Resuming CBA talks

[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 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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

You still care what I think?

Why not?

[Mel_13]

Why not?

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...#ixzz1ZTscSccM

[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 compe ive 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.