to soften their stance. A NLRB resolution or decertification could change that. (Notice *could*, not necessarily *will*)Like Hunter said, it could get done in an hour or two, if the owners truly wanted to get a deal done.

If the owners were concerned about the NLRB ruling, then they'd have softened their stance. The fact that they did the opposite in the most recent meeting tells me they're confident that the ruling won't be in favor of the union.

[ElNono]

That's obviously what it comes down to. The owners need to drop the pre-condition for a 50/50 split though. I realize it's a stall tactic, but as you said, they might be able to get the 50/50 split anyway, if they present the union with a system that is slightly less restrictive and offers slightly more security. Eventually, if the owners stall long enough, they'll probably get both, but at what cost? Hundreds of millions down the drain and every ounce of momentum the league has generated in recent years gone.

I'm pretty sure some owners are ready to sign off on a deal. But they're the minority right now. I understand that with the economy the way it is right now, this is the time for owners to push a hard line, especially small markets. A lot of times, timing is the key, and I think this is one of those times. Owners would have a much harder time playing the 'woe is me' if the economy would be doing good.

Don't forget owners want this to be a 10 year deal. I don't really think they are frankly that concerned with losing one season, even if it's costly. Sometimes you have to take one step back to move two forward, and I think that's how they feel. As a fan, I'm not necessarily pleased, and it might hurt them with fans somewhat, but truth also is that the league has been revitalized with some really good young talent, and the outlook is really excellent for the years ahead.


I heard a few weeks ago that if they were to do it then, they'd essentially be cancelling the season. Which is why the hardline agents who were initially pushing for it supposedly backed off.

Well, the question is going to be what happens in negotiations between now and then. I expect them to resume talks as soon as next week, and we'll see where they get to. Once the NLRB decision is out of the way, whatever it is, union and owners will get to a deal which the union will need to put to a vote. At that point, I expect agents to really pull together if the deal really sucks.


Like Hunter said, it could get done in an hour or two, if the owners truly wanted to get a deal done.

If the owners were concerned about the NLRB ruling, then they'd have softened their stance. The fact that they did the opposite in the most recent meeting tells me they're confident that the ruling won't be in favor of the union.

Well, I said before that the NLRB can be influenced. I wouldn't be surprised to read another Woj insider how the NLRB got a phonecall from the WH. As much capitalist warrior bitches and moans about Barry being hellbent to side with unions, when you actually look at his record, he's been more than happy to give Wall St and the top money guys what they want. Especially when he's collecting for his campaign. And that's the issue with the NLRB and why I would like it to just get that over with: it can get very political.

Ideally, I would hope for a decision this week so this can move forward.

[DJ Mbenga]

there are only about 5 or 6 owners tops who want a deal right now. the rest are sitting and waiting for rape.

[ElNono]

Pretty solid piece from former NFL executive/agent, IMO:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/brandt-111021/failure-communicate

[spurs50_]

Get this done....as long as the small markets can compete with the bigger markets.

[boutons_deux]

Kill all the small market/under-financed/perennial loser (games and $$) teams. The league is too big for the available talent. Stern's greed to expand the NBA business has overreached the talent and hurt the game (not that anybody cares, it's all about $$$).

[Giuseppe]

The league is too big for the available talent. Stern's greed to expand the NBA business has overreached the talent and hurt the game (not that anybody cares, it's all about $$$).

Yep.

There is legitimately enough talent for perhaps half the 30 teams.

[Bruno]

Sport labor analysts think that it's unlikely that NLRB goes as far as an injunction lifting the lockout:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazznotes/52768001-62/labor-nlrb-nba-nbpa.html.csp

To me, I'm just hoping the NLRB will answer at one question: "How much money is the NBA losing?"
A big issue of this lockout is that owners and players disagree on the financial state of the NBA. NLRB has had extensive access to franchise financial results and I hope its statement will say what are NBA true loses. If the NBA is really "bleeding money" like owners have said, it should push players to accept the 50/50 split. If owners have inflated loses numbers, their hard stance will weaken and it should end with a 52/48 or 53/47 split.

[Giuseppe]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

[Dex]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

I bet that's how the NFL and NHL players felt, too.

[Giuseppe]

^I'd like to extend an ELE bet, Dex, but, honestly I ain't 100% confident the players will hold fast in the ranks. I'm about 65-35 they will.

[ulosturedge]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

Ah someone sees the writing on the wall.

This is more of an internal issue between the big market owners and smaller market owners, but the smaller market owners know better then to start these disputes with their fellow owners. That would have definitely been a cataclysmic way to handle all this. Instead the small market owners are going to get as much as they can from the players and then get the big market owners to pitch in the rest of the way. Everything has to run its course though. Small market owners want to let the pain set on the players to try and get the best deal possible on the BRI, and then while all this is going on the big market owners will want this to come to an end because they stand to lose out on good revenue the longer it persists. In turn they will be more willing to increase the revenue sharing to get back to profiting on basketball. All depends on how long each is really willing to hold out. I personally think these small market teams are serious about their stance. I don't see basketball resuming til January at the earliest. I'd be very suprised if any of this plays out any faster.

[Giuseppe]

I personally think these small market teams are serious about their stance. I don't see basketball resuming til January at the earliest. I'd be very suprised if any of this plays out any faster.

Absolutely dead serious. That degree of hardness had/has the players back on their heels uncertain as how to proceed, which in a way is good. Knee jerk is not going to solve this to their satisfaction. Giving in (allowing the hard cap) will not bring relief. It will only bring humiliation & total loss. This is not 1999. The owners learned their lessons and have come prepared. The players must match the owner's patience and affirmation.

Attrition is what will win this war.

[TD 21]

I'm pretty sure some owners are ready to sign off on a deal. But they're the minority right now. I understand that with the economy the way it is right now, this is the time for owners to push a hard line, especially small markets. A lot of times, timing is the key, and I think this is one of those times. Owners would have a much harder time playing the 'woe is me' if the economy would be doing good.

Don't forget owners want this to be a 10 year deal. I don't really think they are frankly that concerned with losing one season, even if it's costly. Sometimes you have to take one step back to move two forward, and I think that's how they feel. As a fan, I'm not necessarily pleased, and it might hurt them with fans somewhat, but truth also is that the league has been revitalized with some really good young talent, and the outlook is really excellent for the years ahead.

Good economy, bad economy, fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute will always side with the owners, because the majority of fans view professional athletes, as a whole, as overpaid and entitled. And they particularly view NBA players that way.

I'm fairly certain I heard a while back that they had dropped it from 10 to 6. Whether they officially have or not is irrelevant though, because it's going to end up being 6 or at least they'll be an out by then. The reason the union wants 6 is because the new national TV deal will kick in after 5 and it figures to be significantly more lucrative than the existing one.


Well, the question is going to be what happens in negotiations between now and then. I expect them to resume talks as soon as next week, and we'll see where they get to. Once the NLRB decision is out of the way, whatever it is, union and owners will get to a deal which the union will need to put to a vote. At that point, I expect agents to really pull together if the deal really sucks.There's reports today that the ruling is not expected to be in favor of the union, just as I had suspected. Agents can attempt to influence their clients all they want, but I think a lot of the players are more concerned with playing than the particulars of the deal. Give it a few more weeks and possibly a missed paycheck or two and I think they'll ratify whatever agreement is reached in principal. The difficulty, of course, will be reaching an agreement in principal first.


Well, I said before that the NLRB can be influenced. I wouldn't be surprised to read another Woj insider how the NLRB got a phonecall from the WH. As much capitalist warrior bitches and moans about Barry being hellbent to side with unions, when you actually look at his record, he's been more than happy to give Wall St and the top money guys what they want. Especially when he's collecting for his campaign. And that's the issue with the NLRB and why I would like it to just get that over with: it can get very political.

Ideally, I would hope for a decision this week so this can move forward.This can move forward any time. But it probably won't for at least a few more weeks. The hardline owners have dragged this out this long, at this point I can't imagine them not at least making the players miss their first paychecks and testing their resolve.

[Mel_13]

From an interview with Hunter:


He said he sees these negotiations as similar to 1998's lockout that resulted in 32 lost games, but felt that last week's long negotiations were going to yield something positive.

"I thought we were trying to reach compromise when we were there last week," Hunter said. "I suspect it's more about an internal battle that may be brewing or that's occuring between the big and small markets over the proposals we've submitted.

"We don't want to be totally exploited."
....

Hunter relayed that he had told the owners that concessions on systems issues might make the NBA's 50-50 offer "more palatable" to players. Meaning, I think, that owners could get their desired 50-50 BRI split if they'll work on some of their systematic demands. But Hunter said the owners will only negotiate system on the precondition of a 50-50 split. Which is when Dan Gilbert evidently told Hunter to "trust his gut" on the system.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918768

[Mel_13]

And a cynical view from a New Jersey columnist about two guys from Jersey:

http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2011/10/dalessandro_two_guys_already_k.html

[mavsfan1000]

We'll see which one gives in. Hopefully it is the players.

[ElNono]

Good economy, bad economy, fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute will always side with the owners, because the majority of fans view professional athletes, as a whole, as overpaid and entitled. And they particularly view NBA players that way.

I'm fairly certain I heard a while back that they had dropped it from 10 to 6. Whether they officially have or not is irrelevant though, because it's going to end up being 6 or at least they'll be an out by then. The reason the union wants 6 is because the new national TV deal will kick in after 5 and it figures to be significantly more lucrative than the existing one.

I disagree that fans will always side with the owners. A sampling of this place will tell you as much. I think it's fairly evenly divided, and specially this time around, where players haven't really run their mouths.

About the length of the deal, I thought Adam Silver did mention 10 years last Thursday after the talks broke off, but I could be wrong.


There's reports today that the ruling is not expected to be in favor of the union, just as I had suspected. Agents can attempt to influence their clients all they want, but I think a lot of the players are more concerned with playing than the particulars of the deal. Give it a few more weeks and possibly a missed paycheck or two and I think they'll ratify whatever agreement is reached in principal. The difficulty, of course, will be reaching an agreement in principal first.

Well, we'll see. Players will have to decide what they want to do if the ruling doesn't benefit them and what the owners will offer then. There's nothing stopping them from decerifying the union at that point though (I don't think)


This can move forward any time. But it probably won't for at least a few more weeks. The hardline owners have dragged this out this long, at this point I can't imagine them not at least making the players miss their first paychecks and testing their resolve.

If the decision comes out and it doesn't favor the players, I'm sure the union will contact the owners and try to get whatever best offer they can get to put on a vote with the players.

[TD 21]

I disagree that fans will always side with the owners. A sampling of this place will tell you as much. I think it's fairly evenly divided, and specially this time around, where players haven't really run their mouths.

About the length of the deal, I thought Adam Silver did mention 10 years last Thursday after the talks broke off, but I could be wrong.

I said "fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute". People who post even semi-regularly on this or any NBA related message board presumably don't qualify.

Aldridge mentioned today that an out after 7 has been offered. Had my years off earlier.


Well, we'll see. Players will have to decide what they want to do if the ruling doesn't benefit them and what the owners will offer then. There's nothing stopping them from decerifying the union at that point though (I don't think)In theory, there's nothing stopping them. In reality, there's some roughly $2 billion stopping them from doing so, because that's what they'd be giving away by not having a season. The Bryant's and Garnett's of the world may be fine with that, but I can't imagine the rank and file would be.


If the decision comes out and it doesn't favor the players, I'm sure the union will contact the owners and try to get whatever best offer they can get to put on a vote with the players.Wojanorski summed it up best in this column: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_david_stern_092911

When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.

[Giuseppe]

When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.

& unless he let's 'em down easy, they will take retribution after the "treaty" is signed. Stern, on behalf of the owners took his vengeance, albeit in a civilized manner the past 3-4 years for the deal that was signed in '99. The excessive and inconsistent fines levied, the dress code, the zero tolerant officiating. That was all an act of vengeance. The players won't be so civilized and coherent. It will be ugly. And that's okay by me. I want to see Stern's nose pushed in it.

[ElNono]

I said "fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute". People who post even semi-regularly on this or any NBA related message board presumably don't qualify.

Aldridge mentioned today that an out after 7 has been offered. Had my years off earlier.

Thanks for the update, haven't heard 7 before.


In theory, there's nothing stopping them. In reality, there's some roughly $2 billion stopping them from doing so, because that's what they'd be giving away by not having a season. The Bryant's and Garnett's of the world may be fine with that, but I can't imagine the rank and file would be.

By accepting a 50/50 split, the players would be losing about $2.2 billion over a 7 year deal. They already lost the $2 billion. They lost even more than $2 billion.
So for that kind of money, I would expect they want to at least get something better on the system side.


Wojanorski summed it up best in this column: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_david_stern_092911

When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.

I agree with this. When the owners soften up the stance a bit and Hunter has something he can take to the players for a vote that he knows will pass, this will end. The owners aren't there yet. I think Stern will take them there sooner or later.

[spurs10]

I heard on ESPN radio about 30 minutes ago they'll be canceling another two weeks in the morning. Doesn't sound like anyone is softening up their stances, or even talking to one another for that matter.

[Bruno]

Unless something unexpected happens, the lockout will be at least 2 more months long. Players and/or owners have no reason to make concessions without a deadline threaten them. The next deadline will be in January when the whole season will be threatened.

And yes, that's very ugly.

