Unions are a thing of a past and the NBPA needs to go a friggin clue.

[jabol130]

To all Spurs fans who side with the players on the lockout issues. No offense but think about your stance for a minute. Bottom line is the owners are exactly that - the owners and employers. They should be able to run their businesses the way they want. If they believe the current model doesn't allow them to be profitable in the long term they should be able to make necessary changes including cutting any costs they see as appropriate. You, as a fan that hopes his small market team and the league it plays in can remain competitive should support them. Peter Holt may want to make money off his team but he is also working to ensure the Spurs can remain in San Antonio. The fact that we don't have a season right now is because of the players union. Unions are a thing of the past and were intended to prevent labor discrimination in its true form, a form that no NBA player of recent or past times for that matter has ever experienced. So, players like Chris Paul who don't understand these principles and fans who support them - please go get a clue and let the rest of us have a damned pro basketball season.

[ElNono]

For starters, the NBA isn't a regular business. Actually, it's very far from a regular business. It includes monopoly, collusion, etc.

With that out of the way, I'd like you to show me the numbers you ran that make you think the union's offer is unreasonable. I also would like to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion that we don't have a season right now because of the union, despite the fact this is a owner's lockout.

Thanks.

[spurs10]

For starters, the NBA isn't a regular business. Actually, it's very far from a regular business. It includes monopoly, collusion, etc.

With that out of the way, I'd like you to show me the numbers you ran that make you think the union's offer is unreasonable. I also would like to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion that we don't have a season right now because of the union, despite the fact this is a owner's lockout.

Thanks.
The union's offer is more than reasonable and the NBA knows this. They won't make a deal no matter how much the union gives. They are only concerned about one thing, destroying and breaking this union. It's Hunter they're after, not a deal, not money. They are purposely making the deal unacceptable. I could be wrong, but don't think so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would argue that the rights, immunities to liability and such afforded an individual by filing a corporate charter are a thing of the past.

[Giuseppe]

Left to their own devices people won't do what is right & proper.

Unions are a sure hedge against people doing what isn't right & proper.

[DrSteffo]

Bottom line is the owners are exactly that - the owners and employers. They should be able to run their businesses the way they want.

Medieval style or modern polish style? :lol

[SpursIndonesia]

Sometime i hope people get a clue first and enlighten themselves before nudging others to get clues as well. Perhaps that will save them from some embarassment in the first place.

[benefactor]

You would think that you would bring the goods when you only post 41 times in seven years. Not so much. You can go back to not posting again. Thanks.

[hater]

Ohio vote shows unions still a political force
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QT8G0O0.htm

[Mr. Body]

To all Spurs fans who side with the players on the lockout issues. No offense but think about your stance for a minute. Bottom line is the owners are exactly that - the owners and employers. They should be able to run their businesses the way they want.

No they shouldn't, dumbass. Thaty's why we have laws against child labor, laws for safety concerns, laws about family medical leaves, and other provisions that support the workers that owners would never have offered on their own.

[I. Hustle]

I think I started to side with the owners when Hunter said that the union came up with a plan that allows the owners to break even. A lot of those players have their own businesses and I doubt they would keep those businesses going if all they ever did was break even.

[hater]

just think of this as a microcosm of the real estate market. The players are houses that are way, way, way overvalued and the owners were the stupid fucks that bought them, thinking they would make them money.

What is happening in the housing market? the house prices are dropping and the owners are taking the losses. This is what needs to happen in the NBA, let the fucking stupid owners take the losses and let salaries drop as time goes. If an owner can't afford to keep a team, forfeit it, sell it, shut it down.

But no, the owners want a bailout at the expense of the players. Fuck that. Fuck the owners.

[Giuseppe]

No they shouldn't, dumbass. Thaty's why we have laws against child labor, laws for safety concerns, laws about family medical leaves, and other provisions that support the workers that owners would never have offered on their own.

Precisely my prior point:::

[[[Left to their own devices people won't do what is right & proper.

Unions are a sure hedge against people doing what isn't right & proper.]]]

People, especially Americans inherently believe their fellow man will do what is right & proper without an entity mandating that they do so.

Uh, uh.

[hater]

To reiterate, if an owner says
"well I cannot afford to keep my team as of right now"

then fucking sell it, you don't deserver to be an owner. Get the Fuck Out. Stop asking for a bailout

[TimmehC]

Without the NBPA, the owners are opened up to anti-trust lawsuits, and could be held liable for billions in damages. Also, with no union, there is no CBA, which means that the large market teams would dominate the league 10x more than they already do.

The owners do not want to break the union, they just want it to be weaker.

[cheguevara]

Lets take Hollywood for a second, which is a much larger industry than the NBA. Do you think a production company would split fifty percent of its revenue with the actors? Hell no.

:lmao comparing a pro sports league to hollywood

just go full monty and compare NBA to NARUTO :lol

[ElNono]

How is this an owners lockout?

Really? Why do you think it's called a lockout and not a strike?

Here, I'll let Adam Silver tell you who locked out the players:

XUuxvoQMqXY

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The owners have made the players multiple offers. The players rejected. If the players continue its nothing but a veiled strike.

And the players have made offers to the owners which they have rejected. you can spin it however you want but the players are more than willing to go to work and earn their lawfully signed contracts.

