Resuming CBA talks

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/27/labor-talks/index.html


I apologize if someone had already posted this on the 35th page of some dusty old thread, but I felt it needed it's own thread.

Read up.

[Roger Mason Jr.]

What's up with the name stealing? If you are going to take my name sort of then why put a picture of mouse with a laker jersey as your avatar?

[Leetonidas]

What's up with the name stealing? If you are going to take my name sort of then why put a picture of mouse with a laker jersey as your avatar?

Roger Mason sucks balls anyway, his name is a disgrace to our franchise

[Roger Mason Jr.]

Roger Mason sucks balls anyway, his name is a disgrace to our franchise

Bitch, do I gotta run up on you?!

[benefactor]

The meetings are pointless at this point. The union needs to quit jacking around and go ahead and de-certify. It's the only leverage they have against the owners.

[ducks]

get her done

[objective]

I became much more pessimistic after I heard Keyon Dooling's interview on the Jason Whitlock podcast last week.

Dooling as the #2 man for the union came off so terribly that if he's one of the main guys negotiating, a deal won't ever get done. One of the first things he stressed was how if the players gave into the owners, then the future stars would be lost because players would no longer be able to reach their dreams of buying their parents a home or providing for their families or other such nonsense and would instead turn to other sports.

I don't side with the owners, but their previous guarantee of 2 billion in salaries would have meant what, a player making 15 million now would only make 14 or 13.75 million a year instead? Dooling came off as someone who is incapable of being reasonable his being vice-president of the union just came across as that the players can't be reasoned with at all, necessitating a long, long lockout.

And I sympathize with the players. At every negotiating event in my memory, the players have sacrificed and given away to the owners. Rookies like Glen Robinson making too much? Players give the owners a rookie scale. Rookies on the scale getting free agency too soon? Players give the owners team options and restricted rights. Players on the rookie scale still making too much? Players give in to only 2 guaranteed years. Players making too much? Players give in to maximums on player salaries, the first of the major sports to do so if I recall correctly. Players having too many years (Larry Johnson)? Players agree to 7 year caps. Owners getting burned by 7 years? Players give in to 6.

Every step of the way the past 20 years the players have given in time and again to help the owners for the good of the game. And I'm sure they will again. They'll take shorter years, they'll take less money, they'll take some sort of alteration to free agency to dissuade future Decision type events.

But they probably have to lose a season or two until they finally accept it.

[benefactor]

It won't get that far. They union will de-certify and it will head to the courts...just like the NFL. At that point the window will shorten. How long they wait to do that will dictate how long the lockout will last.

[Duncan2177]

Hope this lockout ends soon.:bang

[Bruno]

These will just be talks to stay in touch. Nothing significant will come out of them. For the moment, the key of the lockout is the NLRB complaint filled by the NBAPA.

[Bruno]

FIBA has allowed NBA players under contract to play overseas during the lockout:
http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/lateNews/p/newsid/48378/arti.html

Players just got a huge win. Even if there isn't that much money available overseas, players have now a great way to resist at a lengthy lockout. If a NBA player needs some money, he can now easily get a few $100K in Europe or Asia.

[boutons_deux]

DAVE ZIRIN: Oh, this is going to be out for some time, and it’s going to be a much more difficult knot to square than the National Football League, because the main issue in the NBA is that they are arguing that 23 of the 30 teams lost money last year. There’s been a counter-argument of an analysis done by Forbes Magazine that says that that number is grossly inflated, and they’re actually cooking the books Enron-style to make it look like more teams are losing money than they are.

But the fact of the matter is that the NBA situation is very similar to the NFL situation, and it’s very similar, for example, to the fights around state workers in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, because what it comes down to is that the owners in these leagues are getting less public subsidies than they thought they would get, because of the economic crisis in 2008 and the trillion-dollar bailouts of the banks. And they’ve said this publicly. They’re saying, "We need to restore profitability and get more salary back from players, because we’re getting less tax dollars than we thought we would get. And we will lock the doors and end the games, unless we get more money back." And that makes it, to me, a much more broader political and social issue, like, oh, we don’t even get our sports now, because Goldman Sachs needed a bailout? That’s not good.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/27/dave_zirin_on_nfl_players_remarkable

[Cane]

I became much more pessimistic after I heard Keyon Dooling's interview on the Jason Whitlock podcast last week.

Dooling as the #2 man for the union came off so terribly that if he's one of the main guys negotiating, a deal won't ever get done. One of the first things he stressed was how if the players gave into the owners, then the future stars would be lost because players would no longer be able to reach their dreams of buying their parents a home or providing for their families or other such nonsense and would instead turn to other sports.

I don't side with the owners, but their previous guarantee of 2 billion in salaries would have meant what, a player making 15 million now would only make 14 or 13.75 million a year instead? Dooling came off as someone who is incapable of being reasonable his being vice-president of the union just came across as that the players can't be reasoned with at all, necessitating a long, long lockout.

And I sympathize with the players. At every negotiating event in my memory, the players have sacrificed and given away to the owners. Rookies like Glen Robinson making too much? Players give the owners a rookie scale. Rookies on the scale getting free agency too soon? Players give the owners team options and restricted rights. Players on the rookie scale still making too much? Players give in to only 2 guaranteed years. Players making too much? Players give in to maximums on player salaries, the first of the major sports to do so if I recall correctly. Players having too many years (Larry Johnson)? Players agree to 7 year caps. Owners getting burned by 7 years? Players give in to 6.

Every step of the way the past 20 years the players have given in time and again to help the owners for the good of the game. And I'm sure they will again. They'll take shorter years, they'll take less money, they'll take some sort of alteration to free agency to dissuade future Decision type events.

But they probably have to lose a season or two until they finally accept it.

Dooling is also nearing an agreement with a Turkish team. Prominent agents also have said they have "no idea what the players' plan is...do we have one?" Things aren't looking good from that standpoint. Decertification is their nuclear option but the players union leadership probably don't want to go that far or they lose their pull.

But players do have escrow money and the few that go overseas will get $$$. Still I don't see that helping much against the owners that want significant changes especially the Suns and Celtics who demand a hard cap.

[benefactor]

The owners reaction to this will largely depend on how many players actually bail and head overseas. With the types of players that have headed that way in the past, it could be a pretty big number. Players that are role players here would be stars in many lower level Europeon leagues.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

That's crap though, because it's likely that they are using a facade of exceptional losses. To me it seems like they're using this in lieu of the truth, which is they're parched for that hard salary cap, because owners want their teams to have a larger fighting chance. It looks like one giant owner hissy fit rather than worry of financial losses, because honestly, are the owners really sweating over losing one of their many cots in Cabo?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These will just be talks to stay in touch. Nothing significant will come out of them. For the moment, the key of the lockout is the NLRB complaint filled by the NBAPA.

Kessler is the lead counsel and if follows the same gameplan he is not going to wait on the NLRB and file antitrust in federal court. This is probably a good thing because as slow as the federal court docket is, the NLRB moves at an even more glacial pace.

Obviously depends on which federal jurisdiction the case would be under but the NBA offseason is short and even on a fasttrack this process takes months and months. The NFLPA filed in March and didnt get a hearing on the initial injunction request until May.

Kessler likes to play hardball. Its an open and shut case at its core and he has already taken the NFL out behind the woodshed and gutted their free agency system back in 1989. With alternate leagues over in Europe, the players might just be willing to allow him to do that.

If that is the case our only hope is for a shortened season.

[Bruno]

Kessler is the lead counsel and if follows the same gameplan he is not going to wait on the NLRB and file antitrust in federal court. This is probably a good thing because as slow as the federal court docket is, the NLRB moves at an even more glacial pace.


NFLPA and NBAPA obviously don't follow the same gameplan since the NFLPA desertify on the first day of the lockout.

[Lincoln]

5'11 220lb fatass who cant play basketball :rollin

[objective]

I'm failing to see NBA players in europe as a big threat to the owners. Yes, it may keep some players afloat financially leading them to stay unified longer.

But it also proves they're willing to play for less money in Europe with fewer opportunities for sponsorship stateside. I don't see how that helps the players when the owners can just say, "See! Deron is taking $5 net when he's owed $10 net. Just take $7-8 net and stay here with more opportunities to make money on the side. If not, see you in 2012 or 2013 or 2014, we're good."

[Mark in Austin]

If I'm the union I'm targeting the TV deal that apparently will pay the owners regardless of if there are games or not. (Hell if I'm the networks I'm firing the lawyers that agreed to a contract that forces them to pay for games that aren't played.) If they can get that money tied up and out of the owners hands, it forces the owners to the table sooner.

As it is, the owners have nothing to gain by negotiating if they are going to get that money either way.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NFLPA and NBAPA obviously don't follow the same gameplan since the NFLPA desertify on the first day of the lockout.

The reason why they did that was because of wording in the NFL CBA that would have precluded them from filing antitrust for a year if they had not done it at that time.

the clause said that they could not sue for antitrust for a year after the previous CBA expired. they decertified at the 11th hour and sued so the action occurred before the CBA expired.

He has nothing forcing him in that direction in this case. Quite frankly the NBAPA has a ton more leverage and the same sports antitrust precedents.

Anyway my point is that waiting on the NLRB will leave you waiting a long long time.

By virtue of hiring Kessler's office its pretty apparent that they are going to sue antitrust in federal court. After all, that is what he does. its not a matter of if rather than when.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I'm the union I'm targeting the TV deal that apparently will pay the owners regardless of if there are games or not. (Hell if I'm the networks I'm firing the lawyers that agreed to a contract that forces them to pay for games that aren't played.) If they can get that money tied up and out of the owners hands, it forces the owners to the table sooner.

As it is, the owners have nothing to gain by negotiating if they are going to get that money either way.

There is federal precedent to this just handed down this year. Basically it contends that a portion of that money is by rights the players as well and they just cannot take it all and go willy nilly.

[Mark in Austin]

My final solution:

Players get 52% Owners get 48%
HOWEVER, expenses related to the players (coaches, physical therapists, chefs, drivers, trainers, etc) come out of the pot before the split. Business expenses (marketing, PR, etc) do NOT come out of the pot before the split.

2% of each side's revenue gets set aside for team employee and player pensions and healthcare at retirement.

MLE stays but max contract length is two years.
LLE stays and is now yearly. Also max contract length of two years.

Players can extend with their own team for a max of 7 years. Players cannot get the 7 year deal as part of a sign & trade.
-First 4 are guaranteed. 5th year is a team option. 6th & 7th years both the team and the player can opt out.

Players can sign with another team for max of 5 years.
-First 3 years are fully guaranteed. 4th and 5th years have mutual opt outs for player and team.

Rookie contracts are now only 4 years in length. 4th year now becomes the qualifying offer year.

Revenue sharing: 60% of all revenue made by teams through local TV contracts, etc are kept by the teams. 32% goes to a giant pot that is evenly split between all teams yearly. 8% goes directly to players split evenly between each player. These direct payments to players do not count against the cap and are not eligible for agents to get a % of.

Salary cap is locked at 72 million. Luxury tax starts at $72,000,000.01. Teams may exceed the cap to resign their own players (Bird rule) or to sign a player to the MLE or LLE. A team can only have one MLE contract at a time while over the cap. A team is exempt form paying the luxury tax if it has only one Bird exemption player over the cap. If the team has more than one player over the cap, there is a 2 to 1 tax payment. Lux tax payments are split evenly between all teams under the cap plus teams with only 1 Bird exemption player over the cap.

-Referee accuracy grades are made available to the public by the league office. The lowest 5 referees in accuracy every year will be demoted to D League the following season.
-The league office will be required to review any game requested by a team and if it determines a player has flopped the player will be assessed a technical foul at the start of the team's next game. Technical fouls assessed for flopping will count towards suspensions.
-Offensive goaltending is abolished.
-Defensive three second calls are abolished.
-Country music played at basketball game is abolished.

The anti-tanking rules:
-Change the lottery to one envelope per team, same odds for everybody.
-The final seed playoff tournament courtesy of Bill Simmons (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6749669/if-ruled-nba-world)

"Let's say we cut down the regular season to 78 games, lock down the top seven seeds in each conference, then stage a week-long, single elimination, 16-team tournament between the nonplayoff teams for the 8-seeds. (No conferences, just no. 15 through no. 30 seeded in order.) The higher seeds would host the first two rounds (eight games in all) from Sunday through Wednesday; the last two rounds (The Final FourGotten) would rotate every year in New York or Los Angeles on Friday night and Sunday afternoon, becoming something of a Fun Sports Weekend along the lines of All-Star Weekend. Friday night's winners would clinch playoff berths. Sunday's winner gets two carrots: the chance to pick their playoff conference (you can go East or West), as well as the no. 10 pick in the upcoming draft (that's a supplemental pick; they'd get their own first-rounder as well).

I'll flip this around: Why WOULDN'T we do this? Lottery teams couldn't tank down the stretch or shut down starters for nefarious reasons; not with a possible playoff berth and an extra first-rounder at stake. Fans would remain invested no matter how poorly their team was playing down the stretch (knowing the tournament was coming up). Sponsors would pony up extra money to be involved. We'd get a fun basketball weekend in New York or Los Angeles out of it. The 14 playoff teams would get 10 days off as their bonus."

[Bruno]

The reason why they did that was because of wording in the NFL CBA that would have precluded them from filing antitrust for a year if they had not done it at that time.

the clause said that they could not sue for antitrust for a year after the previous CBA expired. they decertified at the 11th hour and sued so the action occurred before the CBA expired.

He has nothing forcing him in that direction in this case. Quite frankly the NBAPA has a ton more leverage and the same sports antitrust precedents.

I knew about the NFL clause but it doesn't change that the NBAPA hasn't decertified and sued just after the lockout. Decertify is an option but there is a reason why they haven't done it for the moment: NBAPA thinks they have other options available.

Some agents think that the union should decertify. Woj has written an article about it: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_agents_decertification_072311



Anyway my point is that waiting on the NLRB will leave you waiting a long long time.

The latest I've read is 1 or 2 months away from making their decision.

[Bruno]

For people interested in this whole lockout issue, Ken Berger, who is the best journalist for that, has a great article about it:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15372422/both-sides-of-nba-labor-negotiations-prepare-for-legal-war

It's long but it's a must read.

[boutons_deux]

Positions Harden as N.B.A. and Union Debate How to Split Revenue

“We met for several hours, and I think it’s fair to say that we’re at the same place as we were 30 days ago,” Commissioner David Stern said afterward. “I don’t feel optimistic about the players’ willingness to engage in a serious way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/sports/basketball/positions-harden-as-nba-and-union-debate-revenue.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[frodo]

these niggas can't live a cheap life anymore dem be used to such a luxrious life they've been livin in. we are fans of this game but our lives wouldn't be much affected if the game died, the players whereas cannot afford to live a life w/o this game. dem just be street niggas like u & me & everyone else before they turned pro playin it, bball changed their lives & everything

[Pistons < Spurs]

NBA files unfair labor practice charge and federal lawsuit charge against Players Association


The NBA filed two claims today against the National Basketball Players Association: an unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board, and a lawsuit in federal district court in New York. The unfair labor practice charge asserts that the Players Association has failed to bargain in good faith by virtue of its unlawful threats to commence a sham “decertification” and an antitrust lawsuit challenging the NBA’s lockout. The federal lawsuit seeks to establish, among other things, that the NBA’s lockout does not violate federal antitrust laws and that if the Players Association’s “decertification” were found to be lawful, all existing player contracts would become void and unenforceable.

