Resuming CBA talks

[Mel_13]

Well players wants 53/47 and owners 46/54 of the BRI for the players. I can see owners offering 50/50 pretending they do that to save the season. In fact, a 50/50 split would be a great victory for owners with players cutting their salary by 12.3%. And a 50/50 split without an official hard cap would look good enough to be voted by the players.

All true. The players will have to cave to get this done. The scenario you outline is probably the most optimistic one for an early resolution. (and when you look at the financial interests of most of the current members of the union, it's probably the best they can do)

[Bruno]

And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous

Well, it's more ludicrous that the idea of these owners getting replaced.

[Mel_13]

I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...

They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.

I assume that the players believe that they are in the right on most of the issues. I know I believe that they are. Their problem, as you point out, is that the owners have the leverage.

That won't change absent a ruling for the players from the NLRB or a federal court. While they wait for that, most of the season will be lost along with earnings that they'll never recoup.

I know people don't have much sympathy for millionaire athletes, but they're getting screwed by billionaire owners.

[Giuseppe]

All true. The players will have to cave to get this done. The scenario you outline is probably the most optimistic one for an early resolution. (and when you look at the financial interests of most of the current members of the union, it's probably the best they can do)

Matzel, Matzel, good things.

[Dex]

I assume that the players believe that they are in the right on most of the issues. I know I believe that they are. Their problem, as you point out, is that the owners have the leverage.

That won't change absent a ruling for the players from the NLRB or a federal court. While they wait for that, most of the season will be lost along with earnings that they'll never recoup.

I know people don't have much sympathy for millionaire athletes, but they're getting screwed by billionaire owners.

I agree, it sucks for the players. It's absolutely unfair. Despite whether they are or aren't overpaid (I think they are, but I think all sports athletes are), they are having to makeup for owners mistakes by giving up money that was contractually obligated to them. For lack of other terms, it's bull .

However, I think that at this point, there's not much of a way around it. The players need to be in damage control mode at this point, and try to get away from it with the best deal they can, even if it's not the deal they wanted originally. Otherwise, the owners will stretch this out and make it as painful as they need to until the players cave.

Ethical or not, the billionaires can hold their hands and keep their chips, and just wait for the millionaires to fold.

[Mel_13]

I agree, it sucks for the players. It's absolutely unfair. Despite whether they are or aren't overpaid (I think they are, but I think all sports athletes are), they are having to makeup for owners mistakes by giving up money that was contractually obligated to them. For lack of other terms, it's bull .

However, I think that at this point, there's not much of a way around it. The players need to be in damage control mode at this point, and try to get away from it with the best deal they can, even if it's not the deal they wanted originally. Otherwise, the owners will stretch this out and make it as painful as they need to until the players cave.

Ethical or not, the billionaires can hold their hands and keep their chips, and just wait for the millionaires to fold.

Also hitting the nail on the head.

[Dex]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bleacher...-lockout-soon/

Good article regarding the current state of things. The le is a little optimistic for the content, but still a good overview of what both sides want and where both sides are at.

[ElNono]

I don't see why decertification isn't an option for the players, should they decide to go that route. Not different to what the NFL players did, and the stakes for the owners would be pretty big. Not to mention that there's a fairly fresh precedent set by the NFL players.

You guys keep talking about the owners having all the chips, but good luck playing with replacement players. We'll see if the Lakeshow isn't going to lose that $3 billion TV deal if they play some scrubs instead of Kobe and co. There's a lot of money in play here from both sides.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still don't understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I mean, I know what they want, but I'm pretty sure the writing is obviously on the wall...

They can take a not-so-great deal now, or get stuck with a crappier deal later like they did in '99. If they take the deal later, not only will that be a overall step backwards, but they'll also lose the income from the half-season that will be lost, alienate an entire nation of fans, and give the nay-sayers another season with a historical asterisk in the process. Seems like the owners have the leverage here.