[vy65]

How is this an owners lockout? If I'm the boss and youre the employee, I make you an offer. If you reject the offer then you are holding out for more money. Lets take Hollywood for a second, which is a much larger industry than the NBA. Do you think a production company would split fifty percent of its revenue with the actors? Hell no. Then you might say, well, the people spend their money to see Brad Pitt or Will Smith, and if those guys weren't in that movie then it wouldn't be as successful. That's true to a certain extent but keep in mind that it is Hollywood that uses it's media machine to build these actors up to make you go and see them. Just as it is in the NBA, there are only a few big names that carry the entire industry. The rest of the workers in the union are just getting over like fat rats. This is what the owners are fighting against. They front all the money, take all the risk, and are expected to take less than 50%. And, they have to guarantee contracts no matter what.

That business model would be fine if every player had the star power of a Kobe Bryant, but that's far from the reality. So here is how Hollywood deals with its employees. You have these actors out there that are so greedy that they expect twenty million up front and twenty percent of the gross ticket sales. As long as they can bank on that actor they give him what he wants, but the moment he doesn't produce results they throw his ass out in the cold and build up another nobody to force feed the public. The NBA doesn't have that liberty, although they should, but these owners grant these star players 6 year deals, then every player that thinks hes as good as the next player wants the same deals. The owners are at fault for allowing it to get out of control, and now they have finally come to their senses and want to reel it in. They players have their nerves to compare this to slavery. Slaves didnt get paid, yet these players are overpaid. The owners front the dough and take all the risk. They have a right to earn a profit, a substantial one at that.

Hollywood doesn't have an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Your analogy is bad.

I agree with your ultimate point however.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hollywood doesn't have an exemption from the anti-trust laws. Your analogy is bad.

I agree with your ultimate point however.

That and movies sign guaranteed above the line multi-film contracts to actors all the time.

[jabol130]

For starters, the NBA isn't a regular business. Actually, it's very far from a regular business. It includes monopoly, collusion, etc.

With that out of the way, I'd like you to show me the numbers you ran that make you think the union's offer is unreasonable. I also would like to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion that we don't have a season right now because of the union, despite the fact this is a owner's lockout.

Thanks.

I didn't and don't intend to run any numbers on anyone's offers (whatever that means). I'm simply trying to make a point that if NBA players were not organized in a union we would be playing regular season games right now. If my employer, facing losses in tough economic times decided to for example cut the amount he pays for my medical insurance I'm not able to tell him "no". I will either accept his terms or try to find another employer with a satisfactory medical coverage. I also understand that the NBA is not a regular business. The NBA owners are also organized in a sort of a union. The difference is that I believe the owners union works in favor of the fan because it fosters a competitive environment in the league. The players union looks out for the players best interest and in effect ends up hurting the fan.

[ElNono]

I didn't and don't intend to run any numbers on anyone's offers (whatever that means).

Figures.


I'm simply trying to make a point that if NBA players were not organized in a union we would be playing regular season games right now.

If the NBA players wouldn't be unionized, and there would be no collective bargaining, then the NBA in it's current form would very likely not exist.
In a regular-business, free-market league small market teams would very likely not be competitive, and owners would arguably have to pay much, much more in salaries. While it's likely they would be able to pay less for marginal talent, the costs of actual franchise players would be much, much higher. You can look at pre-1998 CBA to see what the salaries were back then for a good example.

In a nutshell, it's actually a benefit for owners as much as players that there's a union in this case. Simply because this isn't a regular business.


The difference is that I believe the owners union works in favor of the fan because it fosters a competitive environment in the league. The players union looks out for the players best interest and in effect ends up hurting the fan.

Owners care about the $$$ and that's not different than the players. If they cared about the fans, we would be playing games right now while a new deal is being negotiated.

[all_heart]

Lots of good points made here, but I think Lakaluva is right on ... can't believe I'm agreeing w/him...

Know matter what I think something should protect the owners from lemon players.. guys that play their asses off for a contract then turn to shit later.. ala Jerome James.

[vy65]

Without the NBPA, the owners are opened up to anti-trust lawsuits, and could be held liable for billions in damages. Also, with no union, there is no CBA, which means that the large market teams would dominate the league 10x more than they already do.

The owners do not want to break the union, they just want it to be weaker.

Lolwut

[ElNono]

Know matter what I think something should protect the owners from lemon players.. guys that play their asses off for a contract then turn to shit later.. ala Jerome James.

I agree with something like this. You don't need to turn the system upside-down or a hard cap for that though.

[ElNono]

Lolwut

????

[vy65]

I wanna know where our damages expert is getting a billion + in damages.

[ElNono]

I wanna know where our damages expert is getting a billion + in damages.

Not sure how similar it is to the NFL case, but you can look up the stories back then and the supposed liability was in the multi-billion range.

Obviously, I will agree immediately with you that it's very unlikely that such damages would ever be paid. Owners obviously would sit down and get shit done before that happens (which is what happened with the NFL).

[vy65]

Plaintiffs always hype up their damages claims to scare defendants. The initial claim and actual award are usually very different numbers.

[ElNono]

Plaintiffs always hype up their damages claims to scare defendants. The initial claim and actual award are usually very different numbers.