“These claims were filed in an effort to eliminate the use of impermissible pressure tactics by the union which are impeding the parties’ ability to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement,” said NBA Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer Adam Silver. “For the parties to reach agreement on a new CBA, the union must commit to the collective bargaining process fully and in good faith.”



Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=8109#ixzz1Tsp6Re8x

[DarkReign]

Not knowing much about the NBA CBA deal before this debacle, how in the world did the owners ever agree to a 57% cut for the players?!

That ranks on the dumb scale.

[Dex]

Yep, looks like this is gonna get ugly.

[xellos88330]

Looks like it is hockey for me this fall.

[Pistons < Spurs]

Update: In response to the above, here is a statement from NBPA Executive Director Billy Hunter regarding the legal actions filed by the NBA: “The litigation tactics of the NBA today are just another example of their bad faith bargaining and we will seek the complete dismissal of the actions as they are totally without merit. The NBA Players Association has not made any decision to disclaim its role as the collective bargaining representative of the players and has been engaged in good faith bargaining with the NBA for over two years. We urge the NBA to engage with us at the bargaining table and to use more productively the short time we have left before the 2011-12 season is seriously jeopardized.”

Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=8109#ixzz1Ttfgd7L5

[tmtcsc]

I seriously doubt there is going to be a season. I'm not upset at the prospect of losing Duncan and his 20 Million $ salary because he was really at his end anyways. Ginobili getting older hurts though.

No NBA season is going to suck. At least we have NFL and college football.

[dbestpro]

NBA owners have long memories. Once this CBA is settled I wonder what type of retribution will come the way of FIBA. I could see them no longer recognizing their authority and maybe even see that become a point in the new CBA.

[dbestpro]

these niggas can't live a cheap life anymore dem be used to such a luxrious life they've been livin in. we are fans of this game but our lives wouldn't be much affected if the game died, the players whereas cannot afford to live a life w/o this game. dem just be street niggas like u & me & everyone else before they turned pro playin it, bball changed their lives & everything

Well articulated.

[Pistons < Spurs]

I've also set my expectations towards the belief that there won't be any NBA this year.

It sucks, but it is what it is. I am truly looking forward to college basketball this year though. It's not usually high on my radar, other than my own team that I root for. But this year I'm excited to see alot of individual players and alot of stacked teams go at it. NC, Kentucky, Ohio St, Villanova, Syracuse, Baylor ...

I'll miss the NBA, but as the Pistons currently suck, it won't be a huge emotional loss. I'd probably feel different if I was a fan of a realistic contender.

[boutons_deux]

The Autumn of David Stern

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162499/autumn-david-stern?rel=emailNation

[boutons_deux]

Positions Harden as N.B.A. and Union Debate How to Split Revenue

Apparently, time does not heal all wounds when it comes to the N.B.A. lockout.

The league and the players union had formal meetings Monday for the first time since the lockout began a month ago, and little appears to have been accomplished. Both sides promised to meet several more times this month.

They remain far apart on the critical issue of how to divide the league’s roughly $4 billion in annual revenue. Under the old agreement, the players receive about 57 percent of so-called basketball-related income. The N.B.A. owners say that amount must be cut substantially so the league’s ailing teams can be nursed back to financial health.

The union’s chief player representative, Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers, said that was unacceptable.

Both sides said that no new issues or proposals were introduced at the meetings, which were held at a hotel in Midtown Manhattan and ended after about three hours.

“We met for several hours, and I think it’s fair to say that we’re at the same place as we were 30 days ago,” Commissioner David Stern said afterward. “I don’t feel optimistic about the players’ willingness to engage in a serious way.”

Fisher said that all other issues, including whether there should be a hard salary cap or a flexible one, have taken a back seat to the question of how to divide the league’s revenue, a situation similar what the N.F.L. and its players union faced several months ago.

“That’s going to be the hard work ahead of us in the next couple of weeks: how to get to a place where the split is what we consider to be fair for our players, but also makes an attempt to address the concerns and the issues that our owners are putting out,” Fisher said.

Fisher said there would be more scrutiny on talks between the N.B.A. and the union now that the N.F.L. lockout had ended. But neither side said it felt compelled to act quickly simply because another league has ended its stalemate.

Stern said that the league’s owners “very much want to make a deal,” and “they’ve expressed a willingness to negotiate and compromise.” But clearly, some owners are more anxious than others about missing any games.

The Detroit Pistons and the Golden State Warriors, for instance, have new owners who want to recoup some of their investment. The Orlando Magic have a new arena to pay for as well. The Nets, who are playing their last season in New Jersey, want to promote their impending move to Brooklyn.

The Nets recently sent their season-ticket holders a letter that outlined contingencies in case any games are missed because of the lockout. They include refunds for tickets to any games that are canceled and 1 percent interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/sports/basketball/positions-harden-as-nba-and-union-debate-revenue.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[Fireball]

and it will not get easier after the NBA filed a lawsuit against the players organisation

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/08/02/nba-lawsuit.ap/index.html

[polandprzem]

You can say goodbye to an NBA season and prob. Duncans career

[ElNono]

lol @ Stern's version of 'negotiate and compromise'...

Stern: New revenue split: owners 80% - players 20%
Union: No
Stern: Ok.. owners 70% - players 30%
Union: No
Stern: We've been willing to negotiate and compromise and they still say no :cry :cry :cry

[Cane]

NBA commissioner David Stern will not collect on his eight-figure salary during the ongoing lockout, according to sources with knowledge of Stern's pay status.

Amid growing tensions on both sides of a labor impasse that has lasted 33 days, with owners proposing sharp cuts in salary and contract lengths, and with no end in sight to the stalemate, Philadelphia 76ers center Spencer Hawes this week publicly questioned via Twitter why there have been "no rumblings about a pay cut for (Stern) while he asks every single player to do so."

Stern has given no indication that he will agree to lower his salary when the sides ultimately do hammer out a new labor agreement that is expected to be far more restrictive for players. Yet sources confirmed Tuesday that, during the work stoppage, Stern will indeed pass on collecting a salary that, based on a New York Daily News report in February, has been estimated as high as $23 million annually.

and more..

Responding to a question at the time about whether he would drop his salary to $1 as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did during the NFL's lockout, Stern said: "Well, I would say that last time (during the NBA's 1998-99 lockout) I didn't take a salary. I think a dollar would be too high in the event of a work stoppage."

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6829321/sources-david-stern-paid-nba-lockout


:wow Hmm...but sorry still can't feel sympathy for Stern or really any side in this scenario other than the working class and fans.



lol @ Stern's version of 'negotiate and compromise'...

Stern: New revenue split: owners 80% - players 20%
Union: No
Stern: Ok.. owners 70% - players 30%
Union: No
Stern: We've been willing to negotiate and compromise and they still say no :cry :cry :cry

Players aren't much better. Tbh fans should be turning on the owners more than Stern, dude's just parroting the owners anyway. :downspin:

[cantthinkofanything]

You can say goodbye to an NBA season and prob. Duncans career

It's a travesty if he never takes the court again. Although he probably doesn't want it, he deserves a farewell tour more than any other current player.

Classiest All Star of his era.

[acoelho1]

The Autumn of David Stern

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162499/autumn-david-stern?rel=emailNation


Good read and this is why the players should decertify. Stern is trying to break the Union and the players will start to feel it when the checks dont come in November.

The NBA is threatening to void out the contracts, which is purely BS. Can you imagine the Miami Heat voiding out James and Wade's contracts. Not going to happen. Hunter needs to be more aggressive like the NFLPA did by starting the process of decertification.

[dbestpro]

lol @ Stern's version of 'negotiate and compromise'...

Stern: New revenue split: owners 80% - players 20%
Union: No
Stern: Ok.. owners 70% - players 30%
Union: No
Stern: We've been willing to negotiate and compromise and they still say no :cry :cry :cry

Collective bargaining rules mean that you must make a counter proposal. You just can't keep saying no. So the players could come back and say 80% for the players and 20% for the owners. They have to start somewhere and then start whittling away between the two. They can't just keep saying no.

[GeorgiaSpursFan]

Actually Collective Bargaining Rules Do Not require you to make a counter-proposal when an "activity" is making unfair demands- usually a significant deviation from prior practice. I have a little knowledge about this sort of thing. I am the ULP and workers comp specialist for the Largest Dept of Defense Local in the US. check it out www.afgelocal987.org (http://www.afgelocal987.org) <go to staff and contacts> I'm full timer Ray Wessels double check by sending me an email at the listed address ray{dot}wessels{at}afgelocal987{dot}org if you doubt me.

[GeorgiaSpursFan]

some may recognize my logon name from game chats at mysa

[dbestpro]

Actually Collective Bargaining Rules Do Not require you to make a counter-proposal when an "activity" is making unfair demands- usually a significant deviation from prior practice. I have a little knowledge about this sort of thing. I am the ULP and workers comp specialist for the Largest Dept of Defense Local in the US. check it out www.afgelocal987.org (http://www.afgelocal987.org) <go to staff and contacts> I'm full timer Ray Wessels double check by sending me an email at the listed address ray{dot}wessels{at}afgelocal987{dot}org if you doubt me.

You are correct. The issue comes in to play as to what is a deviation of prior practice. The last CBA can be seen negotiated from the owners prospective with X amount of profits anticipated. When those anticipated profits become losses then a new agreement regardless of the distribution percentages does not become a significant deviation from prior practice.

The bottom line is a business has a right to expect a profit. Both parties have filed that the other side has failed to bargain in good faith. This is really because they disagree on what the break even point is for a given team. Owners remain in the driver seat because they are using standard and allowable accounting practices regardless of whether you or agree or disagree with the loopholes.

The following website has a nice FAQ in regards to labor negotiations.

http://www.nounionsellout.com/coll-barg

[GeorgiaSpursFan]

My points are:
1. Only the Players association and the Owners/league know the actual $ numbers. We can guess and use filings and what financial reports are out there to try to get an understanding, but they will never release all the profit/loss numbers. Plus, I am sure each owner has their own accountants and submit reports to the league and the league has their own accountants. Anyone who has ever taken accounting classes knows that they can be made to appear to say anything you want. Granted, another good accountant should be able to see through those numbers, but when they are buried 2 or three levels deep, it definitely gives the owners extra leverage and time to work the numbers.
2.This is the League versus the players. Not individual owners versus their players. You have to combine the profits of the successful franchises with the losses of the lesser businesses to get a true understanding of the financial standing of the league. Just because some franchises make foolish signings and/or deals and blow their budgets and drag the whole league down doesn't mean the players should have to take a cut in pay.

I am used to dealing with 18-20 dollar an hour mechanics not 18-20 million dollar a year ball players, but I'm sure their mentalities are close to the same. You talk about cutting ANYBODY'S pay 20-30% and you're gonna have a fight on your hands.:ihit

FYI: regardless I do believe the majority of players are WAY overpaid. But players don't write contracts, if somebody wants to pay them too much that's their choice.

[GeorgiaSpursFan]

One more thing: I am really worried about SA's future in the NBA. If we have a really restrictive cap it will make it harder for small market team to retain multiple stars. They'll take a little less money in LA or NY and pull in the super-team endorsements to make up the difference.

[elbamba]

Time to bring in D-Leaguers and Europeans. I'll bet the rookies will jump at the chance to make a paycheck.

[boutons_deux]

Spurs only got Tim from lottery draw.

Manu and Tony were discovered because nobody else was paying attention to overseas players as much as the Spurs were.

Spurs ability, without Tim, to sign top players is otherwise very limited. Is why Pop will probably retire when Tim does.

[benefactor]

Back to the table on Wednesday...not that anything productive will come from it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AlV0BeYBOc9CI1ACehQEJiu8vLYF?slug=mc-spears_nba_lockout_meeting_083011

[objective]

back to the table this past wednesday, and no, nothing productive came from it and I haven't seen any media reports about when they'll ever meet again.

[Dex]

I love news updates that are like, "things are still just like they were". :depressed

[Ice009]

Back to the table on Wednesday...not that anything productive will come from it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AlV0BeYBOc9CI1ACehQEJiu8vLYF?slug=mc-spears_nba_lockout_meeting_083011

So is it this Wednesday or was it last week that they met?

[mattyc]

Time to bring in D-Leaguers and Europeans. I'll bet the rookies will jump at the chance to make a paycheck.

http://www.black-hawks-jugend.de/assets/images/Replacements.jpg

[benefactor]

So is it this Wednesday or was it last week that they met?
It was last Wednesday. I had a date recognition fail moment.

[Mel_13]

They're going to meet again tomorrow:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6935865/sources-nba-players-union-meet-again-wednesday

[Mel_13]

Mostly gloom and doom predictions about how this thing ends, but Chris Sheridan is optimistic:

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/

[baseline bum]

Time to bring in D-Leaguers and Europeans. I'll bet the rookies will jump at the chance to make a paycheck.

Where is that paycheck going to come from? I'm not going to drop $60-$150 a seat to watch a bunch of C minus level talent. Anyone else got money burning a hole in their pockets to watch players not even good enough for Europe? If I want to watch crap basketball in the AT&T Center I'll buy a ticket to watch the lesbians go at it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Where is that paycheck going to come from? I'm not going to drop $60-$150 a seat to watch a bunch of C minus level talent. Anyone else got money burning a hole in their pockets to watch players not even good enough for Europe? If I want to watch crap basketball in the AT&T Center I'll buy a ticket to watch the lesbians go at it.

how much price per ticket to attend college games or ncaa tourneys?

[stephen jackson]

i wont believe in a lock out until opening day arrives and there is no bball

[spurs10]

<p>
Mostly gloom and doom predictions about how this thing ends, but Chris Sheridan is optimistic:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/" target="_blank">http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

[spurs10]

Mostly gloom and doom predictions about how this thing ends, but Chris Sheridan is optimistic:

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/05/nba-lockout-update-sides-are-closer-than-theyre-saying/

What I was trying to say from my phone was.....I hope he's right! :toast

[Duncan2177]

Owners, players agree to meet again Thursday

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/09/07/labor-talks.ap/index.html

[Bruno]

I have no idea about what to think about all these talks.

Both sides were light years away a month ago. I don't see what could have changed in this month to bring them close enough to reach a deal.

[Dex]

I have no idea about what to think about all these talks.

Both sides were light years away a month ago. I don't see what could have changed in this month to bring them close enough to reach a deal.

Well the pressure hasn't really been on 'til now, has it? Now that Labor Day has passed, the chances of training camps and games being missed becomes more serious. They've just finally gotten to the point where people start getting affected if they continue to remain idle.

Still, definitely a good sign to see that both sides are at least willing to communicate.

Maybe Sheridan is right. Maybe both sides were just posturing for leverage, and they are not as far away as they seem.

[objective]

I have no idea about what to think about all these talks.

Both sides were light years away a month ago. I don't see what could have changed in this month to bring them close enough to reach a deal.

My hope is that there is a big carrot being offered by the owners to the players on condition of an 82 game season that has the players motivated to be at the table.

Maybe a guarantee of 57% for the 11-12 season if 82 games are played, and then their new large cuts take effect the next year for the remainder of the CBA.

I'm just dreaming, I know.

I also think Sheridan is dreaming. A lot of it is legit how he's felt for months, but some of it is just a way to get attention for his site. This way, if he's somehow right, he's the brilliant prognosticator. Large proclamation put Stephen A. Smith back into the national media, why not Sheridan? If he's wrong, no big loss because nobody goes to his site anyway.

The only media member I'd believe at this point is Ludden because of his ties to Holt, who is supposed to be the only owner at these meetings. If Ludden comes out with an optimistic article, that's when I'll be optimistic.

[Spurs Brazil]

Stern: 'Three weeks' to get a deal
Posted on: September 7, 2011 5:43 pm

NEW YORK -- With rhetoric toned down and secrecy at a premium, top officials from the NBA and its players' union met Wednesday for more than five hours and emerged saying they've agreed on nothing except the next meeting.

After the second high-level bargaining session in as many weeks, the two sides will meet on consecutives days for the first time since the lockout was imposed July 1. Sticking to a mutual agreement not to charaterize the talks or divulge details, lead negotiators from both sides acknowledged that time was running out to get a deal that would avert a shortened or canceled season.

When asked if there was still time to achieve such a negotiating breakthrough, commissioner David Stern said, "Yes. We have three weeks."

With that, Stern dropped the first publicly acknowledged deadline for a deal to be reached without canceling at least a portion of training camps or preseason. Three weeks from Wednesday is Sept. 28, and training camps league-wide are scheduled to begin the first week of October.

Asked if there is still time to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement without missing regular season games, union chief Billy Hunter said, "I think there is. I think there clearly is. There's more than enough time."

In addition to the rosters of negotiators present at the most recent session on Aug. 31 -- Stern, deputy commissioner Adam Silver and Spurs owner Peter Holt for the owners, and Hunter, president Derek Fisher and general counsel Ron Klempner for the players -- other members of the negotiating teams were in the room Wednesday. The players brought outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler and economist Kevin Murphy, while the league brought deputy general counsel Dan Rube. The presence of Rube, the leading expert on cap mechanics and player contracts at the league office, may have indicated a shift to more specific, system-related talks. But Stern tersely rejected the notion that Rube's presence was related to what topic areas were discussed.

The two sides will meet again Thursday, and possibly beyond, as the calendar continues its inexorable march toward the possible cancelation of preseason or even regular season games.

"We agreed that we're going to sit here for as many days as we can to see if we're going to be able to make progress," Stern said.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/31800831

[Bruno]

What makes me skeptical is that both sides have interest of pretending negotiating even if they aren't really doing it.

Owners have been accused by the players to the NLRB of not negotiating with good faith. All these meetings help them proving the contrary. It will also send a positive message to fans, medias and announcers that make their business work.

Players' union must keep negotiating. If they stop doing it, some players/agents will push for a desertification and it's not what the union want for the moment.

All of these meetings could very well just be a PR move while in fact, nothing significant happens. Owners are just waiting because they think time is on their side and players are waiting NRLB results.

[crc21209]

I don't care what happens, I just want my NBA and more importantly, my Spurs on opening night in October. Get a deal done!

[Duncan2177]

Owners and players finish discussions.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6943863/nba-owners-players-back-bargaining-table

[Dex]

Well, at least everything hasn't been scrapped to the floor yet. That, in itself, is hopefuly a good sign. They wouldn't be bringing in a large group to discuss things if there was nothing to discuss.

[benefactor]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AiOkOyr97ZDWNMXskI6uAzW8vLYF?slug=ap-nbalabor

Not much new...but nothing bad. Hopefully this falls under the "no news is good news" category.

[slick'81]

sems like good news im still gonna hold out hope lol

[will_spurs]

A great article re: the position of owners.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions

[Dex]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-9114405



Billy Hunter tells players to be ready for end of lockout: A fan’s reaction
By Shawn S. Lealos, Yahoo! Contributor Network
9 hours, 43 minutes ago

Is the NBA lockout about to end? The way the spokespeople have been talking lately, the season is as good as over. The NBA owners want to strip the players of astronomical amounts of money and the players don't want to be hung out to dry. Head over to the Oklahoma City Thunder's official website and you will see nothing about the players. That's because owners demand that the organization pretend the players don't exist. Meanwhile, players prepare for careers in Europe, ready to prove they can still make money without the NBA.

The owners and players reps met recently and news came out they were still miles apart. Then, on Sunday, Sept. 11, on the first day of the NFL season, player rep Derek Fisher(notes) sent out a reminder to all the players, telling them to be ready for the season to start on time. Is this optimism considering that the NFL started on time despite naysayers barking that the season would be cancelled?


The news might just be hot air because Fisher should always remind players to always be physically ready to return to work. But even if it is, the news is still enough to get basketball fans excited. Fans of teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder have never been more excited with the improvements their team is making. The same rings true for fans in Memphis. Plus, imagine how excited business owners would be to know that they won't lose mass sums of profit due to a cancelled season.

This news followed ten hours of negotiations and, on Tuesday, Sept. 13, a big meeting will take place in New York City. This meeting will go a long way in determining whether the lockout might be coming to an end soon or a long term work stoppage is in the works. If things go bad, expect the NBA to face an uphill battle gaining fans back.

I remember back in 1994 when the MLB went on strike. They did it in the middle of the season and the World Series was cancelled. The strike lasted well into the 1995 season and was devastating for the sport. Fans turned their backs on baseball for a long period of time after the strike ended. If you want to know what a long term lockout can do, remember the fact that the Montreal Expos, a team on the rise before the strike, lost their fan base and ended up going out of business when the MLB purchased them in 2001 and moved them to Washington in 2004.

The MLB Strike destroyed a small market team. That can't make fans in Oklahoma City feel good if the meetings this week goes poorly.

Author Shawn S. Lealos is an avid sports fan who has lived in Oklahoma for over 40 years.

Source: CNN.COM

Note: This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Sign up here to start publishing your own sports content.

[will_spurs]

This is a nice take by a small-market fan, we can see he like the sport and the franchise. However stuff like "Plus, imagine how excited business owners would be to know that they won't lose mass sums of profit due to a cancelled season." shows he has no clue what's going on. Too bad he stayed on the "please please please make it happen" level.

[Bruno]

Result of today's meeting: all these talks were BS. Players and owners are nowhere near close an agreement. Awesome...

The last ray of hope to have a full season seems to be the NLRB.

[will_spurs]

Actually it's worse than "nowhere near close an agreement". They are exactly where they were 2 months ago, period.

[Dex]

Result of today's meeting: all these talks were BS. Players and owners are nowhere near close an agreement. Awesome...

The last ray of hope to have a full season seems to be the NLRB.

:depressed

[Dex]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/nba-labor-talks-no-progress_n_960630.html


NBA Labor Talks: Players And Owners Make No Progress At Key Meeting
BRIAN MAHONEY 09/13/11 04:14 PM ET AP

NEW YORK — The start of the NBA season was thrown into doubt Tuesday after players and owners made no progress at a key labor meeting, with no further talks scheduled.

Union executive director Billy Hunter says players were prepared to make a "significant" financial move, but found owners unwilling to budge off their positions.

Union president Derek Fisher of the Lakers said he will tell players that "the way it looks right now we may not start on time."

Fisher added that "we can't find a place with the league and our owners where we can reach a deal sooner rather than later."

The two sides had initially planned to meet again on Wednesday.

After three meetings among small groups in the last two weeks, full bargaining committees returned to the table Tuesday.

The hope was that would move the process forward, but Hunter said owners are still holding to their desire for changes to the salary cap structure. A hard cap remains "highly untenable" to players, he said.

Training camps are scheduled to open Oct. 3 and the regular season's opening night is scheduled for Nov. 1.

Fisher, surrounded by a row of long faces among fellow NBPA executive committee members seated in a hotel conference room, said players are still committed to the process and "not walking away from the table." But Hunter repeated that players "have instructed us that they're prepared to sit out" rather than accept owners' current proposals.

Fuckin' sucks. As dire as both sides have made things seem, I've still been sticking to the general convention of "there is too much money for both sides to lose to allow a lockout to happen". I figured the lessons from 1999 had been learned, and that we wouldn't really see another lockout.

I'm just now getting the feeling that may not necessarily be the case.

[benefactor]

Well...looks like football will have to tide me over after all. Barring any last minute come to Jesus moment, it looks like there will be no basketball until the holidays or after.

[Cane]

NBA Lockout: Don’t panic, they are posturing

By Chris Sheridan
I am tweeting from afar on today’s lack of progress in NBA labor negotiations, and I am not the least bit surprised that everyone is emerging from the meeting in New York spewing doom and gloom.
That is what always happens when the owners’ and players’ full bargaining committees get together. It is a total dog-and-pony show, and anyone who expected the sides to emerge today with a sense of optimism was fooling themselves.
This dispute will get settled when there are a lot fewer people in the room. David Stern and Billy Hunter can reach a suitable middle ground by meeting by themselves for a couple hours, which was what happened back in 1999 when that lockout was settled.
Why would the owners want to budge now, just two days before the Board of Governors meets in Dallas? That meeting will serve to inform all the owners how strong their negotiating position is or isn’t, and they’ll emerge with a plan for moving toward a settlement now that they know what additional concessions the players are willing to make.
September 13 is not, and was never going to be, a movement day for the owners.
The time for them to improve their offer will come later this month, when the calendar dictates that it is time to move toward closure. In a labor negotiation, both sides do not make small incremental moves toward the center. They make a big leap when it comes time to make a big leap.
That time is not now. It is probably another two weeks away.
Today was a day for the owners to instill fear and put whatever the union offered them into their wallets. I’d say their mission was accomplished.


http://sheridanhoops.com/

:blah

[Pistons < Spurs]

Excerpts from an interview Wednesday with Phoenix Suns small forward Jared Dudley after an Impact Basketball League game in Las Vegas.

Dudley on what he's expecting from an NBPA meeting Thursday in Las Vegas: I'm expecting tomorrow them to come in and basically say we're at square one. We were where we were in July. Same offer, nothing. Just what their demands are and what they're sticking to. I expect us to come in with a game plan. I expect Billy [Hunter] to be open, talking to us about what we're going to do from here on. Because obviously the owners and David Stern have made their standpoint, so we have to make ours. I don't know what we're going to do. If we're going to accept the deal — which I almost 100-percent guarantee we're not — and where we're going to go from there.

Whether the increasing talk of decertification is distracting: I don't know if it hurts or not. At the end of the day it's going to come down to money, and basically how much the players are willing to give up. Because the owners really aren't right now willing to give up some. We already had an offer giveback, I think it was $200-300 million. We're trying to cut their losses as much as they can. For them … we're $800 million apart. So, is the decertification distracting? To me, it's not. To me, it's an option. It's an option that some of us are going to have to discuss. If we do do it, we have to do it the right way. But hopefully we don't have to. Hopefully we can sit down like they were doing last week and, hey, let's get to a common number. The hard cap? As a player myself, no guaranteed deals — that's basically what a hard cap is; no guaranteed contracts. It's not football. It's not injuries and everything. I understand that the common thing is they don't want players that make a lot of money not playing. Look, if you were a business or you were a restaurant, you don't pay someone that you think's not [working]. We're not going to put it all on the owners. We're going to take some of the blame. But, hey, we're willing to work on it. We're just not willing to give up guaranteed contracts and $800 million.

How much was the NBPA willing to concede in basketball-related income during a collective bargaining agreement meeting Tuesday in New York: I think they offered 53, 54 [percent]. We're at 57. They're looking more in the 40s. That's a huge jump — that's over 10 percent. That's where $800 million becomes a big gap. I think we have offered $300 million and they wanted more than that. At the end of the day, some owners wouldn't mind sitting out a whole year. Some owners don't want — you can't tell me [Jerry] Buss and [James] Dolan want to sit out the whole year. They might sound like; hey that's why they get fined overtime they talk. So, at the end of the day we can't worry about them. We have to come up with our own strategy. It's going to be curious to see what Billy Hunter's coming up with.

Players appearing to lack leverage during negotiations: The perception is probably the reality. Everytime we go in, we're trying to give them more and more. Obviously, let's be honest with you: we're all well off here. We make a lot of money. For me to give back a million dollars each year, it's a lot of money. But for us to play basketball and help the game out, I'm willing to do that. But to cut everyone's contract 40 percent, I might as well sit out a whole year. I can sit out two years. That's basically what's going to happen if I gave back 40 percent of my new contract.

NBPA's frustration level: We expected this. My frustration is at a five [out of 10]. Because when I was a rookie we knew there was going to be a lockout; why would anything change? Why would they want to start now? So for me being a player rep, I'm letting everybody know: Hey, this is what they're offering. At the end of the day we're not that dumb, to be honest with you. A lot of us went to college. A lot of us graduated. A lot of us are visual learners. Billy puts it out the platform: This is what they want, and this is what they're not willing to concede.

If owners don't relent on insistence upon hard salary cap, the season won't start on time: It has to come down. No, we won't start the season. I say that for me, my vote. And I say that, just in talking to Derek Fisher, talking to Billy Hunter. I mean, to not have guaranteed deals. We're not saying we'll give it back. I think [the NBPA] even went down, to be honest with you, to 53 [percent]. I talked to Roger Mason -- 53 percent. And you know what, let's say they went down to 52, 51. If that gets the season done, I guarantee you we would have the season if that's what it takes. But it's not just that, it's a lot. And right now, the owners want a lot and they're willing to sit out. Some are losing money, some are making money.

Push by players to decertify, or is the talk being driven by agents: You've got to look at it. Right now, we're looking at different options. The only option we have right now is stand our ground, be willing to wait a season or decertify. And decertify, the knowledge I know — which I'm not a lawyer — is after a year if you decertify, then you go to the law and it waits anyway. So basically, if you're going to sit out a whole year, you might as well decertify. Now, that's my opinion; I don't know. I want to start the season on time. So my goal is, hey, whatever you need us to do, we're united. You told people to save. If people didn't save their money, then they're going to be in trouble. They're going to be calling banks and maybe teammates, because we knew this is coming.

Reports about some players being unhappy with Hunter and ready to make a change: My general impression is Billy's doing the best he can. At the end of the day the people that aren't behind him don't know what's going on. Now, am I all for Billy and everything? All I do is what Billy tells me. We basically voted for these guys to lead us. So at the end of the day, it's like me and the Phoenix Suns. Steve Nash will give me the ball, now I'm going to ride with you until the end. We hired Derek Fisher, we appointed Billy Hunter, so we have no choice. At the end of the day, I'm going to give the ball to Steve. At the end of this negotiation, the ball's in your court Billy Hunter.

Owners seeing a division within NBPA because of agents' reported push for decertification: Agents are trying to change things. Agents are basically trying to switch up the game. Make the owners squeal a little bit. Right now, the owners are saying, Hey, this is our number, we want to sit out. Do we want to call their bluff? Agents try to decertify and switch it up. A lot of them are lawyers, so they know the implications behind it if somehow we won by lawsuit. And anytime you do a lawsuit it's 50-50, you have a 50-percent chance. Is there a division? I don't know. I have an agent in Mark Bartelstein. I know what he would prefer. At the end of the day I entrust him to do my contract. I entrust Billy Hunter to get a deal done. If Billy can't get a deal done and we have to wait a whole year, I'm still entrusting him and say, hey, we have to get something done.

Bartelstein being pro-decertification: Yes, he's pro that, and he's entitled to his opinion. And I'm entitled, hey, if decertification is a decision, I'm with it. I just don't understand why Billy and the agents can't sit down and do the pros and cons. To cut agents out would be foolish. That's what they're paid to do, is to negotiate. … [Arn] Tellem, [Dan] Fegan, I don't know why we can't be on the same side. … I would tell Mark, hey, I'm riding with Billy until otherwise.

Talking with Bartelstein and asking why the groups can't have joint discussions: His discussion is, Billy met with him. I don't think they want the agents with the players. I think their stance, I don't know. … If you're asking me my personal opinion, I would say because they don't want any division. Now our whole thing is united, us being together. And at the end of the day when you're losing money at the core, which everyone would be, you better be united. If not you're going to have — which I heard about today — meetings behind the door and all that. So that's what we don't want.

Clarifying comment that he's riding with Hunter now: When I say further notice, I classify that as Billy is looking, waiting for the antitrust [NLRB?] that they served … that's his whole thing. My personal thing in talking to Billy somewhat and hearing what he says, he wants to wait that out. My whole thing is, when is that coming? Do we know? Is there a time limit for that? And we'll discuss that tomorrow. I'll very openly in discussions, hey, how long are you willing to wait that for, Billy? December? January? His whole thing is the next two weeks. I think we're waiting on that to make a decision on what we're going to do. I think he's opposed to [decertification]? No. I think he wants it to be the right timing. That's the word he used is timing. David Stern in the meetings said we keep using that as a ploy. We haven't used it as a ploy. I've never even heard Billy — Billy's opposed to that right now. It's going be curious. On Thursday, I expect it's a general meeting. Some players are going to speak up. Some players are going to say, hey, what's the game plan, Billy?

Decertification adding to the slow wait: … My thing is, let's say two months from now we're here doing these same interviews, you might as well have decertified anyway. That's my thing. I asked Billy one time, what are the negatives of decertification? … And he was kind of iffy on the answers. And that's something I'll bring up to him [tomorrow] to very openly discuss that. And he needs to discuss that. He's our leader.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazznotes/52587851-62/billy-willing-lot-hunter.html.csp

[bluebellmaniac]

Interesting article,especially if true:
http://m.ocregister.com/sports/lakers-317224-buss-nba.html

Article states the the Laker's Buss has caved in to the other owners desire for a hard salary cap. I can't imagine how the Lakers would be able to "transition" to a hard cap.

Thoughts?

[benefactor]

NBA players present unified front in labor impasse (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AuRIMD46s96BCUcsuxeMd2C8vLYF?slug=ap-nbalabor)

[Maddog]

Interesting article,especially if true:
http://m.ocregister.com/sports/lakers-317224-buss-nba.html

Article states the the Laker's Buss has caved in to the other owners desire for a hard salary cap. I can't imagine how the Lakers would be able to "transition" to a hard cap.

Thoughts?

Good news
Since the merger (1977) the number of small market teams (outside the top 10 metro areas) to win an NBA title has been......
well let's see Seattle, Portland, San Antonio............

[Bruno]

A reason to be hopeful about the lockout is that it seems that owners and players are fine with players getting 52% of the BRI. If it's true, that's a huge step in the right direction.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/09/20/labor-talks.ap/index.html

Staffs of NBA, to meet with Union tomorrow.

Stern, Hunter, & Fisher will not be in attendance, the owners are going to talk to the players without their leaders there.

I truly hope the season can start on time, doesn't look like the owners are interested in a shortened one.

[benefactor]

Leadership talks tomorrow.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AiaZzwT5kVa6onnmhX9kjuq8vLYF?slug=ap-nbalabor

[Bruno]

Per Wojnarowski twitter: no progress has been made today. Part of the training camp should be canceled very soon.

[lefty]

Per Wojnarowski twitter: no progress has been made today. Part of the training camp should be canceled very soon.
We staaaaaacked

[Dex]

:bang Bunch of overpaid little snots. How dare they not deliver something I feel I am entitled to.

[Bruno]

It's hard to have any kind of sympathy for millionaire players and billionaire owners fighting for money that either side doesn't need. It sucks for fans, who are the ones generating all that money. It sucks even more for people with a low salary and whose job is affected by this lockout.

And with at best a shortened trainign camp, Kawhi Leonard odds of getting significant minutes in his rookie year drop a lot. Fucking Pop and how he overrates trainign camp for rookies.

[timtonymanu]

It's hard to have any kind of sympathy for millionaire players and billionaire owners fighting for money that either side doesn't need. It sucks for fans, who are the ones generating all that money. It sucks even more for people with a low salary and whose job is affected by this lockout.

And with at best a shortened trainign camp, Kawhi Leonard odds of getting significant minutes in his rookie year drop a lot. Fucking Pop and how he overrates trainign camp for rookies.

:bang

It's annoying me how some of the players act like we give a shit that they are united and won't give in (Durant for example). This whole thing isn't doing any benefit for the fans. We don't want to know if you guys aren't giving in. We just want a fricking deal.

[Bruno]

First two weeks of the training camp will be cancelled tomorrow:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AmYpjKdcQlSJESJVGDQ1OIW8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_training_camp_delay_092211

If they can't find an agreement by mid October, regular seasons games will be cancelled too. :depressed

[Dex]

First two weeks of the training camp will be cancelled tomorrow:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AmYpjKdcQlSJESJVGDQ1OIW8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_training_camp_delay_092211

If they can't find an agreement by mid October, regular seasons games will be cancelled too. :depressed

Do you know if that means all regular season games, or just some? Have they announced a deadline before the entire season would be lost?

[Bruno]

Do you know if that means all regular season games, or just some? Have they announced a deadline before the entire season would be lost?

They haven't announced deadlines.

If you take the 1998-1999 lockout as reference, the deadline before cancelling the whole season will be somewhere in January.

With the first game being played on November 1st this year, they have now basically 2 weeks to find an agreement and it doesn't look good at all. Reports saying that owners and players were fine with players getting around 52% of the BRI seems false:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7005394/nba-annouce-postponement-training-camp-exhibition-games-sources-say

Stern, according to one source, told Hunter in Thursday's meeting the owners want to reduce the players' cut of basketball-related revenue to a figure well below 50 percent.

It looks like the NBA won't take the NFL road and be able to keep a full season. They are self destructing their business which is just plain dumb.

[yavozerb]

With Holt leading the owners in talks there may not be an NBA season until after 2014. The same season RJ's contract runs out.

[Dex]

With Holt leading the owners in talks there may not be an NBA season until after 2014. The same season RJ's contract runs out.

:lol

As always, thanks for the info, Bruno. :toast

[spurs10]

It's hard to have any kind of sympathy for millionaire players and billionaire owners fighting for money that either side doesn't need. It sucks for fans, who are the ones generating all that money. It sucks even more for people with a low salary and whose job is affected by this lockout.

And with at best a shortened trainign camp, Kawhi Leonard odds of getting significant minutes in his rookie year drop a lot. Fucking Pop and how he overrates trainign camp for rookies.
There will be many thousands of people that will be out of work because of the millionaire vs. billionaire feud. None of these folks have a clue what it's like to lose their rent money for the month, nor do they really give a $^^ about the guy parking cars, selling tacos,or checking tickets (despite their platitudes). I believe that a union needs to support it's workers and get the best deal possible, but at what cost your fan base, your workers, and perhaps yourself, if the owners aren't willing to cave. All of these folks have enough cash to not really care when the season starts. :(

[ElNono]

Bring back the ABA! Cut off Stern and the Gilbert-style owners and start a parallel league!

[TJastal]

With Holt leading the owners in talks there may not be an NBA season until after 2014. The same season RJ's contract runs out.

:lol

[Bruno]

http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA/status/117254064881942530


The NBA will re-evaluate the suspension of the final two weeks of October preseason games by October 1, league sources say.

http://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS/status/117565746204262400


NBA players holding another regional meeting Tuesday in Miami.

http://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS/status/117566373177212928


Many out of the loop Thurs-Fri due to Jewish holidays. Stern, Silver, Klempner, Berger.


So to sum up, both sides have two days left (Monday and Wednesday) to find an agreement before the cancellation of the full preseason. It's somewhat safe to say that the full preseason will be canceled. :depressed :depressed :depressed

[Bruno]

Some "good" news today:
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32284158

NBPA has cancelled its meeting in Miami on Tuesday. They will instead negotiate with the union that day and possibly on Wednesday too. Latest owner proposal is 46% of the BRI that is to say players taking almost a 20% pay cut.

[Giuseppe]

They'll settle it the week before the regular season starts.

[Brazil]

They'll settle it the week before the regular season starts.

hope u're right

[lmbebo]

why not change it to 50 or 51%. but put a limit on max contract length and get rid of MLEs.

effect of revenue split wouldn't matter as much if owners weren't stuck with long and expensive contracts. Granted they gave them out, but they have to compete with other teams, etc. Unless they collude and everyone refuses to offer deals longer than 3 years.

[Dex]

They'll settle it the week before the regular season starts.

Doubtful.

Once the owners and the players union come to an agreement, it will still take a while for the lawyers to pen things out and get the actual CBA ratified.

At which point, they would have to allow at least a week for Free Agency, since no team has been able to touch the free agent market yet.

Then I'd assume there would have to be some sort of training camp so rosters could be figured out and players could try to get in some sort of game shape. Can't just throw a whole bunch of players right into games unless they want the teams to end up injury-riddled.

So assuming they could fit all of that into two weeks (which is being gracious)....I'd say that leaves them about two and a half weeks to get things figured out before regular season games will start being lost.

[Leetonidas]

Looking like we're going to have a 50 game season again, if any. But at least we assess an asterisk to whomever wins the title this year, which kinda makes me hope it's the Lakers

[objective]

Today and tomorrow will show how smart or stupid the players are.

The more games they lose, the worse % they will get. The more games lost, the less revenue the league will earn as a whole for years after the public backlash in this garbage economy. Then they will make even less, as a lower % of even lower revenues will be brutal.

They can't outlast the owners, they should just recognize that and fold their hand. Take a deal now and save some income . . . but they won't because these guys probably just don't get it.

[Dex]

Today and tomorrow will show how smart or stupid the players are.

The more games they lose, the worse % they will get. The more games lost, the less revenue the league will earn as a whole for years after the public backlash in this garbage economy. Then they will make even less, as a lower % of even lower revenues will be brutal.

They can't outlast the owners, they should just recognize that and fold their hand. Take a deal now and save some income . . . but they won't because these guys probably just don't get it.

But but but, they're all united and steadfast in their resolve! :rolleyes

I didn't think it was possible to hate Derek Fisher any more, but having that douchebag at the forefront of these discussions is just the icing on the cake.

[baseline bum]

These guys don't get it? Getting it is apparently bending over and taking a huge paycut?

[Dex]

These guys don't get it? Getting it is apparently bending over and taking a huge paycut?

It's going to happen either way, whether they take the paycut now or later.

Owners have other means of income. Players don't, unless they decide to go overseas, but even then those leagues can only accept / support so many players. So yes, I believe the owners can wait out the players in this, even if that means crippling the image of the league.

It's no secret that like 70% of the teams are taking losses on profits, and the remaining 30% aren't going to just pony up to make up for that. Revenue sharing will help, but it's not the only answer, and neither is jacking up the prices of already over-priced tickets and merchandise.

The players are getting overpaid, period. I don't expect them to be happy about taking a paycut, but it is what it is. They need to be less-overpaid.

[Bruno]

Well, owners can't ask too much to players because, at the end of the day, the basis of the whole NBA business is fans paying to see great players. The $4B generated per year by the NBA are almost solely generated by the players. Without top players, NBA franchises are just empty shells worth nothing especially for the ones who don't own an arena.

If the lockout goes as far as the whole season cancelled, owners could end up as the biggest losers. Players and agents will then seriously truing to create a new league and be sure that some new rich guys will pop up to replace current owners.

[Dex]

Well, owners can't ask too much to players because, at the end of the day, the basis of the whole NBA business is fans paying to see great players. The $4B generated per year by the NBA are almost solely generated by the players. Without top players, NBA franchises are just empty shells worth nothing especially for the ones who don't own an arena.

If the lockout goes as far as the whole season cancelled, owners could end up as the biggest losers. Players and agents will then seriously truing to create a new league and be sure that some new rich guys will pop up to replace current owners.

This may be a player's league, but does that give them the right to monopolize profits to the point where the majority of teams aren't making money? If so, what gives the owners incentive to be an owner in the first place? Are they supposed to throw money out the window just so they can call themselves NBA owners?

I will readily admit that it's the bed that the owners made for themselves. They are the ones who agreed to the current CBA structure, and they are the ones who handed out all of these outrageous contracts in the first place (although some would say it was due to competitive necessity. If you wanted to be able to keep up with other teams, you almost had to bend the rules as much as possible, or go over the tax like Holt did with Jefferson).

Now that business model is failing, and they want to backtrack on those decisions. That's definitely not fair to the players. However, I'm just not sure where else adjustments can be made.

It's like they started with ten slices of pizza, told the players they could have seven slices while the owner kept three, and now they are realizing those three slices aren't enough to feed them. They want to go back and split the pie fifty-fifty, but the players are all used to having a damn pizza party now.

I can see the argument on both sides, but I guess that's why the whole thing is so complicated. If it were simple, they'd probably have reached a decision by now.

[TimmehC]

^^ The players have already offered to take deeper cuts than they did the last two times the CBA was changed(1999, 2005). The owners want them to go about 3 times further with those cuts, though. A large chunk of the league's claimed "losses" are bullshit accounting tricks anyway(financing, interest on the purchase of the team itself). Hence the impasse. I think the players would probably cave in to a 50/50 split of BRI eventually, if the league agreed to have what it considers BRI to be reviewed by the NBPA legal team regularly. But the 43% that's been offered would be the worst deal for players in any American pro sports league.

[Bruno]

The league and the union will met again tomorrow and it looks like it's going to be key meeting:
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32315251

And :lol @ Ken Berger for the cake.

[benefactor]

Sheridan weighs in.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/27/nba-lockout-update/

[SpursDynasty85]

This lockout is similar to what happened in the Debt Ceiling talks. Both parties have a side and they are taking a hard line approach. I use this analogy because like the Republicans the Owners are the ones who are causing the further delay of this thing. Republicans like the owners added to the deficit by decreasing taxes and waging war. Democrats later had to infuse more money into the economy with healthcare and financial policies. This is similar to owners giving outrageous contracts to their players. Free agents have a choice, this is America. If someone offers you that kind of money you have every right to take that money. Since when in America do you see business men saying, Okay I'll give up money, throw away this contract. It doesn't happen in the real world, why should it happen in the NBA? We all know there is a dilemma. The owners should be more transparent and they should concede that this negotiation is to be profitable going forward and not to recoup past mistakes. Those contracts were signed fair and square. But, players are willing to give up some money, but everytime they inch forward, owners scoff at their moves and say, "its our way or the high way". I expect real negotiations to start taking place around Mid November, when Owners want to see holiday games get going.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Sigh. Billionaire crooks being themselves just like the NFL owners.