And I still don't think the ideas of these players getting replaced is altogether ludicrous: it may dilute the talent pool for a while, but other people can learn to play and be stars in basketball. It's not like these guys are the only people capable of learning how to throw an orange ball in a basket, especially if they spend their working-lives training to do it. And I'm also pretty sure people would rather have a diluted season than no season at all.

I understand this whole "standing unified" is part of the negotiating deal, but if they want to drive that bus straight off a cliff, then that will be their folly.

The owners wanted to and got a renegotiation of the 1999 deal in 2005. They were muttering about lockouts back then. The owners are locking them out this time. I find it interesting where you think a good starting point in a negotiation is.

Each year there are only a handful of players with the physical talent to come into the league and contribute immediately. its exactly the reason that second rounders do not get guaranteed contracts.

I know the idea of recruiting the CBA seems a good one to you but I do not find it so. Professional sports firms today are so adorable. They cannot handle the free market because a labor market with such scarcity and a natural compe ive spirit sucks and they need it fixed but somehow them using the tactic of a lockout to achieve that means the players are the ones driving this bus off the cliff.

We are going to miss games. The last season started 336 days ago. That point was already passed when they did not get a deal done this past weekend now you are posturing for them too.

I know you guys want to talk about leverage but the owners are seriously risking a serious devaluation of their business. For example, from 1994 to 1995, MLB attendance declined 20%. At least that time it was the players who went on strike so you could really blame them.

You can sit there and try to do the for tat bus driving blame game. or you can actually look at making a deal from a risk reward standpoint.

One thing that i think they need to legislate if there is to be this free market tap dance by sports leagues, the overarching bodies like the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB need a lot more autonomous power. i think a lot of the stupidity we have seen in labor negotiations from the leagues could have been eliminated. It gets rid of the stupid behavior of trusts and get the legal system out of the discussion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good luck with that:


Stern and owners main argument for seeking huge paycut form players is that they have lost tons of money every year since they agreed to the last CBA in 2005.

An immediate question pop up:
Why owners have agreed so easily to such an awful CBA in 2005 ?

There are only 2 answers:
1) Owners are the worst bunch of businessmen of the world.
2) Owners are flat out lying when claiming such big losses. these are just accounting figures.

I'm going with 2). I'm' sure owners aren't fine with people looking to closely at their numbers. They played the clock with the NBAPA by giving them only partial numbers and only very late in the negotiating process. If NRLB has had access to all the numbers, owners will be screwed when this process will come to an end.

Its interesting because this was one of the biggest issues in the NFL labor issues. There was a corporate lawyer that I know. He helps negotiate $100m oil leases and the like so he has a sense of what is appropriate in these types of deals.

What he said was that if you were say, Exxon talking with the UAE about developing an oil field, you of course as part of negotiations discuss expenditures and the like but if you made claims to figures, you would automatically provide the accounting. Audits are routine and not a big deal.

Its only in US sports leagues with these trusts that you get this. Its asinine. You are never going to see the NBA make claims about actual figures to the NLRB because if they did they would risk a subpoena which there is no way in they are going risk.

Its just PR nonsense.

[ElNono]

One other thing to consider is that this is supposed to be a negotiation, where both sides are supposed to compromise. But so far, is there anything other than players giving stuff up? What are the owners offering to improve over the last CBA? A good faith negotiation normally goes alone the lines of "I give you this, you give me that". But I can't think one thing that I've read where the owners are actually are improving over the last CBA. Going from 40% to 46% to potentially 50% of BRI really isn't negotiating when the last player BRI distribution was 57%. Longer deals? Increase on the BRI contingent to league revenues increasing? Nope. Nada.

[Dex]

One other thing to consider is that this is supposed to be a negotiation, where both sides are supposed to compromise. But so far, is there anything other than players giving stuff up? What are the owners offering to improve over the last CBA? A good faith negotiation normally goes alone the lines of "I give you this, you give me that". But I can't think one thing that I've read where the owners are actually are improving over the last CBA. Going from 40% to 46% to potentially 50% of BRI really isn't negotiating when the last player BRI distribution was 57%. Longer deals? Increase on the BRI contingent to league revenues increasing? Nope. Nada.

