Reply With Quote
And yet the union chief continues to publicly foreswear decertification. Aside from Hunter's job security, what is gained by waiting to file suit?
Until last evening I thought this was going to be business as usual. Uh, uh. Stern wants parity and that's it. He was plain spoken and absolutely blunt last night. I sat there and watched in disbelief as he laid it all out. A gut punch is what it was. He's not ing around. We're in for a sea change.
It happens.
And yet the union chief continues to publicly foreswear decertification. Aside from Hunter's job security, what is gained by waiting to file suit?
Not filing suit immediately makes sense. If they believe the PR issue means anything then by not filing suit, they gain credibility with the good faith argument. When the NFLPA filed immediately, they hammered them for it incessantly for months.
They are trying to work with the mediator now. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to go into federal court more or less blowing off the mediator. As it stands now if they play the game for a bit longer and demonstrate through the mediator that the NBA is not negotiating in good faith then it becomes much easier to file for an immediate injunction.
The original ruling on the injunction from the Judge for the NFL took almost three months. Even if they were to file the earliest they could expect back is January and of course there will be an immediate appeal. Had they sued immediately they would be mired in that nonsense in the midst of these negotiations and if the NFL negotiations were of any comparisons getting hammered in the public. We would have been having the injunction ruling just coming down now under that backdrop.
i don't see how that is to their advantage if they want to win the case because it would make them look like assholes.
I just know that they have Jeff Kessler and the guy's legacy is of forcing capitulation by the NFL. I guarantee you a big part of his input is exactly how he can win in federal court again. Hunter is absolutely getting that all the time if he talks to him at all.
On numerous cases DeMauice Smith would have to tell Kessler to back off during negotiations while he was suing the NFL. Now Kessler is quoted talking about how the NBA is not negotiating in good faith which just so happens to be the same line that Hunter is giving. I don't buy for a minute that Kessler does not have the briefs ready to file right now if he wanted to.
Good stuff, Lumpy.
I think this article underscores something I've been thinking for a few days . . .
Stern is going easy on the players, and they're lucky to have been relatively close to a deal (at least in Hunter's words of being within hours of a deal).
Think of what everyone thought for sure was to Stern going for blood, and some is in that article:
Clawbacks of existing salaries. All throughout last summer's dumb signings there was media chatter that it wouldn't matter because the NBA wouldn't have to pay those same contracts, they would be reduced. Stern isn't demanding that and has ceded that away.
No more Bird exception. Well, Stern has said that demand is off the table. There may be restrictions and issues with it, such as the owner's proposal of only Bird-players getting 5 year deals. I've read that the union has charged that only teams under the cap would be allowed to have the Bird ability, but that is up in the air. Regardless, there would be some Bird exceptions going around.
No more fully guaranteed contracts. Well, Stern isn't demanding that anymore. Sure, he might hope and suspect that different tax levies and cap rules would lead to more teams negotiating more cap-friendly unguaranteed or partially guaranteed deals, but in the compe ive arena of free agency, he can't know for sure that's what would happen.
No more mid-level. The same mid-level won't be around, but there will be an MLE of some kind available. Less money and less years seems certain, but a mid-level would still kick around. And Stern has said he wanted to restrict teams paying the tax from having the mid-level available (which sounds fairly reasonable).
"The NBA wants a reduction of the total salaries paid to players by 30 to 40 percent.". My limited understanding of what a flat 50/50 split compared to the previous 57% means is about a 12% reduction.
And of course not in the article was the owners demanding to lock the players into serfdom with a 10 year deal . . . but they offered the players an opt-out at seven years.
Are these the slash-and-burn scorched earth demands of the boogeyman that Stern was thought be by all (including me)?
Seriously, that's what people thought Stern was going to demand, then draw his line in the sand, and freeze the players out until they caved and agreed to those predicted harsh goals.
But to me . . . none of the NBA's stated offers or floated concepts if they are to be believed authentic pass the smell test of "these guys were going to lock the players out no matter what".
That doesn't mean that I think the owners are the only ones conceding. And the players at 53% giving the owners what amounts to a Billion dollars is a big deal, and I don't understand why the players aren't making a bigger deal of them essentially offering to pay the owners a billion dollars to play again.
Compared to what people were bracing themselves for . . . Stern seems to be playing it fair.
Glad that its good input.
You act like Stern was not just asking for all of that as late as a month ago. That they did not give into his asinine demands does not reflect well on Stern. Quite the opposite really.
Don't forget also that the NBA filed a preemptive suit basically saying that decertification meant the PA negotiating in bad faith. The union being able to show they negotiated long and hard, and in good faith, in front of a mediator, should basically dismiss that suit and open the door for decertification.
Last edited by ElNono; 10-14-2011 at 08:32 PM.
Stern wants to show he's "negotiating" and that he has made "concessions". But when you actually put the old CBA as the backdrop, instead of the initial demands, he's still raping the players.
As much as people think Stern can just lock players out and tell them to take whatever deal or GTFO, he really cannot do that. You can see what happened with the NFL to see why he really can't do that without getting his owners in trouble. Stern has to at least look like he's negotiating in "good faith"
That suit followed by the NBA's behavior just puts them in an awful light. You look at the rhetorc put out by Stern and his offices with the "we'll meet with you on Monday only if you agree to a deal." A scheme to completely re-engineer how business is done in the NBA that was flamboyantly self-serving.
Stern had better hope for a large contingency of players to panic about the lack of income very quickly or he could very well be getting butt plugged in federal court this Spring. He would be very wise to play nice with this mediator.
The law is clear. There may be some precedent needing SCOTUS review on the injunction after how the appellate court but they did that from the vantage point of equal protection from an exemption from injunction and not on the merits of the injunction.
SCOTUS in American Needle vs NFL voted 7-1 and took the liberty on reasserting that labor was not exempt from an rust despite the case being about a licensing dispute.
Kessler was involved in White vs the NFL where the standards were set for application of Sherman and in short firms cannot collude to set conditions for contracts. Its pretty clear that the idea of colluding to not negotiate will not hold muster nor will collusion to not honor existing contracts with the lockout.
Then we can see the crazy Slav in NJ go crazy spending his cash and Stern will get fired. i think the NBA could really use some regime change. I can honestly say that the guys like Jones, Kraft, Rooney and Goodell look like absolute visionaries compared to whats going over at the NBA offices.
Quotes from union leadership after last night's meeting with 30 players in LA:
Good to know that the union is prepared to cut off their own noses in order to bleed all over the owners. This is their plan? To engage the owners in a game of chicken where everyone loses and take solace from the belief that the other side will lose more?
Their bravado was tempered a bit when JaVale McGee was quoted as saying "there's definitely some guys in there saying that they're ready to fold". Apparently McGee sent out a tweet denying the statement, but the statement was recorded by a dozen or so members of the press.
Players are going to bleed regardless. If this is the only way for them to get some leverage on the negotiations, then that's what is going to have to be.
Don't forget that it's the owners that locked out the players, it isn't the players that don't want to play.
I'm well aware that it's a lockout and I would disagree that this posture creates leverage. IMO, it simply assures greater losses for all involved.
Either end this thing on the best terms you can get or bring out the nukes and sue. These brave words are pointless; they just waste time and money.
Players actual best weapon is that small market owners and big market owners aren't in the same situation at all. For the moment, Stern is keeping them united but it can change. If each owner start looking at his own interest, a breach, that players could use, will be created.
I think it's just part of the process. When they decertify, if they do, they'll have much better chances of getting that injuction if they can show they negotiated in good faith and exhausted all possibilities for a deal.
I think it's interesting that the mediator said to clear all next week, and Stern decided to only cut it to a single day. I don't think Stern really wants any business with an external mediator. And I think the players sense that.
I agree that it would have been really hard to do and that's why I said it should had be done on July 1st with all the top players. Capital and TV deals wouldn't have been an issue since investor and TV channel would have been interest by a product that would have been as good as the NBA. Arenas would have been the biggest issue but a lot of them are owned by cities/counties and not by the franchises.
They could have demonstrated all that back in July. I know others see it differently, but I'm convinced that the union has squandered huge amounts of time and now will waste even more time and huge amounts of money. They knew exactly what was coming and couldn't come up with a better plan than staring down the owners.
As to the mediator. What if he suggests to split the difference on all issues based on the most recent positions of both sides? So 50/50 on BRI, no hard cap but a firmer cap with a stiffer luxury tax, shorter contracts, and a less lucrative MLE. I think Stern takes that in a heartbeat and sells it to the owners and that Hunter would have a much tougher time selling it to the players. Then where is the union if they're the ones to walk away from the mediator's efforts?
You're more optimistic about such a league than I am. I would agree that any chances would have been better back in July.
They would be foolish to sue while they are using a federal mediator. Hopefully something can come of it. If talks do breakdown and the players file, its going to be months before there is any movement.
With the precedent of the NFL in appellate court concerning injunctions the only recourse is review by SCOTUS and i would not hold my breath. Other than a preliminary injunction itll be next Summer before the trial completes and then that will be appealed.
If you want a quick resolution then you are either going to have to have the players capitulate or have the owners quit trying to lowball and start negotiating on the basis of how things are and not how they want them to be.
Hes a mediator not an arbitrator.
Clearly.
Then I don't get your point about him making suggestions.
Is he prohibited by his office from doing so? Is he limited to observing and relaying messages between the two sides?
How Collective Bargaining Mediation Works
In collective bargaining mediation, FMCS mediators are in touch with both parties even before negotiations actually begin. The contact is triggered by the legally-required notice of intent to open a collective bargaining agreement.
During negotiations, effective mediators use knowledge of the parties and issues "on the table" to guide negotiators through potential deadlocks to a settlement which both sides can accept.
Mediators may make suggestions and offer procedural or substantive recommendations with the agreement of both parties. However, they have no authority to impose settlements. Their only tool is the power of persuasion.
http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDet...1&itemID=15911
The mediators’ effectiveness derives from their acceptability to both parties, their broad knowledge, experience in the process of collective bargaining, and their status as respected neutrals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
