Resuming CBA talks

[ElNono]

I understand that, I even said something similar to that earlier in this thread. But in the end, this joust and parry act is between billionaires and multi-millionaires. The pay cut would be significant, but in the end, they're still receiving a disgusting amount of money for doing what they love, for playing a game. They're receiving an amount of money that 90% of people, couldn't even dream of getting in the short amount of time they receive it.

That applies to the owners too.

As long as the players don't take the deal, there are alot of people out of a job, like the arena workers, and even bars can be desolate, which sucks for me because I work in one that isn't that popular yet. I feel for the players, but I just think this measuring contest needs to end.

That applies to the owners too. If the owners took on the player's offer we would be having games now.

Did you forget who caused this impasse? It wasn't the players going on strike. If there are "alot of people out of a job, like the arena workers" it has everything to do with owners locking out the players. If the owners don't give a , why stick that to the players?

[Seventyniner]

Could all this talk about owners not wanting players to accept the deal be just a reverse-psychology ruse to get the players to take it?

[yavozerb]

I agree, but the owners are the only ones acting the fool. The players aren't being hard asses at all. They are making drastic concessions and pleading to negotiate.

Of course the owners are being hard asses cause they can. Look, this is about as 1 sided as negotiotions can be, the good ole days are over of getting something for nothing for the players. They need to sign this deal and move on.....

[yavozerb]

Could all this talk about owners not wanting players to accept the deal be just a reverse-psychology ruse to get the players to take it?

absolutely..But some of these statements being issued by certain owners I believe are pretty sincere and I think they could care less if there is a season or not....

[vy65]

I agree it's a good question. I think when you look at professional sports, you can't just look at population, but also overall wealth. Teams I consider big market, no questions asked, are: Knicks, Nets, Lakers, Clippers, Chicago, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston. (I might've missed one or two here, help me out) IMO, those teams should've turned a profit even with the old CBA. If they didn't you need to start looking at management. Clippers have a terrible ownership. Dallas spent his luxury way to a le. Miami bet the farm. Nets are in transition to an even bigger market.

Even then, that's only 1/3 of the league in definite big markets, which is why I don't know that you could even really implement a NFL revenue-sharing model. I think the league expanded too much, and it's suffering because of it.
And that's why I also think the talks about contraction should've been more prominent. Some of the current very small market franchises are not going to make it without some serious cash influx from the big markets, and no amount of screwing the players over is going to stop that.

I'd add Golden State and Atlanta for sure. Could also consider DC, Philly, PHX, and Denver.

[Giuseppe]

Of course the owners are being hard asses cause they can. Look, this is about as 1 sided as negotiotions can be, the good ole days are over of getting something for nothing for the players. They need to sign this deal and move on.....

Nonsense. Signing it isn't going to make it better. It will only make it worse. The players need to stand now. They can't lose a dime until they sign that deal.

[mavsfan1000]

No season. Players refusing to give in is the downfall. Yet they still make an incredibly sick amount of money and don't think that is enough. Pathetic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No season. Owners refusing to give in is the downfall. Yet they still make an incredibly sick amount of money and don't think that is enough. Pathetic.

FIFY to demonstrate it works both ways.

[ElNono]

I'd add Golden State and Atlanta for sure.

I'll buy those two.

Could also consider DC, Philly, PHX, and Denver.

I attend the Spurs-Philly game religiously every season, and tbqh, that franchise is in the ter right now. Didn't they just get sold?
As far as Denver, been to the Pepsi Center and definitely a nice arena. Just not sure they're making that much money there.

[vy65]

I attend the Spurs-Philly game religiously every season, and tbqh, that franchise is in the ter right now. Didn't they just get sold?
As far as Denver, been to the Pepsi Center and definitely a nice arena. Just not sure they're making that much money there.

I thought we were talking about market size. Seems like you're talking about how an organization is run - and I have no doubt the sixers are run by ing monkeys.

In terms of wealth and population size - I'd say Philly and Denver are pretty big. Not NY/LA/CHI big - but a step above the rest in terms of size and aggregate wealth.

[ElNono]

I thought we were talking about market size. Seems like you're talking about how an organization is run - and I have no doubt the sixers are run by ing monkeys.

In terms of wealth and population size - I'd say Philly and Denver are pretty big. Not NY/LA/CHI big - but a step above the rest in terms of size and aggregate wealth.

And I don't disagree with that. Stated as much in the case of Detroit and Boston. Which is why talking about strictly big vs small market I don't think it's necessarily prudent unless we delineate exactly where and how we determine that.

[vy65]

And I don't disagree with that. Stated as much in the case of Detroit and Boston. Which is why talking about strictly big vs small market I don't think it's necessarily prudent unless we delineate exactly where and how we determine that.

I guess the Spurs are the only "true" small market team to win a championship in the past 20 odd years.

I can see where small market teams are coming from re: their financial condition. What I don't get is why owners from large markets are being held hostage by/are accommodating the smaller markets to the point of sabotaging the season.

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

That applies to the owners too.



That applies to the owners too. If the owners took on the player's offer we would be having games now.

