Because it's not guaranteed the owners will win. There is potential for them to come out way ahead. The deal was so bad it was worth it to them.
Two possibilities in my opinion:
1) They think this will scare the owners and force them back to the negotiating table, which is foolhardy. Like DPG said, owners were probably already expecting this tactic, and if what they report about profits are true, some will actually stand to SAVE money by not having a season.
2) They are doing this out of principle to not appear like fools, but as Richard Feynman once said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself"
Nope, I thought the players would cave. I thought the players would reject the offer and then league would throw them a bone to seal the deal (obviously not sticking to their 47% threat).
Did the players even allow the owners enough time to see what direction they were going after the rejection? Either the 47% direction, same deal, or something a little better.
I'd just like to go on record as stating that this whole thing is, in the wise words of the great Tim Duncan, re ed.
To be honest, I don't think the owners expected the players to do such a thing. David Stern was pretty vocal about how upset he and the owners were, claiming that the move was irresponsible, and even taking a stab at thier intelligence by saying "The NBPA in all it's infinite wisdom.."
I'm not saying that the Owners are becoming intimidated and will return to the table. Just an observation.
Also, I know the deal was bad enough to move in the direction of a disclaimer, but it just seems so foolish to me. I don't see how they can win.
With regard to current options, with the union dissolved can the lawyers for the NBA contact the lawyers for the Player's association and cut a deal? If so, would all anti-trust lawsuits be dropped, the union re-forms, and there would be a new CBA? I've read about everything published on the subject, but I'm unsure if the union re-forms if the lawyers get a deal. I also realize this isn't likely to happen until a judge rules on whether the anti-trust lawsuits are legitimate.
I think the Union was trying to get smart players involved in decision making, or at least well educated.
So sucking at basketball and being smart go hand in hand? :P
Why is it foolhardy? Worked for the NFL union a year ago.
You mean besides the owners saying they were done negotiating after extending the offer?
Of course not. Not this late.
Whoever thinks the owners rather be in this position than playing games after giving up a few system issues is really delusional, IMO.
What happens now is the NBA doesn't negotiate with the union anymore (because there's no union). Now the negotiations would be worked out as a settlement to the lawsuits. Both parties on the lawsuit will sit down and try to settle the lawsuit. It just won't happen until there's a few court rulings first though. Both sides want to see if they can obtain some ruling (the players looking for a declaration of the lockout being illegal, the NBA looking for a declaration that the lockout is legal) that would trigger the other side to sit down and settle for what they want.
Really? So instead of getting just a bad deal, now the players have a chance of losing there yearly salary and getting a bad deal...
So did they say that before or after the offer got rejected? I don't care what they said before the offer was rejected. It would have been wise to see what the owners were going to do. Or use disclaiming as a threat back to the owners with a deadline.
Got it. Just unsure if the union re-forms and they draft a new CBA after there's a settlement in place. I thought the NFL's union got back together after a deal was cut. Mainly wonder if a new CBA will need to be in place when they start playing again...??
You might not care, but when one of the sides goes publicly saying:
"There comes a time when you have to be through negotiating," Stern said, "and we are."
That doesn't really lend itself to the belief that there will be further negotiations, or negotiations that would yield an agreement, seeing that the ultimatum basically dictated that the next offer would be a worse offer.
And BTW, now that this is headed to the courts, I'm sure there a few words Stern wished he didn't say. Same for Hunter.
I would assume that any settlement would include a new "claim of interest" to recons ute the union since the new CBA needs to be made with the union in place. Which is another reason why a "disclaimer of interest" was the right move. If the union would've decertified, then gaining certification again would've entailed waiting for the NLRB to approve it, thus more delays.
Thanks. Makes sense to me, hope they can reach a settlement...
Just think they should have waited a day to see true direction.
They also have a chance to force the owners to negotiate a better deal along with the potential to win massive damages and a great deal if it goes to trial.Really? So instead of getting just a bad deal, now the players have a chance of losing there yearly salary and getting a bad deal...
You do realize this is exactly the mind set that got them in trouble. There are only so many times you could hope for the best after getting burned. This was the latest they could wait.
First, the NFL owners actually gave a if there was a season. The NBA owners, as far as anyone can tell, do not. And Stern was threatening Hunter with this fact seven months ago.
The only way this draws a settlement is if the NBA players can actually draw up enough evidence to prove that, but the NBA owners will just counter that the Player's Union was just planning to disclaim all along (since Hunter basically told Stern as much, which is why the NBA already filed a lawsuit in NY).
Secondly, the players aren't filing for a settlement or injunction of the lockout; they are suing for damages caused by a "boycott". Instead of trying to save the game, they are just going after the owner's pockets. Not sure if that will be more or less effective, but on the surface, it seems like just a scare tactic.
I hope I'm wrong, but I see this just turning into legal actions to prove whose threats were more unlawful before it turns into any more negotiations. And we all know how fast the court's clocks tick; that is to say, not very.
Last edited by Dex; 11-15-2011 at 11:36 PM.
The dumbest thing the NBA did was to prohibit players from playing in the d-league if they have any team affiliation. That pretty much proves that they are a monopoly and can limit where players play within the US.
Frankly, the NBA can still pick up the phone before any lawsuit is filed.
But I think at this stage is pretty clear Stern himself might not even have full control of the owners. One day we'll find out how much trapped Stern himself was in all this.
There's one other minor league that starts in January. Definitely small time, but it has been around for four years.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
