# Sides agree on new CBA!!!



## NOFX22 (Sep 28, 2006)

EW YORK -- The NBA has canceled the remainder of the preseason and will wipe out the first two weeks of the regular season if there is no labor agreement by Monday.

Commissioner David Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver made the announcement after owners and players met for about four hours Tuesday but came no closer to an agreement -- despite a 50-50 split of basketball-related income being discussed as a way to break the stalemate and save the season.

"We were not able to make the progress that we hoped we could make and we were not able to continue the negotiations," Stern said.

No further meetings are scheduled. "Today was not the day to get this done. We were not able to get close enough to close the gap," union president Derek Fisher said Tuesday, speaking ahead of Stern.

The owners and the players, who have been locked out since July 1, had hoped to make significant progress and save the 2011-12 NBA season. But the two sides could not close the gap between their financial positions, and Stern said regular-season games are now at imminent risk of being lost.

"By Monday, we will have no choice but to cancel the first two weeks of the season," he said.

The players, who received 57 percent of basketball-related income in the last year of the expired agreement, said they made a new proposal of 53 percent of BRI on Tuesday -- a concession which they said would have given owners back more than $1 billion over six years.

According to the players, the owners countered with 47 percent, a slight increase from the 46 percent they had previously offered.

When the owners offered 47 percent, "that pretty much ended (the meeting)," executive director Billy Hunter said.

The two sides, in what Stern called a "very very small group," discussed whether a 50-50 split of basketball-related income was possible -- and that if so, both sides would go back to their constituencies with that plan.

"While we were in the process of doing that ... we were advised by the players that that would not be acceptable to them," Stern said Tuesday. "At that point it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to continue."

In a letter to the union membership Wednesday, Hunter and Fisher explained why they believed the idea of a 50-50 split was not acceptable.

"The overwhelming feeling was that the players are prepared to sacrifice and stand for what we believe is fair. The clear message we have received from the players, and the one we will heed, is not to back down," the letter, obtained by ESPN.com, read. "Yesterday, the owners gave us an opportunity to back down. We refused."

Would the owners have accepted a 50-50 split? "Adam and I felt comfortable and confident we could report to the players we could move to the next subject," Stern said.

"I was shocked (the players) didn't go for 50-50," a source on the owners' side told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard. "That was a gutsy move on the part of the players."

But sources told Broussard that Stern, Silver and San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt, in a small-group meeting with Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Derek Fisher and union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler -- really offered the players 49 percent of BRI, with the understanding that it would actually become 51 percent based on incentives related to the projected growth of the league.

The players countered by asking for 51 percent, which would increase to 53 percent based on those same incentives. The owners rejected that.

After making concessions on basketball revenue, the players entered the last several negotiating sessions looking for the owners to do the same.

Stern said the owners had removed their demand for a hard salary cap, were no longer insisting on salary rollbacks on current salaries, and would have given players the right to opt out of a 10-year agreement after seven years. But the money split was always going to be the biggest hurdle in these negotiations, with owners insistent on the ability to turn a profit after the league said 22 of its 30 teams lost money last season.

The owners indeed wanted to make a deal to save the start of the season, none more than New York Knicks owner James Dolan, sources told Broussard.

Stern said the league is about to take a $200 million hit from missing the preseason. "There's an extraordinary hit coming to the owners and the players," he warned.

"We're long past the point where we're trying to get 100 percent of what we were looking for," Silver added. "We haven't made a secret of the fact that we'd very much like to make a deal."


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



> really offered the players 49 percent of BRI, with the understanding that it would actually become 51 percent based on incentives related to the projected growth of the league.
> 
> The players countered by asking for 51 percent, which would increase to 53 percent based on those same incentives. The owners rejected tha


So the players want 51% and the owners are only offering 49%? Let's give them each 50% and start the damn season already!


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Thats a formaility. The players know they are in for much more than just a 50-50 split should they agree on that.

Its pretty obvious, the players are trying to get in the 52% range and then will give back a few things to the owners (MLE changed, draft age changed, ect...)

Even if they agreed on 50-50 the owners can hold them over the fire for whatever they want in November/December when the players arent receiving their paychecks.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

I think the players paycheck thing is going to be a reality check for the owners. The players seem ready this time for the most part. I think the owners think they can take the players for a ride--and they're going to be mistaken.

53 percent is more than fair. It's crazy that the players went all the way down to 51. That's a lot of money to give back when the game is as popular as it's ever been.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

KBergCBS Ken Berger
People understand what's happening, right? The table is set for a deal to be agreed to by Sunday. If either side messes it up, inexcusable.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
The Super Seven agents are working on details of a conference call this afternoon to discuss CBA, sources tell @CBSSports.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Here it is: While writers were sitting around hotel playing with iPads yesterday, owners and players lopped $1.6B off their gap.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

SpearsNBAYahoo Marc J. Spears
One prominent agent: "Stern & Billy will talk over the weekend without antics and get down to it."


Between this news, and the news of Billy Hunter (who seems like a hard-*** to me) claiming that they're "on the 3-yard-line," has me feeling pretty good.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Wow. Good news here. Im gonna be really disappointed with no hard cap tho


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Wait, there's a light at the end of the tunnel? I'd pretty much factored in no basketball until christmas, this better not have gotten my hopes up for nothing.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



futuristxen said:


> I think the players paycheck thing is going to be a reality check for the owners. The players seem ready this time for the most part. I think the owners think they can take the players for a ride--and they're going to be mistaken.
> 
> 53 percent is more than fair. It's crazy that the players went all the way down to 51. That's a lot of money to give back when the game is as popular as it's ever been.


"Fair" is irrelevant: the players get 0% of $0 unless the owners agree to a deal. Meanwhile, the owners who were losing money, are now making money--relatively speaking, by continuing with the lockout. 

Besides, the players can go get real jobs, like Delonte West, or go overseas, if they are really hurting for a paycheck. And the owners could hire replacement players if they wanted to.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

The players have clearly won the PR war. They are the ones who are making the league popular. They are the ones who put in the hours in the gym to make them the best players in the world. They are the top 200-300 basketball players in the world. They are offering to give up 3% of a 4billion dollar pie, when just last season they helped the league become even more popular and had to be compensated for the 57% they were owed.

It's clear the owners just need to change the way they run their teams and change their spending habits. it's not just the obvious not signing role players superstar money, but the way they run their teams, payroll on office staff and staff at the concession stands. If the Lakers/Heat are coming to town, sell those tickets at a higher price. If it's the wizards coming to town, make the tickets go on sale. The owners knew they were getting 43% of their share, and from the stats they got a bit more from what they were projecting to earn, so there was no excuse that they couldn't make a profit. Learn to budget your teams you dumb ****s.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Id like to believe those tweets, but I just dont. The owners know what kind of power they have after November 15th, just like they did in 99.

The difference this time, is while the players seem to have their act together, the agents are trying to split them.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/...l-of-8-billion-gap-closed-season-can-be-saved

Ken Berger: Season can be saved



> [NEW YORK -- At one point during the most important negotiation in two years of psychological and economic warfare, someone took a moment for comic relief.
> 
> It was much needed, and much appreciated given the stakes -- a cancelled season, a fractured league, a squandered opportunity to build upon astronomical growth and momentum.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Also:

@SeanDeveney
Sean Deveney
Would be good news: I am told we will see a 51-49 BRI agreement this weekend. And 82 games this year.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



simply_amazing said:


> "Fair" is irrelevant: the players get 0% of $0 unless the owners agree to a deal. Meanwhile, the owners who were losing money, are now making money--relatively speaking, by continuing with the lockout.
> 
> Besides, *the players can go get real jobs, like Delonte West*, or go overseas, if they are really hurting for a paycheck. And the owners could hire replacement players if they wanted to.


The best part about this post is that you're serious.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

It looks like the owners were bluffing all along. I never believed that they seriously expected to get anything like what they were pretending to want, but I was not sure that the reasonable owners were going to be able to pull the hardliners away from the ledge. The players stood up to them and now everyone can see that they really have no hope of getting all this crap the hardliners have been mouthing off about.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Gonzo said:


> Also:
> 
> @SeanDeveney
> Sean Deveney
> Would be good news: I am told we will see a 51-49 BRI agreement this weekend. And 82 games this year.


best post I've read on this forum in a long, long time. hope it's true.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



c_dog said:


> The players have clearly won the PR war. They are the ones who are making the league popular. They are the ones who put in the hours in the gym to make them the best players in the world. They are the top 200-300 basketball players in the world. They are offering to give up 3% of a 4billion dollar pie, when just last season they helped the league become even more popular and had to be compensated for the 57% they were owed.
> 
> It's clear the owners just need to change the way they run their teams and change their spending habits. it's not just the obvious not signing role players superstar money, but the way they run their teams, payroll on office staff and staff at the concession stands. If the Lakers/Heat are coming to town, sell those tickets at a higher price. If it's the wizards coming to town, make the tickets go on sale. The owners knew they were getting 43% of their share, and from the stats they got a bit more from what they were projecting to earn, so there was no excuse that they couldn't make a profit. Learn to budget your teams you dumb ****s.