"Revenue is gonna increase year to year, but we don't want to increase your pay at all for at least the next 7 years. Aren't we generous?."

[tim_duncan_fan]

Sigh. Billionaire crooks being themselves just like the NFL owners.

"Revenue is gonna increase year to year, but we don't want to increase your pay at all for at least the next 7 years. Aren't we generous?."

[Bruno]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32327585



There is a feeling among two people who have been briefed on the talks that the owners will come forward Wednesday with an enhanced version of the concepts proposed Tuesday. According to the sources, among the additions could be a proposed 50-50 revenue split, which to this point the league has not reached in terms of the players' average share over the life of a new CBA in its previous proposals.

If owners are really offering a 50-50 split, lockout could end up very quickly.

[benefactor]

:tu

Let's hope this is accurate.

[TimmehC]

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/32327585



If owners are really offering a 50-50 split, lockout could end up very quickly.

Yeah, the players should take that if they really want to have a season.

[ElNono]

This may be a player's league, but does that give them the right to monopolize profits to the point where the majority of teams aren't making money?

The majority of teams are making money. It's actually some small markets, a minority, that are not. That can be solved with better revenue sharing or contraction.

The whole "you're getting 46% of BRI" really has nothing to do with it, other than asking the players to bend over and take it.

[Dex]

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr2o9f8R6T1qhr94ko1_500.gif

Daps!

Let's hope sensible minds will prevail.

[ElNono]

I just wan ma NBA!

[Bruno]

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


Labor meeting over, and Derek Fisher says sides will meet again Friday with as many as 15 owners joining players in negotiating room.


The weekend has been left open by owners and players to keep talking here in New York, Fisher said.

Let's hope Dan Gilbert won't screw everything like the last time.

[benefactor]

Owners suggest 4 level tax system.

http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/09/28/nba-lockout-luxury-tax/

He also thinks it will be next week before a deal gets done.

[benefactor]

4 level tax system is a good idea IMO. It keeps the current soft cap while increasing revenue sharing.

[Bruno]

If they can save the whole regular season, the lockout would have been nearly harmless. Nobody cares about the preseason.

[Dex]

The majority of teams are making money. It's actually some small markets, a minority, that are not. That can be solved with better revenue sharing or contraction.

The whole "you're getting 46% of BRI" really has nothing to do with it, other than asking the players to bend over and take it.

According to Forbes reports from the 2009-2010 season, that is not the case:

http://bizofbasketball.com/images/NBAProfitsandLosses800x541.jpg
http://bizofbasketball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=843:as-nba-enters-lockout-numbers-show-why-system-is-broken&catid=42:articles-a-opinion&Itemid=57

Supporting data: http://bizofbasketball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=844&Itemid=128

While you are correct that it is mostly small-market teams that are not turning a profit, I would hardly call 56% of the league a minority. Even teams who have been successful in the last 5 years (Dallas Mavericks, Miami Heat) or teams that are lauded for their masterful front offices (San Antonio Spurs) are taking a loss.

The data is just skewed by several other large markets who ARE turning a hefty profit, despite whether they have been successful (Los Angeles Lakers), not successful (Toronto Raptors, Houston Rockets), or the joke of the league (New York Knicks).

I can't claim to know enough about the economics to say that revenue sharing will solve all of this, but I think it's pretty apparent that something has to give.

[DPG21920]

4 level tax system is a good idea IMO. It keeps the current soft cap while increasing revenue sharing.

Somewhat true, but to echo a similar point the biggest spenders in big markets can still spend and make up for the increased costs. Small market teams will now be penalized more for spending over the tax and they can't absorb that as much as an LA.

Maybe I'm over estimating how much LA is willing to spend, but I can see a Yankees type baseball disparity with the new tax system or worse.

[DesignatedT]

Sounds like it wouldn't change much tbh.

[TimmehC]

About the graph: the 09-10 Spurs season was by far their worst financially, because of the trade for a certain tiny-eared SF that pushed them way over the lux tax. Without RJ, they turn a profit somewhere in the Celts/Blazers area - it's that simple. Holt understood the implications before he OK'd the trade.

Also, :lol Otis Smith.

[DPG21920]

Either way I don't really care all that much. Spurs have a well run franchise and will adapt. I just want a season.

[ElNono]

While you are correct that it is mostly small-market teams that are not turning a profit, I would hardly call 56% of the league a minority. Even teams who have been successful in the last 5 years (Dallas Mavericks, Miami Heat) or teams that are lauded for their masterful front offices (San Antonio Spurs) are taking a loss.

The data is just skewed by several other large markets who ARE turning a hefty profit, despite whether they have been successful (Los Angeles Lakers), not successful (Toronto Raptors, Houston Rockets), or the joke of the league (New York Knicks).

I can't claim to know enough about the economics to say that revenue sharing will solve all of this, but I think it's pretty apparent that something has to give.

Dex, that's one year of the previous CBA in a overwhelming shitty economy.

Seeing that players take a % of that income, a shitty economy affects them as much as everyone else, in the form of salary cap (the old soft cap).
What that chart shows is that there's a revenue disparity that's monumental.

Asking ALL players to bend over and take it won't balance the disparity of those numbers. Only better revenue distribution will. Basically, owners are asking players to take a hit so the team that's losing the most money (Orlando in your chart) can be back in the black, but also, all the other teams get a jump too, including those that are well into the black.

I understand that Jerry Buss might not want to cut a check to the Maloofs, but there's really no other solution to spread revenue more evenly, other than contract the league and wipe the small markets.

There's also something to be said about owners making shitty decisions, but asking players to take the hit for them.

[Dex]

Dex, that's one year of the previous CBA in a overwhelming shitty economy.

Seeing that players take a % of that income, a shitty economy affects them as much as everyone else, in the form of salary cap (the old soft cap).
What that chart shows is that there's a revenue disparity that's monumental.

Asking ALL players to bend over and take it won't balance the disparity of those numbers. Only better revenue distribution will. Basically, owners are asking players to take a hit so the team that's losing the most money (Orlando in your chart) can be back in the black, but also, all the other teams get a jump too, including those that are well into the black.

I understand that Jerry Buss might not want to cut a check to the Maloofs, but there's really no other solution to spread revenue more evenly, other than contract the league and wipe the small markets.

There's also something to be said about owners making shitty decisions, but asking players to take the hit for them.

Good points. And I agree, the owners are responsible for making this mess, so I can see why the player's feel they shouldn't have to commit hari-'Seppe to fix it.

I know if my boss came to me and offered me a huge pay increase, I would take it without batting an eye. I wouldn't sit and think, "well how is this going to affect our business model down the line?" All the players were doing is taking what was offered to them under the old structure.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

When I went to NBA.COM on my phone, about two hours ago, I read an article on the headlines that said the owners have backed off the hard cap as well. But that article is longer on the website.

Anyone else read that?

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

*no longer

[Dex]

When I went to NBA.COM on my phone, about two hours ago, I read an article on the headlines that said the owners have backed off the hard cap as well. But that article is longer on the website.

Anyone else read that?

Not sure about one on NBA.com, but there is on still posted on Yahoo (found in the NBA Forum. Yes, there was actually basketball discussion in the NBA forum :wow)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AlxJFW.ViepV8oDpsMf_pai8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_meeting_092711


NEW YORK – For the first time in two years of labor talks, NBA owners made a modest push from their rigid stance on implementing a hard salary cap, league sources told Yahoo! Sports.

Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said the players will never agree to a hard cap.

The owners proposed at Tuesday’s negotiating session an idea similar to the current system that allows teams to pay a luxury tax for going over the cap. Only, now there would be ultra-punitive measures against higher-spending teams. The current system has teams pay a dollar-for-dollar tax for exceeding the cap.

Players Association executive director Billy Hunter has called the hard cap a “blood issue” for the union, and insisted the players would never agree to it.

The owners’ proposal on Tuesday “would still have the affects of a hard cap,” one source with knowledge of the talks said.

The owners didn’t budge on a desire to change the basketball-related income percentage (BRI) to a split that takes the players from 57 percent to the mid 40s, sources said. The players had offered to drop from a 57-43 split to 54-46 at a meeting last week in New York.

The two sides met for a little less than two hours on Tuesday on Manhattan’s East Side, and planned to meet again on Wednesday morning. The Players Association’s economist, Kevin Murphy, didn’t attend Tuesday’s meeting, but was traveling to New York to take part in Wednesday’s session. While the owners’ proposal was a slight upgrade, it is unlikely to move union leadership.

The owners and union both strongly suggested that Wednesday’s meeting would tell the direction of the talks. After the NBA canceled the first two weeks of training camp and preseason games last week, sources said league officials would likely suspend the last two weeks of October games by the end of this week if the two sides hadn’t made significant progress in negotiations. The NBA’s regular season starts on Nov. 1, and it’s almost certain games will soon start to be canceled without the framework of a new labor agreement.

[DPG21920]

I just think that tiered system will only result in small teams not going over the cap at all while big teams still spend just the same. The talent gap will grow much wider. Now, if the owners and players think the increased revenue sharing boost will offset that, than fine. From a basketball perspective however, the disparity between teams will grow.

[DesignatedT]

I wish the NBA would adopt a hard cap. It would level the playing field extremely, especially for a team like us who is about to hit some down years in the near future.

[wildbill2u]

Let the Spurs have a losing season or two and they will be losing money big time. Small markets just don't have the staying power financially to compete with big market teams for players.

[slick'81]

yeah im wondering what all this means for the future of the spurs

[will_spurs]

Let's hope Dan Gilbert won't screw everything like the last time.

Stern was quoted yesterday as saying that both sides were still quite apart. So there's been some progress, but apparently not enough to reach an agreement soon.

One question re: the NHL, as I was reading that the owners keeping a hard line (and wasting a whole season) brought a lot more balance to the league, with the last 6 or 7 Stanley Cup winners being different franchises. This example was used to show that if the owners have their way in the NBA, it could lead to a more balanced leagues, with more/different contenders every year.

But every time I talk to people having followed the NBA since the 70s or 80s, the impression I get is that they enjoyed having only a few teams dominating whole eras, with strong rivalries à la Lakers-Celtics.

So what would fans want? A few really strong teams leading to epic confrontations? Or a more even league, but possibly a bit diluted in terms of talent?

[boutons_deux]

"a bit diluted in terms of talent"

The 30-team NBA is already fatally diluted in talent, players AND coaching, and 2500 games/season means 2000+ games are totally meaningless, with the players going through the motions.

[Mel_13]

Stern was quoted yesterday as saying that both sides were still quite apart. So there's been some progress, but apparently not enough to reach an agreement soon.

One question re: the NHL, as I was reading that the owners keeping a hard line (and wasting a whole season) brought a lot more balance to the league, with the last 6 or 7 Stanley Cup winners being different franchises. This example was used to show that if the owners have their way in the NBA, it could lead to a more balanced leagues, with more/different contenders every year.

But every time I talk to people having followed the NBA since the 70s or 80s, the impression I get is that they enjoyed having only a few teams dominating whole eras, with strong rivalries à la Lakers-Celtics.

So what would fans want? A few really strong teams leading to epic confrontations? Or a more even league, but possibly a bit diluted in terms of talent?


The last thing the owners care about is what the fans want.

[benefactor]

The last thing the owners care about is what the fans want.
Indeed. It's like saying the US govt. actually cares what the people want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just think that tiered system will only result in small teams not going over the cap at all while big teams still spend just the same. The talent gap will grow much wider. Now, if the owners and players think the increased revenue sharing boost will offset that, than fine. From a basketball perspective however, the disparity between teams will grow.

As it stands now, small market teams don't go over the cap very often and when they do like us they barely do so. They are referring to the Lakers, Blazers, Mavericks and Knicks of the world who already go way over. Instead of paying $ for $ over for those way over some would be paying 4:1 in that top tier.

It would lessen demand thats for sure

[will_spurs]

The last thing the owners care about is what the fans want.

I was asking the question to fans here, not to owners. That could be a positive consequence of the new CBA if the league changed towards something fans actually want.

[ElNono]

I was asking the question to fans here, not to owners. That could be a positive consequence of the new CBA if the league changed towards something fans actually want.

Fans want to watch their teams and the stars. Other than here, the average fan is not interested in the economics, tbh.

[Mel_13]

Excellent article by Woj. The conclusion:

The owners have already won this fight, and it’s just a matter of how greedy they want to get. It’s Stern’s job, his moral duty, to sit the hard-line owners and empty the bench so late in a blowout. This lockout was always ending when the owners were done running up the score, and now it’s on David Stern to be the closer.

“There are two victory speeches being written up now,” one Western Conference executive said. “Stern just needs to give Hunter his.”

The message is unmistakable from the commissioner: Blink now, Billy Hunter. Keep coming with the givebacks, and I’ll still get you out of this with your arms raised in the air, with something to sell. Blink now, Stern is saying. Blink again and again. Once more, Stern’s come to bury the bodies.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ApW3HGc1l9qgTpMNSpKJkEu8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_david_stern_092911

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Excellent article by Woj. The conclusion:

The owners have already won this fight, and it’s just a matter of how greedy they want to get. It’s Stern’s job, his moral duty, to sit the hard-line owners and empty the bench so late in a blowout. This lockout was always ending when the owners were done running up the score, and now it’s on David Stern to be the closer.

“There are two victory speeches being written up now,” one Western Conference executive said. “Stern just needs to give Hunter his.”

The message is unmistakable from the commissioner: Blink now, Billy Hunter. Keep coming with the givebacks, and I’ll still get you out of this with your arms raised in the air, with something to sell. Blink now, Stern is saying. Blink again and again. Once more, Stern’s come to bury the bodies.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=ApW3HGc1l9qgTpMNSpKJkEu8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_david_stern_092911

So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?

This article is stupid.

They can decertify and as long as the players have the escape valve of Europe they have little forcing their hand either.

Wojo gives no basis for the 'victory' beyond the failure to decertify and it is just as obvious he has no notion of how antitrust lawsuits work. It certainly do4es not preclude them from suing at a later date to use that tool.

I felt that by them not decertifying it was a show of good faith.

This Wojo piece just sounds like hes a revisionist after hearing how the owners have lessened their demands.

[Mel_13]

This article is stupid.


Thanks for your feedback.

I disagree completely.

At some point, whether in a few days or next year, there will be a new a CBA. When the new agreement is signed, we'll be able to judge how accurate the writer's viewpoint was.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks for your feedback.

I disagree completely.

At some point, whether in a few days or next year, there will be a new a CBA. When the new agreement is signed, we'll be able to judge how accurate the writer's viewpoint was.

What was the basis for his claims of 'victory?'

[Mel_13]

What was the basis for his claims of 'victory?'

You led with "this article is stupid", so I don't see the basis for a dialogue. When the new CBA is signed we'll have our answers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You led with "this article is stupid", so I don't see the basis for a dialogue. When the new CBA is signed we'll have our answers.

No, I led with "So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?"

That led to the conclusion that the article was stupid.

If you are unable or unwilling to contest that issue then fine. All I read was that they failed once they failed to decertify in July and then had him repeat for about 12 paragraphs 'the owners won.'

I even looked around for some indication of a NLRB ruling, provision within the previous CBA or something indicated that the players would be precluded from earning elsewhere.

i saw nothing.

You agree with the article but it sounds more like you are anti-union and are agreeing with what amounts to a rah-rah piece. Thats great but it really posits nothing to the discussion other than indicate you are not objective whatsoever.

[Mel_13]

No, I led with "So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?"

That led to the conclusion that the article was stupid.

If you are unable or unwilling to contest that issue then fine. All I read was that they failed once they failed to decertify in July and then had him repeat for about 12 paragraphs 'the owners won.'

I even looked around for some indication of a NLRB ruling, provision within the previous CBA or something indicated that the players would be precluded from earning elsewhere.

i saw nothing.

You agree with the article but it sounds more like you are anti-union and are agreeing with what amounts to a rah-rah piece. Thats great but it really posits nothing to the discussion other than indicate you are not objective whatsoever.

I am actually pro-union, but I find the article persuasive in the conclusion that the players will lose in the new CBA. You wish to draw conclusions about my position from my lack of interest in debating the merits of the article then fine. In fact, I simply have no interest in any such debate.

I found the article interesting and I agree with the conclusions. I posted it here for those reasons. I thanked you for your feedback. Clearly you see things differently and that's fine, too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am actually pro-union, but I find the article persuasive in the conclusion that the players will lose in the new CBA. You wish to draw conclusions about my position from my lack of interest in debating the merits of the article then fine. In fact, I simply have no interest in any such debate.

I found the article interesting and I agree with the conclusions. I posted it here for those reasons. I thanked you for your feedback. Clearly you see things differently and that's fine, too.

On what basis do you agree with the conclusion? You just think the owners are going to 'win?' I am using those words in quotes because I find that their use in of itself sets the wrong paradigm to judge the outcome.

[Mel_13]

On what basis do you agree with the conclusion? You just think the owners are going to 'win?' I am using those words in quotes because I find that their use in of itself sets the wrong paradigm to judge the outcome.

Did you miss the part where I said I had no interest in a debate?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did you miss the part where I said I had no interest in a debate?

Okay so you agree with premise but you can provide no basis. Thats fine.

[Mel_13]

Okay so you agree with premise but you can provide no basis. Thats fine.

:lol

Whatever floats your boat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

Whatever floats your boat.

Hey having an opinion is fine but I see no basis for it have explained why and you have provided no basis. You say you dont want to thats fine.

[Mel_13]

You say you dont want to thats fine.

Gee, thanks.

[Dex]

Let's stop this fighting and just gander at this for a while:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6160029516_cdc4f71e8d_o.gif

[will_spurs]

Did you miss the part where I said I had no interest in a debate?

So you link to an article, claim it's great, and don't want to discuss it any further? I suggest you get a Twitter account.

[Mel_13]

So you link to an article, claim it's great, and don't want to discuss it any further? I suggest you get a Twitter account.

I had no interest in discussing it with someone who had dismissed the article as stupid. As I stated, I saw no basis for a dialogue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I had no interest in discussing it with someone who had dismissed the article as stupid. As I stated, I saw no basis for a dialogue.

I did not just dismiss it as stpid. I said specifically that the only basis for his claims of 'victory' was the players not decertifying and that that position was stupid.

Decertifying only takes it out of the hands of the NLRB and relinquishes the right to collectively bargain. No collective bargaining means no deal making. Thus the term bargaining in the name.

Thing is there is no statute of limitations and they can still decertify so that they can sue antitrust as individuals at any time they want.

Clearly i did not just dismiss it. In fact once you started to become petulant, I even asked if there was any other basis for a claim or point that I may have missed. I did not out and out dismiss the possibility that I may have missed something.

You provide nothing then you started with this routine.

The article stated that they failed to decertify and by doing so failed to cut the owners off from money so they sealed their fate of losing. I have been asking how that is possible and discussed specifically why that is not the case and why Wojo clearly seems to have no idea of the mechanics of the process or the history across various leagues from this type of thing.

Thats not a dismissal but rather a basis for a conclusion.

You have no basis.

[Giuseppe]

The owners hit with a stunning right with the hard cap decision. They got Buss to sign off on it (after a fashion) in broad daylight and that scared the shit out of the players. And it should. A hard cap freezes and confines the $ in a small room/owners go to that room, Stern gives them their quota and owner passes it on to the player. Nice & neat and it's so precise. That sucks for the players and is unmistakeable for the owners. Were they ever really serious about a hard cap? Probably not, but, the players have no where to go with such a cap. It's a death knell.

[Mel_13]

I did not just dismiss it as stpid. I said specifically that the only basis for his claims of 'victory' was the players not decertifying and that that position was stupid. .

You do realize that your earlier posts are still visible?

Your first words on the subject:


So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?

This article is stupid.

Then, when I imprecisely restated your first post there was:


No, I led with "So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?"

That led to the conclusion that the article was stupid.



As to this:

In fact once you started to become petulant.

Now there’s a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. The multiple passive-aggressive, dare I say petulant, statements were all yours:


If you are unable or unwilling to contest that issue then fine.


You agree with the article but it sounds more like you are anti-union and are agreeing with what amounts to a rah-rah piece. Thats great but it really posits nothing to the discussion other than indicate you are not objective whatsoever.


Hey having an opinion is fine but I see no basis for it have explained why and you have provided no basis. You say you dont want to thats fine.

All that just because I chose not to debate the merits of the article with you.

Even to the end:


You provide nothing then you started with this routine.


You have no basis.


Then we come to this:


Decertifying only takes it out of the hands of the NLRB and relinquishes the right to collectively bargain. No collective bargaining means no deal making. Thus the term bargaining in the name.

Thing is there is no statute of limitations and they can still decertify so that they can sue antitrust as individuals at any time they want.

Clearly i did not just dismiss it. In fact once you started to become petulant, I even asked if there was any other basis for a claim or point that I may have missed. I did not out and out dismiss the possibility that I may have missed something.

You provide nothing then you started with this routine.


The article stated that they failed to decertify and by doing so failed to cut the owners off from money so they sealed their fate of losing. I have been asking how that is possible and discussed specifically why that is not the case and why Wojo clearly seems to have no idea of the mechanics of the process or the history across various leagues from this type of thing.

Thats not a dismissal but rather a basis for a conclusion.

You have no basis.

This is really what it was all about for you. You clearly have some specialized, perhaps even expert, knowledge on the subject of labor relations. It appears that you really wanted to share that expertise with the board. Apparently, you did not want to deliver a lecture or simply do a point-by-point critique of the article itself. You wanted a debate partner so that you could impart your knowledge in the form of a dialogue, thus the provocative tone and persistent baiting.

Well, now you’ve delivered your lecture. I hope that makes you feel better

[Maddog]

About the graph: the 09-10 Spurs season was by far their worst financially, because of the trade for a certain tiny-eared SF that pushed them way over the lux tax. Without RJ, they turn a profit somewhere in the Celts/Blazers area - it's that simple. Holt understood the implications before he OK'd the trade.

Also, :lol Otis Smith.
This is true- Holt took a hit- knowing they would be over the cap- It was becoming clear that to compete you had to exceed and that the past strategy of being able to compete and be below the cap was gone. I remember him saying that the small profits in the past few years enabled them to do it.
HOWEVER
The Lakers in 09/10 had a payroll 13 million more than the Spurs and made a huge profit (>30 million) and the Spurs lost money despite having high attendance. This imbalance in profits will probably even worse looking at the local TV deals now being done.

[ace3g]

Meeting just hit the 3 hr mark; good or bad?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You do realize that your earlier posts are still visible?

Your first words on the subject:

Then, when I imprecisely restated your first post there was:

As to this:

Now there’s a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. The multiple passive-aggressive, dare I say petulant, statements were all yours:

All that just because I chose not to debate the merits of the article with you.

Even to the end:

Then we come to this:

This is really what it was all about for you. You clearly have some specialized, perhaps even expert, knowledge on the subject of labor relations. It appears that you really wanted to share that expertise with the board. Apparently, you did not want to deliver a lecture or simply do a point-by-point critique of the article itself. You wanted a debate partner so that you could impart your knowledge in the form of a dialogue, thus the provocative tone and persistent baiting.

Well, now you’ve delivered your lecture. I hope that makes you feel better

Cherry picking particular quotes and then trying to use that as the basis of my contention is pretty damn weak. This passive aggressive nonsense is even worse.

I said that the article was stupid and yes I did come to that conclusion however the basis of the dismissal was lack of anything substantive by Wojo other than the union failed to decertify for his position. If i had just dismissed it as stupid then I would have just said that "This article is stupid," and left it at that.

You can try and truncate my posts but that is just misrepresenting what i said.

What I wanted was for you to explain the basis of your position of how it was a good article. You made that claim. I really have no idea what the basis is and I have no idea if that would pertain to how I view the situation.

Three may be an issue with the NLRB, whatever court the players would file in or any manner of issue that I missed.

The reason why i kept restating my position --and that final summation was nothing new in the discussion-- was to see if you had any additional information beyond what i saw. A debate requires a judge to have any meaning. I am looking for an exchange of ideas.

You do not apparently have any additional information.

[Mel_13]

I am looking for an exchange of ideas.

Someone looking for an exchange of ideas would have entered the discussion with something other than:


So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?

This article is stupid.

You wanted something else entirely. Sorry if I won't oblige. It's really time to move on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone looking for an exchange of ideas would have entered the discussion with something other than:



You wanted something else entirely. Sorry if I won't oblige. It's really time to move on.

The quote was:


So they didn't decertify immediately and that doomed them?

This article is stupid.

They can decertify and as long as the players have the escape valve of Europe they have little forcing their hand either.

Wojo gives no basis for the 'victory' beyond the failure to decertify and it is just as obvious he has no notion of how antitrust lawsuits work. It certainly do4es not preclude them from suing at a later date to use that tool.

I felt that by them not decertifying it was a show of good faith.

This Wojo piece just sounds like hes a revisionist after hearing how the owners have lessened their demands.

You can sit there and try and misquote me all day long but I very obviously did not just say it was stupid and leave it at that no matter how many times you can try and characterize it as such.

That you continue to do it is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said passive aggressive.

[Mel_13]

You can sit there and try and misquote me all day long but I very obviously did not just say it was stupid and leave it at that no matter how many times you can try and characterize it as such.

That you continue to do it is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said passive aggressive.

:lmao

I didn't say that you only said that. You said that and more. Enough for it to be obvious that you reject great parts, if not all, of the article. See my response to your first post in this exchange. I thanked you for responding and let you know I was content to watch events unfold. I've told you numerous times since then that I see no basis for a dialogue on the subject of the article. There is no point. You rejected an article by a national NBA writer with insider access. There is nothing I could say re: the contents of the article that could possibly dissuade you from your point of view. Why you want to engage in a discussion with someone that has repeatedly declined your attempts to engage him is completely beyond me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

I didn't say that you only said that. You said that and more. Enough for it to be obvious that you reject great parts, if not all, of the article. See my response to your first post in this exchange. I thanked you for responding and let you know I was content to watch events unfold. I've told you numerous times since then that I see no basis for a dialogue on the subject of the article. There is no point. You rejected an article by a national NBA writer with insider access. There is nothing I could say re: the contents of the article that could possibly dissuade you from your point of view. Why you want to engage in a discussion with someone that has repeatedly declined your attempts to engage him is completely beyond me.

I rejected it for very clear points and not just 'its stupid.'

For someone that is intent on not debating you sure seem intent on characterizing my argument.

What great parts of the article? Or you not going to stand behind that statement either?

[Mel_13]

I rejected it for very clear points and not just 'its stupid.'

For someone that is intent on not debating you sure seem intent on characterizing my argument.

What great parts of the article? Or you not going to stand behind that statement either?

smh

[Cane]

Wojina's articles can be entertaining but I wouldn't call them excellent....they're only "excellent" if you happen to agree with what he's bashing at the time ;)

[TimmehC]

Troll Job of the Week, tbh imho.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

smh

I have been doing that for awhile.

You still think it was good article?

[Mel_13]

I have been doing that for awhile.

You still think it was good article?

:lol

You still care what I think?

[Mel_13]

Derek Fisher: "We did not come out of here with a deal today, but we will be back here at 10 a.m."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

You still care what I think?

Why not?

[Mel_13]

Why not?

:lol

My opinion of the article remains unchanged.

[Spurs Brazil]

Labor Talks Will Resume At 10 AM Saturday
Sep 30, 2011 7:03 PM EDT

Derek Fisher and the players exited a Friday meeting with the owners that lasted nearly five hours and immediately addressed the media.

"We did not come out with a deal today," said Fisher. "We will be back at 10 am tomorrow."

Fisher said no proposals were exchanged and there were no threats to cancel the season. He also indicated that he does not believe the sides are any closer to agreeing to a deal than they were on Wednesday and that talks were contentious at times.

"We can't continue to go down any path without making sure it's a fair way to go," said Fisher.

One source from inside the meeting told an associate that there was a 'sense of cooperation' during the day.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215797/Labor_Talks_Will_Resume_At_10_AM_Saturday#ixzz1ZTs cSccM

[slick'81]

best news coming out in a while well know by sunday whats gonna go down

[Bruno]

From what I've understood, the biggest problem is the revenue sharing between owners. Once owners have solved this, getting a new CBA would be way easier.

Even if as a Spurs fan, it isn't my best interest, I'm siding with big market owners on the revenue sharing issue. The whole "all 30 teams must have an equal chance of winning it all" is quite BS to me. If you want that the NBA generates as much money as possible, big markets should have great teams. Allowing them to spend more is a logical way to ensure that.

If small marker owners continue like that, they will drag the NBA to the ground. They must accept that big market teams having an edge on their teams is logical and is good for the NBA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I've understood, the biggest problem is the revenue sharing between owners. Once owners have solved this, getting a new CBA would be way easier.

Even if as a Spurs fan, it isn't my best interest, I'm siding with big market owners on the revenue sharing issue. The whole "all 30 teams must have an equal chance of winning it all" is quite BS to me. If you want that the NBA generates as much money as possible, big markets should have great teams. Allowing them to spend more is a logical way to ensure that.

If small marker owners continue like that, they will drag the NBA to the ground. They must accept that big market teams having an edge on their teams is logical and is good for the NBA.

The NFL has the greatest amount of revenue sharing in the American professional leagues.

The NFL grosses $9B versus the $5B that the NBA makes.

Why exactly is the greater revenue sharing not dragging the Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots down instead of making them the most profitable sports franchises in the US?

Thats logic.

Affirming your own assertion is not.

[Ditty]

Per Woj:

From the NBA and union labor meeting today, there's been "progress" says source in the room. No details offered. Groups still meeting.

[objective]

NFL owners laugh at NBA owners. And it's not about revenue sharing.

NFL players have shorter careers, make less money, have fewer endorsement opportunities across the board with their faces obscured unless they're QBs or have identifying features on the field (Polamalu's hair), have much worse post-career health problems . . .

And they only get 50% of the revenue that's available after giving up more than a billion off the top and help the teams pay for financing new stadiums if I recall correctly.

If you're an NBA owner, how can you accept paying more than 50% to your players? They have longer careers, make more money, have more guaranteed contracts, don't have close to the same degenerative diseases as the footballers, get more opportunities for endorsements with all their facetime, and they cause headaches and more expenses for the owners of today than of yesterday (like when a player runs into the crowd to attack an innocent person and starts a riot, causing NBA teams to sacrifice a portion of alcohol sales and spend more money on security).

Owners will be better off closing the league down for as long as it takes than pay the players more than 50%.

[Buddy Holly]

From what I've understood, the biggest problem is the revenue sharing between owners. Once owners have solved this, getting a new CBA would be way easier.

Even if as a Spurs fan, it isn't my best interest, I'm siding with big market owners on the revenue sharing issue. The whole "all 30 teams must have an equal chance of winning it all" is quite BS to me. If you want that the NBA generates as much money as possible, big markets should have great teams. Allowing them to spend more is a logical way to ensure that.

If small marker owners continue like that, they will drag the NBA to the ground. They must accept that big market teams having an edge on their teams is logical and is good for the NBA.

You should have checked the NFL's revenue sharing before writing this bs.

[Bruno]

You should have checked the NFL's revenue sharing before writing this bs.

The BS part is comparing Football with Basketball. Football is so much more popular than Basketball that the NFL can still be a highly profitable league even if they are doing a lot of non-optimal choice. For example, even the crappiest Superbowl matchup generates crazy ratings while the NBA finale ratings really suffer of a bad matchup (see 2007).

The NBA having a great 2010-2011 year mainly because of the three amigos is another proof that the NBA will generate more money with some great teams instead of having 30 good but not great teams.

[DMC]

What Bruno is saying is true, but only because the people tend to want to watch flashy winners and they gravitate toward the same few successful, high profile players and teams.

[wildbill2u]

Bruno:

What you are proposing is similar to the business plan of the Harlem Globetrotters. All the names/stars on one team while the other team is the designated loser. It's a fine business plan if you only care about keeping the stars under contract--and playing one night stands in town after town.

No one would come out night after night to pay to see their hometown version of the Washington Capitals get beat. Eventually the small market teams would wither away and there goes the league.

If you want proof, all you have to do is remember how close San Antonio came to losing the Spurs after a few years of bad teams led to a loss in fan support.

[Warlord23]

The BS part is comparing Football with Basketball. Football is so much more popular than Basketball that the NFL can still be a highly profitable league even if they are doing a lot of non-optimal choice.

As a fan of both the NBA and the NFL, the parity of the NFL is a big reason why I try to take in as many NFL games as possible. On any given Sunday, at least 60% of NFL games are competitive and worth following. In contrast, I tend to follow fewer games in the NBA. Apart from Spurs games, only about 20% of the other games interest me on an average.

Every NFL season is different, because different teams can emerge and contend for their division in different years. By contrast, bottom-feeding NBA teams will almost certainly never rise to the top unless they luck out on a once-in-a-generation talent.

As a result, the fanbases of lower-tier NBA teams will never have a chance to grow. I have a hard time seeing teams like the Bucks, Bobcats or Clippers ever having a large, devoted fanbase. Whereas almost every NFL team will have a devoted following even if their team loses 75% of their games, because they know that all it takes is 2 years to rebuild and contend for the division.

[Bruno]

Bruno:

What you are proposing is similar to the business plan of the Harlem Globetrotters. All the names/stars on one team while the other team is the designated loser. It's a fine business plan if you only care about keeping the stars under contract--and playing one night stands in town after town.

No one would come out night after night to pay to see their hometown version of the Washington Capitals get beat. Eventually the small market teams would wither away and there goes the league.

If you want proof, all you have to do is remember how close San Antonio came to losing the Spurs after a few years of bad teams led to a loss in fan support.

Well, it works in Europe where a lot of sport leagues generate tons of money while they have a huge disparity between the level of theirs teams. I'm saying that there should have a huge disparity between NBA teams but a league can work well with teams not having the same level.

Lakers have signed a $3B TV contract over 20 years. Buss giving that money to teams like Spurs to make a more fair league while a more fair league will generate less money is crazy.

Like it or not but the NBA needs to have great team playing in the biggest market to be successful if it want to generate as much money as possible.

[Bruno]

As a fan of both the NBA and the NFL, the parity of the NFL is a big reason why I try to take in as many NFL games as possible. On any given Sunday, at least 60% of NFL games are competitive and worth following. In contrast, I tend to follow fewer games in the NBA. Apart from Spurs games, only about 20% of the other games interest me on an average.

Every NFL season is different, because different teams can emerge and contend for their division in different years. By contrast, bottom-feeding NBA teams will almost certainly never rise to the top unless they luck out on a once-in-a-generation talent.

As a result, the fanbases of lower-tier NBA teams will never have a chance to grow. I have a hard time seeing teams like the Bucks, Bobcats or Clippers ever having a large, devoted fanbase. Whereas almost every NFL team will have a devoted following even if their team loses 75% of their games, because they know that all it takes is 2 years to rebuild and contend for the division.

I'm not looking at what is the best for a fan or what is the more fair, I'm looking at what is the most efficient business wise.

Business wise, having devoted fanbase in small markets brings little. Just look at the Spurs: a lot of success and a devoted fanbase, are Spurs generating a lot of money? I don't think so.

[Bill_Brasky]

Bruno knows what's up. You can't compare two sports, it's apples and oranges.

[Ditty]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/nba-meetings-resume-saturday-14645107

Players' association vice president Maurice Evans said things were "going pretty good" as he left the meetings to catch a flight.

[objective]

Lakers have signed a $3B TV contract over 20 years. Buss giving that money to teams like Spurs to make a more fair league while a more fair league will generate less money is crazy.




doesn't it seem like the reverse for Buss and the Spurs is also true? Unless I'm mistaken about which monies are counted towards BRI . . . How fair is it for a small market team like the Spurs or the Bucks to have Laker and Knick tv deals blowing up the BRI disproportionately?

Now because of that LA and NY money into the pool the Spurs and small market teams have to pay up more of their smaller revenues to meet the % guaranteed to the players. Thanks to that NY and LA money the cap is higher, the floor is higher, everything if higher but the small market teams have to foot their share of the bill while getting none of the food on the table.

[objective]

looks like EDIT "'some closing of gaps but remember how large gaps were to begin with'" per tweets about what Bonner has to say. No meeting tomorrow.

This case is getting CLOSED, goodbye full 11/12 season.

[objective]

per tweets

Fisher : "still huge gaps."

Union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler: No discussion of BRI today, just system. Back at it Monday in small groups.

Larry Coon : "With insufficient progress today & no meeting tomorrow, I think we pretty much lost what little chance there was of starting season 11/1."

Wrap it up folks, this season is looking finished.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The BS part is comparing Football with Basketball. Football is so much more popular than Basketball that the NFL can still be a highly profitable league even if they are doing a lot of non-optimal choice. For example, even the crappiest Superbowl matchup generates crazy ratings while the NBA finale ratings really suffer of a bad matchup (see 2007).

The NBA having a great 2010-2011 year mainly because of the three amigos is another proof that the NBA will generate more money with some great teams instead of having 30 good but not great teams.

The two go hand in hand. A bad NBA matchup is much more lopsided than a bad NFL matchup. The NBA cultivates much more hype on individuals and big market teams. They make their own bed and suck in it.

The NBA had a great year compared to itself not to anyone else. The NFL develops similar hype with the actions of Philadelphia and make nearly twice as much. Fact is that the MLB, NBA model of income disparity has looked like shit compared to the egalitarian approach of the NFL.

You have no empirical basis whatsoever.

[timtonymanu]

What's the point of having these long, outstretched meetings if there always gonna come out saying, "We're still far apart,"? Waste of time.

[Warlord23]

I'm not looking at what is the best for a fan or what is the more fair, I'm looking at what is the most efficient business wise.

Business wise, having devoted fanbase in small markets brings little. Just look at the Spurs: a lot of success and a devoted fanbase, are Spurs generating a lot of money? I don't think so.

Yes the Spurs (and other small markets) aren't generating enough income. But the NFL is profitable even in small markets because of overall popularity. So Jacksonville, Tennessee, Minnesota, Carolina, Buffalo etc all make money. Whereas most small-market NBA teams will not become profitable if all they can do is throw money at second-tier stars to make the 2nd round of the playoffs once every 4 years.

[Bruno]

doesn't it seem like the reverse for Buss and the Spurs is also true? Unless I'm mistaken about which monies are counted towards BRI . . . How fair is it for a small market team like the Spurs or the Bucks to have Laker and Knick tv deals blowing up the BRI disproportionately?

Now because of that LA and NY money into the pool the Spurs and small market teams have to pay up more of their smaller revenues to meet the % guaranteed to the players. Thanks to that NY and LA money the cap is higher, the floor is higher, everything if higher but the small market teams have to foot their share of the bill while getting none of the food on the table.

That's a good point but while local TV revenues aren't shared, national TV revenues are. When you see how much they are on national Tv and their ratings, Lakers surely deserve a bigger share of the money than teams like Bucks or Bobcats.

Most of the small market teams spend too a lot more than the minimum team salary (75% of the cap). Even if big market teams push them to spend more, they aren't cornered to the point of spending as little money as the CBA allowed it.

For the future, I'm convinced that the natural way to solve this small market dilemma would be to move these teams to Europe.

[Bruno]

And :bang for the results of today's meeting.
Could we have a season, please?

[DPG21920]

It just sucks that both parties know their acceptable limits but the owner's (even though they have an idea of what is fair and what they are willing to do) have the leverage and no real need to rush in and make the deal. They can withstand this longer than the players and even though reaching a deal should be relatively simple and obtainable, there is no need for it besides the fact both sides just wanting to reach a fair compromise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it works in Europe where a lot of sport leagues generate tons of money while they have a huge disparity between the level of theirs teams. I'm saying that there should have a huge disparity between NBA teams but a league can work well with teams not having the same level.

Lakers have signed a $3B TV contract over 20 years. Buss giving that money to teams like Spurs to make a more fair league while a more fair league will generate less money is crazy.

Like it or not but the NBA needs to have great team playing in the biggest market to be successful if it want to generate as much money as possible.

Its funny you bring up Europe. Lets look at the top sports franchises in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45fdhk/no-1-manchester-united

Sure enough Manchester United is tops with Arsenal, Chelsea and Real Madrid sprinkled throughout. Funny thing is that every NFL team is on that list.

So you can have a handful of teams have success in an completely free market environment such as you see in European soccer. No drafts and the like there btw. Or you can have universal success of the NFL.

Monopolization of a market is not a good thing. Maybe they don't teach that in France but they sure as hell do here.

[ElNono]

Actually, the disparity of Euro soccer has really been draining and killing the actual sport. Soccer specifically, you have the top two leagues in Europe, Spain and England (lol Italy), are basically a two, three at most, pony race right now.

In Spain, half of the teams are broke and it's the exact same problem: Madrid and Barça get the bulk of the TV contract and little teams get pennies. I'm sure Madrid and Barça are maximizing revenue, but they're killing the league in the process.

Add up the top teams joining forces to destabilize FIFA so they don't have to lend players to National Teams and at some point fans are just going to have enough and tune them out.

If NBA owners had their way, 3/4 of that French team that just qualified for the Olympics wouldn't have played. I'm pretty sure that players didn't make much money on that, but I'm also pretty sure French fans are pretty happy that they were able to play and represent the country like they did. And that's the sport right there. It can't be always about maximizing revenue.

[The_Worlds_finest]

Boo whooo the owners are smart with their money...:depressed
(but i agree interest on debt is not the players problem)

Patrick Ewing said "Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too."

Latrell Sprewell
Look up the word “shortsighted” in the dictionary and you will see a picture of Latrell Sprewell. He famously turned down a $21 million contract because he said it wasn’t enough money to feed his family. Sprewell, who made over $96 million during his career, lost his $1.5 million dollar Italian yacht, named “Milwaukee’s Best”, in 2007. According to MSNBC, a U.S. marshal seized the yacht after Sprewell defaulted on his mortgage. His $5.4 million house went into foreclosure in May 2008. Don’t blame Sprewell for turning down the three-year, $21 million contract though. I mean really, who could live off a measly $7 million a year?


Kenny Anderson
Ringing up nearly $41,000 in monthly expenses, including child support to eight kids and his mother’s house payment, former NBA guard Kenny Anderson filed for bankruptcy in October 2005. How did his estimated $60 million dwindle to nothing? Easy. He kept 8 cars in the garage of his five-bedroom Beverly Hills home. He gave himself a monthly allowance of $10,000 that he dubbed “hanging out money.” He regularly handed out $3,000 to $5,000 to friends and relatives. Finally, he lost $5.8 million in a prenup agreement. Anderson, it seems, could not hold a dollar if it was taped to his forehead.

Scotty Pippen
Pippen unsuccessfully sued his former law firm for losing $27 million of his money through poor investments. (He had earned about $110 million in salary alone over a 17-year career.) In February 2007—around the same time as Pippen’s failed NBA comeback attempt—the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the player owed U.S. Bank more than $5 million in principal, interest and attorneys’ fees from a dispute regarding a Grumman Gulfstream II corporate jet that he’d purchased in 2001. Speculation has been that Pippen cannot withstand the lawsuits financially and needs to play again to make his bills.

[Duncan2177]

Agents issue warning letter to clients

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7055538/nba-agents-group-warns-clients-joint-memo

[Dex]

A little Spurs-related Lockout News, albeit from a fan perspective:


NBA lockout won’t speed Tim Duncan’s retirement: Fan’s take

By Lisa Mason, Yahoo! Contributor Network 2 hours, 32 minutes ago

It's the worst-case scenario for San Antonio— this NBA lockout swallows all of the 2011-2012 basketball season and then star Tim Duncan(notes) retires. It's been said and said before, but will it happen?

While no one can say for certain (except Duncan himself and perhaps his agent), it doesn't look like this will happen, at least not anytime soon. Duncan's contract is set to expire after this season and many have questioned time and time again if he will retire at the end of the contract.

While most would deem it perfectly acceptable for Duncan to accept retirement after the many great years he has put in, Spurs fans are not eager to see him go, especially when the team still so desperately needs its aging stars.

If Duncan resigns after this contract ends, he will be 36 years old. This is not old at all by normal standards but in the pro basketball world, he is getting on up there.

The topic was brought up back in May and Coach Pop said he didn't think such a thing would happen. He offered his opinion that Duncan had most certainly not played his last game in a Spurs uniform and that he would be back for future seasons.

But Pop isn't the only one convinced that Duncan isn't going anywhere just yet. His point guard for the past 10 seasons, Tony Parker(notes) said at a basketball clinic in San Antonio on Saturday, October 1st that he doesn't think Duncan will be retiring so soon either.