[Dex]

This thread makes my head hurt. :bang

[Bruno]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918768


Hunter said that during last week's long negotiations there were multiple ideas presented, with one interesting concept coming from Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. Hunter said Cuban came up with a structure called the "Game-changer" that included no salary cap. Hunter said he took that back to the players and they had a version of it they liked and then Hunter said two or three owners were very excited about it. And then a couple small market owners put the kibosh on it.

If you can't agree on a new CBA, just do a league without a CBA or more realistically with a very light one.

[ElNono]

More on Cuban's proposal on this Bill Simmons podcast with Hunter yesterday. Some interesting stuff there, including Cuban's idea:

http://cdn16.castfire.com/audio/303/2889/15637/764549/bsreport_2011-10-24-152549-6427-0-3-0.128.mp3?cdn_id=33&uuid=bf30d7ec087c6d56979d70d49cca991b&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.espn.go.com%2Fespnradi o%2Fpodcast%2Farchive%3Fid%3D2864045

[spurs10]

More on Cuban's proposal on this Bill Simmons podcast with Hunter yesterday. Some interesting stuff there, including Cuban's idea:

http://cdn16.castfire.com/audio/303/2889/15637/764549/bsreport_2011-10-24-152549-6427-0-3-0.128.mp3?cdn_id=33&uuid=bf30d7ec087c6d56979d70d49cca991b&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.espn.go.com%2Fespnradi o%2Fpodcast%2Farchive%3Fid%3D2864045
ElNono, Bruno, andTD21 I've enjoyed your insights into this sad state of affairs. Thanks.. After listening to Mr. Hunter on Simmon's B.S. Report, I'm even more convinced we won't be watching NBA basketball this season. As Hunter says, the owners are much more dug-in than 98-99, and the players are acting on "principle" at this point. Neither of them truly cares about all the folks who are out of a job or, least of all, the fans. I keep hoping for a miracle, but don't see it happening.
:greedy:greedy:greedy:greedy:greedy:greedy:greedy: greedy:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleye s:rolleyes

[Dex]

More games cancelled:

http://newsone.com/entertainment/sports-entertainment/newsonestaff2/nba-cancels-two-more-weeks/


The New York Daily News is reporting that the NBA has canceled another 2 weeks of its season on the heels of more failed negotiations between the players union and the owners

The month of November has now been canceled, and players can now only look forward to returning to the hardwood in December.

According to the Daily News’ source, this latest cancellation would total at least 102 games and run through Nov. 28.

[timtonymanu]

This is actually starting to bum me out. At first, I was pissed about the whole thing but now I just really wanna see my Spurs play. Yeah, the chances of there being any 2011-2012 season are slim, but I hope we get a season in January at least.

[Sean Cagney]

I heard on ESPN radio about 30 minutes ago they'll be canceling another two weeks in the morning. Doesn't sound like anyone is softening up their stances, or even talking to one another for that matter.

It's done, stopped worrying about a season a while back. Basketball is dead.

[timtonymanu]

Just read on RealGM that the sides are scheduled to meet tomorrow and that the last two weeks of November haven't officially been cancelled yet:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/216190/Union_League_To_Meet_Again_Wednesday

Here's to another useless meeting where both sides end the meeting pissed off and saying they're far apart.

[Dex]

Hopefully my vBookie jinx will work its usual magic.

[Bruno]

Owners have had a new meeting about revenue sharing yesterday. Maybe they have advance on that subject and are ready to make a better offer to players.

That's the positive way to look at it but a most realistic way would be that this meeting is just another PR bullshit. The league and the union want to make fans believe that they are working hard on trying to get a new deal.

[ElNono]

About the owners revenue sharing meeting:

"A few of our owners," Silver told reporters at the time, "remarked after the robust revenue discussion last night that we might want the assistant of the federal mediator for our revenue sharing discussions, as well."

Silver also has cautioned that revenue-sharing talks have "in no way" impeded progress in talks with the players. But evidently the union disagrees.

NBA players' union executive director Billy Hunter told Grantland's Bill Simmons on Monday that "there appears to be some impediment" in talks with the NBA, adding, "I think revenue sharing is the elephant in the room right now."

[ElNono]

:lol owners need a federal mediator to discuss amongst themselves. Just a sad state of affairs, overall.

[Bruno]

That's a good news.

One week ago, I wrote:

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.

This revenue sharing issue must be solved first. Once it's solved, the agreement between players and owners will be way easier to find.

[boutons_deux]

revenue sharing is an elephant in the room?

RS, aka We Want More Money, has been the obvious, overwhelmingly central, deal-breaker from day one.

[benefactor]

:lol owners need a federal mediator to discuss amongst themselves. Just a sad state of affairs, overall.
I was just shaking my head when I read that. How the hell do they expect to sit down with the players and come to some sort of agreement when they can't even agree about what they want from each other?

[Giuseppe]

Excellent article here:::

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7149803/the-players-responsible-generating-revenue-deserve-more-50-50-split

David Stern and his billionaire boys club thought they scored a ton of common-sense points when they made their take-it-or-leave-it offer to the NBA players, and let's face it:
Is there anything more reasonable, more equitable or more American than a 50-50 split?
It sure sounds like a fair place for two hostile opponents to meet. Half the basketball-related income goes to the owners, half the basketball-related income goes to the players and millions of pro basketball fans celebrate their first victory of the season in the form of, you know, a season.

NBA Lockout

http://a.espncdn.com/i/teamlogos/leagues/med/trans/nba.gif The NBA owners have locked out the players, and little progress has been made in negotiations. ESPN.com Topics keeps you up to date with all of the latest on the NBA's ongoing lockout. Topics Page » (http://espn.go.com/nba/topics/_/page/nba-labor-negotiations)



But in the end, there's nothing fair about awarding 50 percent of BRI to the people who amount to 100 percent of the reason there's any BRI in the first place.
LeBron James (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/1966/lebron-james), Kobe Bryant (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/110/kobe-bryant), Dirk Nowitzki (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/609/dirk-nowitzki), Dwyane Wade (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/1987/dwyane-wade), Kevin Durant (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3202/kevin-durant), Derrick Rose (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3456/derrick-rose) -- they don't play in the NBA. They are the NBA.
The entire league. The workforce and the product.
The owners? They're just along for the ride.
"What I'm always telling the players," Billy Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, said Tuesday night, "is that nobody comes to see an owner bounce or shoot a basketball."

[ploto]

But in the end, there's nothing fair about awarding 50 percent of BRI to the people who amount to 100 percent of the reason there's any BRI in the first place.

The owners assume 100% of the financial risk.

[Giuseppe]

The owners assume 100% of the financial risk.

FYI, I didn't say it, Plots. It's from the article.

[ElNono]

The owners assume 100% of the financial risk.

Make that 90%... us taxpayers are on the hook too...

[MaNu4Tres]

:sleep

[Birn]

The owners assume 100% of the financial risk.

Bingo Baby!! Ploto hit it right on the nose.

Without the owners putting up their risk and capital, there's no NBA. If the players really and truly believe the league is all theirs, they're free to go form their own league. They won't. Why? They're not willing to put up their own risk and money. Pure and simple.

Long after Lebron, Dwade, Kobe, et al are gone and retired there will still be an NBA because the owners will continue to run and operate THEIR business.

Greedy Bastards!! Accept the 50/50 precondition and let's finish this deal!

[DJ Mbenga]

"We're inching closer to a deal," one person briefed on the talks told CBSSports.com on Wednesday.

[Giuseppe]

"We're inching closer to a deal," one person briefed on the talks told CBSSports.com on Wednesday.

I'd give my left nut for a deal that doesn't include a hard cap. Anything but that.

[DJ Mbenga]

I'd give my left nut for a deal that doesn't include a hard cap. Anything but that.

thats gonna be the big issue, whether its a hard cap or a punitive tax version of it. with worth they are trying to squeeze in a 82 game season so that techinally offsets the losses of the canceled games, that would make owners easier about going 50 50.

[ElNono]

The version of the cap that was being talked about recently wasn't as heavy.

IIRC, it was $1.75 per dollar spent on the first $5 million, with a progressive 50c increase for each extra $5 million. Still a lot of dough, but better than a fixed 8-1 or so.

[Bruno]

I wonder if there is any truth about the rumor of the league having an alternate 82 games schedule starting on December 1st. If it's true, it will push players and owners to reach a deal soon. A 82 game season starting on December 1st would suck, I much rather have a 70 games schedule with more rest between games. However, if this ultra condensed 82 games schedule is the price to pay to have a season, it is a small price to pay.

[baseline bum]

Greedy Bastards!! Accept the 50/50 precondition and let's finish this deal!

I thought wingnuts liked greed. :wtf

[Ditty]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Two sources -- one on ownership side, one union -- with direct knowledge of latest proposals are encouraged with movement on both sides.

[Ditty]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Clearly, the NBA and NBPA made some measure of progress talking quietly over last 48-72 hours leading into bargaining session today in NY.

[DMC]

I wonder if there is any truth about the rumor of the league having an alternate 82 games schedule starting on December 1st. If it's true, it will push players and owners to reach a deal soon. A 82 game season starting on December 1st would suck, I much rather have a 70 games schedule with more rest between games. However, if this ultra condensed 82 games schedule is the price to pay to have a season, it is a small price to pay.
It would give Duncan even more reason to remain on the bench, and give Pop even more reason to sit Tiago. The bastard missed training camp again.

[baseline bum]

Adrian Wojnarowski
Two sources -- one on ownership side, one union -- with direct knowledge of latest proposals are encouraged with movement on both sides.



Adrian Wojnarowski
Clearly, the NBA and NBPA made some measure of progress talking quietly over last 48-72 hours leading into bargaining session today in NY.



I'm not getting my hopes up again. We have heard the progress song and dance before.

[timtonymanu]

I'm not getting my hopes up again. We have heard the progress song and dance before.

THIS. Until I see a headline where a deal has actually been reached, all this talk could be BS once again.

[Dex]

THIS. Until I see a headline where a deal has actually been reached, all this talk could be BS once again.

Yep, until they are putting the pen to paper, this is all just posturing afaic.

[Dex]

But I will still continue to refresh Woj's twitter every 15 minutes. :lol

[Ditty]

Michael Wilbon from PTI thinks there will be a deal done by Friday, that them not officially canceling the last 2 weeks in November were encouraging I guess.

[DPG21920]

My sources tell me that a deal will be done by end of the week (agreed to in principle at least).

[DPG21920]

Not really, but sounds cool.

[Dex]

My sources tell me your sources are a bunch of jerks!

[Dex]

Nothing more than speculation, but:


IraHeatBeat Ira Winderman
According to (translation of) Facebook posting of promoter of NBA lockout all-star game in Puerto Rico, ticket sales have been suspended.



Ken Berger of CBSSports.com is reporting the sides are “inching closer” to a deal. (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15850631/nba-deal-can-finally-be-done-if-reason-prevails)

“A person in frequent contact with ownership told CBSSports.com this week that 51.5 percent is, in fact, the presumed landing spot for the players’ share. According to the source, one owner recently confided to associates that the union’s affinity for “odd numbers” and fact that 51.5 was a logical midpoint between the various “bands” each side has proposed signaled that such a split ultimately would get done. The owners then have to agree among themselves to a revamped revenue-sharing plan to help small-market and low-revenue teams. League executives, team officials and owners participated in a video conference call lasting several hours Tuesday to discuss the latest proposals on how to redistribute revenue. Although one person on the call said there was no consensus and that “a lot of ideas” remained on the table, one executive told CBSSports.com that observers will be “pleasantly surprised” by the commitment big-market owners are willing to make to revenue sharing. Assuming that aspect of the negotiations soon will be finalized, the last base to be covered is perhaps the most difficult of all: changing the distribution of payrolls among teams to achieve what league officials consistently refer to as their goal of “competitive balance.” It’s an ideal that both deputy commissioner Adam Silver and labor relations committee chairman Peter Holt pointed to last week as something the NFL (hard cap) and NHL (flex cap) have achieved. Having been unable to get the NBPA to agree to either concept, league negotiators have spent the past several weeks trying to refine a more punitive luxury-tax system to achieve the same goals.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When was that NLRB ruling supposed to go out/come down?

[Bender]

Not really, but sounds cool.
dang, I was impressed for a few seconds...

[Dex]

:lmao Twitter is blowing up with tweets that the lockout is over. Haven't seen one from an substantial source yet. Word of mouth is a bitch...

[wildbill2u]

If the league owners decide to impose higher luxury tax limits on themselves, does the player's union have to agree?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the league owners decide to impose higher luxury tax limits on themselves, does the player's union have to agree?

The luxury tax is determined by the total value of player contracts and effects future contracts so yes they have to agree.

[DPG21920]

From my source who shall remain nameless...


WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
A league source wired into bargaining session tells Y!: "There's a deal to be had if everyone shows a little flexibility."

[DPG21920]

Shit.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
A league source wired into bargaining session tells Y!: "There's a deal to be had if everyone shows a little flexibility."
2 minutes ago


If I had to use one word to describe either side right now, it wouldn't be "flexible".

[callo1]

I want to see a hard cap and revenue sharing, then we will see which GMs and coaches actually do their jobs.

If it works for the NFL, it can work for the NBA.

[DesignatedT]

Whatever improves our chances and keeps a level playing field is what I want to see.

[DPG21920]

Per Aldridge: People were really optimistic earlier today about them getting close, but that has definitely been dialed back based on the most recent reports from today's meetings.

offffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffcourse.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
NBA, NBPA sources still believe if they can close gaps and agree on system issues -- tax, exceptions, etc., -- BRI will fall into place.
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

daldridgetnt David Aldridge
At 12+ hrs, this is 2nd-longest session of lockout. BTW, thanks to my west coast/Australia peeps who are still up. #whereuatantarctica
17 minutes ago

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
After 12 hours of labor talks, NBA and NBPA are making progress on system issues, including luxury tax, three sources with knowledge tell Y!
17 minutes ago

Guess we gotta take the good with the bad. At least sides are still talking. This whole "standoff and see who blinks first" crap is driving me nuts. There is absolutely no reason for these guys not to be meeting nearly every day to get this thing solved if they have to.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Labor meeting still going, but league official says he expects that they'll shut it down for the night soon.
14 minutes ago


daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Coming up on 14 hours today/tonight. Progress "still slow," says source. But, progress. On NBA.com: on.nba.com/rsCyS8 (http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/10/27/labor-update-wednesday/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1)
36 minutes ago

[Ditty]

David Aldridge
We're just about at 15 hours of negotiations between the NBA and the players' union, but guessing if major progress is happening is crazy.

[Ditty]

Fisher: Meeting again Thursday at 2 p.m..."there was some progress made on some of our system issues..."

[Dex]

Put this in reverse order just to save from having to read it bottom to top.


46 minutes ago
Meeting is over.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
46 minutes ago
Stay tuned.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
43 minutes ago
Sending 6 hot thermoses of hot Bull Shot (beef boullion or bovril, Worcestershire, and vodka) to the lockout reporters to clear things out.
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
36 minutes ago
NBA preparing to start a news conference soon.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
34 minutes ago
Players talking first....
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
31 minutes ago
Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher and Maurice Evans at podium.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
30 minutes ago
Fisher: Meeting again Thursday at 2 p.m..."there was some progress made on some of our system issues..."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
30 minutes ago
Union first...Derek Fisher: we were able to work through a number of issues w/regard to system...some progress made...back at 2 Thursday
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
29 minutes ago
Fisher: withholding specifics on progress...until we can further define what system looks like we can't get specific
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
28 minutes ago
Hunter: the sides didn't discuss BRI, just system issues.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
27 minutes ago
Billy Hunter: if there was any hope of trying to capture lost games, we had to get back in and talk..so we parked BRI & talked system
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
26 minutes ago
Hunter: "if deal can be achieved by Sunday, Monday...." 82 game schedule still possible.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
26 minutes ago
Hunter says 82 games still possible. Fisher says no promises of full sked if deal is reached in next 4-5 games.
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
25 minutes ago
Fisher: "slim, but still possible" on 82 game schedule.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
25 minutes ago
When was the last time the NBA PA spoke first following a negotiation?
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
24 minutes ago
Fisher: lux tax/rates big part of discussion today.
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
23 minutes ago
Hunter: "depending about how progress is made tomorrow, we may be in position to talk about specifics."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
23 minutes ago
Hunter: depending on progress Thu union may be ready to talk specifics on tax progress...
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
22 minutes ago
And vice-versa. RT @deepsixer3: Fisher: Sometimes it's harder to address system issues when they don't know the BRI split.
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
22 minutes ago
Same groups tomorrow, other than union economist Kevin Murphy (family)
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
21 minutes ago
Fisher: to put a gauge on what today's progress means is "a bit of a stretch"
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
20 minutes ago
RT @normmacdonald: You are the best comedian in the world and I love you, Patrice. Pray hard, everybody.
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
18 minutes ago
Stern: "solid day of negotiations...."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
18 minutes ago
Let @FisolaNYDN answer that. RT @freemaneric: What would you do if you went into a bathroom and saw a reporter taking a shower in the sink?
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
17 minutes ago
League presser starting...Stern: LRC conference call precedes meeting w/union
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
16 minutes ago
Stern: won't go into specifics on progress, in part, b/c sides can change negotiating positions
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
16 minutes ago
Stern: we're going to knock ourselves out to make as many games as possible
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
15 minutes ago
Stern: no specific date to preserve 82, "but we've got to do it soon"
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
14 minutes ago
RT @freemaneric: Really heartening to see no one disclosing terms discussed. Not bc they're closer to deal. Because they're being adults.
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
13 minutes ago
Stern: it was what we could bang out in 15 hours..I can't describe it other than it's better than not making any progress
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
11 minutes ago
Stern: it's sad that we missed two weeks. We're trying to apply a tourniquet and go forward
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
11 minutes ago
RT @dannychau: THERE IS NO BEAUTY.
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
11 minutes ago
Stern: "we will turn to the (revenue) split when we're done with the system..."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
10 minutes ago
Stern: likely will stick with system issues tomorrow
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
9 minutes ago
Stern on last Thursday....: "I leave these guys alone for a little bit of time and all hell breaks loose."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
8 minutes ago
Silver: "No question we made progress on some significant issues..."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
8 minutes ago
Adam Silver: today was a much better day than last Thursday, but a lot of major issues left to resolve Thursday
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
7 minutes ago
Stern; today very arduous, difficult and productive. Thurs more arduous and difficult; hopefully as productive
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
6 minutes ago
David Stern's zen koans are the worst zen koans. RT @tribjazz: Stern: "There's no deal on anything unless there's a deal on everything."
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
5 minutes ago
Despite NBA, NBPA downplaying expectations, "significant progress" has been made toward agreement on system issues, sources tell Y! Sports.
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Says one source briefed on talks: "They need (Thursday) to punch it over end-line."
WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski

Nothing golden, but at least it's not still "both sides are far apart on all issues".

[Bruno]

A couple of articles summarizing yesterday's negotiations:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_102711
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32957394

It looks like it was a positive day but even if they agreed on the system, the BRI split will remain an issue.

Something that sucks to save a 82 games season is that the NBA can't extend his season a lot this year. There will have the Olympic qualifying tournament that start on July 2nd, which means that the last NBA game must be played the 27th or 28th June. They really need to hurry up the process.

[Ice009]

A couple of articles summarizing yesterday's negotiations:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_102711
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32957394

It looks like it was a positive day but even if they agreed on the system, the BRI split will remain an issue.

Something that sucks to save a 82 games season is that the NBA can't extend his season a lot this year. There will have the Olympic qualifying tournament that start on July 2nd, which means that the last NBA game must be played the 27th or 28th June. They really need to hurry up the process.

Why should that matter? Do they have to finish before the Olympic qualifying tournament starts?

[Mel_13]

Why should that matter? Do they have to finish before the Olympic qualifying tournament starts?

