Reply With Quote
There's also the fact that anything that the mediator says could potentially be used as testimony later down the road, and to use as media ammo. It's already being used by the union, actually.
No, they couldn't. Because the NBA filed a lawsuit making it really difficult for the union to decertify too quickly. And they did it seeing the NFL going for the nuclear option a few months back, well aware that's where the NBAPA was heading. Basically, the NBA did it so these negotiations would be extensive, thinking the players would fold in the process. The NBA really wanted this dragged out process, because they knew what they are demanding add up to major concessions from the last CBA, and basically, ripping the players off.
I think the mediator would look at it closer to actual points, especially seeing what the previous CBA was. I would expect him to say, owners get their BRI proposal, union gets their soft cap policy. That's how actual negotiations normally work. Each side get some and each side loses some.
There's also the possibility that it will ask for an actual audit of the NBA accounts, and that's where it can get really complicated for Stern.
Which is why I don't think Stern wants any part of it. It gives the players hope that they can drive some of their points as part of a deal, and Stern already bet the house on players folding.
So I don't expect the mediator to work. They're too far apart. But it's part of the process in saying the negotiations have been in "good faith".
There's also the fact that anything that the mediator says could potentially be used as testimony later down the road, and to use as media ammo. It's already being used by the union, actually.
I am well aware of their roles. Sure maybe the mediator will recommend that the players take whatever deal the NBA wants them to at that moment but I somehow doubt it.
“The mediator was suggesting we set next week — the entire week — aside,” Hunter said. “It’s because of the N.B.A. schedule and the commissioner’s alleged inability that he set this superficial, arbitrary deadline.
“I believe the N.B.A. has scheduled a board of governors meeting and other meetings Thursday and Friday,” Hunter added. “So that’s why he limited it to one day and one day only.”
link
Always a pleasure, Nono, to go around the block with you on an issue of mutual interest.
We'll agree that the players are on the right side of this mess, that they occupy the moral high ground if one exists. I'm pretty sure that we also share a common understanding of the issues and their history.
As to the question of the competence demonstrated by union leadership over the last several months, we'll have to agree to disagree. We're looking at the same sequence of events and drawing different conclusions.
Not the first time we've reached that point. I doubt it will be the last.
Yeah, I laughed when I first read about that. It's actually fairly representative of the way this whole thing has unfolded. Stern has certainly controlled the calendar up to this point.
Players need to suck it up and take the 50/50 deal and play ball. Even with the 50/50 deal they'll still be paid more than any other group of NBA players in league history. This crap about setting a legacy for future NBA players is garbage. Future players are going to be making more money than present players because the brand continues to grow every year on a global scale. TV revenue increases each year. The main difference is controlling costs. Players want an unheard of percentage of revenue that is never seen in 99% of business contract relationships where the owner is willing to relinquish more than 57% of revenue to the partner. The owner is still responsible for all expenses and the risk of financial loss and exposure to liability. The gravy train for the players is over. It's time to man up and take the 50/50 deal and play basketball.
Birn, it it's just the BRI. They basically don't agree in one single point.
The owners are also in a profitable syndicate that doesn't offer free market value to the players. If you want to make that kind of argument that they should be treated as independent businesses then you need to get rid of collusion by the owners for things such as the salary cap, the rookie scale, the maximum contract (both money and length), the caps on raises, etc.
Pleasure is all mine.
Ultimately, which side is right or wrong, as you say, will matter little once both sides sign off on a deal. I certainly think players are undergoing a test of principles right now, and their unity is what's going to make that deal another ripoff in the long storied ripoffs of the league over the players, or something they can be proud of going forward. You might characterize that pride as "we're proud on ting on the owners", but I really do think they've accepted the reality of the economic situation and made tangible concessions to assume some of that reality.
Matt Bonner!!!
tbqh, I think Stern schooled Hunter so badly before, that he miscalculated this time, by bragging too early on how he was going to school him again. By such early bragging, he allowed players to be prepared. I think the difference this time is that Hunter is in his last legs, and that players like Fisher, who is semi-retired and are a lot more in control, were able to organize the players a lot earlier and better. The union was certainly competent enough to put together do entation on player behavior, educating players on what was coming, etc. And except for McGee last night, they've been mostly following that line. If you think it was hard to keep players's mouth shut back in '99 (with the memorable Ewing, Anderson quotes), imagine what it is now with Twitter, Facebook and all that jazz.
I just think the sides are so far apart only because one started negotiating based on the previous contract, and the other based on some strictly one-sided proposal.
And this is where an 'external, neutral' character can work well for the union. Neither side has to agree with the mediator, and most likely won't. But it gives them some ammo they can use against the other side.
Actually, the last offer I heard by the players was a variance between 51% and 53%. Since they've never gotten less than 53% in ANY CBA in the salary cap era, the owners wanting 50% is the unprecedented position.