No doubt. What actually ended up twisting the NFL owner's arm was the judge basically warning them that if they didn't reach an agreement, he would make one. And this goes into the uncertainty aspect, much like what we were discussing a while back with jury decisions. Neither side wants a third party to decide for them.

[TimmehC]

I wanna know where our damages expert is getting a billion + in damages.

"Could" doesn't mean "will". But, hypothetically at least, it's probable that a unionless league has the owners paying more than they do in a unionized league. A lot of the small markets would probably be forced out, because no CBA means Cuban, Buss et al can pay even more for their rosters without penalty. The NBA in its current form needs the union, they just need it to be weak.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I agree with a lot of what jabol said.

Most owners won't have much motivation to own a team if they can't make a profit off of it. While I think it's largely a hobby (if I was a billionaire I'd certainly own a team or two for fun), I think the folks who own teams like making money off their hobbies.

NBA players are some of the best compensated athletes in professional sports. The owners could cut salaries in half and there'd still be a gazillion kids wanting to grow up to be a professional basketball player. I certainly don't feel that the players are being taken advantage of, even if every demand the owners seek was granted.

Unions have their place, and I do believe that, if managed correctly, a union can do a lot to advocate for workers' rights. Unfortunately, union leadership is often corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged, leaving a lot of union workers no better off than had they not been part of a union in the first place.

I'm not saying that's going to happen to the NBA players in this case. In fact, it's almost ludicrous to compare an average unionized employee to an NBA player, but it does appear that the NBA players aren't achieving too much success in advocating for change in their current union format.

[jabol130]

I agree with a lot of what jabol said.

Most owners won't have much motivation to own a team if they can't make a profit off of it. While I think it's largely a hobby (if I was a billionaire I'd certainly own a team or two for fun), I think the folks who own teams like making money off their hobbies.

Well said, my point exactly - I don't think any of the NBA owners are in it mainly for the money. Most have and continue to make their $$ in ways they got rich in the first place. Most owners just love the idea of owning a sports team and that's their main motivation. In some instances what also appeals for them is the idea of giving back to the community and making sure they can afford to keep their team in that community. You can't expect these guys want to do that if it means they will continue losing money every year. So, it's totally understandable why they keep fighting for a system they believe will allow them to continue owning the team and keep it in the community. Moving the teams elsewhere, out of small markets is not an option for them because there are only so many big markets available anyway so unless the league goes global what would ultimately happen if the current system doesn't change is we would end up with only a handful of teams in the league with a place for maybe a 3rd of the players. This is another point that just boggles my mind that the players don't seem to understand.



NBA players are some of the best compensated athletes in professional sports. The owners could cut salaries in half and there'd still be a gazillion kids wanting to grow up to be a professional basketball player. I certainly don't feel that the players are being taken advantage of, even if every demand the owners seek was granted.


Yep, agree again. If they don't like the deal they can go to play elsewhere. As many have already found out they will not make the same amount of money in Europe. Assuming it comes to the above scenario, where the league is limited to 10 big market teams and two thirds of the NBA players go overseas you could argue a competitive NBA-like league could develop overseas with large salaries that could perhaps overtake the NBA money at some point. Well, how does the NBA and the current US NBA fan benefit from that? The remaining NBA league could completely lose it's appeal and if you as a fan would like to get your fix of competitive basketball you could be left following the overseas league. Good luck staying up at night or trying to skip work in the morning to catch a live game on tv or paying for plane tickets to catch a good game in person. Players and fans need to get that through their skulls and look at the big picture. The other argument, on the players side is along the lines of what happens if the economy turns around in the middle of this new CBA and the NBA continues to rise in popularity and produce loads of money. Why should that money go only to the owners. I get it - the players are largely responsible for the popularity of the league and should get a piece of the pie. Maybe the solution is to sign a new deal for 5 and not 10 years. That way if things turn around within the next 5 years they go back to the drawing board again. The other reason to support a 5 year deal is because many assumptions must be made at this time about what the economic conditions will be in the future when trying to analyze the true value of all the details of a deal that both the players and the owners are pushing for.



Unions have their place, and I do believe that, if managed correctly, a union can do a lot to advocate for workers' rights. Unfortunately, union leadership is often corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged, leaving a lot of union workers no better off than had they not been part of a union in the first place.

I agree that unions have their place but they were originally intended to keep workers safe from true abuse and as societies have evolved there is very little of such abuse around. You could argue that many unions, especially in bad economic times as the ones we see today have actually hurt the economy even more and the same abuse they were built to prevent inside their associations is created by them outside of their groups. If you know anything about the government unions for example you would notice that USPS for instance is facing tough times and working very hard to stay in business. The USPS unionized workers refuse to bend and adapt to changing times that will soon make their employer go out of business. USPS itself has also relied on contractors to support the full time employees, but again since the full time employees won't bend and the agency can't afford to hire either type of more workers - current contractors are forced to pick up the slack for the union guys and are facing ridiculous working hours and conditions that can't be sustained for a long time. Another great example of union negativity is the the complacency that unions created in the US automobile industry. In the NBA's case, as you said it yourself the union is trying to protect people that would make million of dollars anyway, earning their living by doing something I have a hard time even calling a job. In the back of my head I do feel that perhaps the only way the NBPA has the fans interest in mind (indirectly of course) is that it actually ensures the NBA remains the most competitive basketball league in the world by keeping the best players in the world and consequently the best paid players in the world in this league. Even that though doesn't change the argument I'm trying to make about the true principle and idea behind labor unions. It also doesn't contradict my point about how the players union is responsible for the fact that we do not currently have an NBA season.