The NBA has agreements with FIBA regarding the availability of players for certain FIBA sanctioned events. The Olympic qualifying tournament is certainly included among those.


A couple of articles summarizing yesterday's negotiations:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_102711
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32957394

It looks like it was a positive day but even if they agreed on the system, the BRI split will remain an issue.

Something that sucks to save a 82 games season is that the NBA can't extend his season a lot this year. There will have the Olympic qualifying tournament that start on July 2nd, which means that the last NBA game must be played the 27th or 28th June. They really need to hurry up the process.

It has to be encouraging that the two sides went back to the table so soon after such an acrimonious end to last week's meeting. The NBA dropped the 50/50 precondition and both sides kept their hardliners away from the meeting.

One can imagine that both sides can at least see middle points on the various system issues, with the luxury tax being the toughest point on which to reach a compromise. If they can work through those issues, I can definitely see a relatively quick agreement on BRI at something like 51-49 for the players.

Hunter and Stern will have to sell the agreement to their hard line elements, a process that will be made easier if they can play all 82 games and make 400+ million dollars reappear.

[Seventyniner]

A couple of articles summarizing yesterday's negotiations:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_102711
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32957394

It looks like it was a positive day but even if they agreed on the system, the BRI split will remain an issue.

Something that sucks to save a 82 games season is that the NBA can't extend his season a lot this year. There will have the Olympic qualifying tournament that start on July 2nd, which means that the last NBA game must be played the 27th or 28th June. They really need to hurry up the process.

Does this mean they could play the first round of the playoffs every other day and get it done in two weeks? That would save 1-2 weeks right there.

[Mel_13]

Does this mean they could play the first round of the playoffs every other day and get it done in two weeks? That would save 1-2 weeks right there.

2011:

Last day of regular season: April 13

Game 6 of Final: June 12

60 days from end of season to Game 6

1999:

Last day of regular season: May 5

Game 5 of Finals: June 25

51 days from end of of season to Game 6.


So, using 1999 as a model, it is possible to recover games by extending the end date of the regular season and by compressing the playoff schedule. Plus they get an extra day with 2012 being a Leap Year!

[DPG21920]

I'd rather them get a deal done and not cram games. I'd rather just get a good deal in place quickly and keep the schedule on track normally however many games are lost. Problem is the financial ramifications of that.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure I want a crammed 82 game season, tbh. Injuries, exhaustion. Make it a 70 game season, then next season you go back to normal. Obviously, with $$$ in the middle, not going to happen if they can avoid it.

[DPG21920]

Appreciate the tl;dnr el nono :lol

[ElNono]

Appreciate the tl;dnr el nono :lol

Sorry, just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet :lol

:wakeup

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I think they should extend the season through the first week or two of July.

[Bruno]

2011:

Last day of regular season: April 13

Game 6 of Final: June 12

60 days from end of season to Game 6

1999:

Last day of regular season: May 5

Game 5 of Finals: June 25

51 days from end of of season to Game 6.


So, using 1999 as a model, it is possible to recover games by extending the end date of the regular season and by compressing the playoff schedule. Plus they get an extra day with 2012 being a Leap Year!

In 1999, first round were played in 5 games. They can do that again to save some days but it wouldn't then be a true full season.

If they keep the current format, a team can play up to 28 playoffs games. 28 playoffs games without back to back means 55 days. You must add to that 1 or 2 days for TV scheduling and a 2 days between after the end of the regular season. IMO, the last day possible for a regular season played is April 30th.

A regular season (82 games + ASG), is played in 170 days. Between December 1st and April 30th, there are 152 days. Compressing the RS by 18 days is a lot but it's doable (in 1999, they played 50 games in 90 days). It would be more comfortable to have a RS starting around the 21st/23rd November, which would mean 160/162 days to play the RS.

Starting the RS around the 21st/23rd November can be done if they reach an agreement soon and if they don't take a lot of time to write the new CBA and ratify it.

[Bender]

get rid of the ASG weekend.... it's worthless anyway.

[Ditty]

Stephen A. Smith believes there will be a deal done by the end of the week, and the only think standing in the way is the revenue split.

[ElNono]

get rid of the ASG weekend.... it's worthless anyway.

Listen to this man!

[dylankerouac]

Listen to this man!

Not a bad idea of getting rid of the ASG weekend.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Signs of labor optimism: Team execs cancelling scouting trips, preparing for free agency. Agents quietly reaching out to teams on players.
4 minutes ago

[dylankerouac]

This could be good but what happens if things fall through and I fall from this height.

[DPG21920]

I just find the timing curious. NLRB expected to rule soon, owners want to sit down. There is no hard deadline yet either, so not sure I expect anything, but hoping for the best.

[Dex]

I just find the timing curious. NLRB expected to rule soon, owners want to sit down. There is no hard deadline yet either, so not sure I expect anything, but hoping for the best.

There is no hard deadline yet, but there seems to be incentive on both sides to try to save an 82-game schedule (whether that's a good thing rest-wise, or not). If another two weeks gets cancelled (which the league was on the verge of doing Tuesday), that possibility probably goes out the window with them, so that's probably why both sides are starting to be more flexible.

That, and if the NLRB rules in favor of the players, the owners are fucked, so maybe they've finally decided to start playing fair.

[ace3g]

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
Example of "system" issue where NBA owners/players now agree? Sign-and-trades. WILL be allowed in new deal after fears they'd be outlawed



STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
BUT ... one sign-and-trade wrinkle sides still negotiating is whether teams over luxury tax will be allowed to partake in S-and-T deals

[DPG21920]

Aldridge: Do you have a concrete idea of what a deal looks like now

Stern: Yes

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Stern and Hunter both targeting Friday as the key day to push toward making a deal.
1 minute ago

[LatinLover69]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4x8SmN15TfQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Giuseppe]

I got a bad feeling the players (like DoK) are bent over.

[ElNono]

Too early for this?

http://blog.peacockandpaisley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/champagne.jpg

[DPG21920]

I got a bad feeling the players (like DoK) are bent over.

I appreciate you changing how you act around here.

You don't need to worry about the players getting bent over. You need to worry about there being a season. That is it. That is all.

[timtonymanu]

Ehh... I don't know what to think about all this. I want to believe that there will be a deal soon, but I just can't buy it.

[ajballer4]

It would be great to get back to basketball, this is the first time Ive been on ST in a while. Ready for the site to pick back up

[ChuckD]

Too early for this?

http://blog.peacockandpaisley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/champagne.jpg

WAAAY too early...

[Giuseppe]

I appreciate you changing how you act around here.

You don't need to worry about the players getting bent over. You need to worry about there being a season. That is it. That is all.

As Number 1 nephew, your aunt gave you license to regulate me and you done it.

Let us proceed...

[Dex]

HowardBeckNYT HowardBeckNYT
One hint that NBA is planning for 82-game season: League is asking arenas to hold open dates in late April, acc to arena officials.

[Bruno]

It's looking good. :tu

Now, please, don't screw this up.

[slick'81]

damn finally close

[DesignatedT]

Please happen tomorrow.

[benefactor]

It's looking good. :tu

Now, please, don't screw this up.

[Mel_13]

Looks like this will get done soon and we'll have NBA basketball before Christmas.

Blowout win for the owners. Extended garbage time now. Stern's pulled his starters. Players putting up a few points to make the final score look respectable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like this will get done soon and we'll have NBA basketball before Christmas.

Blowout win for the owners. Extended garbage time now. Stern's pulled his starters. Players putting up a few points to make the final score look respectable.

Whats the split/system?

[DesignatedT]

If this shit ends today, what's an educated guess on when the season would tip-off? How much time for training camp etc....?

[ace3g]

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
Amnesty Clause latest: Sources say Spurs pushing for clause teams can "save" instead of immediate use-it-or-lose-it -

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32935/more-flexible-amnesty-clause-on-way

[DesignatedT]

Lol RJ.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I wish/hope/pray the Spurs amnesty the hell out of RJ right away.

But I doubt Holt will give out all that money immediately. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked for an amnesty extension.

[Giuseppe]

I wish/hope/pray the Spurs amnesty the hell out of RJ right away.

But I doubt Holt will give out all that money immediately. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked for an amnesty extension.

+ he has to nag Pop into it. That's won't be easy. Pop got intractable a few years ago.

[DesignatedT]

I don't think Pop would have any problem getting rid of RJ. It's pretty obvious it's a failed experiment. Holt would have to be the one willing to fork over the $

[Dex]

Let the games begin.


daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Today's roster, besides usual suspects: owners: Peter Holt, Jim Dolan, Glen Taylor, Mark Cuban. Players: Chris Paul, Theo Ratliff.
17 minutes ago

KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
Peter Holt, you want to avoid a truncated offseason? Push David Stern to negotiate in July. Bloody hell.
21 minutes ago

[Dex]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32935/more-flexible-amnesty-clause-on-way


Some teams want to restrict amnesty eligibility to the players on a team’s roster when the lockout ends. Others want the freedom to use it on any player they acquire over, say, a three- or five-year span, arguing that there are teams out there which currently don’t have an ugly contract to shed but should have the right to atone for a future mistake.

To me, this seems counterintuitive to what the CBA is trying to achieve.

I can understand why owners would want more than 2 weeks to use the amnesty. Until they know how their current roster is going to shake out, or what other needs they'll have to fill for the upcoming seasons, it could affect who they decide to release (or not release) using the clause.

However, giving owners a "get out of jail free card" to use going forward only encourages them to continue handing out bad deals. It sounds like they are going to end up getting their way in these negotiations, so why should they also be allowed to continue making the mess that they have mostly started in the first place?

IMO, if owners are given up to 2 years to use the amnesty, they should only be able to use it on existing contracts, not new ones.

[wildbill2u]

To me, this seems counterintuitive to what the CBA is trying to achieve.

I can understand why owners would want more than 2 weeks to use the amnesty. Until they know how their current roster is going to shake out, or what other needs they'll have to fill for the upcoming seasons, it could affect who they decide to release (or not release) using the clause.

However, giving owners a "get out of jail free card" to use going forward only encourages them to continue handing out bad deals. It sounds like they are going to end up getting their way in these negotiations, so why should they also be allowed to continue making the mess that they have mostly started in the first place?

IMO, if owners are given up to 2 years to use the amnesty, they should only be able to use it on existing contracts, not new ones.

Holt wants to have amnesty for RJ in his pocket so he can use it at the right time on RJ. He has to give the right to use the amnesty on new contracts to gain support from some of the owners who don't need a "get out of jail free" card now, but might in the future.

[DPG21920]

Looks like this will get done soon and we'll have NBA basketball before Christmas.

Blowout win for the owners. Extended garbage time now. Stern's pulled his starters. Players putting up a few points to make the final score look respectable.


Whats the split/system?

Eh. It's a blowout win as far as players making a lot of financial concessions with regards to BRI, but if there isn't a hard cap or any real sweeping changes to the system (by all accounts, most every single exception will remain, there will be no hard cap and the LT penalty won't be as ridiculous as first proposed) then it's really not that bad for the players IMO.

[Dex]

Holt wants to have amnesty for RJ in his pocket so he can use it at the right time on RJ. He has to give the right to use the amnesty on new contracts to gain support from some of the owners who don't need a "get out of jail free" card now, but might in the future.

I agree that if Holt is gonna amnesty anybody, it's going to be (and should be) RJ. But the way the article puts it, as quoted above, makes it sound like they will be able to use it on "future mistakes". That's where I start to question the owner's responsibility in all this.

The amnesty should be in place to allow owners to cope with changes in the lux tax, not just as a handout to bail themselves out from their own short-sightedness going forward.

[TimmehC]

Seems to me like Holt wants to see how Kawhi works out in his rookie year before kicking Dicky J to the jurb.

[5in10]

So with the amnesty clause the spurs can obviously get rid of Jefferson, but why is Holt pushing for the 2 year thing if we can do it now?

"Sources say that there’s a determined push led by San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to amnesty one player"

...Also If we do use the amnesty clause on RJ, Holt still has to pay him right(Holt still takes a hit financially)?

[Giuseppe]

(by all accounts, most every single exception will remain, there will be no hard cap and the LT penalty won't be as ridiculous as first proposed)

Deepy, after reading the above I'm gettin' my first tumescence since March of '07.

Danka.

[Dex]

Damn, Culby going Joy of Vocabulary all up in this ish.

[elemento]

Man the more i read about it, the more i realize how dumb or FO was to give this faggot a 39m contract.

Jesus what a fucking moronic move.

[Dex]

Hollinger gets it:


johnhollinger John Hollinger
For a league allegedly concerned with competitive balance, the multi-year amnesty sure seems like a gift to the big market teams.
11 minutes ago

[Giuseppe]

^Explains why Buss has been so tight lipped throughout the entire event.

[TimmehC]

^Explains why Buss has been so tight lipped throughout the entire event.

So who does the good Dr. ship out? Odom? Gasol? Mr. World Peace probably doesn't make enough to get them into a comfortable cap position by waiving him.

[TimDunkem]

So who does the good Dr. ship out? Odom? Gasol? Mr. World Peace probably doesn't make enough to get them into a comfortable cap position by waiving him.
Puke Walton?

[Giuseppe]

So who does the good Dr. ship out? Mr. World Peace probably doesn't make enough to get them into a comfortable cap position by waiving him.

+ he might eschew peace & love, take up a gun & go nutty nuts.

[ElNono]

lol Holt not using the nuclear option right away on RJ... I swear I won't buy a single ticket as long as that guy is a Spur...

[Seventyniner]

I think one big reason the owners would like the ability to carry the amnesty over for a while is because many teams only have 6-7 players under contract right now. Being able to carry it also makes it more fair, because if it's now-or-never, teams without any bad contracts get taken advantage of.

[baseline bum]

So is the players' association throwing the Jeffersons and Waltons of the league under the bus, or do the teams still have to pay the salaries of amnesty-cut players so that the savings is only from lessening luxury tax penalties?

[spurs10]

So is the players' association throwing the Jeffersons and Waltons of the league under the bus, or do the teams still have to pay the salaries of amnesty-cut players so that the savings is only from lessening luxury tax penalties?
They will have to pay them. It just won't go against their cap. That's why many have said Holt wouldn't use it on RJ. As long as you're paying someone millions of dollars, might as well use them. Now what I'm not sure about is if another team picks up the waived player, will they assume part of that contract?

[DesignatedT]

Still have to pay.

[ElNono]

There were various twists being talked about with the amnesty stuff. Some owners wanted to be able to pay off the contract in more years than what the contract was for (ie: contract has 3 years left, pay it off in 5 years). In exchange, they would have a small percentage (15% or so) of the contract still counting against the cap.

So, don't be surprised if this time the amnesty clause isn't quite like the last time.

[ace3g]

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
RT @WindhorstESPN: Source said talks snagged when players wouldn't accept less than 52% of BRI. No talks scheduled. More cancellations today

[TimmehC]

Talks have ended without a deal. More cancellations forthcoming.

[InRareForm]

BRI is still the sensitive issue. Per twitter, doesn't look good again.

[InRareForm]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Another source says BRI was only "partly" of breakdown in talks.

[DesignatedT]

fml

[slick'81]

fck really wow after all that hype and stern going all ape shit

i will be more worried if no deal is struck this weekend

[timtonymanu]

Well once again these guys find some momentum and then fuck things up somehow. These people are crap. I'm really starting to hate the league in general.

[DPG21920]

Well I was pretty skeptical to begin with. Even though I hadn't heard it reported, I felt the timing was fishy. Like I said earlier, with NRLB ruling getting closer I wasn't surprised to see them "negotiating" again. That and the fact there was no hard deadline yet led me to be skeptical. As of, that appears to have been the case.

This was like a little kid who complains about brushing his teeth, but when they find out they are going to the dentist they brush like 50 times that day. All for show.

[slick'81]

Friday's CBA negotiations ended without an agreement on the most contentious issue, the split of Basketball-Related Income (BRI) -- the owners want an even 50% split, while the players want 52%.

The current CBA has the players at 57%, so they have already conceded a ton of cash over the life of the deal. Despite the BRI deadlock, there were more positive developments on Friday -- rough outlines have developed for the amnesty clause and luxury tax, and one "prominent agent" said that a deal could be struck as soon as Saturday.


http://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard (http://twitter.com/#%21/Chris_Broussard)

[baseline bum]

NB:lol = f:lol cked

[Bruno]

And they screw it up...

At the same time, it isn't that surprising. Before the meeting, owners didn't want to go over a 50/50 spit and players didn't want to receive less than 52% of the BRI. Even if they now have some kind of agreement on the system, it don't solve the BRI split issue.

If they want to have a full season this year, one side or both sides will have to give away $$.

[Dex]

Fuckin ay. I lay down to nap for a couple hours, wake up, and the whole things gone to hell. :pctoss

[Mel_13]

Silly me, I really thought Lucy wouldn't pull the football away this time.

Well, my season ticket rep said the first round of refunds will go out around Nov 10th. In plenty of time for Christmas shopping.

[therealtruth]

I never get the over the top RJ hate. As much as you can blame RJ you should also blame TP and Pop for not using him correctly on offense. He plays best in the open court which also helps the Spurs. At the beginning of the year he was averaging 20. The Spurs decided to slow it down for no reason. The Spurs asked to sit in the corner and hit open 3's and he hit a career high 44%. You can fault his defense but I guarantee if you keep him involved on offense like most NBA players he will play harder on defense.

[Dex]

Silly me, I really thought Lucy wouldn't pull the football away this time.


Hits the nail right on the head about how I feel.

Good grief.

[DesignatedT]

I never get the over the top RJ hate. As much as you can blame RJ you should also blame TP and Pop for not using him correctly on offense. He plays best in the open court which also helps the Spurs. At the beginning of the year he was averaging 20. The Spurs decided to slow it down for no reason. The Spurs asked to sit in the corner and hit open 3's and he hit a career high 44%. You can fault his defense but I guarantee if you keep him involved on offense like most NBA players he will play harder on defense.

He's just vastly overpaid. And the expectations when he first arrived just make matters worse.

5-6 mil a year player at most.

[dylankerouac]

I just find the timing curious. NLRB expected to rule soon, owners want to sit down. There is no hard deadline yet either, so not sure I expect anything, but hoping for the best.

So since it sounds like talks broke down, should we expect a ruling this upcoming week?

[ace3g]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
The NBA will cancel regular season games through November 30th, a league source tells Y! Sports.

[Giuseppe]

It's pussy & chickenshit for both sides to refuse to divulge the system agreements that they made. The bastards, in association with MSM play us like a banjo.

[lefty]

Yeeeeeeeeeees!

[Warlord23]

http://www.nba.com/home/live1/

[ElNono]

I never get the over the top RJ hate. As much as you can blame RJ you should also blame TP and Pop for not using him correctly on offense.

That ship has sailed, tbh... just show him the door...

[ElNono]

And lol @ Stern trying to pull 47% again...

[Giuseppe]

It's pussy & chickenshit for both sides to refuse to divulge the system agreements that they made. The bastards, in association with MSM play us like a banjo.

[[[Discussions about the salary cap system also proved problematic, Hunter said.
"We've told them that we don't want a hard cap. We don't want a hard cap any kind of way, either an obvious hard cap or a hard cap that may not be as obvious to most people but we know it works like a hard cap," Hunter said. "And so you get there, and then all of a sudden they say, 'Well, we also have to have our number.' And you say, 'Well wait a minute, you're not negotiating in good faith."]]]

That's what I thought. Stay strong, players.

[ElNono]

Apparently they agreed to a higher luxury tax ratio, but with that kind of ratio, union wanted their 52%...

[ElNono]

Fisher saying the deal is for *10* years...

[Bruno]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal being reached in 2 or 3 days.

The next step would be obviously owners having a meeting about revenue sharing. If small market owners can convince big market owners to give them an extra $50M per year, we will have a full NBA season.

[TimmehC]

Fisher flew to LA after the meeting, so not sure anything happens this weekend.