This is really stupid. Owners won't make more money by cutting the pay of concession workers or office staff. Let's say you eliminate the salaries of 20 office workers @ $25K a piece. That's a drop in the bucket (less than a tenth) compared to the salary they're paying for just one mid level exemption ($5.4 million), much less a 14 player squad, plus coaches. 

This really is about cutting player's pay down to a reasonable level. NFLPA got 47%, NBAPA started at 57%; it doesn't take a genius to figure out why owners locked the players out.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



simply_amazing said:


> This is really stupid. Owners won't make more money by cutting the pay of concession workers or office staff. Let's say you eliminate the salaries of 20 office workers @ $25K a piece. That's a drop in the bucket (less than a tenth) compared to the salary they're paying for just one mid level exemption ($5.4 million), much less a 14 player squad, plus coaches.
> 
> This really is about cutting player's pay down to a reasonable level. NFLPA got 47%, NBAPA started at 57%; it doesn't take a genius to figure out why owners locked the players out.


which part of the owners just learning to deal with their 43% did you not understand. owners knew all along how much money they were working with. 43% of 4 billion dollars. it's their job to try and work around that and make it profitable. whether it be investing more money in a good advertising team to sell more tickets vs luxury suite add-ons vs cutting pay of concession workers, it doesn't matter. it's 43% of 4 billion dollars which is a lot of money. If you're losing money you're doing something wrong. now if you just want a bigger piece of the pie, that's a different story.

i can understand them wanting a bigger piece of the pie. i don't understand how they're not able to make profit. that is a lot of money they're making. seriously, the players deserve every bit of the 57%. it's a lot easier to hire a concession worker and office worker than it is to find a nba level basketball player. that's why they're making the money they're making.

if anybody just puts in half the effort these nba athletes put in their line of work, they would be much more successful. you think kobe became kobe just because god dealt him a good hand? even guys like corey maggette practice hours in the gym to get to their level. don't cry about them making more money than you because you always half-assed your way in life.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

The losses that the league are claiming are most likely fictional. The truth is that most of the teams are doing reasonably well or perhaps are losing rather small sums of money, a few are doing extremely well and a few of them are really losing a lot of money. The reason that they have been claiming their losses are so great is to provide them PR cover in the event of a prolonged lockout.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Why don't people realize that the owners aren't going to be financially hurt by a lockout? NBA teams (or most professional teams in general) are typically not a good business investment. It's just a nice thing super rich guys like to have. I think the players are slowly realizing the owners don't really give a **** if the players want 53%, because it's happening. The players started at 57% and didn't want to budge. Now they're making MLE, cap, and trade concessions and have dropped down to 53%. It's slowly the players that are caving. The ultra rich players aren't happy about it (KG, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc.) and are really holding the ground. But the bottom line is that the players hold no leverage. What are they going to threaten the owners with? "Hey we won't play and you'll get to save the money you've been losing!" My guess is that the small group of owners that were going to mull over a 50/50 split were the minority of owners making money. It's really just a matter of how long it's going to take the players to cave, and I'm hoping it's soon.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. I would bet you everything I have that Sarver would go bankrupt if there was no season and probably a third of the teams in the league are now owned by people who borrowed money to buy those teams. They have to service their debts and they can not do that unless the networks are paying them for games and people are in their seats. The banks are not going to give a damn about anything except getting their money. 

If the owners have nothing to lose they should stop blinking about now.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



c_dog said:


> which part of the owners just learning to deal with their 43% did you not understand. owners knew all along how much money they were working with. 43% of 4 billion dollars. it's their job to try and work around that and make it profitable. whether it be investing more money in a good advertising team to sell more tickets vs luxury suite add-ons vs cutting pay of concession workers, it doesn't matter. it's 43% of 4 billion dollars which is a lot of money. If you're losing money you're doing something wrong. now if you just want a bigger piece of the pie, that's a different story.
> 
> i can understand them wanting a bigger piece of the pie. i don't understand how they're not able to make profit. that is a lot of money they're making. seriously, the players deserve every bit of the 57%. it's a lot easier to hire a concession worker and office worker than it is to find a nba level basketball player. that's why they're making the money they're making.
> 
> if anybody just puts in half the effort these nba athletes put in their line of work, they would be much more successful. you think kobe became kobe just because god dealt him a good hand? even guys like corey maggette practice hours in the gym to get to their level. don't cry about them making more money than you because you always half-assed your way in life.


: the owners have all of the leverage. At the very worst, they break even during a lockout. They have no expenses to pay, and the value of their team continues to grow at the eventual resale. 

Meanwhile, the dumb players who can't balance a checkbook are scrambling for work, after having blown tens of millions of dollars in most cases. I am not pro-owner, but only a brainwashed fanboy could ignore the fact that a 57% player share of the revenue is untenable. 

That's why douches like Paul Pierce are getting belligerent at the meetings: they're getting desperate and are trying to intimidate owners. Silly rabbit.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Hibachi! said:


> Why don't people realize that the owners aren't going to be financially hurt by a lockout? NBA teams (or most professional teams in general) are typically not a good business investment. It's just a nice thing super rich guys like to have. I think the players are slowly realizing the owners don't really give a **** if the players want 53%, because it's happening. The players started at 57% and didn't want to budge. Now they're making MLE, cap, and trade concessions and have dropped down to 53%. It's slowly the players that are caving. The ultra rich players aren't happy about it (KG, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc.) and are really holding the ground. But the bottom line is that *the players hold no leverage. What are they going to threaten the owners with? "Hey we won't play and you'll get to save the money you've been losing!"* My guess is that the small group of owners that were going to mull over a 50/50 split were the minority of owners making money. It's really just a matter of how long it's going to take the players to cave, and I'm hoping it's soon.


Exactly. Not a single team would lose money in the event that the season is cancelled. And the evidence bears that out: players are conceding left and right; which is only fair, since their revenue split was completely outrageous and untenable to start with.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Diable said:


> The losses that the league are claiming are most likely fictional. The truth is that most of the teams are doing reasonably well or perhaps are losing rather small sums of money, a few are doing extremely well and a few of them are really losing a lot of money. The reason that they have been claiming their losses are so great is to provide them PR cover in the event of a prolonged lockout.


Its fascinating that you have this information since *Both sides* along with the IRS believe the losses that the NBA has stated to be true. But, then every labor dispute that has ever happened labor accuses the management of having all this money and won't give it up. 

It doesn't really matter if they are losing money or not. A business owner can pay labor any amount they wish to pay. That's always their choice. 



Diable said:


> I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. I would bet you everything I have that Sarver would go bankrupt if there was no season and probably a third of the teams in the league are now owned by people who borrowed money to buy those teams. They have to service their debts and they can not do that unless the networks are paying them for games and people are in their seats. The banks are not going to give a damn about anything except getting their money.
> 
> If the owners have nothing to lose they should stop blinking about now.


They aren't really blinking. Stern has a duty to at least try to get the season started for the 10 or so owners who will earn money this season and everyone else concerned. 

Isn't it obvious that the owners chose 57% to 42% because half way would be around 50/50 ? Which they probably assumed would be the mark. And the players said no ! 

Don't underestimate the impact the agents are having undermining what Hunter and Fisher are doing from the outside. They lose money and power through this process and don't like it. If the players get divided between the agents and union: The owners will walk away with a big win.