Did you forget who caused this impasse? It wasn't the players going on strike. If there are "alot of people out of a job, like the arena workers" it has everything to do with owners locking out the players. If the owners don't give a , why stick that to the players?

Because the players have the power to end it right now. Whether it's fair or not, the Owners are obviously the villains, but the players can be the hero's by swallowing their pride, not standing their ground, or losing a season, and failing to intimidate the Owners. The Owners saw how the players decertification looked in 1999, if the players said they had been preparing for the lockout, don't you think the Owners have a counter for anything, including decertification?

[ElNono]

I guess the Spurs are the only "true" small market team to win a championship in the past 20 odd years.

I can see where small market teams are coming from re: their financial condition. What I don't get is why owners from large markets are being held hostage by/are accommodating the smaller markets to the point of sabotaging the season.

I think the reason is two-fold: One, the financial side, it makes more economic sense for them to put it on the player's back than agree to a larger redistribution coming out of their pockets, and I think the key reason as far as votes go, is that a bunch of these mid-market teams like Detroit, Golden State and Philly are under new ownership, which I'm not sure it gives them a big voice. I expect those guys to go with the majority, and the majority right now is small market teams.

[ElNono]

Because the players have the power to end it right now.

Owners don't have the power to end it right now?

Whether it's fair or not, the Owners are obviously the villains, but the players can be the hero's by swallowing their pride, not standing their ground, or losing a season, and failing to intimidate the Owners.

Are you trolling? You're the hero by bending over? Is that how you negotiate your contracts?

The Owners saw how the players decertification looked in 1999, if the players said they had been preparing for the lockout, don't you think the Owners have a counter for anything, including decertification?

The league already played his card to prevent decertification, which was both a lawsuit deemed 'thin' by a judge last week, and filings to the NLRB. They've also stated they would file a suit seeking to declare all contracts null and void (questionable whether it would succeed, since it's never been done before in a lockout case). Bottom line though is that decertification will kick the game board and owners won't be in full control anymore (neither will players).

If the union decides to decertify, I expect those 45 days that takes for the NLRB to decide to allow it or not to be pretty tense and include a flurry of negotiations.

[DPG21920]

Of course the owners are being hard asses cause they can. Look, this is about as 1 sided as negotiotions can be, the good ole days are over of getting something for nothing for the players. They need to sign this deal and move on.....

So it's on the owners, not the players. Why on Earth would the players move on when they are getting pummeled? Just bc now it's one sided doesn't mean the players should just bend over and take one of the worst CBA offers in sports. Not when they have a tool (decertification) that at least has potential to help.

What do mean getting something for nothing? The Players are the damn league and have never been this hard nosed in a negotiation. You may side with the owners, and that's your opinion, but it's wrong.

[DPG21920]

Because the players have the power to end it right now. Whether it's fair or not, the Owners are obviously the villains, but the players can be the hero's by swallowing their pride, not standing their ground, or losing a season, and failing to intimidate the Owners. The Owners saw how the players decertification looked in 1999, if the players said they had been preparing for the lockout, don't you think the Owners have a counter for anything, including decertification?

the owners have the same exact power to end. Actually they have more. The players are giving miles and asking for feet in return. Your logic amazes me.

[ElNono]

So what's the story? Are they meeting today or not?

[DPG21920]

Haven't heard anything. What's the point though, owners arent forced to negotiate yet.

[Dex]

[Nathan89]

I guess the Spurs are the only "true" small market team to win a championship in the past 20 odd years.

I can see where small market teams are coming from re: their financial condition. What I don't get is why owners from large markets are being held hostage by/are accommodating the smaller markets to the point of sabotaging the season.

And all it took was the aligning of the stars.

1. Robinson injury
2. Tim Duncan
3. 57th pick Manu
4. 28th pick TP
5. Turning Bruce Bowen into something
6. Tim Duncan not leaving for another team.

[ElNono]

And all it took was the aligning of the stars.

1. Robinson injury
2. Tim Duncan
3. 57th pick Manu
4. 28th pick TP
5. Turning Bruce Bowen into something
6. Tim Duncan not leaving for another team.

tbqh, Bostonfan will tell you the lottery was rigged

[DPG21920]

Big market owners aren't being held hostage; the players are.

[spurs10]

The players union does not appear to be willing to give in. The only way they take the deal is if they decide they can live with it. Perhaps a few tweaks to the system issues can make it doable. Otherwise we are all looking at a long legal bloodbath, where the players might get a better deal in the end, but at what cost? My guess would be, as ElNono has brought up, that we might see some true negotiating happen in the 45 day waiting period before the players decertification process is done. If I were a worker for the NBA, I would seriously be looking for an alternative employment plan. We all know who is really suffering in this mess...the workers, as usual. I'd like to see the players or owners stage some serious benefit shows aimed at helping these folks out. That might do wonders for the damage they are doing to their images right now. Peter Holt's asinine comments alone have done great damage to the face of a team that has worked hard at being a franchise to look up to.

[Nathan89]

I think the owners have pressure because they can see a waterfall in the short distance and they are approaching it quickly. They know good and well that the players will never accept 47% or for that matter less than 50%. So they are currently as close to a deal that the players/owners will realistically agree upon and if they wait longer more games/money will be lost. Something has to happen...