Resuming CBA talks

[ElNono]

And BTW, once everything is said and done, the union might end up with *less* than 50/50, but if they can override the hard cap and muscle out keeping the contract years, they'll probably take it, since owners have shown the willingness to spend, and they can make up the BRI difference there.

[TD 21]

tbqh, I'm pretty sure the union is ready to take the 50/50 *IF* the owners are willing to soften the proposed hard cap a bit. See, Hunter et all didn't say they wouldn't take the 50/50, they said let's try to find some common ground on the system issues and then once we have that we'll talk about the 50/50. But that's when the owners said you take the 50/50 or we'll stop talking, and that's why we're here.

imo, the union is only holding on because of the NLRB decision, otherwise they would've decertified already. Don't forget that while Hunter/Fish might not want decertification, their hand can be forced by the players with a vote (or really, the agents behind the players).

The tactic for the union right now is to force the lockout lifted. They might not even need an actual order. Just to have the possibility of obtaining an order like that might be enough to have the owners sit down and drop the hard line.

Obviously, if they can't get close to that it's going to get ugly.

My 2c.

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.

[spurs10]

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.

This is the question I've been asking myself. The owners seem to believe the NLRB won't rule in the unions favor, while one would think they'd be likely to. It does seem like not a lot of negotiating is being done "in good faith." Hopefully it's a false sense of security.

[ElNono]

I know what they said. But if the union makes the next concession, the owners will probably give them a few more things they're seeking systematically, which, as complicated as it may sound or look, all really comes down to flexibility and security.

I think it comes down to the union not wanting to pre-agree to a 50/50 and then lose the hard cap battle too. I mean, when you think about the union, you have to think about the players who need to vote to approve a deal and their agents pulling strings there. The union line is pretty straightforward: they're going to lose ground with this CBA in whatever shape or form, so at least try to save either the positive BRI or avoid the hard cap.

Whether they'll pull it off or not at this stage hinges a lot in their ability to force a resolution from an external en y like the NLRB or a court.

The time to decertify has long since passed. If the union was going to do that, they'd have done it a few months ago. At this point, if they did it, they'd essentially be cancelling the season.

I don't really agree. And I don't think the decision to decertify will be up to Hunter/Fisher. What I expect happening is agents are going to have to vote for either whatever deal Hunter/Fisher can get if the NLRB claim is not successful or to decertify the union. I think the decision will happen then.

If the owners were genuinely concerned that the NLRB might rule in favor of the union, don't you think they'd have softened their stance some? Obviously, they're confident the ruling won't go in the union's favor, which is why they've continued with the hardline tactics.

Normally, you don't really hear about management on these NLRB disputes early on, but the NBA has been sending info to the board early and often too just to try to influence the decision a bit. Let's be frank here. If the owners wanted to cut a deal tomorrow with the union, they probably could (and it could even include the 50/50 split).

So right now owners are in relatively no hurry. They're on the driver's seat and have no reason to soften their stance. A NLRB resolution or decertification could change that. (Notice *could*, not necessarily *will*)

[Birn]

This is the question I've been asking myself. The owners seem to believe the NLRB won't rule in the unions favor, while one would think they'd be likely to. It does seem like not a lot of negotiating is being done "in good faith." Hopefully it's a false sense of security.

The NLRB ruling is a long shot for the players. It's just too late in the game. Even if the NLRB agrees to file a complaint against the NBA they would have to get a judge to agree to issue an injunction to lift the lockout then the owners would file an appeal to drag it out even further. There's just not enough time plus the NLRB may not even have standing to rule on this issue since the NBA filed a pre-emptive complaint against the union a few months ago and that complaint has yet to be addressed by the NLRB.

The owners are in a much better position to wait out the process than the players. The so called "threat" of the NLRB ruling really doesn't change much for the owners. They know it will take months before the lockout is officially lifted and it would be too late to have a season at that point.

The players just need to accept the precondition of a 50/50 split and finish up all the system issues with the salary cap, contract lengths, etc. For some weird reason, the players want to negotiate the system issues first then negotiate the BRI split. Those are two independent issues and don't really relate to each other.

The players are getting their asses kicked in these negotiations. They're betting on a favorable NLRB ruling by bureacrats appointed by Obama who are friendly to unions. However, the law still needs to be followed. With the NBA filing their pre-emptive complaint it creates a reversible error if the NLRB rules for the players. The issue would then go to the courts for final resolution which could take several months at the earliest.

It's just not looking too good for the players. Once it is confirmed that there will not be an 82 game season, things will get ugly for the players. Their union will likely crack since the star players will be at odds with the rank and file players. That's a messy situation for the players. This is not going to end pretty for the players association.

[TD 21]

I think it comes down to the union not wanting to pre-agree to a 50/50 and then lose the hard cap battle too. I mean, when you think about the union, you have to think about the players who need to vote to approve a deal and their agents pulling strings there. The union line is pretty straightforward: they're going to lose ground with this CBA in whatever shape or form, so at least try to save either the positive BRI or avoid the hard cap.

Whether they'll pull it off or not at this stage hinges a lot in their ability to force a resolution from an external en y like the NLRB or a court.

That's obviously what it comes down to. The owners need to drop the pre-condition for a 50/50 split though. I realize it's a stall tactic, but as you said, they might be able to get the 50/50 split anyway, if they present the union with a system that is slightly less restrictive and offers slightly more security. Eventually, if the owners stall long enough, they'll probably get both, but at what cost? Hundreds of millions down the drain and every ounce of momentum the league has generated in recent years gone.

I don't really agree. And I don't think the decision to decertify will be up to Hunter/Fisher. What I expect happening is agents are going to have to vote for either whatever deal Hunter/Fisher can get if the NLRB claim is not successful or to decertify the union. I think the decision will happen then.

I heard a few weeks ago that if they were to do it then, they'd essentially be cancelling the season. Which is why the hardline agents who were initially pushing for it supposedly backed off.

Normally, you don't really hear about management on these NLRB disputes early on, but the NBA has been sending info to the board early and often too just to try to influence the decision a bit. Let's be frank here. If the owners wanted to cut a deal tomorrow with the union, they probably could (and it could even include the 50/50 split).

So right now owners are in relatively no hurry. They're on the driver's seat and have no reason to soften their stance. A NLRB resolution or decertification could change that. (Notice *could*, not necessarily *will*)

Like Hunter said, it could get done in an hour or two, if the owners truly wanted to get a deal done.

If the owners were concerned about the NLRB ruling, then they'd have softened their stance. The fact that they did the opposite in the most recent meeting tells me they're confident that the ruling won't be in favor of the union.

[ElNono]

That's obviously what it comes down to. The owners need to drop the pre-condition for a 50/50 split though. I realize it's a stall tactic, but as you said, they might be able to get the 50/50 split anyway, if they present the union with a system that is slightly less restrictive and offers slightly more security. Eventually, if the owners stall long enough, they'll probably get both, but at what cost? Hundreds of millions down the drain and every ounce of momentum the league has generated in recent years gone.

I'm pretty sure some owners are ready to sign off on a deal. But they're the minority right now. I understand that with the economy the way it is right now, this is the time for owners to push a hard line, especially small markets. A lot of times, timing is the key, and I think this is one of those times. Owners would have a much harder time playing the 'woe is me' if the economy would be doing good.

Don't forget owners want this to be a 10 year deal. I don't really think they are frankly that concerned with losing one season, even if it's costly. Sometimes you have to take one step back to move two forward, and I think that's how they feel. As a fan, I'm not necessarily pleased, and it might hurt them with fans somewhat, but truth also is that the league has been revitalized with some really good young talent, and the outlook is really excellent for the years ahead.

I heard a few weeks ago that if they were to do it then, they'd essentially be cancelling the season. Which is why the hardline agents who were initially pushing for it supposedly backed off.

Well, the question is going to be what happens in negotiations between now and then. I expect them to resume talks as soon as next week, and we'll see where they get to. Once the NLRB decision is out of the way, whatever it is, union and owners will get to a deal which the union will need to put to a vote. At that point, I expect agents to really pull together if the deal really sucks.

Like Hunter said, it could get done in an hour or two, if the owners truly wanted to get a deal done.

If the owners were concerned about the NLRB ruling, then they'd have softened their stance. The fact that they did the opposite in the most recent meeting tells me they're confident that the ruling won't be in favor of the union.

Well, I said before that the NLRB can be influenced. I wouldn't be surprised to read another Woj insider how the NLRB got a phonecall from the WH. As much capitalist warrior es and moans about Barry being bent to side with unions, when you actually look at his record, he's been more than happy to give Wall St and the top money guys what they want. Especially when he's collecting for his campaign. And that's the issue with the NLRB and why I would like it to just get that over with: it can get very political.

Ideally, I would hope for a decision this week so this can move forward.

[DJ Mbenga]

there are only about 5 or 6 owners tops who want a deal right now. the rest are sitting and waiting for rape.

[ElNono]

Pretty solid piece from former NFL executive/agent, IMO:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...re-communicate

[spurs50_]

Get this done....as long as the small markets can compete with the bigger markets.

[boutons_deux]

Kill all the small market/under-financed/perennial loser (games and $$) teams. The league is too big for the available talent. Stern's greed to expand the NBA business has overreached the talent and hurt the game (not that anybody cares, it's all about $$$).

[Giuseppe]

The league is too big for the available talent. Stern's greed to expand the NBA business has overreached the talent and hurt the game (not that anybody cares, it's all about $$$).

Yep.

There is legitimately enough talent for perhaps half the 30 teams.

[Bruno]

Sport labor analysts think that it's unlikely that NLRB goes as far as an injunction lifting the lockout:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsja...-nbpa.html.csp

To me, I'm just hoping the NLRB will answer at one question: "How much money is the NBA losing?"
A big issue of this lockout is that owners and players disagree on the financial state of the NBA. NLRB has had extensive access to franchise financial results and I hope its statement will say what are NBA true loses. If the NBA is really "bleeding money" like owners have said, it should push players to accept the 50/50 split. If owners have inflated loses numbers, their hard stance will weaken and it should end with a 52/48 or 53/47 split.

[Giuseppe]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

[Dex]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

I bet that's how the NFL and NHL players felt, too.

[Giuseppe]

^I'd like to extend an ELE bet, Dex, but, honestly I ain't 100% confident the players will hold fast in the ranks. I'm about 65-35 they will.

[ulosturedge]

....it's not the split of the BRI. Never has been. It's always been about a hard cap and a brand new system where are 30 teams are equal. Stern & Holt have said this but media doesn't want to play that angle because there is no recovery from it. What the owners want is so diametrically opposed to what the players are willing to grant that it is impossible. It's a doomsday event.

The players would give the owners the 53-47 cut if the owner's would leave everything else as it were for the next 10 years. But, that ain't on the table and never has been.

Ah someone sees the writing on the wall.

This is more of an internal issue between the big market owners and smaller market owners, but the smaller market owners know better then to start these disputes with their fellow owners. That would have definitely been a cataclysmic way to handle all this. Instead the small market owners are going to get as much as they can from the players and then get the big market owners to pitch in the rest of the way. Everything has to run its course though. Small market owners want to let the pain set on the players to try and get the best deal possible on the BRI, and then while all this is going on the big market owners will want this to come to an end because they stand to lose out on good revenue the longer it persists. In turn they will be more willing to increase the revenue sharing to get back to profiting on basketball. All depends on how long each is really willing to hold out. I personally think these small market teams are serious about their stance. I don't see basketball resuming til January at the earliest. I'd be very suprised if any of this plays out any faster.

[Giuseppe]

I personally think these small market teams are serious about their stance. I don't see basketball resuming til January at the earliest. I'd be very suprised if any of this plays out any faster.

Absolutely dead serious. That degree of hardness had/has the players back on their heels uncertain as how to proceed, which in a way is good. Knee jerk is not going to solve this to their satisfaction. Giving in (allowing the hard cap) will not bring relief. It will only bring humiliation & total loss. This is not 1999. The owners learned their lessons and have come prepared. The players must match the owner's patience and affirmation.

Attrition is what will win this war.

[TD 21]

I'm pretty sure some owners are ready to sign off on a deal. But they're the minority right now. I understand that with the economy the way it is right now, this is the time for owners to push a hard line, especially small markets. A lot of times, timing is the key, and I think this is one of those times. Owners would have a much harder time playing the 'woe is me' if the economy would be doing good.

Don't forget owners want this to be a 10 year deal. I don't really think they are frankly that concerned with losing one season, even if it's costly. Sometimes you have to take one step back to move two forward, and I think that's how they feel. As a fan, I'm not necessarily pleased, and it might hurt them with fans somewhat, but truth also is that the league has been revitalized with some really good young talent, and the outlook is really excellent for the years ahead.

Good economy, bad economy, fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute will always side with the owners, because the majority of fans view professional athletes, as a whole, as overpaid and en led. And they particularly view NBA players that way.

I'm fairly certain I heard a while back that they had dropped it from 10 to 6. Whether they officially have or not is irrelevant though, because it's going to end up being 6 or at least they'll be an out by then. The reason the union wants 6 is because the new national TV deal will kick in after 5 and it figures to be significantly more lucrative than the existing one.

Well, the question is going to be what happens in negotiations between now and then. I expect them to resume talks as soon as next week, and we'll see where they get to. Once the NLRB decision is out of the way, whatever it is, union and owners will get to a deal which the union will need to put to a vote. At that point, I expect agents to really pull together if the deal really sucks.

There's reports today that the ruling is not expected to be in favor of the union, just as I had suspected. Agents can attempt to influence their clients all they want, but I think a lot of the players are more concerned with playing than the particulars of the deal. Give it a few more weeks and possibly a missed paycheck or two and I think they'll ratify whatever agreement is reached in principal. The difficulty, of course, will be reaching an agreement in principal first.

Well, I said before that the NLRB can be influenced. I wouldn't be surprised to read another Woj insider how the NLRB got a phonecall from the WH. As much capitalist warrior es and moans about Barry being bent to side with unions, when you actually look at his record, he's been more than happy to give Wall St and the top money guys what they want. Especially when he's collecting for his campaign. And that's the issue with the NLRB and why I would like it to just get that over with: it can get very political.

Ideally, I would hope for a decision this week so this can move forward.

This can move forward any time. But it probably won't for at least a few more weeks. The hardline owners have dragged this out this long, at this point I can't imagine them not at least making the players miss their first paychecks and testing their resolve.

[Mel_13]

From an interview with Hunter:


He said he sees these negotiations as similar to 1998's lockout that resulted in 32 lost games, but felt that last week's long negotiations were going to yield something positive.

"I thought we were trying to reach compromise when we were there last week," Hunter said. "I suspect it's more about an internal battle that may be brewing or that's occuring between the big and small markets over the proposals we've submitted.

"We don't want to be totally exploited."
....

Hunter relayed that he had told the owners that concessions on systems issues might make the NBA's 50-50 offer "more palatable" to players. Meaning, I think, that owners could get their desired 50-50 BRI split if they'll work on some of their systematic demands. But Hunter said the owners will only negotiate system on the precondition of a 50-50 split. Which is when Dan Gilbert evidently told Hunter to "trust his gut" on the system.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...48484/32918768

[Mel_13]

And a cynical view from a New Jersey columnist about two guys from Jersey:

http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/201...already_k.html

[mavsfan1000]

We'll see which one gives in. Hopefully it is the players.

[ElNono]

Good economy, bad economy, fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute will always side with the owners, because the majority of fans view professional athletes, as a whole, as overpaid and en led. And they particularly view NBA players that way.

I'm fairly certain I heard a while back that they had dropped it from 10 to 6. Whether they officially have or not is irrelevant though, because it's going to end up being 6 or at least they'll be an out by then. The reason the union wants 6 is because the new national TV deal will kick in after 5 and it figures to be significantly more lucrative than the existing one.

I disagree that fans will always side with the owners. A sampling of this place will tell you as much. I think it's fairly evenly divided, and specially this time around, where players haven't really run their mouths.

About the length of the deal, I thought Adam Silver did mention 10 years last Thursday after the talks broke off, but I could be wrong.

There's reports today that the ruling is not expected to be in favor of the union, just as I had suspected. Agents can attempt to influence their clients all they want, but I think a lot of the players are more concerned with playing than the particulars of the deal. Give it a few more weeks and possibly a missed paycheck or two and I think they'll ratify whatever agreement is reached in principal. The difficulty, of course, will be reaching an agreement in principal first.

Well, we'll see. Players will have to decide what they want to do if the ruling doesn't benefit them and what the owners will offer then. There's nothing stopping them from decerifying the union at that point though (I don't think)

This can move forward any time. But it probably won't for at least a few more weeks. The hardline owners have dragged this out this long, at this point I can't imagine them not at least making the players miss their first paychecks and testing their resolve.

If the decision comes out and it doesn't favor the players, I'm sure the union will contact the owners and try to get whatever best offer they can get to put on a vote with the players.

[TD 21]

I disagree that fans will always side with the owners. A sampling of this place will tell you as much. I think it's fairly evenly divided, and specially this time around, where players haven't really run their mouths.

About the length of the deal, I thought Adam Silver did mention 10 years last Thursday after the talks broke off, but I could be wrong.

I said "fans with a limited to no understanding of the dispute". People who post even semi-regularly on this or any NBA related message board presumably don't qualify.

Aldridge mentioned today that an out after 7 has been offered. Had my years off earlier.

Well, we'll see. Players will have to decide what they want to do if the ruling doesn't benefit them and what the owners will offer then. There's nothing stopping them from decerifying the union at that point though (I don't think)

In theory, there's nothing stopping them. In reality, there's some roughly $2 billion stopping them from doing so, because that's what they'd be giving away by not having a season. The Bryant's and Garnett's of the world may be fine with that, but I can't imagine the rank and file would be.

If the decision comes out and it doesn't favor the players, I'm sure the union will contact the owners and try to get whatever best offer they can get to put on a vote with the players.

Wojanorski summed it up best in this column: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?...d_stern_092911

When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.

[Giuseppe]

When Stern decides to give Hunter an escape valve, this is over. When Stern can convince his owners to back off, this is over. Stern needs to give Hunter something to take back to the union, and say, “We won.” Maybe it’s the illusion of a soft salary cap, the preservation of the midlevel exception, a 50-50 revenue percentage split. Whatever. This isn’t about a fair deal, it’s about a deal the union can rationalize to the players for ratification.

& unless he let's 'em down easy, they will take retribution after the "treaty" is signed. Stern, on behalf of the owners took his vengeance, albeit in a civilized manner the past 3-4 years for the deal that was signed in '99. The excessive and inconsistent fines levied, the dress code, the zero tolerant officiating. That was all an act of vengeance. The players won't be so civilized and coherent. It will be ugly. And that's okay by me. I want to see Stern's nose pushed in it.