The fact that the big stars are finally showing up and can't hold their temper shows they can't handle the pressure. The owners will use that to their advantage.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



simply_amazing said:


> You dumbass: the owners have all of the leverage. At the very worst, they break even during a lockout. They have no expenses to pay, and the value of their team continues to grow at the eventual resale.
> 
> Meanwhile, the dumb players who can't balance a checkbook are scrambling for work, after having blown tens of millions of dollars in most cases. I am not pro-owner, but only a brainwashed fanboy could ignore the fact that a 57% player share of the revenue is untenable.
> 
> That's why douches like Paul Pierce are getting belligerent at the meetings: they're getting desperate and are trying to intimidate owners. Silly rabbit.


owners do have a lot of leverage. but it's not like they have nothing to lose. i never believe for a moment that they would lose less money but not having a season. that's just them trying to get PR that "these greedy players are overpaid that our business is losing money" when in fact they are the incompetent ones who sign the players in the first place and can't manage their finances any better than the players.

a lot of players can't balance check books because they are just terrible at managing money. that is the case with majority of athletes unfortunately. but the owners have proven to be just as incompetent with their money. really, you paid the big money on the players, and you still have 43% of the 4 billion for profit and you manage to LOSE it all? if players are the only overpaid employees in the league i don't see how they can manage to not at least keep some of those 43%. it's just owners not spending money wisely. maybe they're spending too much money hiring useless office people or creating fancy job position titles for their buddies but they clearly need to brighten up. firing a GM their first year after signing them to a lucrative multi-year contract isn't a good way to saving money either.

i think whoever puts in the most effort and contributes the most to the profit of the league deserve the higher BRI. and that is clearly the players. whether the players can be wise with their money is their own issue, but i rather the profit goes to a player who worked his ass off his entire life to get to the nba than some incompetent office executive who might not even know the names of all the players in the nba. clearly none of us average joes can be nba players, but a few of us can run basketball teams just as well as these fools if we just had the dough.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



LA68 said:


> Its fascinating that you have this information since *Both sides* along with the IRS believe the losses that the NBA has stated to be true. But, then every labor dispute that has ever happened labor accuses the management of having all this money and won't give it up.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if they are losing money or not. A business owner can pay labor any amount they wish to pay. That's always their choice.
> 
> ...


You must be referring to that fake punk Paul Pierce with his stupid STAND t shirt, assuming he knew how to spell it correctly. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Pierce were flat broke already: it's almost certain he will be once his playing career is done with his attitude.

Faux gangster = FAIL.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Meh, if we lose games, we lose games. Fix the economics of the game. I would have been happy to lose a season for 3 year (4 years for MAX), hard cap (to 70 million), no exceptions, etc... The thing that's so interesting is, the guys who work hard are and are great, are hamstrung by mediocre guys who can get paid and then not produce. The exceptional is being penalized while the mediocre is being helped. And it makes sense that agents want to protect that because there are only so many "exceptional" players in this league. I don't care if Travis Outlaw or Mo Williams doesn't get to make 7 plus million a year anymore, only to play poorly when they are called upon, but you can't cut them.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



c_dog said:


> which part of the owners just learning to deal with their 43% did you not understand. owners knew all along how much money they were working with. 43% of 4 billion dollars. it's their job to try and work around that and make it profitable. whether it be investing more money in a good advertising team to sell more tickets vs luxury suite add-ons vs cutting pay of concession workers, it doesn't matter. it's 43% of 4 billion dollars which is a lot of money. If you're losing money you're doing something wrong. now if you just want a bigger piece of the pie, that's a different story.
> 
> i can understand them wanting a bigger piece of the pie. i don't understand how they're not able to make profit. that is a lot of money they're making. seriously, the players deserve every bit of the 57%. it's a lot easier to hire a concession worker and office worker than it is to find a nba level basketball player. that's why they're making the money they're making.
> 
> if anybody just puts in half the effort these nba athletes put in their line of work, they would be much more successful. you think kobe became kobe just because god dealt him a good hand? even guys like corey maggette practice hours in the gym to get to their level. don't cry about them making more money than you because you always half-assed your way in life.


How do you think the NBA became a 5 billion dollar a year business? The power of positive thinking?

The NBA has spent massive amounts of money on new arenas and international marketing. They are growing revenue but the cost of doing business is getting higher and higher with ever increasing competition for attention from other media. If the owners decided "to just learn to deal" with their 43% what do you think the league would look like? I'm pretty sure the first thing to go would be those private charters the players have grown accostomed to flying across the country on. We'll see how much they value a couple percentage points when they are riding a bus back and forth between Charlotte and Portland.

The thing that is so stupid about all of this is a profitable business model for owners actually BENEFITS players! Say the players keep their 57% and league revenues decrease to 4 billion due to reduced spending on operations. That's a 2.3 billion cut for players. Now say the players take 50% and getting into the black allows the league to grow revenue to 6 billion. That's a 3 billion cut for players. They make more money if the league makes more money. The league has to spend money to make money. Right now the league doesn't have any money to spend. It's really really simple.

The long term health of the league (the ability to continue to grow revenue) has a far larger impact on future player earnings than a couple percentage points do today. A healthy business model helps everybody. Not just the owners.

I've been saying since before the lockout even started that we'd have basketball as soon as a 50-50 split is agreed to. It's more than just an aesthetically pleasing notion of half-and-half being "fair". That 7% is almost exactly the amount required to get the league out of the $300 million a year sinkhole they are in.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Mrs. Thang said:


> How do you think the NBA became a 5 billion dollar a year business? The power of positive thinking?
> 
> *The NBA has spent massive amounts of money on new arenas* and international marketing. They are growing revenue but the cost of doing business is getting higher and higher with ever increasing competition for attention from other media. If the owners decided "to just learn to deal" with their 43% what do you think the league would look like? I'm pretty sure the first thing to go would be those private charters the players have grown accostomed to flying across the country on. We'll see how much they value a couple percentage points when they are riding a bus back and forth between Charlotte and Portland.
> 
> ...


 I could not name one living NBA owner who has built one arena or even spent any of his own money on one. They all threaten to live town if the taxpayers will not do it for them, but so far as I know the only ones who actually built arenas are currently deceased.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

I think the MLSE built the Air Canada Center.


----------



## Mrs. Thang (Apr 14, 2011)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

The Nets new Brooklyn arena is privately funded, Prokhorov has put a lot of money into finishing the project. The Raptor's ownership group owns and operates its arena. The Pistons own and operate their arena (although it's over 20 years old now). Most of the teams that don't own still have to pay to operate. The Houston Rockets don't own but are responsible for improvements/maintenance. The point is that the 43% owners share is all the money they have to operate the league and grow business. They've been able to grow business by spending out of pocket (which increases player salaries), but they can't do that forever. At some point (now) the league needs to be self-sufficient.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Players getting 57% of BRE isn't the issue, it's owners spending over that to get us to 64% of BRE where problems arise.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Mrs. Thang said:


> The Nets new Brooklyn arena is privately funded, Prokhorov has put a lot of money into finishing the project. The Raptor's ownership group owns and operates its arena. The Pistons own and operate their arena (although it's over 20 years old now). Most of the teams that don't own still have to pay to operate. The Houston Rockets don't own but are responsible for improvements/maintenance. The point is that the 43% owners share is all the money they have to operate the league and grow business. They've been able to grow business by spending out of pocket (which increases player salaries), but they can't do that forever. At some point (now) the league needs to be self-sufficient.


\\


I don't care to look it up, but as I read **** the stuff you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the BRI. All of these sorts of expenses and the money you should be using to pay for them is deducted from the BRI before it is calculated is it not? If that is correct then all of that is completely irrelevant. The owners make and spend all of that money before they start splitting up the BRI with the players.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

specifically, BRI is all of the below:


> Basketball Related Income (BRI) essentially includes any income received by the NBA, NBA Properties or NBA Media Ventures. This includes:
> 
> Regular season gate receipts
> Broadcast rights
> ...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Mrs. Thang said:


> The Nets new Brooklyn arena is privately funded


With massive subsidies as the city of New York seized hundreds of millions worth of prime real estate and handed it over to him.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



Mrs. Thang said:


> How do you think the NBA became a 5 billion dollar a year business? The power of positive thinking?
> 
> The NBA has spent massive amounts of money on new arenas and international marketing. They are growing revenue but the cost of doing business is getting higher and higher with ever increasing competition for attention from other media. If the owners decided "to just learn to deal" with their 43% what do you think the league would look like? I'm pretty sure the first thing to go would be those private charters the players have grown accostomed to flying across the country on. We'll see how much they value a couple percentage points when they are riding a bus back and forth between Charlotte and Portland.
> 
> ...


you seem to fail to understand the fact that the owners simply want their cake and eat it too. good job gobbling up all that crap they've been feeding you.

it's funny you say they pay for their arenas when in fact, almost none do. tax payers usually end up paying for it, not owners.

nba is a 4 billion dollar business. you didn't even get that right. and it's where it is today because of the work of some of the world's best athletes. michael jordan, larry bird, magic johnson, kobe bryant, all have done more to popularize the league than any owner.

and it's funny you're assuming the new profit with the new BRI split would somehow be used by owners to further popularize the league? please. the owners would pocket that money. that's the whole point they're fighting for it in the first place.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

NBA and Union meeting today

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/sports/basketball/nba-union-lockout.html


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

I think the players should offer 51.5 and then get some concessions like the end of RFA.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



futuristxen said:


> I think the players should offer 51.5 and then get some concessions like the end of RFA.


Don't know about the end of RFA, but 51.5% sounds about right.

I'd like to see a smaller MLE that not every team over the cap is entitled to.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

I'd like to see the lottery shrank down to JUST the lottery. Everyone else is a free agent after that.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*

Talking about money and the politics of the NBA is ****ing boring. I want to talk about basketball.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

If I'm the Union rep for the players I'm driving a relatively hard bargain here... I don't buy the owners claims of poverty really... seems to me like a lot of people are getting rich off of the NBA. To drop down from 57% to even 50-53% is a huge decrease in the percentage of the pie going to the players... it is interesting how it seems like people are taking it for granted that the players should make that significant of an adjustment to the CBA. In my world, that kind of thing would come with a serious quid pro quo.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



VanillaPrice said:


> Talking about money and the politics of the NBA is ****ing boring. I want to talk about basketball.


ding ding ding


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

End of the day the Owners know the little guys are going to end up crying by December and they'll pressure the union into accepting a bad deal and a less than 53% split. 

LeBron and the big dogs can hold the line all they want them starters and roleplayers are gonna get hungry and be like **** it we need to work. Some player already said out loud during their meeting the other week 50/50 isn't the worst idea. He got shouted down by the other players, but who knows how they'll feel in a couple months. 

What we need is some kid with terminal cancer to be like I want an NBA game before I pass to get these guys' heads out of their ass and off their power points. There's enough money for everyone.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



futuristxen said:


> I'd like to see the lottery shrank down to JUST the lottery. Everyone else is a free agent after that.


as a Laker fan I totally endorse this message


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dornado said:


> If I'm the Union rep for the players I'm driving a relatively hard bargain here... I don't buy the owners claims of poverty really... seems to me like a lot of people are getting rich off of the NBA. To drop down from 57% to even 50-53% is a huge decrease in the percentage of the pie going to the players... it is interesting how it seems like people are taking it for granted that the players should make that significant of an adjustment to the CBA. In my world, that kind of thing would come with a serious quid pro quo.


Yeah plus you know that next TV deal is going to be huge, with NBC trying to get back in the game. There's going to be a serious bidding war--particularly if the ratings from this past year are any indication.

Owners are making a cash crab is all I see. Going down to 53 percent off of 57 is a huge move. That's giving up what they already have. 

The owners BS we come up from the 40 percent and hard cap we demanded--is just bargaining BS. They have yet to actually give the players anything in negotiations that the players didn't already have.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

these owners are just idiots. they never think about the fans for one second. all they care about is money. the players are already diving up 4% of the pie. that is a huge portion of money they're giving up. they can also have a strict lux tax to some degree to protect themselves from over signing players. they just need to accept all that they've gained so far and avoid all the bad publicity that is going to hurt the league. but no, they say screw the fans. they rather lock the players and starve the players to get what they want, ignoring the fact that the fans are starved too for some basketball. **** these owners.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

^^They're idiots yet they somehow have managed to make enough money to purchase teams which cost an average of half a billion dollars. You're brighter than all of the owners and yet your biggest accomplishment is to troll a sports fan forum. Such impeccable logic.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

I think a big turning point in 99 is when Kevin Willis came out and publically said the players needed to conceed a little. Remember prior to 99 there was no max on player salaries which is why Jordan made 30 million in one year just from the Bulls. Willis basically said that 14 million (the max at the time) was still a lot of money to play basketball and the players need to suck it up.

It wasn't the same as crossing a picket line but it was pretty damn close. That needs to happen here, just need a wel-spoken vet to step up, not a lunatic like Metta Peace.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



simply_amazing said:


> ^^They're idiots yet they somehow have managed to make enough money to purchase teams which cost an average of half a billion dollars. You're brighter than all of the owners and yet your biggest accomplishment is to troll a sports fan forum. Such impeccable logic.


I think he meant idiots as more of a general insult. He could of said buttheads or something.

I live 3 hours from Charlotte now and get my basketball fix by buying a 6 game package every year. They still called me two months ago asking for my money again, despite never calling to apologize for the work stoppage and that they still value my business. Dude didn't even acknowledge there was a lockout until I brought it up. To say all the owners care about is money and not the fans is probably correct.


----------



## goodfoot (Feb 28, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Jamel Irief said:


> I think he meant idiots as more of a general insult. He could of said buttheads or something.
> 
> I live 3 hours from Charlotte now and get my basketball fix by buying a 6 game package every year. They still called me two months ago asking for my money again, despite never calling to apologize for the work stoppage and that they still value my business. Dude didn't even acknowledge there was a lockout until I brought it up. To say all the owners care about is money and not the fans is probably correct.


How would that even work? Would they give you your money back if the season was canceled?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



goodfoot said:


> How would that even work? Would they give you your money back if the season was canceled?


Yes they would.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

If you threatened to get litigious with them you could probably make them pay you interest. After all this is self-inflicted. The teams decided not to provide the services that they have promised the season ticket holders, so they are probably liable up to at least a small degree. It isn't really good enough to give someone back their money without interest after promising to give them something in return, but then deciding on your own not to provide what you promised.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Diable said:


> If you threatened to get litigious with them you could probably make them pay you interest. After all this is self-inflicted. The teams decided not to provide the services that they have promised the season ticket holders, so they are probably liable up to at least a small degree. It isn't really good enough to give someone back their money without interest after promising to give them something in return, but then deciding on your own not to provide what you promised.


Or I could not just give them my money until the lockout is over. 

In a reasonable time too. I'm not paying for tickets for an asterisked 50 game season.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Diable said:


> If you threatened to get litigious with them you could probably make them pay you interest. After all this is self-inflicted. The teams decided not to provide the services that they have promised the season ticket holders, so they are probably liable up to at least a small degree. It isn't really good enough to give someone back their money without interest after promising to give them something in return, but then deciding on your own not to provide what you promised.


You're going to threaten to sue Michael Jordan? Do you want to ever see the NBA again? Or live? Because I'm pretty sure he has SERIOUS mob connections, not to mention Oakley.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



simply_amazing said:


> ^^They're idiots yet they somehow have managed to make enough money to purchase teams which cost an average of half a billion dollars. You're brighter than all of the owners and yet your biggest accomplishment is to troll a sports fan forum. Such impeccable logic.


it's another to know how to run a company of your own expertise but another to own a basketball team. we've seen the deals handed out to players like arenas and lewis. we've also seen the hirings of incompetent personnel. a lot of these guys clearly don't know basketball.

and way to make assumptions that everybody one of us here are trolls who have nothing to do all day than to browse in forums.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

FYI the NBA is giving the option for fans to get their tickers refunded with 1% interest cash or 5% interest toward future tickets.


----------



## goodfoot (Feb 28, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Laker Freak said:


> FYI the NBA is giving the option for fans to get their tickers refunded with 1% interest cash or 5% interest toward future tickets.


5% toward future tickets? Not bad.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Jamel Irief said:


> I think a big turning point in 99 is when Kevin Willis came out and publically said the players needed to conceed a little. Remember prior to 99 there was no max on player salaries which is why Jordan made 30 million in one year just from the Bulls. Willis basically said that 14 million (the max at the time) was still a lot of money to play basketball and the players need to suck it up.
> 
> It wasn't the same as crossing a picket line but it was pretty damn close. That needs to happen here, just need a wel-spoken vet to step up, not a lunatic like Metta Peace.


I don't think that will work this time, because the bulk of the the things the owners want to do, are targetted at hurting the Kevin Willis level players. So if the Kevin Willis players think the NBA is trying to screw them, then this has no chance. Because the Superstars can wait two years if need be for a better deal. Stern already screwed them over on the last deal.

I just think the dynamics of this situation strongly favors the players if what we've heard about deferred payments, and guys saving up for a lockout--is even remotely true. I'm sure there are exceptions who aren't ready. But so far the Union has stood pretty strong. I don't know if Stern will break them this time, like he did last time.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

There will always be hundreds of "regular' players compared to the stars. When it eventually boils down to that, the majority wins. It hasnt gotten there yet, but it will soon, and then we will see how strong the union actually is.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



futuristxen said:


> I don't think that will work this time, because the bulk of the the things the owners want to do, are targetted at hurting the Kevin Willis level players. So if the Kevin Willis players think the NBA is trying to screw them, then this has no chance. Because the Superstars can wait two years if need be for a better deal. Stern already screwed them over on the last deal.
> 
> I just think the dynamics of this situation strongly favors the players if what we've heard about deferred payments, and guys saving up for a lockout--is even remotely true. I'm sure there are exceptions who aren't ready. But so far the Union has stood pretty strong. I don't know if Stern will break them this time, like he did last time.


You don't think ONE player will crack and complain in the press? Really?


----------



## donjuan (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

It's interesting how neither do players or the owners care about the fans. It seems like they forgot that they exist today because of the fans...


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

They care about fans, but fans aren't in this argument. This is an argument to keep giving the fans a product and keep making money for everyone else. The main problem is that Billy Hunter is and has always been totally overmatched and is not competent to negotiate the deals.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hyperion said:


> They care about fans, but fans aren't in this argument. This is an argument to keep giving the fans a product and keep making money for everyone else. The main problem is that Billy Hunter is and has always been totally overmatched and is not competent to negotiate the deals.


Billy seems to have done well in previous negotiatons, if he 'actually' constructed a deal where the NBA has been losing $300 mil a year for quite a few years now.

Of course, I believe that the owners are lying and cheating (and worse), because that is basically how they make their money.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

He sure screwed them with the minimum age limit, scaled rookie salaries, luxury tax, and shorter contract deals.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hyperion said:


> He sure screwed them with the minimum age limit, scaled rookie salaries, luxury tax, and shorter contract deals.


Yes, and all of America has been mourning for the unions losses since the last CBA was agreed to.

Let us pray.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hyperion said:


> He sure screwed them with the minimum age limit, scaled rookie salaries, luxury tax, and shorter contract deals.


Not really. Vets were going to get the shaft if they didn't do rookie contracts. Teams would have all their monies tied up in long term deals for Hasheem Thabeet and not be able to afford to resign Zach Randolph. Same with shorter contracts, if a player performs he gets paid. All those two things do is redistribute the pie to the more deserving.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

They traded all of that stuff for other things. The guys who were really hurt by the rookie scale and the age limit were guys who would have made a lot of money without really being able to make it in the NBA. The guys who can play get paid in the end. Really no one benefits by the sort of deal that Big Dog Robinson got, you should have to prove that you can play and that you are not a full blown alcoholic before you get that sort of money.


----------



## donjuan (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hyperion said:


> They care about fans, but fans aren't in this argument. This is an argument to keep giving the fans a product and keep making money for everyone else. The main problem is that Billy Hunter is and has always been totally overmatched and is not competent to negotiate the deals.


I agree... But, couldn't they resolve this already, and give us basketball? I have read on various forums and blogs, that fans are very annoyed about this lockout, and a lot of them (who were previously going regularly on matches and even bought season tickets) aren't going to buy the tickets or even go to the matches... Fans bring money, right?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

**** has really hit the fan



> Spurs owner Peter Holt on NBA and union: "We've kind of worn each other out."
> 
> Spurs owner Holt believed things were getting too emotional and staying in talks now could've pushed two sides even further apart.
> 
> ...


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

i doubt the average nba player would be agains the 50/50 offer. the fact that kobe, pierce and garnett have joined the meeting says it all, those are the guys who earn the top of the cream.

anyway, i dont even care anymore. nba has lost a whole lot of fans overseas.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Jamel Irief said:


> You don't think ONE player will crack and complain in the press? Really?


Javale McGee already did

Anyhoo Nazr Mohammed had an interesting take on it on twitter



> It's almost amazing to me how our union is handling the new CBA like a business deal while some owners are acting like bitter ex's......who want to make us bleed. We've given in on the BRI($300m), luxury tax to police teams from themselves, and we're negotiating on......length of contracts but nothing is enough for them. This is business and we have a good thing going. They need to stop being greedy....and start negotiating before we alienate the people who make it possible for us to make a living playing a game. It's not negotiating.....if we're the only ones willing to compromise. What would u do if ur boss called u into the office and told u that business is the best it's ever been but that he's made some bad.....business decisions and he needs u to take a pay-cut?!?!...We said ok! How much do u need?!?! They said $300m...We said Cool!...Then.....They said No, lets make that $500m lol #UrKiddingMeRight


And Stephen Curry



> Just a summary. The players know how important the fans r to what we do. Would not jeopardize that unless we knew we r being exploited
> 
> Because of greedy owners. We r truly blessed to make what we make to do what we do. Why would we GIVE UP game checks just to get more. If you follow it closely, we r the only side giving concessions. Constant concessions to bridge the "gap". All good. Sry to fans. Love yall


To me I think folks with average jobs look at NBA players, hear them making all that money and automatically think they are greedy. Unfortunately, we have all been raised to be subservient, never question your bosses, they are always right. Well the NBA shows that in fact most owners are wrong, look at the absurd contracts, they signed off on those right?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



BenDengGo said:


> i doubt the average nba player would be agains the 50/50 offer. the fact that kobe, pierce and garnett have joined the meeting says it all, those are the guys who earn the top of the cream.



The problem is that the average player is under attack by a lot of these changes(the elimination of the MLE, shorter contracts, no gtd contracts, lower salary cap). The proposals by the owners directly target average players. That's why they can't break the union because the bulk of their proposal screws over too much of the union.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



futuristxen said:


> The problem is that the average player is under attack by a lot of these changes(the elimination of the MLE, shorter contracts, no gtd contracts, lower salary cap). The proposals by the owners directly target average players. That's why they can't break the union because the bulk of their proposal screws over too much of the union.


Right.



> BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) -- JaVale McGee only acknowledged the inevitable Friday when the Washington Wizards center said a few NBA players are "ready to fold" in their contentious labor negotiations with the league.
> 
> ......
> 
> ...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

You know what's funny? This deal only seems like the players are getting screwed in relation to their ridiculous CBA the first time. It's like the CEO making $20 million and then when the company isn't profiting like they thought he goes "Look, I already said I'd move down to $17 million and cut my pension a couple percent, but they want to move me down to $15 million! This is ludicrous! I know the CEO's in the other companies that are way more popular and make way more money have lesser benefits, but I'm getting ROYALLY SCREWED!"


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hibachi! said:


> You know what's funny? This deal only seems like the players are getting screwed in relation to their ridiculous CBA the first time. It's like the CEO making $20 million and then when the company isn't profiting like they thought he goes "Look, I already said I'd move down to $17 million and cut my pension a couple percent, but they want to move me down to $15 million! This is ludicrous! I know the CEO's in the other companies that are way more popular and make way more money have lesser benefits, but I'm getting ROYALLY SCREWED!"


Because of something like this Hibachi



> What would u do if ur boss called u into the office and told u that business is the best it's ever been but that he's made some bad.....business decisions and he needs u to take a pay-cut?!?!...We said ok! How much do u need?!?! They said $300m...We said Cool!...Then.....They said No, lets make that $500m


As the product people PAY to see, the NBA is on a huge upswing. But owners want to make up for mistakes THEY made. The part you ignore is that the CEO making the 20 million (your argument is faulty) is being squeezed by the owner of the company making $100 million who overspent on other CEOs who ended up losing the company money, while you MADE the company money.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hibachi! said:


> You know what's funny? This deal only seems like the players are getting screwed in relation to their ridiculous CBA the first time. It's like the CEO making $20 million and then when the company isn't profiting like they thought he goes "Look, I already said I'd move down to $17 million and cut my pension a couple percent, but they want to move me down to $15 million! This is ludicrous! I know the CEO's in the other companies that are way more popular and make way more money have lesser benefits, but I'm getting ROYALLY SCREWED!"


only this league is profitting. so the fact that the players took a major paycut despite helping the league become more profitable is a pretty big concession to make. the BRI is a relative split anyway. if the league makes more money the players make more. if the league makes less, the players make less. not at all a reasonable comparison.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Tragedy said:


> Because of something like this Hibachi
> 
> 
> 
> As the product people PAY to see, the NBA is on a huge upswing. But owners want to make up for mistakes THEY made. The part you ignore is that the CEO making the 20 million (your argument is faulty) is being squeezed by the owner of the company making $100 million who overspent on other CEOs who ended up losing the company money, while you MADE the company money.


A lot of the mistakes THEY made can be attributed to to the horrendous CBA they agreed to before. They didn't even pay the players enough last year... Meaning even with ALL the bad contracts they signed, they still didn't hit the mark. Marc Cuban, for example, is getting sued by his investors because he lead them to believe that the Mavericks (you know perennial contenders, sellout every game, NBA champions) would actually be a profitable business.

Even with a 50/50 split, it's still a FAR better CBA than they have in the significantly more popular NFL, and arguably better than the MLB CBA. The reason the players are getting "robbed" is because people are comparing it to that atrocious CBA from before.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

I keep telling people this, the players are the product in a theoretical sense, but not reality. The league (the collection of teams) is the product. If the players were the product people would be lining up to watch Moses Malone and Julius Erving play basketball even today as old men. The players continue to change. This is why no one cares what Deron Williams is doing in Turkey, nor do they care what Chandler, Kenyon and JR are doing in China. If Kobe went over to Italy, we wouldn't care either. 

We are fans of the NBA, it's history, etc... It's why Bulls fans went to games for a decade after Jordan left, even though the franchise was garbage. It's why Utah fans still support the Jazz. The players will eventually fade from memory. No one wants to admit it, but it's true. 

We only want to watch these guys in their primes and then after that we're on to the next group of players. Owners know this, that's why people keep comparing it to Hollywood. You may have been hot in the 80's, but it's 2011 now.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HKF said:


> I keep telling people this, the players are the product in a theoretical sense, but not reality. The league (the collection of teams) is the product. If the players were the product people would be lining up to watch Moses Malone and Julius Erving play basketball even today as old men. The players continue to change. This is why no one cares what Deron Williams is doing in Turkey, nor do they care what Chandler, Kenyon and JR are doing in China. If Kobe went over to Italy, we wouldn't care either.
> 
> We are fans of the NBA, it's history, etc... It's why Bulls fans went to games for a decade after Jordan left, even though the franchise was garbage. It's why Utah fans still support the Jazz. The players will eventually fade from memory. No one wants to admit it, but it's true.
> 
> We only want to watch these guys in their primes and then after that we're on to the next group of players. Owners know this, that's why people keep comparing it to Hollywood. You may have been hot in the 80's, but it's 2011 now.


Yeah, you're right.

But that doesn't change anything.

The players are still the product we pay to see. The players change, but we still watch the players.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hibachi! said:


> A lot of the mistakes THEY made can be attributed to to the horrendous CBA they agreed to before. They didn't even pay the players enough last year... Meaning even with ALL the bad contracts they signed, they still didn't hit the mark. Marc Cuban, for example, is getting sued by his investors because he lead them to believe that the Mavericks (you know perennial contenders, sellout every game, NBA champions) would actually be a profitable business.
> 
> Even with a 50/50 split, it's still a FAR better CBA than they have in the significantly more popular NFL, and arguably better than the MLB CBA. The reason the players are getting "robbed" is because people are comparing it to that atrocious CBA from before.


Meh. They have to blame the market. The market set the prices for players. You can decide to pay the player, or not.

Less years, production incentives can help alleviate that.

Players can always, ALWAYS point to the Knicks and the Spurs as proof. 

Or a team like the Clippers. They are willing to let another team overpay, and let talent walk. 

Teams act like fans are stupid. They're not. Years ago when I worked for MSG they wanted to throw money at weak players, thinking the fans just wanted the playoffs. No, they want a team that plays hard, has a future and is fun to watch. You don't have to overpay guys because you think you can. Look at Memphis. Look at OKC.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

there will be no basketball this season... put it on the calendar


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

What am I putting on the calendar exactly? Should I cross off every day on my calendar from Halloween to Memorial Day with the words NBA cancelled on it?


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Hyperion said:


> What am I putting on the calendar exactly? Should I cross off every day on my calendar from Halloween to Memorial Day with the words NBA cancelled on it?




you're better off just ripping out those months altogether from the calendar. then possibly burn them along with your phoenix suns gorilla mascot posters and steve nash/lebron jerseys.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

There will be no season unless the hardline owners start to feel the pain. Most of those guys are looking to sell their teams for a profit, so it is not like any of them give a damn about the damage that a missed season would do to the league. There is absolutely no reason why the players should agree to the conditions that the owners are dictating and everyone knows that, so the intent on the part of the hardline owners is to have no season damn the consequences. Then they will all turn around and try to sell their teams for a bigger profit than they would get otherwise.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HKF said:


> I keep telling people this, the players are the product in a theoretical sense, but not reality. The league (the collection of teams) is the product. If the players were the product people would be lining up to watch Moses Malone and Julius Erving play basketball even today as old men. The players continue to change. This is why no one cares what Deron Williams is doing in Turkey, nor do they care what Chandler, Kenyon and JR are doing in China. If Kobe went over to Italy, we wouldn't care either.
> 
> We are fans of the NBA, it's history, etc... It's why Bulls fans went to games for a decade after Jordan left, even though the franchise was garbage. It's why Utah fans still support the Jazz. The players will eventually fade from memory. No one wants to admit it, but it's true.
> 
> We only want to watch these guys in their primes and then after that we're on to the next group of players. Owners know this, that's why people keep comparing it to Hollywood. You may have been hot in the 80's, but it's 2011 now.


100% correct.

It's why I was probably a more rabid fan as a 12 year old watching a team with Sedale Threatt as arguably it's best player than I am today watching a team with Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Artest and Bynum.

Don't try to tell futuristxen that though. She'll want you to believe people would just as closely follow lebron if he played in Alaska.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Diable said:


> There will be no season unless the hardline owners start to feel the pain. Most of those guys are looking to sell their teams for a profit, so it is not like any of them give a damn about the damage that a missed season would do to the league. There is absolutely no reason why the players should agree to the conditions that the owners are dictating and everyone knows that, so the intent on the part of the hardline owners is to have no season damn the consequences. Then they will all turn around and try to sell their teams for a bigger profit than they would get otherwise.


This. I can guarantee you it's true of Wyc Grousbeck with the Celtics, who according to all reports is in the hardline camp. At this point Grousbeck & Son and Stevie P. have nothing invested in the Celtics (in fact, by this time I'm fairly certain they've doubled the money they put down on the purchase), and a note looming, so they're looking to cash in.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



ChosenFEW said:


> you're better off just ripping out those months altogether from the calendar. then possibly burn them along with your phoenix suns gorilla mascot posters and steve nash/lebron jerseys.


Why do I own a Lebron jersey? The rest is actually pretty spot on, plus I have a little stuffed suns gorilla that sits on my desk. I have a Nash and a Barbosa jersey. I wish I had a KJ jersey, that would be awesome. No, I won't burn them though. I am almost willing to torch US Airways arena. I'm not there yet, just at the point where I would definitely watch in person as the building went up in flames as Sarver lost more money on it. I don't think there is a worse owner in the NBA than him.


----------



## MarionBarberThe4th (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

50/50 BRI

$1M over = $1.10 in tax
$2M over = $1.20 in tax
$3M over = $1.30 in tax
etc.

1 player on your team can get a 4 year deal. Anyone else 3 or less.

Teams can cut 1 player a season, they can pay him over twice the length of the deal, and it counts 75% against the cap.


If the players are going to come down so much on the BRI the league can give on the other stuff.


I think teams should be able to get out of bad deals without having to set up Eddy Curry for life, I dont care how dumb Isiah is. But Billy Hunter has really been supporting those types in interviews so whatever.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

It has to be said that the union seeks to protect all the Eddy Currys. That's the raison of a union. In their universe it's ok for multi-year, team crippling guaranteed contracts. Guys like Nazr Mohammed are writing long missives about their "rights." Gimme a ****ing break. They're scared shitless that they will only get three years of bloodsucking before they have to reaffirm their value. The horror!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

They don't need a clause like that to stop the players from going after long term deals. The owners need those clauses to stop the owners from doing stupid things. It would be hard to name a lot of bad contracts in the NBA that did not look like horrible mistakes when they were agreed to. All the owners have to do is to stop being stupid and that is not much of an issue.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Adam is right. Diable, I am not sure why you think it's good for mediocre players to have long-term guaranteed deals. Three year deals are better for building contenders, keeps the players honest, player movement be damned. The thing that makes me laugh about people citing player movement as a factor why the contracts shouldn't be short or unguaranteed is that people only seem to care about the NBA around the trade-deadline. 

People want to see players move in season I guess, rather than in the offseason. Doesn't really make sense to me.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HKF said:


> Adam is right. Diable, I am not sure why you think it's good for mediocre players to have long-term guaranteed deals. Three year deals are better for building contenders, keeps the players honest, player movement be damned.


It's going to be really hard to get the players to agree to a deal like that though, since that would affect so many players. The owners plan is to kill the middle class that they established with the last deal. The thing about that is that you have the players who that affects immedietely, and then the players who think they can get those deals in the future. Those numbers are probably by far the most dominant faction in the union. For all the focus on the superstars, I don't think they're really going to be the huge impediment to getting this done. It's the players for whom a few million is actually a big deal, and for whom shorter contracts is a bigger deal--that are going to be stopping this deal.

I don't know if you can push through a deal that harms most of the union like that.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

If I were an ordinary NBA player that would be what I would aspire to. Work real hard to establish myself and then give some idiot GM the chance to give me a ridiculous contract. Of course I might think that I was going to keep getting better, but there's only going to be one big contract for most NBA players, at least the ones who even make it that far. Most of them are going to history in a year or two. The vast majority of the players are not going to be willing to give up that extra year unless they are getting something comparable in return. The owners are not offering anything remotely palatable to any constituency in the player's union.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Also I love the richest people in this country. They're all for conservative values, do everything for yourself, we don't need the government--but the minute they start losing any money, it's "waaah bail us out"...a bunch of freaking babies.

The NBA owners shat their own house, and want the players to come in and take care of it.

We are losing NBA games ostensibly because there's a group of ownership too dumb to run an NBA franchise, so they want an idiot proof system to protect themselves from their own bad choices.

I think every bad contract out there most of us on this board could tell was a bad contract when it was offered. And we're just people on a message board. Owners have their heads up their asses.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Diable said:


> If I were an ordinary NBA player that would be what I would aspire to. Work real hard to establish myself and then give some idiot GM the chance to give me a ridiculous contract. Of course I might think that I was going to keep getting better, but there's only going to be one big contract for most NBA players, at least the ones who even make it that far. Most of them are going to history in a year or two. The vast majority of the players are not going to be willing to give up that extra year unless they are getting something comparable in return. The owners are not offering anything remotely palatable to any constituency in the player's union.


Well and plus those players are usually end of first round/second round/undrafted guys who probably were making the the lower percentage of incomes of the players, so they feel like they deserve the big contract to make up for the years where they were underpaid for their production.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

The NBA is not asking for a bailout, they are changing their system. None of the contracts are going to be retroactively changed. They are fixing their future. There is nothing wrong with that, now that they have decided the financial model for them is no longer viable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

I see a more productive discourse in here than what's probably going on with those assholes in midtown. I'm tired of this


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HKF said:


> The NBA is not asking for a bailout, they are changing their system. None of the contracts are going to be retroactively changed. They are fixing their future. There is nothing wrong with that, now that they have decided the financial model for them is no longer viable.


Now that they've decided they can't hack it because of their own mistakes, they want a 400 million dollar kick back. And yes originally they did want to roll back on player's existing contracts. It's a complete joke. The players have dropped from 57 to 53 percent and gotten NOTHING for the concession. Just more lost wages. The owners have given up absolutely nothing. After locking out to get this deal in the first place. The owners are idiots. And they want the players to cover their risks. They want to run businesses with no risks at all. A lot of them want revenue sharing too, which is basically more corporate welfare. Can't run your basketball team properly? Give me some of that Laker money. Refund my incompentence.

In a true free market these teams that couldn't hack it would just go under and die, and they'd be replaced by teams that COULD make it work.

These are the same assholes who cry about healthcare and lower taxes for the poorest americans, but as soon as they have any hardship at all, it's "bail me out!!" and suddenly they're all socialists wanting revenue sharing, higher cuts of the BRI--and guaranteed profits.

When what needs to happen is they need to get their big boy pants on, and suck it up like the rest of us have had to do in this economy. Make better business decisions. Stop giving Rashard Lewis a max deal. If the money is more important to you than the basketball, such that you're willing to lock out the season--then stop spending the money like a bunch of crack addicts. Run your franchise like the Zombie Sonics do. Build through the draft. Don't sign bad deals. Make good trades.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dre said:


> I see a more productive discourse in here than what's probably going on with those assholes in midtown. I'm tired of this


I love how they meet for like seven + hours a meeting and get nothing accomplished. I feel bad for media that have to cover this circus. I wouldn't be suprised if there's a tacit agreement between the players union and the owners to miss x amount of games to account for x amount of dollars, so that the owners can get paid, the players can get the BRI "victory" and everyone can leave thinking they got what they wanted, and we play a shortened season starting in January.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Deal imminent


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> Deal imminent


I refuse to get my hopes up


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Just wanted to add that it is easy to vilify the players' Union using examples like Eddy Curry, but a guy like that is the exception, not the rule. If you want to feel more comfortable about the Union fighting to protect the NBA's middle-class, think of guys like Taj Gibson or Luke Ridnour as your example, not Curry, who had one of the handful of bad contracts on the very extreme end.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

i think it's easier to villify Isiah Thomas using examples like Eddy Curry - that was ownership being bone headed, nothing to do with the players union


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



e-monk said:


> i think it's easier to villify Isiah Thomas using examples like Eddy Curry - that was ownership being bone headed, nothing to do with the players union


I hate to defend Isiah.... but Curry showed he was capable of playing up to his contract and almost made the All Star team his 2nd year with New York. The problem was that once he got paid he completely let himself go and essentially ate his way out of the league. If he hadn't had a guaranteed contract things might have turned out differently.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Curry was never as good of a player as people claim that he was. He was incredibly inefficient and one dimensional. The fact is that people overlook his weaknesses because he did the one thing that people pay attention to. He was a horrendous rebounder, which of course is something that shows a lack of effort and one of the most turnover prone players in the league. He never made a good decision unless it involved him shooting the ball. That contract was a bad idea.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Isiah's eye for talent is undeniable. The problem has been his eye for building a team and managing the cap.

Ill take him as a scout, but not as a man in charge of my team's economics.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Laker Freak said:


> I hate to defend Isiah.... but Curry showed he was capable of playing up to his contract and almost made the All Star team his 2nd year with New York. The problem was that once he got paid he completely let himself go and essentially ate his way out of the league. If he hadn't had a guaranteed contract things might have turned out differently.


since when is 19ppg 7rpg worth a max contract?

in any event to the original point none of that is Curry's fault or that of the players union - both in turn negotiated the deals they could get - in the case of the former no one should have offered him that money but Zeke and the Knicks did and in the latter the owners agreed to the terms of the CBA and had to live with them


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



e-monk said:


> since when is 19ppg 7rpg worth a max contract?
> 
> in any event to the original point none of that is Curry's fault or that of the players union - both in turn negotiated the deals they could get - in the case of the former no one should have offered him that money but Zeke and the Knicks did and in the latter the owners agreed to the terms of the CBA and had to live with them


Wait until you see what Horford and M. Gasol get paid.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Aren't teams allowed to put stipulations in contracts? Kind of like what the Suns offered Amare, something along the lines of minimum games played? Couldn't they do the same thing on performance?


I really don't understand how the Players are getting bad press. Despite their wages being crazy high, they do what every other person on this planet tries to do... get paid. Everyone wants more money. If my boss walked in and offered me a ludicrous amount of money that I knew I wasn't worth, do you think I'd accept or tell them that it should be lower?

Players can only sign contracts they are offered. All of these horrible contracts people are bitching about are solely on the GMs that offered them and the Owners that signed off on them. Curry was never worth that money, but he took it and ran like anyone else would of. Granted he let himself go which was not exactly the most honorable thing to do but still. Rashard Lewis was nowhere near a max player, I believe he's one of the top 3 paid players in the league right now, but he was offered it and took it. There are a handful of other players similar to these two but it's definitely the exception.

One key point I really hope the Owners agree to is no more Rookie scale contracts. Or atleast some stipulation to allow rookies to be paid what they are worth. Guys like Rose, Griffin, Durant, Westbrook, Wall, Evans, etc are severely underpaid when you look around the league. So if they want protection from the Curry's of the world then they need to reward the Rose's on the other end.


