Reply With Quote
Indeed. It's like saying the US govt. actually cares what the people want.
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.
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
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.
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;_yl...d_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 an rust 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.
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?'
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whatever floats your boat.
Gee, thanks.
Let's stop this fighting and just gander at this for a while:
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.
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 an rust 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.
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 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.
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
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.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,Otis Smith.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions