Reply With Quote
It's the battle of egos.
Yup. Players want 6 years, so that they can get in on the new TV deal in 5 years, and the owners, of course, are refusing to budge on 10 years. It's what they do.
It's the battle of egos.
Quality post.
What's up with the racism?
It's still not the BRI. The BRI is dynamic. Sure the number split is static, but, the payoff is fluid and within the player's motivations to impact. They may get lazy after it's signed and not be inclinded to impact it at their discretion, but, going into the contract anything is possible.
It's still the system. A hard cap, or, a prohibitive luxury tax point is static and a death knell to loose money. Any fool can see that.
I'm sure his black friend Larry Sanders appreciates the slur.
When it comes to labor vs. ownership battles in American history, true colors often come out and you see who almost immediately go to racism.
Are you suggesting that some owner will drop the "picking cotton" line soon? I thought that was reserved to BRHornet and the like...
I thought the owners initial bogus # was 60% for them, 40% players. Which everyone knew was just a b.s. negotiating starting point.
At any rate, i still say when Matty Bonner is pulling 3.3 a year it's like at what point is it good enough. got Fisher should have never agreed to the last CBA which had Derrick Rose capped at barely more then Bonner. Now that's some serious bull .
That was never on the table. The floor number for the owners at the table was always 47%.
Derrick Rose will make his money. The rookie scale was put in place because of a bunch of "Bonners" who held out their rookie years and then didn't produce. I think the players are trying to get it shortened from 5 years to 4, but good luck with that.
No way Bonner gets that contract from anyone else. I have no clue why RC bid against himself on both Ginger's and 's contracts.
He didn't do it independent of Pop. Don't even think about trying that , Base.
I'm not sure what most of this means, but I thought Henry Abbott's article on race in the negotiations was terrific. It's not always appropriate to find, but there certainly is a way many in this country get upset when black men have money and try to protect it. So quickly we dissolve into "well they just spend it on drugs and s," so might as well let the white owners keep more of it, because obviously they deserve it. There is certainly a racial underpinning in all labor negotiations in the NBA.
Yeah, Dan whatshisname in Cleveland seems a bit put out by that uppity ###### LeBron deciding his own fate...
Sure you are. If you are black then so is Kooaid_Man.
For the millionth time, using the n-word (and all the other slurs) on this forum, isn't permitted. I know that timvp and I haven't spent much time on the forum in recent months, due to personal cir stances, but I'm going to sweep out all the trash. If you guys think it's cool to continue to spout racial slurs and the such, you'll be in the sweep.
Is Fisher in Stern's back pocket?
This is opinion: The latest NBA lockout stalemate is all about the basketball-related-income (BRI) split. The owners want 50-50. The players want 52-48.
This is fact: The belief that NBA Players Association president Derek Fisher has been co-opted by commissioner David Stern — and promised the commish he could deliver the union at 50-50 — caused NBPA executive director Billy Hunter and at least one member of the union’s executive committee to confront Fisher on Friday morning and make him reassess his 50-50 push, a source familiar with the negotiations told FOXSports.com Friday afternoon....
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/W...pleased-102811
Allen appears to be checking out on the Blazers, and there’s su ion that his motives center on saving as much money as possible in this CBA to eventually ready his franchise for a sale.
“He’s gone the other way, the complete other way,” a high-ranking league official told Yahoo! Sports. “He’s been the most vociferous lately that [the owners] have given up too much to the players, that they should be holding out for a hard cap, for 40 percent to the players [on the revenue split]. No one has gone after the labor committee harder about this than him.”
There was an incredible article on Paul Allen upthread. He's a rich old eccentric who has lost interest in the Blazers and is willing to sell out the entire league so he can make a few more million off the sale, even though he's richer than Croesus. He's pure, unadulterated horse for a human being.
I ain't heard that since Kurt Russell uttered it using "more money..."
A good article summarizing what will be the new CBA:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...als/index.html
Basically, the system won't dramatically change. It will be more owners friendly and small market friendly but nothing revolutionary.
They COULDN'T get this done well before the season started???
The labor committee refers to the internal group of owners tasked with putting together an initial offer and playing hardball in the negotiations, NOT to the players group. Allen was most certainly lobbying the up front negotiating owners, but since he reputedly didn't say a damn word to anyone on the other side of the table during talks or even on breaks, how could he have lobbied them or pushed them into anything? The 40% model was never on the table.
That luxury tax hit is over the borderline prohibitive. I can't believe the players agreed to that.
Christ.
Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions