Reply With Quote
Relax dude...it is just basketball...and mediocre at that...the way Pop has run this Spurs team into the in' ground is the real tragedy here...
better lock out the whole in' year...and maybe Pop will get bored and retire...
IMO, the worst part is that they don't even agreed on the starting point that is: How much money is the NBA losing per year and how theses loses should be cut? That's just unreal.
Relax dude...it is just basketball...and mediocre at that...the way Pop has run this Spurs team into the in' ground is the real tragedy here...
better lock out the whole in' year...and maybe Pop will get bored and retire...
Either one side or both are bluffing or there really isn't an emergency here. When there's a sense of urgency, sides work towards a resolution. The fact that they're seemingly basically as far apart as when they started, tells you all you need to know.
tbqh, people need to remember that what's being negotiated here is a deal for 5/6 seasons. Losing a season means 22% to 17% in value of what's being negotiated. A good number, but still a relatively small portion of the whole deal. We'll see what the mediator brings.
What you need to understand is that owners are really playing with house money. They feel that as soon as players stop receiving checks, they'll fall in line. If they don't or they decertify and sue, that's when the negotiations are going to start picking up, and when you're going to start to see some concessions from the owners.
The owners really have no incentive to concede much of anything until November rolls around.
Stern now threatening to cancel games through Christmas if no deal on Tuesday.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...esday-14732688
Not exactly a threat...but he's still throwing stuff out there in order to bully the players into a deal.
Countless articles have been written about Stern and how much of a bully he is behind closed doors. Now everyone is seeing it in plain view. He needs go as commissioner...period.
They're worlds apart and he wants "a deal" on Tuesday? What he wants is the players to bend over and take it. Negotiations be damned.
Exactly. He's never really wanted to negotiate. His BS about the deals getting worse proved that.
Can't remember who, but a writer totally called him out on it today. He cancels two weeks, and then one week later is ready to cancel seven? WTF?
I saw Stern on the NBA Channel this evening and he's going to be a real problem on this. I think the players (and me) thought Stern was throwing the hard cap out there to get the players to come even on the BRI. When they did (thinking that the hard cap would go away then) Stern came back over the top still wanting the hard cap in addition to the 50/50 split.
me.
A worrisome interview of Billy Hunter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl..._hunter_101311
It's going to be long and ugly...Hunter: “I don’t think [the owners] are negotiating in good faith. That’s what’s frustrating. David Stern told me three years ago – and I keep reiterating that because people keep pulling up their cup on it – that they were going to lock out [the players] in order to get what it was they wanted. And what he’s done is done that. [Stern] said he was going to lock out [the players] and his owners were prepared to lock out to get what they wanted. It’s driven pretty much by the small-market teams. They actually want revenue sharing in the big markets, but the big markets have said, ‘OK we’ll give revenue conditioned upon you getting the deal in place that we think has to be there because we don’t want to go into our pockets as much as we may have to. We think you should get it off the backs of the players.’ So that’s what he’s done. He’s stated an extreme position from the get go and he’s negotiated that way. So here we are.
“We’ve been negotiating for almost three years, and here we are at the 12th hour when all of the sudden they make a slight move. But then on top of that, they then decide that they want a hard cap. So then when you get close to the economics of the number, then they get close to the system. And they know that the system is very important. If we give on the economics, we are not going to give on the system. And so all of the sudden you reach a possible agreement on the economics and now the system becomes a problem. So it’s like a moving target. It’s frustrating. It’s frustrating because the whole intent and purpose and whole strategy has been to break the resolve of the players.
”[Washington Wizards owner] Ted Leonsis – go look at some of his quotes. Leonsis said that David Stern promised them they were going to get a system like the NHL, and the only way they can get that system is to break the players. That’s what they’ve done. There is nothing complex about what is going on. It is as clear as the nose on my face. I keep calling them out on that, but people don’t write about that.”
Business takes over the sport
NBA is a bull now
Later in that interview he says:A worrisome interview of Billy Hunter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl..._hunter_101311
It's going to be long and ugly...
“I’m not even resonating on decertification."
The players need to replace Hunter with someone who is not quite so incompetent.
"If we give on the economics, we are not going to give on the system."
That's the crux. CW thought that the talk of the hard cap was to get the economics. Not so. The players gave them the economics and the hard cap came right back up. The hard cap was not a ruse by Stern. That's big. Real big.
Even as a small market fan, a hard cap. The NBA is a business after all, or at least it should be, and those who invest more should see more profitable returns, generally, and those who invest badly will get . The system is fine right now imo
Only a matter of time till they give in all the way. Might have to sacrifice a season but Stern and the Owners will get what they want. The players won't be able to last.
^Exactly. It's easy & righteous to talk tough when you're not out $. The players won't miss their first check till November 15th. After that date they'll realize what they had, what they have, and exactly what they're losing. Then they'll quit talking to one another and start talking to their wives and parents. Shortly after that they'll sign on the line which is dotted, and you know what else? They'll be happy as clams.
"We might make a lot of money but, we also spend a lot of money."
Patrick Ewing
Actually, it was Japan. FDR may have had his New Deal policies in effect in 100 days, but the USA, and the world, remained in a depression. We think we had it bad, other countries had it worse. Germany was being bankrupt by the Versailles treaty of 1918 which required them to make reparations to France for all the young men they killed. Germans at the time of WWI thought they were winning, not one drop of German blood was shed on German soil. Yeah, it would have been had the war continued, but Hitler capitalized on German nationalism to get into power. He took what he needed to get his country out of depression and the west appeased him eastward (Hitler's early invasions to increase the Aryan Nation's living space) to keep him from sending his troops west. The aforementioned treaty prohibited Germany from building it's military back up, but it would require a declaration of war on Germany to enforce the Versailles treaty. Now, France, and other western nations lost that income the Germans had been sending them for years, so they suffered as well.
Japan is what brought the US into the war. They had their own problems as well. Their entire nation was about to come to a complete halt for all industry and all production as they were flat out of oil. The USA had an embargo in place prohibiting the Japanese from buying more. The only way Japan could get oil, was to go take it in Southeast Asia. Problem with that is, if they attack, the US Navy comes in and spoils their plundering. So, Japan took a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor in order to have free reign where they needed to go next.
When the USA declared war on Japan, the "Help Wanted" signs appeared everywhere across the American industrial market. WWII solved the great depression. Some even say FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to get us into the war and end the depression once and for all.
I'm not justifying war, I'm just showing some of the reasons for it. The above is true warfare, using a military to achieve economic objectives. Contrast that with those chicken terrorists who target innocent, non military threats. May the latter burn in more so than Hitler.
I don't really know what desertification could bring to the table for players.
Players true weapon was the threat of creating a new league but it's too late for that. All the main players and agents should have work on that together on July 1st to make it serious.
Decertification brings the issues into federal court, a venue where the players may actually get some relief. It's the best weapon available to the players and the union chief continues to rule it out.
A player's league faces far too many obstacles to represent any threat to the owners. To begin with the players don't have the capital, the arenas, or the TV deals. And it just gets harder after that.
Be careful putting all the onus on Stern or Hunter. They are the single most important players in this process but if the players or more specifically the player reps wanted to decertify then it would happen and there isn't much of beyond politics that Hunter can do to stop it. Decertification basically dissolves the union and thus Hunter's position.
They have retained Kessler as lead counsel and his big claim to fame is takeing the NFL out behind the woodshed in federal court. Also from reading about him during the recent NFL negotiations, he would love nothing more than the break that trust in federal court. I would love to see it myself from a personal level but i can understand the risk such a move would have for the industry as a whole and understand the reluctance.
Stern told Hunter what the owners were going to do more than three years ago. Hunter's strategy, as far as I can see, is to keep the players unified until the owners change their minds. I don't see great prospects for success by following that approach.
An article written by Arn Tellem, one of the leading NBA agents, from February, 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arn-te..._b_459910.html
If there was not at least some contingency for suing an rust, they would not retain Kessler. Thats what Kessler does. Its like retaining Matt Bonner and not trying to stretch the court. Bonner doesn't do anything else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions