Resuming CBA talks

[ElNono]

For the 49-51 BRI split proposed by the owners, I do think players will get 51% after few years. It will mainly be because the BRI will raise a lot with a relativity high inflation. Inflation is the easiest way to solve the US debt situation .

Well, this is about matching projections. I have doubt as to who creates those projections? If it's the league, and they publish inflated projections, players will never see 51%.

[ElNono]

But if they lose the season what is the offer gonna be then? Stern and the owners will try and low-ball them further probably citing uncertainty over the fans wanting to come back to the NBA off a lost season and likely the economy still being bad... I don't see how the players get a better deal if they lose the season. Owner are not going to get soft on the terms in the next 6 months..

The offer is going to be 47% + flex-cap, as Stern said yesterday. But it might not matter, since that offer is with the union. If the union decertifies (is basically no more), then all bets are off. Owners are going to try to void contracts to gain leverage and players are going to sue on anti-trust grounds over the draft, rookie scale, etc.

Eventually they'll land a judge that will tell them they either get an agreement in place, or the judge himself will draft it without any input from the sides, and taking the last CBA as reference. At that point, both sides will sit their asses and stop with the petty bull , because neither side wants to risk a third party deciding what the agreement should be. This is what happened with the NFL, and honestly, it worked well for the union. It doesn't mean it will always work well for them, but it's a risk they might have to take considering owners won't budge.

[spurs10]

The offer is going to be 47% + flex-cap, as Stern said yesterday. But it might not matter, since that offer is with the union. If the union decertifies (is basically no more), then all bets are off. Owners are going to try to void contracts to gain leverage and players are going to sue on anti-trust grounds over the draft, rookie scale, etc.

Eventually they'll land a judge that will tell them they either get an agreement in place, or the judge himself will draft it without any input from the sides, and taking the last CBA as reference. At that point, both sides will sit their asses and stop with the petty bull , because neither side wants to risk a third party deciding what the agreement should be. This is what happened with the NFL, and honestly, it worked well for the union. It doesn't mean it will always work well for them, but it's a risk they might have to take considering owners won't budge.

From all I've read and heard, this is going to court. It's hard to imagine losing 4 billion. Neither side will get that back for a long, long time. It's hard to face the facts, but the NBA is over...for some time.

[ElNono]

and lol @ Führer Stern saying that's not an ultimatum...

[ElNono]

I should expand, a judge will look at both the league numbers AND the previous CBA... which is also a reason why owners will probably not want to go through the process.

[ElNono]

After reports that Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael Jordan had become one of the most vocal of hardline owners, union officials were anxious for him to speak up in Saturday night’s meeting. Union officials, just as they wanted to do back at the last labor meeting that Jordan attended on All-Star weekend, were determined to throw back at Jordan many of his old anti-ownership screeds from the 1990s.

As one official said, “He never opened his mouth, not once.”

[DesignatedT]

Just accept the in deal. Wow.

[Bruno]

Well, this is about matching projections. I have doubt as to who creates those projections? If it's the league, and they publish inflated projections, players will never see 51%.

BRI is calculated each year by an independent accounting firm. The projection of a 4.5% yearly BRI raise is based on how the BRI has raised in the past.

My point is that I think the BRI will raise by more than 4.5% per year in the future because the US government will try to generate some inflation to reduce US debt.

[Nathan89]

If its true players dropped offer to 51% & owners didn't concede anything they need to decertify.

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

[ElNono]

BRI is calculated each year by an independent accounting firm.

This I didn't know. Thanks.

[ElNono]

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

Does it looks like the owners are willing to negotiate further?
I just get the feeling owners are not moving a finger after this. At least the call for this ultimatum sounds like this is the best the union is getting, and it's all going downhill from here.

And they would be right in keeping that position seeing the union has no leverage at the moment. That's why decertification is the only gamble the union has left (outside the NLRB ruling, which has been MIA)

[Nathan89]

Does it looks like the owners are willing to negotiate further?
I just get the feeling owners are not moving a finger after this. At least the call for this ultimatum sounds like this is the best the union is getting, and it's all going downhill from here.

And they would be right in keeping that position seeing the union has no leverage at the moment. That's why decertification is the only gamble the union has left (outside the NLRB ruling, which has been MIA)

The owners don't seem to want to negotiate any further but I think they will have to. The ultimatum they gave the players union is nothing more than a bluff. The owners know the players union would never accept that offer(the next proposed offer) and would be forced to decertify(something neither side wants). So the obvious conclusion to draw from that is that it is a bluff. A bluff that is intended to make the players feel that this is as good as it will get and is about to get way worse. Not only worse but way worse in just three days. What happens in three days that calls for such a drastic change? Nothing. If the story doesn't make sense then it's a bluff.