The owners have backed away from the hard cap model (which was probably unrealistic in the first place), and have reportedly come to some sort of agreement with the revenue sharing which could help solve a lot of this.

Not sure if that really matches the concessions that players have made, but there have been some on both sides. Then again, it also may be a case of the owners setting the bar so low, then trying to point at the fact that they raised it, even though it's still barely off the ground.

[DJ Mbenga]

should be interesting tomorrow. either we have real progress but no deal or we have a blowup from the players as the owners basically say we aint negotiating until you dont get your checks.

[ElNono]

The owners have backed away from the hard cap model (which was probably unrealistic in the first place), and have reportedly come to some sort of agreement with the revenue sharing which could help solve a lot of this.

Not sure if that really matches the concessions that players have made, but there have been some on both sides. Then again, it also may be a case of the owners setting the bar so low, then trying to point at the fact that they raised it, even though it's still barely off the ground.

But they haven't Dex. The new proposed 'soft cap' is way harder than it was on the old CBA. Basically, owners have demanded ridiculous things, then their 'concessions' have all been 'better than ridiculous', but substantially worse than the previous CBA. This would be akin to the players asking for 80% of the BRI, then 'conceding' to 'only 70%'.

The revenue sharing was always something the owners needed to fix by themselves.

[Dex]

But they haven't Dex. The new proposed 'soft cap' is way harder than it was on the old CBA. Basically, owners have demanded ridiculous things, then their 'concessions' have all been 'better than ridiculous', but substantially worse than the previous CBA. This would be akin to the players asking for 80% of the BRI, then 'conceding' to 'only 70%'.

The revenue sharing was always something the owners needed to fix by themselves.

Yeah, that's kind of the impression I'm getting to. The owners may have taken a step forward, but they started ten steps back.

I just want a damn NBA season. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way we get that is if the players give in, since there is no sign that the owners will do so anytime soon. That probably skews my opinion of things a little bit.

The offseason is already too long for my Spurs junkiness, and it's looking like we're going to get an extra dose of it this year.

[Giuseppe]

"And if you ask the 1999 champion Spurs, it is also cause for rivals to question the meaning of short-season accomplishments. Shaquille O'Neal famously said the Spurs' le should be marked by an asterisk."

Daddy.

tee, hee.

[spurs10]

Yeah, that's kind of the impression I'm getting to. The owners may have taken a step forward, but they started ten steps back.

I just want a damn NBA season. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way we get that is if the players give in, since there is no sign that the owners will do so anytime soon. That probably skews my opinion of things a little bit.

The offseason is already too long for my Spurs junkiness, and it's looking like we're going to get an extra dose of it this year.

Man, I'm hoping for some last minute reprieve. You're right, the normal off season is long enough as it is. I wonder if I can go to Bologna for a while to watch Manu play?? Hear it's a cool place....

[objective]

meetings over, no deal, sides still locked in to 53 and 47.

No meetings scheduled, maybe no meetings for another 2 months per the tweets from the players press conference.

Looks like no NBA until 2012 in a best case scenario

[InRareForm]

noooootttt goooooodddd

[InRareForm]

Hunter: "Our guys have indicated a willingness to lose games."

[benefactor]

Greedy bas s. Guess I'll be watching more college ball this year.

[timtonymanu]

Well nothing new like always. it. I hope these people lose money.

[blkroadrunners]

I just want some NBA damnit.

[Bruno]

Doesn't look good at all.

What is weird is Stern saying that he has offered a true 50/50 split while Hunter is saying that he hasn't. Misunderstanding, PR or tactical move?

[Dex]

Well nothing new like always. it. I hope these people lose money.

Me too. Eff the owners and the players at this point. Such a shame that they can't figure out how to properly split the money in spite of the fans, who provide it to them in the first place.