"I don't know. I don't think so," Parker said. "I see myself playing at least two or three more seasons with Timmy."

That's good news from Parker for Spurs fans and while it's definitely unofficial news, it's good nonetheless.

More good news from Parker is that he believes the NBA will be back in action soon, despite much of the doom and gloom talk coming from others in regards to the labor talks and the NBA lockout. Perhaps Parker was just feeling a little extra peppy this Saturday or maybe, just maybe, his predictions will be right and we'll all get to witness some great basketball soon!

Lisa is a youth basketball coach, resident of Texas and long-time fan of the San Antonio Spurs and Silver Stars.

[Bruno]

Looks like tomorrow will be the huge day and the last realistic day to have full regular season. If they can't find or at least be close to an agreement, the lockout will be long and ugly like in 98-99.

[Mel_13]

Agents issue warning letter to clients

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7055538/nba-agents-group-warns-clients-joint-memo

The players are so screwed.


Looks like tomorrow will be the huge day and the last realistic day to have full regular season. If they can't find or at least be close to an agreement, the lockout will be long and ugly like in 98-99.

This only ends early if the players cave and they don't look ready to do that right now. It looks like we're headed to long and ugly.

:(

[Bruno]

Agents issue warning letter to clients

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7055538/nba-agents-group-warns-clients-joint-memo

Good luck with that:

The agents also suggest to their clients in the letter that they demand to see the complete financial records of the owners over the past six seasons -- the period covered by the last labor pact, which was essentially an extension of the one negotiated in 1999 -- including their "related entities (such as regional sports networks and arenas)."

Stern and owners main argument for seeking huge paycut form players is that they have lost tons of money every year since they agreed to the last CBA in 2005.

An immediate question pop up:
Why owners have agreed so easily to such an awful CBA in 2005 ?

There are only 2 answers:
1) Owners are the worst bunch of businessmen of the world.
2) Owners are flat out lying when claiming such big losses. these are just accounting figures.

I'm going with 2). I'm' sure owners aren't fine with people looking to closely at their numbers. They played the clock with the NBAPA by giving them only partial numbers and only very late in the negotiating process. If NRLB has had access to all the numbers, owners will be screwed when this process will come to an end.

[Mel_13]

Good luck with that:


Stern and owners main argument for seeking huge paycut form players is that they have lost tons of money every year since they agreed to the last CBA in 2005.

An immediate question pop up:
Why owners have agreed so easily to such an awful CBA in 2005 ?

There are only 2 answers:
1) Owners are the worst bunch of businessmen of the world.
2) Owners are flat out lying when claiming such big losses. these are just accounting figures.

I'm going with 2). I'm' sure owners aren't fine with people looking to closely at their numbers. They played the clock with the NBAPA by giving them only partial numbers and only very late in the negotiating process. If NRLB has had access to all the numbers, owners will be screwed when this process will come to an end.

http://oels.byu.edu/student/idioms/idioms/images/hit_nail_on_head.jpg

[Bruno]

This only ends early if the players cave and they don't look ready to do that right now. It looks like we're headed to long and ugly.


Well players wants 53/47 and owners 46/54 of the BRI for the players. I can see owners offering 50/50 pretending they do that to save the season. In fact, a 50/50 split would be a great victory for owners with players cutting their salary by 12.3%. And a 50/50 split without an official hard cap would look good enough to be voted by the players.

[objective]

Good for the players for refusing to accept less than 53% of what could be 75% of of former revenue after revenue plummets due to fan and sponsor backlash after at least half a season is lost.

[Dex]

I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...

They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.

And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous: it may dilute the talent pool for a while, but other people can learn to play and be stars in basketball. It's not like these guys are the only people capable of learning how to throw an orange ball in a basket, especially if they spend their working-lives training to do it. And I'm also pretty sure people would rather have a diluted season than no season at all.

I understand this whole "standing unified" is part of the negotiating deal, but if they want to drive that bus straight off a cliff, then that will be their folly.

[Mel_13]

Well players wants 53/47 and owners 46/54 of the BRI for the players. I can see owners offering 50/50 pretending they do that to save the season. In fact, a 50/50 split would be a great victory for owners with players cutting their salary by 12.3%. And a 50/50 split without an official hard cap would look good enough to be voted by the players.

All true. The players will have to cave to get this done. The scenario you outline is probably the most optimistic one for an early resolution. (and when you look at the financial interests of most of the current members of the union, it's probably the best they can do)

[Bruno]

And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous

Well, it's more ludicrous that the idea of these owners getting replaced.

[Mel_13]

I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...

They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.



I assume that the players believe that they are in the right on most of the issues. I know I believe that they are. Their problem, as you point out, is that the owners have the leverage.

That won't change absent a ruling for the players from the NLRB or a federal court. While they wait for that, most of the season will be lost along with earnings that they'll never recoup.

I know people don't have much sympathy for millionaire athletes, but they're getting screwed by billionaire owners.

[Giuseppe]

All true. The players will have to cave to get this done. The scenario you outline is probably the most optimistic one for an early resolution. (and when you look at the financial interests of most of the current members of the union, it's probably the best they can do)

Matzel, Matzel, good things.

[Dex]

I assume that the players believe that they are in the right on most of the issues. I know I believe that they are. Their problem, as you point out, is that the owners have the leverage.

That won't change absent a ruling for the players from the NLRB or a federal court. While they wait for that, most of the season will be lost along with earnings that they'll never recoup.

I know people don't have much sympathy for millionaire athletes, but they're getting screwed by billionaire owners.

I agree, it sucks for the players. It's absolutely unfair. Despite whether they are or aren't overpaid (I think they are, but I think all sports athletes are), they are having to makeup for owners mistakes by giving up money that was contractually obligated to them. For lack of other terms, it's bullshit.

However, I think that at this point, there's not much of a way around it. The players need to be in damage control mode at this point, and try to get away from it with the best deal they can, even if it's not the deal they wanted originally. Otherwise, the owners will stretch this out and make it as painful as they need to until the players cave.

Ethical or not, the billionaires can hold their hands and keep their chips, and just wait for the millionaires to fold.

[Mel_13]

I agree, it sucks for the players. It's absolutely unfair. Despite whether they are or aren't overpaid (I think they are, but I think all sports athletes are), they are having to makeup for owners mistakes by giving up money that was contractually obligated to them. For lack of other terms, it's bullshit.

However, I think that at this point, there's not much of a way around it. The players need to be in damage control mode at this point, and try to get away from it with the best deal they can, even if it's not the deal they wanted originally. Otherwise, the owners will stretch this out and make it as painful as they need to until the players cave.

Ethical or not, the billionaires can hold their hands and keep their chips, and just wait for the millionaires to fold.

Also hitting the nail on the head.

[Dex]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bleacherreport/2011/10/03/nba-lockout-why-the-nba-is-a-lock-to-end-the-lockout-soon/

Good article regarding the current state of things. The title is a little optimistic for the content, but still a good overview of what both sides want and where both sides are at.

[ElNono]

I don't see why decertification isn't an option for the players, should they decide to go that route. Not different to what the NFL players did, and the stakes for the owners would be pretty big. Not to mention that there's a fairly fresh precedent set by the NFL players.

You guys keep talking about the owners having all the chips, but good luck playing with replacement players. We'll see if the Lakeshow isn't going to lose that $3 billion TV deal if they play some scrubs instead of Kobe and co. There's a lot of money in play here from both sides.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...

They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.

And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous: it may dilute the talent pool for a while, but other people can learn to play and be stars in basketball. It's not like these guys are the only people capable of learning how to throw an orange ball in a basket, especially if they spend their working-lives training to do it. And I'm also pretty sure people would rather have a diluted season than no season at all.

I understand this whole "standing unified" is part of the negotiating deal, but if they want to drive that bus straight off a cliff, then that will be their folly.

The owners wanted to and got a renegotiation of the 1999 deal in 2005. They were muttering about lockouts back then. The owners are locking them out this time. I find it interesting where you think a good starting point in a negotiation is.

Each year there are only a handful of players with the physical talent to come into the league and contribute immediately. its exactly the reason that second rounders do not get guaranteed contracts.

I know the idea of recruiting the CBA seems a good one to you but I do not find it so. Professional sports firms today are so adorable. They cannot handle the free market because a labor market with such scarcity and a natural competitive spirit sucks and they need it fixed but somehow them using the tactic of a lockout to achieve that means the players are the ones driving this bus off the cliff.

We are going to miss games. The last season started 336 days ago. That point was already passed when they did not get a deal done this past weekend now you are posturing for them too.

I know you guys want to talk about leverage but the owners are seriously risking a serious devaluation of their business. For example, from 1994 to 1995, MLB attendance declined 20%. At least that time it was the players who went on strike so you could really blame them.

You can sit there and try to do the tit for tat bus driving blame game. or you can actually look at making a deal from a risk reward standpoint.

One thing that i think they need to legislate if there is to be this free market tap dance by sports leagues, the overarching bodies like the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB need a lot more autonomous power. i think a lot of the stupidity we have seen in labor negotiations from the leagues could have been eliminated. It gets rid of the stupid behavior of trusts and get the legal system out of the discussion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good luck with that:


Stern and owners main argument for seeking huge paycut form players is that they have lost tons of money every year since they agreed to the last CBA in 2005.

An immediate question pop up:
Why owners have agreed so easily to such an awful CBA in 2005 ?

There are only 2 answers:
1) Owners are the worst bunch of businessmen of the world.
2) Owners are flat out lying when claiming such big losses. these are just accounting figures.

I'm going with 2). I'm' sure owners aren't fine with people looking to closely at their numbers. They played the clock with the NBAPA by giving them only partial numbers and only very late in the negotiating process. If NRLB has had access to all the numbers, owners will be screwed when this process will come to an end.

Its interesting because this was one of the biggest issues in the NFL labor issues. There was a corporate lawyer that I know. He helps negotiate $100m oil leases and the like so he has a sense of what is appropriate in these types of deals.

What he said was that if you were say, Exxon talking with the UAE about developing an oil field, you of course as part of negotiations discuss expenditures and the like but if you made claims to figures, you would automatically provide the accounting. Audits are routine and not a big deal.

Its only in US sports leagues with these trusts that you get this. Its asinine. You are never going to see the NBA make claims about actual figures to the NLRB because if they did they would risk a subpoena which there is no way in hell they are going risk.

Its just PR nonsense.

[ElNono]

One other thing to consider is that this is supposed to be a negotiation, where both sides are supposed to compromise. But so far, is there anything other than players giving stuff up? What are the owners offering to improve over the last CBA? A good faith negotiation normally goes alone the lines of "I give you this, you give me that". But I can't think one thing that I've read where the owners are actually are improving over the last CBA. Going from 40% to 46% to potentially 50% of BRI really isn't negotiating when the last player BRI distribution was 57%. Longer deals? Increase on the BRI contingent to league revenues increasing? Nope. Nada.

[Dex]

One other thing to consider is that this is supposed to be a negotiation, where both sides are supposed to compromise. But so far, is there anything other than players giving stuff up? What are the owners offering to improve over the last CBA? A good faith negotiation normally goes alone the lines of "I give you this, you give me that". But I can't think one thing that I've read where the owners are actually are improving over the last CBA. Going from 40% to 46% to potentially 50% of BRI really isn't negotiating when the last player BRI distribution was 57%. Longer deals? Increase on the BRI contingent to league revenues increasing? Nope. Nada.

The owners have backed away from the hard cap model (which was probably unrealistic in the first place), and have reportedly come to some sort of agreement with the revenue sharing which could help solve a lot of this.

Not sure if that really matches the concessions that players have made, but there have been some on both sides. Then again, it also may be a case of the owners setting the bar so low, then trying to point at the fact that they raised it, even though it's still barely off the ground.

[DJ Mbenga]

should be interesting tomorrow. either we have real progress but no deal or we have a blowup from the players as the owners basically say we aint negotiating until you dont get your checks.

[ElNono]

The owners have backed away from the hard cap model (which was probably unrealistic in the first place), and have reportedly come to some sort of agreement with the revenue sharing which could help solve a lot of this.

Not sure if that really matches the concessions that players have made, but there have been some on both sides. Then again, it also may be a case of the owners setting the bar so low, then trying to point at the fact that they raised it, even though it's still barely off the ground.

But they haven't Dex. The new proposed 'soft cap' is way harder than it was on the old CBA. Basically, owners have demanded ridiculous things, then their 'concessions' have all been 'better than ridiculous', but substantially worse than the previous CBA. This would be akin to the players asking for 80% of the BRI, then 'conceding' to 'only 70%'.

The revenue sharing was always something the owners needed to fix by themselves.

[Dex]

But they haven't Dex. The new proposed 'soft cap' is way harder than it was on the old CBA. Basically, owners have demanded ridiculous things, then their 'concessions' have all been 'better than ridiculous', but substantially worse than the previous CBA. This would be akin to the players asking for 80% of the BRI, then 'conceding' to 'only 70%'.

The revenue sharing was always something the owners needed to fix by themselves.

Yeah, that's kind of the impression I'm getting to. The owners may have taken a step forward, but they started ten steps back.

I just want a damn NBA season. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way we get that is if the players give in, since there is no sign that the owners will do so anytime soon. That probably skews my opinion of things a little bit.

The offseason is already too long for my Spurs junkiness, and it's looking like we're going to get an extra dose of it this year.

[Giuseppe]

"And if you ask the 1999 champion Spurs, it is also cause for rivals to question the meaning of short-season accomplishments. Shaquille O'Neal (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/614/shaquille-o'neal) famously said the Spurs' title should be marked by an asterisk."

Daddy.

tee, hee.

[spurs10]

Yeah, that's kind of the impression I'm getting to. The owners may have taken a step forward, but they started ten steps back.

I just want a damn NBA season. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way we get that is if the players give in, since there is no sign that the owners will do so anytime soon. That probably skews my opinion of things a little bit.

The offseason is already too long for my Spurs junkiness, and it's looking like we're going to get an extra dose of it this year.
Man, I'm hoping for some last minute reprieve. You're right, the normal off season is long enough as it is. I wonder if I can go to Bologna for a while to watch Manu play?? Hear it's a cool place....
:bang

[objective]

meetings over, no deal, sides still locked in to 53 and 47.

No meetings scheduled, maybe no meetings for another 2 months per the tweets from the players press conference.

Looks like no NBA until 2012 in a best case scenario

[InRareForm]

noooootttt goooooodddd

[InRareForm]

Hunter: "Our guys have indicated a willingness to lose games."

[benefactor]

Greedy bastards. Guess I'll be watching more college ball this year.

[timtonymanu]

Well nothing new like always. Fuck it. I hope these people lose money.

[blkroadrunners]

I just want some NBA damnit.

[Bruno]

Doesn't look good at all. :bang

What is weird is Stern saying that he has offered a true 50/50 split while Hunter is saying that he hasn't. Misunderstanding, PR or tactical move?

[Dex]

Well nothing new like always. Fuck it. I hope these people lose money.

Me too. Eff the owners and the players at this point. Such a shame that they can't figure out how to properly split the money in spite of the fans, who provide it to them in the first place.