That being said the players need to call that bluff by waiting past the deadline. Well they should continue negotiating but if the owners resist negotiating the players need not budge to the bluff. That would be stupid to give your opponent more power than they have and cave to a bluff. After the deadline the owners will get the message that the players are united and not folding for any of their bull bluffs. Then the owners will be more likely to negotiate. If they don't negotiate then the players have to eventually make their bluff which is decertification. Decertification is a bluff because they don't want the owners to call but it is something that the owners must realize they can't back off of. Because the players can't back off of it is not the time to make such a bluff.

[DPG21920]

So you think the should decertify over a 1% gap between owners and players?

They definitely should not go lower without getting a lot more player favorable system issues.

Yes. The players have made every concession and are losing on the system as well. If they indeed came down on the BRI % and the owners made no concessions on the system, it's worth it to me to decertify.

[mavsfan1000]

The players have much more to lose than the owners if the season is lost. Keep it going owners. The players can screw themselves if they want.

[ElNono]

That being said the players need to call that bluff by waiting past the deadline. Well they should continue negotiating but if the owners resist negotiating the players need not budge to the bluff.

Agree, but this meeting Saturday was called by the union... and the owners already said the next offer is 47%... Barring caving from the players, I think this is heading to the courts, tbh
That will reflect very poorly on Hunter and Fish, but that's that.

[Birn]

The players don't have the votes for decertification. It takes 130 votes just to bring it to a vote and another 240 or so votes to actually make decertification official. The owners would love for the players to try and vote to decertify because they want to see firsthand exactly how the rank and file players feel about this. I guarantee that if the owners latest proposal were submitted to the players for a vote it would be overwhelmingly approved. The rank and file are ready to play and will vote for this thing in a heartbeat. The rank and file know that if they vote to decertify it pretty much will cost them the season. That's totally against their self interest and more for the potential benefit of the superstar players. The union negotiating committee is basically only negotiating for the superstar players and their agents. It's really a disgrace to see the union negotiating committee so openly disrespecting the rank and file players.

When the union finds they don't have the votes to decertify, they have nothing left and will be forced to accept the owners latest proposal which is very fair and reasonable. There will be another months worth of games cancelled by then and hundreds of millions of dollars lost to the players. Thanks for nothing union...hope it was well worth it to you.

[Dex]

WojYahooNBA Adrian Wojnarowski
Front office officials of two teams say owners returned from Saturday meeting telling staff to prepare for strong possibility of no season.
26 minutes ago

[DPG21920]

very fair and reasonable

[DJ Mbenga]

Adrian Wojnarowski As I hear from players, I will be surprised if there isn't some kind of membership push to take NBA's offer. How big of one? Still unknown.

vague i cant seem to make a guess what will happen. i dont think it will stop the decertification vote. you dont need that many to get it going, getting it approved is the tougher thing. the players went down to 51 the owners came back with the same 50 50 deal just reworded. the players would need a miracle to reach 51% and the 51% is not even 51 its 50 since that 1 percent goes to a retirement or something fund.
i think this is gonna be a big problem. you are dealing with MJ. he is one of the most stubborn competetive guys out there. if he wants somethign he will fight to death for it even if may be wrong to do so.

[Buddy Holly]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

ing nonsense.

[DPG21920]

Again, the BRI is only a part of the issue. The main concern is the system. If that was reasonable players would easily accept 50% BRI.

[DPG21920]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

ing nonsense.

Players more important than the owners. Period.

[DJ Mbenga]

Again, the BRI is only a part of the issue. The main concern is the system. If that was reasonable players would easily accept 50% BRI.

true. i actually like the compromise or what cohen presented for the tax payers MLE. the problem is not allowing sign and trades for tax payers. it becoems a flex cap no matter how you want to word it. get rid of that and the players easily run to 50 50 heck even 49.

[ElNono]

true. i actually like the compromise or what cohen presented for the tax payers MLE. the problem is not allowing sign and trades for tax payers. it becoems a flex cap no matter how you want to word it. get rid of that and the players easily run to 50 50 heck even 49.

the owners feel they have all the leverage and that the union won't have the balls to decertify. There's no way they're giving up all the they want for a season at this stage. Let's see how this plays out by wednesday.

IIRC, union members can force a vote on that deal presented, even if union officials don't necessarily want to. So let's see if it happens.

[ElNono]

So it was fine for the players to bend the owners over a barrel in 1998 but now that the owners want to get a better slice of the pie the players can't accept it? Wait, sorry, not the players, the agents and Billy Hunter.

ing nonsense.

This is what you were saying when owners bent the players over a barrel in the 80's and ins uted the salary cap? It always been a dogfight like this. The difference here is that small team owners are running the show for the league and they don't care if a season goes away.