[jabol130]

You would think that you would bring the goods when you only post 41 times in seven years. Not so much. You can go back to not posting again. Thanks.

I went through 41 of your posts (including the one I'm quoting above) and have a hard time believing you know what "bringing the goods" means.

[jabol130]

Sometime i hope people get a clue first and enlighten themselves before nudging others to get clues as well. Perhaps that will save them from some embarassment in the first place.

Sometimes i hope people are able to to grasp the concept of expressing their thoughts by articulating them well enough and then backing them up with a supporting argument. I also hope they are able to enlighten themselves enough to understand the embarrassment they may be saving themselves from.

[jabol130]

No they shouldn't, dumbass. Thaty's why we have laws against child labor, laws for safety concerns, laws about family medical leaves, and other provisions that support the workers that owners would never have offered on their own.

Don't know if you realize that your response has just proved my point. The laws you are referring to above are established by the federal government, and not unions. The need for them was exposed by the unions in the past which led to their establishment by the government, dumbass.

[ElNono]

So we're in agreement that without an union the NBA in it's current form wouldn't exist?
No draft, no salary-caps, no luxury tax, no rookie scale... very unlikely the Spurs would exist in those conditions.

[jabol130]

just think of this as a microcosm of the real estate market. The players are houses that are way, way, way overvalued and the owners were the stupid fucks that bought them, thinking they would make them money.

What is happening in the housing market? the house prices are dropping and the owners are taking the losses. This is what needs to happen in the NBA, let the fucking stupid owners take the losses and let salaries drop as time goes. If an owner can't afford to keep a team, forfeit it, sell it, shut it down.

But no, the owners want a bailout at the expense of the players. Fuck that. Fuck the owners.

Terrible analogy. Look up the definition of the bailout. Yes the house prices dropped and if you owned one of those houses, knew you were in for 30 yrs to maintain your mortgage and were smart enough to workout a clause in that mortgage (which the NBA owners were) that would allow you to renegotiate its terms every 5 years based on the economic conditions you should be able to do so.

[jabol130]

So we're in agreement that without an union the NBA in it's current form wouldn't exist?
No draft, no salary-caps, no luxury tax, no rookie scale... very unlikely the Spurs would exist in those conditions.

Sure the NBA in its current form wouldn't exist but it it's hard to tell if it would be better or worse off. All i can say is that if the players union didn't exist, the players choice would be to go overseas where they would realize that they can't get as much money as the NBA owners are proposing and would sign the owners offer.

[ElNono]

Sure the NBA in its current form wouldn't exist but it it's hard to tell if it would be better or worse off. All i can say is that if the players union didn't exist, the players choice would be to go overseas where they would realize that they can't get as much money as the NBA owners are proposing and would sign the owners offer.

Possibly. But it would also be much more expensive for owners. Superstar talent with true competition between teams to acquire them would cost a boatload more than these capped-salaries. Which is what the salary-cap in the 80's tried to control.

Both owners and players benefit from the union being there. It would be incredibly more costly for owners otherwise. Small-market teams would likely not viable under that scenario.

There's certainly a place for unions, especially on professional sports.

[ElNono]

I would argue that should the union decertify, the NBA would not restart until a union forming again.

[baseline bum]

In some instances what also appeals for them is the idea of giving back to the community and making sure they can afford to keep their team in that community.

:cry Such generous and classy owners :cry




Yep, agree again. If they don't like the deal they can go to play elsewhere.


Sweet. So Microsoft, Apple, and Google are cool to form a cartel to drive down developer salaries, and you don't like it? Then take your sorry asses to India faggots!

[jabol130]

:cry Such generous and classy owners :cry

You don't believe that some owners actually care or don't mind keeping the team where it is as long as they don't lose money? If I were to invest in a pro sports team I would won't to keep it in my home town or city I call home and feel loyal or nostalgic towards. Believe it or not, it's not that far fetched of a idea even when it comes to successful business men. You throw having to deal with major monetary losses into the equation and we are talking about a completely different story. Even if the owner is in it just for the prestige of owning a sports team for a short time I believe they would be willing to invest knowing they can break even after they sell the team, but again no one would be very willing to jump on the opportunity of owning a franchise if they had to sell it for a loss.



Sweet. So Microsoft, Apple, and Google are cool to form a cartel to drive down developer salaries, and you don't like it? Then take your sorry asses to India faggots!

Who's forming a cartel to drive down salaries? Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete.

[jabol130]

Possibly. But it would also be much more expensive for owners. Superstar talent with true competition between teams to acquire them would cost a boatload more than these capped-salaries. Which is what the salary-cap in the 80's tried to control.

Both owners and players benefit from the union being there. It would be incredibly more costly for owners otherwise. Small-market teams would likely not viable under that scenario.

There's certainly a place for unions, especially on professional sports.

I'm not saying you can't have rules that the teams and owners have to abide by to belong to the league. The salary cap, rookie scale etc - these things are needed to ensure the league is successful and competitive - what does having the players union exist have to do with it. This whole thing about anti trust laws is bogus also if you believe that sports leagues and teams are a different type of business which is true. Even if the union didn't exist the NBA players, signing their individual contracts would need to sing a clause stating they are agreeing to abide by the rules established by the league. So, the fact that that clause is included in the CBA which today is an agreement between the league and the players union doesn't mean that you can't have the same type of league rule setup continue without the players union existing.

[baseline bum]

Who's forming a cartel to drive down salaries? Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries.


I'm not saying you can't have rules that the teams and owners have to abide by to belong to the league. The salary cap, rookie scale etc - these things are needed to ensure the league is successful and competitive

:rollin :rollin :rollin

In back to back posts? Seriously?

:rollin

[Mel_13]

I'm not saying you can't have rules that the teams and owners have to abide by to belong to the league. The salary cap, rookie scale etc - these things are needed to ensure the league is successful and competitive - what does having the players union exist have to do with it. This whole thing about anti trust laws is bogus also if you believe that sports leagues and teams are a different type of business which is true. Even if the union didn't exist the NBA players, signing their individual contracts would need to sing a clause stating they are agreeing to abide by the rules established by the league. So, the fact that that clause is included in the CBA which today is an agreement between the league and the players union doesn't mean that you can't have the same type of league rule setup continue without the players union existing.

No, it's not. There is absolutely no way the NBA could establish rules for a salary cap, rookie scale, player draft, etc. without finding itself on the wrong end of multiple antitrust suits which they would lose.

[jabol130]

:rollin :rollin :rollin

In back to back posts? Seriously?

:rollin

I thought you wouldn't understand what i meant and so if you notice i corrected the above post to read:

"Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete."

If you're still rolling after reading this I can't help you.

[ElNono]

I'm not saying you can't have rules that the teams and owners have to abide by to belong to the league. The salary cap, rookie scale etc - these things are needed to ensure the league is successful and competitive - what does having the players union exist have to do with it.

The fact that the labor law establishes that you get exceptions from anti-trust laws ONLY if collectively bargaining (which means, an union)?

Really? You posted this shit without even being aware of this?

[ElNono]

"Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete."

Uh? More leagues means more owners, meaning more competition for a limited pool of exceptionally skilled players, meaning costing substantially more to lock in that talent.

Who do you think demanded the salary-cap in the NBA? Owners or players? Why?

[Mel_13]

This is where you say "I stand corrected".

[ElNono]

:lol

Unions bad!

[baseline bum]

I thought you wouldn't understand what i meant and so if you notice i corrected the above post to read:

"Without the union the market, and the market only would control the salaries, and by that I mean not the market in which the multiple NBA teams compete but the market in which the multiple professional basketball leagues compete."

If you're still rolling after reading this I can't help you.

:rollin

It's even funnier now. So Google, Apple, and Microsoft can form a cartel because they're competing with development houses in India and Vietnam. Funny shit, man. :toast

[baseline bum]

Uh? More leagues means more owners, meaning more competition for a limited pool of exceptionally skilled players, meaning costing substantially more to lock in that talent.

Who do you think demanded the salary-cap in the NBA? Owners or players? Why?

:rollin

What's the other league in the US? The fucking Harlem Globetrotters tour???

[jabol130]

No, it's not. There is absolutely no way the NBA could establish rules for a salary cap, rookie scale, player draft, etc. without finding itself on the wrong end of multiple antitrust suits which they would lose.

I don't agree. Unless you could show me some legal arguments to the contrary - either way, whether its with or without the NBPA the league is breaking these laws if you believe it's just like any other business. The difference is that the players are not filing the lawsuits because there is an agreement between the league and the NBPA the prevents them from doing so (plus of course when the players are happy they obviously have no incentive to do so). Why could the same agreement not exist between the league and each player on the individual basis, again assuming the sports leagues are considered equal to any other business out there which would still need to be properly analyzed, interpreted and decided by the judicial system.

[MannyIsGod]

to all spurs fans who side with the players on the lockout issues. No offense but think about your stance for a minute. Bottom line is the owners are exactly that - the owners and employers. They should be able to run their businesses the way they want. If they believe the current model doesn't allow them to be profitable in the long term they should be able to make necessary changes including cutting any costs they see as appropriate. You, as a fan that hopes his small market team and the league it plays in can remain competitive should support them. Peter holt may want to make money off his team but he is also working to ensure the spurs can remain in san antonio. The fact that we don't have a season right now is because of the players union. Unions are a thing of the past and were intended to prevent labor discrimination in its true form, a form that no nba player of recent or past times for that matter has ever experienced. So, players like chris paul who don't understand these principles and fans who support them - please go get a clue and let the rest of us have a damned pro basketball season.

smh

[baseline bum]

jabol130, you're free to form your own league if you don't like it.

[jabol130]

Uh? More leagues means more owners, meaning more competition for a limited pool of exceptionally skilled players, meaning costing substantially more to lock in that talent.

Who do you think demanded the salary-cap in the NBA? Owners or players? Why?

Oh boy. I'm talking about the existing international leagues. Think big picture. We are living in a day and age where i should not have to point out the existence of a global economy.