The owners need to get THEIR together and share more revenue amongst themselves. Their revenue sharing is in the neighborhood of 20 something percent of all revenues. The NFL shares in the 60th percentile. I guarantee you that with more comprehensive revenue sharing, zero NBA teams would lose money.
a free market doesnt benefit the owners besides the greedy player gettin overpaid, hence only big clubs would overpay...then again if these clowns wanted to be overpaid might as well head to europe......they wanna get paid 50m a season? they playin the wrong sport
I've been in mediation several times. In every case both sides were told by the mediator that nothing that is said during mediation by either side can be used later as it is supposed to be confidential.
Doesn't mean that folks couldn't violate the confidentiality agreement or that they could find some way around it to stay within the strict guideline.
There is a reverse to that. The owners would be getting the sweetest deal in pro sports. its called market forces. it could just as easily be said that the NBA and Stern should take the 53% deal and be getting the highest percentage in pro sports.
A free market is the American way.
Its also the Australian Way:
http://www.australiancompe ionlaw....gislation.html
Perhaps the players should start sharing THEIR basketball related revenue (i.e. endorsements) with each other. Once they do that FIRST, then they would have standing to argue the owners need to share their revenue.
Um, the last 2 collective bargaining agreements have been all about the high end players sharing their revenue with the average players. Before the lockout Jordan was pulling $30 million (in 1998 dollars). Ewing was pulling $20.5 million. Now the closest is Kobe at $25M in 2011 dollars. The salaries are far more balanced than they ever were under the pre-lockout collective bargaining agreements.
You're still talking salaries. The post I responded to dealt with all basketball related revenue. The players have no right to demand the owners share more off court revenue with each other. If the players want more money, they should look to share with each other first. I can't imagine Lebron James willing to share his $100 million in endorsements with 12th men on each team. He shouldn't have to do that and the owners shouldn't have to do that either with their off court revenue.
Uh, the players are not offering 53% to the owners. It is 47% and it is NOT the highest percentage in sports. The players need to get over themselves and accept a deal this Tuesday so we can enjoy some NBA ball this season. Once the BRI percentage is agreed, the rest of the "system" issues can be worked out in about an hour.
TV deals are off-court revenue?
The players aren't going broke. Heck, the players aren't on strike. It's some owners allegedly going broke and locking out the league.
Those owners want the players to bail them out. The players already offered to cover half of those loses. The rest of the owners need to step up and cover the other half.
Nono...the goods, per usual, tbh, fwiw.
Yep, local TV deals are the sole property of the franchise. The national network deals with ESPN, ABC, TNT are shared revenue because those deals are struck by the league on behalf of all the teams. Local and regional TV and radio deals are the sole property of the franchises. Those are considered 2nd tier network deals. LA, Chi, NY, Miami make $100's of millions of dollars in local TV contracts. SA, OKC and other small market teams don't make anything close to that with their local TV contracts.
If players are going to start demanding this money get lumped into BRI then they need to be prepared to lump in their endorsement income as well. They won't go there because they know they have no right to demand that from owners.
This crap needs to get resolved this week. Players have to stop being greedy and accept the concessions from the owners to make them the highest paid NBA players in league history. Of course, dumbasses like Kevin Garnett think they need to hold out for more money for the benefit of "future NBA players" which is all total BS. KG, Melo, Wade and all the other greedy bas s need to wake up and understand that millions of people are out of work and struggling in this economy. Their lack of common sense and greed is simply astounding. Accept the deal and let's play ball!
You're wrong. Local TV deals were absolutely part of BRI under previous collective bargaining agreements. You can read it in the Article VII of the 2005 CBA
The current CBA was due to expire after this year anyway so this whole notion that the players are being locked out really holds no water. We were heading to this point anyway. Lockout or strike it makes no difference, the issues that need to get worked out are still the same.
The bottomline for the players and fans like you to understand is that the league cannot sustain the current growth in salaries. If you want the players to maintain these salary levels, then you are facing a league with about 10 fewer teams in major markets only. It's bye bye Spurs if you believe this is the way the league should operate.
I love my Spurs and want them to remain compe ive. If you also love your Spurs, then you would be for the owners on this deal.
This deal is all on the players. They have no right to demand more than 50% of the revenue from the owners. They have no right to keep demanding to keep 57% from owners unless they also take 57% of the operating costs from the owners. You people need to wake up and realize just how greedy and selfish these players really are. It is disgusting, de able, and sickening to see them acting this way in this current economy with millions of people out of work and striving for some kind of entertainment to take their minds off of their problems in trying to keep their families together.
Greedy Bas s!! Accept the 50/50 deal and play ball now!!!
You should look into a career in politics tbh.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