[baseline bum]

http://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/medium/this_thread_delivers_ups_chick_amazon.jpg

[Mel_13]

I don't agree. Unless you could show me some legal arguments to the contrary - either way, whether its with or without the NBPA the league is breaking these laws if you believe it's just like any other business. The difference is that the players are not filing the lawsuits because there is an agreement between the league and the NBPA the prevents them from doing so (plus of course when the players are happy they obviously have no incentive to do so). Why could the same agreement not exist between the league and each player on the individual basis, again assuming the sports leagues are considered equal to any other business out there which would still need to be properly analyzed, interpreted and decided by the judicial system.

You're completely wrong.

The NBA is protected from antitrust suits because it has entered into a collective bargaining arrangement with the NBPA. Absent that relationship, players would sue the NBA if the league tried to establish rules that would limit where players could work and how much money they could make.

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's the law.

[Mel_13]

Here's a guide to some of the issues discussed in this thread. The writer is a law professor and the director of the Tulane Sports Law program:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_2_b_1081107.html

Why would the NBA players decertify?
The NBA players may believe that the NBPA has not done a good job representing their interests in the CBA negotiations, or they may believe they are better off negotiating as individual employees without the benefit of a union, but the players would primarily be using decertification as a means to end. The end is the ability to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA challenging the lockout as an antitrust violation. The players would argue that the lockout constitutes an illegal "group boycott" by the owners. The players would likely also challenge any of the rules that the league might put in place that restrict a player's ability to make money or otherwise impact the players working conditions. For example, the players could challenge the NBA's salary cap, the player draft, and other player and free agency restrictions.

[Proxy]

To all Spurs fans who side with the players on the lockout issues. No offense but think about your stance for a minute. Bottom line is the owners are exactly that - the owners and employers. They should be able to run their businesses the way they want. If they believe the current model doesn't allow them to be profitable in the long term they should be able to make necessary changes including cutting any costs they see as appropriate. You, as a fan that hopes his small market team and the league it plays in can remain competitive should support them. Peter Holt may want to make money off his team but he is also working to ensure the Spurs can remain in San Antonio. The fact that we don't have a season right now is because of the players union. Unions are a thing of the past and were intended to prevent labor discrimination in its true form, a form that no NBA player of recent or past times for that matter has ever experienced. So, players like Chris Paul who don't understand these principles and fans who support them - please go get a clue and let the rest of us have a damned pro basketball season.

Are you quoting FoxNews here?

[Mel_13]

One more chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".

[ElNono]

I don't agree. Unless you could show me some legal arguments to the contrary

Clayton Antitrust Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act)

Exemptions
An important difference between the Clayton Act and its predecessor, the Sherman act, is that the Clayton Act contained safe harbors for union activities.

[jabol130]

The fact that the labor law establishes that you get exceptions from anti-trust laws ONLY if collectively bargaining (which means, an union)?

Really? You posted this shit without even being aware of this?

Under the current law. But if that law creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed.

[ElNono]

Oh boy. I'm talking about the existing international leagues. Think big picture. We are living in a day and age where i should not have to point out the existence of a global economy.

How does that invalidates my point? Strict free-market means supply-demand applies, and I think we can all agree that supply of highly skilled basketball players is rather small. Would scrubs be paid less? Sure. Would franchise guys be paid way, way more? No doubt about it.

[ElNono]

Under the current law. But if that law creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed.

The union can demand whatever it wants. And the owners can simply say no. It can work the other way too. That's how collective bargaining works.

[Mel_13]

Under the current law.

:lol

The current law is the only one that matters to this discussion.

[baseline bum]

Are you quoting FoxNews here?

Sounds more like stoned Rush after his morning fix tbh.

[jabol130]

One more chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".

I don't. To me the NBA itself is a business and for that business to stay successful it needs to be able to promote relative equality between it's teams. So if under the current law, the only way that business can stay successful is if the players are unionized and if if the share fact that the players are unionized "...creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed."

[Mel_13]

I don't. To me the NBA itself is a business and for that business to stay successful it needs to be able to promote relative equality between it's teams. So if under the current law, the only way that business can stay successful is if the players are unionized and if if the share fact that the players are unionized "...creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed."

:rollin

Sorry, I had to laugh. Your original position was that unions were a thing of the past and that the NBPA needs to get a clue. Now that you realize that the NBA absolutely needs the union in order to do business, you've moved on to wishing for a different reality where antitrust laws are fundamentally changed.

Last chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".

[baseline bum]

But their employers are doing it for us citizens; they're too kindhearted to fold just because the big bad n!ggers take all their money just for throwing a leather ball around.

[ElNono]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/pictures/t/41/be05d856299284fe8d472ef577bd7fff_41853.gif?dl=1253 806772

[Mr. Body]

I'm getting the distinct impression jabol doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just pro-rich fuck and that's the end of it.

Hey, trivia time for everyone:
A monopoly is when there is a single seller of a good or service.
But what is the term when there is a single buyer? (The NBA can be thought of in that way in terms of domestic professional basketball.)

[MannyIsGod]

:lol :lol :lol

Who's stopping the NBA from running the business the way they want? They're free to not do business with the current players and just get new ones, aren't they?

[ElNono]

Actually, the NBA is only allowed to hire temp players for the duration of the lockout... then again, if players are dime a dozen, why isn't the league playing games with temp players? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't. To me the NBA itself is a business and for that business to stay successful it needs to be able to promote relative equality between it's teams. So if under the current law, the only way that business can stay successful is if the players are unionized and if if the share fact that the players are unionized "...creates a situation where the Union members demand to high of a reward for their services consequently driving their employer our of business maybe the law needs to be looked at and changed."

The NBA is not a business. What it is is an organization of 30 independently owned firms which is the definition of a trust. LaGuardia and Clayton intentionally put the language in the Clayton Act about the exemption of labor in response to arguments better formulated but along the vein of what youare claiming.

You have no sense of history whatsoever. They did look at it. No firm is remotely getting run out of business. Its market fixing by firms to make sure there is no risk whatsoever for any firm.

[SpursIndonesia]

a clueless, ignorant fuck is like a gift that keep on giving, priceless ........ NOT !

[jabol130]

:rollin

Sorry, I had to laugh. Your original position was that unions were a thing of the past and that the NBPA needs to get a clue. Now that you realize that the NBA absolutely needs the union in order to do business, you've moved on to wishing for a different reality where antitrust laws are fundamentally changed.

Last chance. Here's where you say "I stand corrected".

My position hasn't changed, unions are a thing of the past. They accomplished what they were originally intended to establish in a form of federal labor laws and are now largely hindering many businesses. I'm not saying they are completely evil but there is no question that a business that doesn't deal with one can be much more successful than one that does, especially in a bad economy. I'm simply trying make a case to show that no matter what the law is, in principle my point is valid and therefore proves that the NBPA is responsible for the fact that we don't have a pro basketball season right now. Anti trust laws, just like any other law that deals with commerce and was established years ago (or as you Mel_13 would say "in a different reality") - before the emergency of a global economy need to be looked at again.

[jabol130]

The NBA is not a business. What it is is an organization of 30 independently owned firms which is the definition of a trust. LaGuardia and Clayton intentionally put the language in the Clayton Act about the exemption of labor in response to arguments better formulated but along the vein of what youare claiming.

You have no sense of history whatsoever. They did look at it. No firm is remotely getting run out of business. Its market fixing by firms to make sure there is no risk whatsoever for any firm.

That's a pretty strong statement, I don't think anyone has "no sense of history whatsoever". I don't know what the NBA is considered legally but I can't see much of a difference in the definition of this entity and the definition of what McDonalds or Sonic is with their multiple, independently owned franchises.

http://rightwingnews.com/unions/how-players-unions-are-killing-sports/

As you can see I'm not the only person using that analogy. You can say that a sports league is different in the sense that it inherently includes competition among its member teams, but don't confuse sports competition with financial competition. Under the current system they are completely tied to each and it may sound ridiculous to try to separate them but under total and complete profit sharing model its very easy to tell the difference. Profit sharing on the other hand could drive some owners to do a half ass job managing their teams. Can't solve all the problems at once, but there is no question changes are needed and I could not agree more with the author of the above article.

[Mr. Body]

Great. You think unions are a thing of the past. Millions upon millions of working people disagree in an era of continually stagnant wages.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and talk about competitive advantage and keeping operating costs for corporations low and all that. Whatever. There's no use 'discussing' with a shill, much less someone quoting a site called 'rightwingnews'. C'mon, dude.

[ElNono]

http://rightwingnews.com/unions/how-players-unions-are-killing-sports/

As you can see I'm not the only person using that analogy.

Actually, that article is factually wrong in multiple instances. Not only that, but it also fails to mention that the owners/league greatly benefit from the non-compete arrangement of negotiating with a union. But not surprised you bought right in it. lol rightwingnews.


You can say that a sports league is different in the sense that it inherently includes competition among its member teams, but don't confuse sports competition with financial competition. Under the current system they are completely tied to each and it may sound ridiculous to try to separate them but under total and complete profit sharing model its very easy to tell the difference. Profit sharing on the other hand could drive some owners to do a half ass job managing their teams. Can't solve all the problems at once, but there is no question changes are needed and I could not agree more with the author of the above article.

Profit sharing already exists in the NBA. It's the worse in all professional leagues, but it's been there. It existed in the previous CBA and will continue to exists in the next CBA. You should post less and read more, tbh.

[ElNono]

My position hasn't changed, unions are a thing of the past. They accomplished what they were originally intended to establish in a form of federal labor laws and are now largely hindering many businesses. I'm not saying they are completely evil but there is no question that a business that doesn't deal with one can be much more successful than one that does, especially in a bad economy. I'm simply trying make a case to show that no matter what the law is, in principle my point is valid and therefore proves that the NBPA is responsible for the fact that we don't have a pro basketball season right now. Anti trust laws, just like any other law that deals with commerce and was established years ago (or as you Mel_13 would say "in a different reality") - before the emergency of a global economy need to be looked at again.

Not only you didn't prove anything, the reason there's no basketball right now it's entirely the owner's fault. This is a lockout, not a strike. Furthermore, as indicated ealier, owners have the right to hire temp talent and still run the league, so if you don't have games right now, it's strictly the owner's decision.

As far as changing the laws, well, feel free to call your do-nothing right wing congressman, and ask him if he has a minute to spare from making sure Barry is a one term president and can pass a law voiding the anti-trust laws.

Good luck with that. crofl.

[MannyIsGod]

So basically this dude thinks that other people should work at the wages they don't want to work for? SMH. How can some of you be so stupid?

[ElNono]

So basically this dude thinks that other people should work at the wages they don't want to work for? SMH. How can some of you be so stupid?

But you don't understand. Brian Shapiro told him unions are bad!

[underdawg]

An argument about the validity or relevance of a union is trivial at best. The NBA union is as weak as the NFL union except the NFL union is part of the most lucrative sports league in the world.

The NBA's union is in the same boat as the NHL union a few years ago and after their lockout, the league actually benefited from the lockout. I believe the NBA owners feel that the NHL lockout is a good plan - lockout the season, negotiate lower contracts, make teams more profitable and strengthen the product.

Face it - the NBA product has been weak for a while and players have often underperformed for their salaries. The overall product is weak and some house cleaning is in order.

The funny thing is that the fans still don't get it - it was never a battle between owners and players; it was always between owners and agents. The NBA needs to look at big brother (the NFL) towards direction on how to deal with agents and how to be profitable as a league. It's funny how a league that has so many players with an average career length much lower than the NBA yet is still able to be profitable and relevant without a strong union.

[MannyIsGod]

The product is not weak because of the contracts. Its weak because there are too many damn teams.

Some of you have some weird ass notions about this whole situation.

[jabol130]

Great. You think unions are a thing of the past. Millions upon millions of working people disagree in an era of continually stagnant wages.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and talk about competitive advantage and keeping operating costs for corporations low and all that. Whatever. There's no use 'discussing' with a shill, much less someone quoting a site called 'rightwingnews'. C'mon, dude.

Yep, I figured someone would jump on the fact that this article was put on a politically conservative site. Google it and you'll see that's just one of many sites that quotes it. Believe it or not I am totally not right wing and tend to be much more liberal than conservative. I have a business background though and tend to see the bigger picture when it comes economy which is not easy to for an average working class person or a model democratic voter like you to seem to be able to grasp just like most ignorant Republicans can't see the big picture when it comes to the human impact on climate change for instance.

[jabol130]

Not only you didn't prove anything, the reason there's no basketball right now it's entirely the owner's fault. This is a lockout, not a strike. Furthermore, as indicated ealier, owners have the right to hire temp talent and still run the league, so if you don't have games right now, it's strictly the owner's decision.

As far as changing the laws, well, feel free to call your do-nothing right wing congressman, and ask him if he has a minute to spare from making sure Barry is a one term president and can pass a law voiding the anti-trust laws.

Good luck with that. crofl.

Just like poster above. Figures - jump on the first opportunity to label me even though you have no idea what i stand for. Arguing for the sake of making yourself believe you have won a and argument is pointless and the fact that you still don't see my point is evidence of your close mindedness.

Just as I said above - I have a business background and tend to see the bigger picture when it comes economy which apparently is not as easy for an average working class person or a model democratic voter to be able to grasp just like most ignorant Republicans can't see the big picture when it comes to the human impact on climate change for instance or how their clouded ideology regarding government involvement in many commercial and economic aspects is flawed.

[ElNono]

Just like poster above. Figures - jump on the first opportunity to label me even though you have no idea what i stand for.

At this point it's pretty clear that what you stand for doesn't exist.

You're not the only one with a business background, BTW.

[DMC]

I love onions tbh

[ElNono]

Well, we can finally say that, at least for now, the NBA union is a thing of the past :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The product is not weak because of the contracts. Its weak because there are too many damn teams.

Some of you have some weird ass notions about this whole situation.

i would actually argue that the product is weak because a severe lack of player development. The NBDL was a decent start but where NFL and MLB players get 3 or more years of development time the typical NBA player has much less.

They need a better farm system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just like poster above. Figures - jump on the first opportunity to label me even though you have no idea what i stand for.

Are you really that obtuse? You cited rightwingnews.com. Its pretty fucking obvious what you stand for. Youre a corporate shill.

[ManuTastic]

As several sports writers have already said, the players should just organize their own league. They wouldn't even have to actually go through with it. Even if they got half way into figuring out the details and calling some arenas for availability, the owners would cave. Done deal.

[Brazil]

Just as I said above - I have a business background and tend to see the bigger picture when it comes economy which apparently is not as easy for an average working class person or a model democratic voter to be able to grasp

:lmao

you are priceless tbh

May I ask what is your business background ?

[Giuseppe]

The funny thing is that the fans still don't get it - it was never a battle between owners and players; it was always between owners and agents.

Media told you to say that.:rolleyes

[TDMVPDPOY]

some ballers have degrees, why do they need to hire hunter? lol

[Giuseppe]

...Because they didn't end up losing over a quarter billion dollars a year.

[Juggity]

Unfortunately, union leadership is often corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged, leaving a lot of union workers no better off than had they not been part of a union in the first place.

A lot of corporate leadership is corrupt, misguided, and mismanaged. Which is why unions exist.

[Giuseppe]

^Me & Juggs, Shoulder-to-Shoulder.