End ramble.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

FWIW there are a couple of "sources" out there in left field saying the deal is much closer than people are letting on, but I tend to not believe that. All this goodwill they've generated talking non-BRI will go out the window the second that's brought back in, I'm convinced of it. 

In the end the players will cave because the only ones who are being so steadfast are the wealthiest who don't need these checks. And yes Hunter and them told players to belt tighten but yeah right. I've heard so many stories about players with rookie to mid level deals out splurging this Summer it's ridiculous. You can't get these guys to slow down. I know all about the Shane Battiers and Stephen Currys but those are the minority. Half of your favorite team could give a **** less about what the BRI is if it's stopping their money, trust and believe. I could guarantee some of them wouldn't have been able to tell you what BRI stood for this time last year.

The non all-stars are going to put the pressure on the union and it'll probably end up 51.5 or some face saving shit.

The Owners are lucky they're dealing with who they're dealing with though because they're trying to basically create a system, like Futur said, where there is no risk and a guaranteed profit. I was reading where some business analyst was incredulous because no business model or system in the world runs like that. 

If I had to decide who was more amazing between 30 players who can do a 360 dunk and 30 owers who managed to finagle a guaranteed profit and essentially get a 400 million dollar reimbursement for their mistakes I'm gonna go with the Owners. **** the Mavs, Lakers, Thunder, Heat and Bulls...after this the Owners will be the only champions for the next 7 years.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



l0st1 said:


> Aren't teams allowed to put stipulations in contracts? Kind of like what the Suns offered Amare, something along the lines of minimum games played? Couldn't they do the same thing on performance?


It's entirely possible but it's an unspoken no-no. Heisley caused a shitstorm when he tried to offer Greivis Vasquez on the low end of his rookie scale and the deficiency was only like 100K less or something miniscule like that. It's something that's possible sure, but the way Agents are it's just not a *real* option.



> I really don't understand how the Players are getting bad press. Despite their wages being crazy high, they do what every other person on this planet tries to do... get paid. Everyone wants more money. If my boss walked in and offered me a ludicrous amount of money that I knew I wasn't worth, do you think I'd accept or tell them that it should be lower?
> 
> Players can only sign contracts they are offered. All of these horrible contracts people are bitching about are solely on the GMs that offered them and the Owners that signed off on them. Curry was never worth that money, but he took it and ran like anyone else would of. Granted he let himself go which was not exactly the most honorable thing to do but still. Rashard Lewis was nowhere near a max player, I believe he's one of the top 3 paid players in the league right now, but he was offered it and took it. There are a handful of other players similar to these two but it's definitely the exception.


All true but the Owners always do a good job of staying behind the scenes. The average basketball fan couldn't name you 5 owners. They largely do a good job of being some anonymous guy upstairs with a checkbook, so the automatic inclination when the average fan hears about labor strife and arguing about money is to make the cutesy "they make more then Doctors and Teachers" argument and label them whiny punks for wanting to debate the parameters. I predicted it would be like that this Spring, and here it is.

I argue people down at work all the time because they see "50/50" and just automatically think the players are selfish for not wanting it even, but they don't see its deeper than that and honestly don't care for the particulars or ramifications of this or that. It's just a bunch of millionaires not wanting to compromise, and they put the blame on the faces of the millionaires they know.



> One key point I really hope the Owners agree to is no more Rookie scale contracts. Or atleast some stipulation to allow rookies to be paid what they are worth. Guys like Rose, Griffin, Durant, Westbrook, Wall, Evans, etc are severely underpaid when you look around the league. So if they want protection from the Curry's of the world then they need to reward the Rose's on the other end.
> 
> 
> End ramble.


I think the players are trying to either eliminate that restricted free agency after year 4 or shorten it to year 3. That will help these guys get their big money faster, but I don't really mind this because if you take the scale off then you have what the NFL had with inflating top 5 salaries every year. 

If the NBA didn't have a pay scale Greg Oden probably could've asked for and received a max contract right off the bat. He was hyped up enough as the next one to decide his parameters. And we're talking about a guy who can barely get on the floor now. Think about that. If you can play you'll get your money, I think the scale is fine. On the high end you look at high contributors with low salaries but then think about the majority of top 10 busts who would be getting way overpaid. That would be something else for the Owners to cry foul about in another decade.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dre said:


> It's entirely possible but it's an unspoken no-no. Heisley caused a shitstorm when he tried to offer Greivis Vasquez on the low end of his rookie scale and the deficiency was only like 100K less or something miniscule like that. It's something that's possible sure, but the way Agents are it's just not a *real* option.


That makes sense, I remember hearing a little about that situation. Guess it would be easier to handcuff the Player's Union( and by proxy the Agents) if it were a forced option within the CBA as opposed to an obscure element to have at their disposal in specific cases.





> All true but the Owners always do a good job of staying behind the scenes. The average basketball fan couldn't name you 5 owners. They largely do a good job of being some anonymous guy upstairs with a checkbook, so the automatic inclination when the average fan hears about labor strife and arguing about money is to make the cutesy "they make more then Doctors and Teachers" argument and label them whiny punks for wanting to debate the parameters. I predicted it would be like that this Spring, and here it is.
> 
> I argue people down at work all the time because they see "50/50" and just automatically think the players are selfish for not wanting it even, but they don't see its deeper than that and honestly don't care for the particulars or ramifications of this or that. It's just a bunch of millionaires not wanting to compromise, and they put the blame on the faces of the millionaires they know.


I can understand both sides of the coin. Ya it's annoying to see guys making 5-20M for playing a game. But on the other hand, their job basically overtakes their lives. Whether it be the constant travel, the work outs, the diet, the charities, or anything else the players/coaches take on a huge burden. And it's basically supply and demand. Limited talent pool + $4 billion dollar business = big pay checks. And regardless of how much a person makes, nobody is above asking/looking for more money if it's a possibility. The players are well within their rights to do this as well.

Every time the CBA is due to be renewed we go through this same crap.







> I think the players are trying to either eliminate that restricted free agency after year 4 or shorten it to year 3. That will help these guys get their big money faster, but I don't really mind this because if you take the scale off then you have what the NFL had with inflating top 5 salaries every year.
> 
> If the NBA didn't have a pay scale Greg Oden probably could've asked for and received a max contract right off the bat. He was hyped up enough as the next one to decide his parameters. And we're talking about a guy who can barely get on the floor now. Think about that. If you can play you'll get your money, I think the scale is fine. On the high end you look at high contributors with low salaries but then think about the majority of top 10 busts who would be getting way overpaid. That would be something else for the Owners to cry foul about in another decade.



Ya I guess that would be another problem. Some of the draft busts or injury prone guys would get paid off the bat. But guys like Oden are going to happen regardless of the CBA or contract restrictions. You could have him on a rookie contract and be fine then sign his Max Offer and get injured... I.E. Arenas. So Oden isn't a good example. but some of the other guys who simply aren't what people thought they'd be. That could be a problem. I'm ok with a fixed 4 year(with options on both sides) contract but with the availability of bonuses based on certain things. Which could really be anything, team likes their work ethic, amount of minutes played, points scored, whatever the hell the team likes. Put some sort of cap on what they can give as bonuses.


It just sucks for guys like Rose and Griffin who are clearly already looked at as Superstars and they are making a few million. Granted it's still a big pay day but still.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HKF said:


> I keep telling people this, the players are the product in a theoretical sense, but not reality. The league (the collection of teams) is the product. If the players were the product people would be lining up to watch Moses Malone and Julius Erving play basketball even today as old men. The players continue to change. This is why no one cares what Deron Williams is doing in Turkey, nor do they care what Chandler, Kenyon and JR are doing in China. If Kobe went over to Italy, we wouldn't care either.
> 
> We are fans of the NBA, it's history, etc... It's why Bulls fans went to games for a decade after Jordan left, even though the franchise was garbage. It's why Utah fans still support the Jazz. The players will eventually fade from memory. No one wants to admit it, but it's true.
> 
> We only want to watch these guys in their primes and then after that we're on to the next group of players. Owners know this, that's why people keep comparing it to Hollywood. You may have been hot in the 80's, but it's 2011 now.


So if it's that simple and we'd root for the teams regardless why don't they just get replacement players? You want competitive balance what's more competitive than 30 teams full of of D2 flakes all on the same contention level? I mean damn you could pay them the minimum too and they'd take it.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dre said:


> So if it's that simple and we'd root for the teams regardless why don't they just get replacement players? You want competitive balance what's more competitive than 30 teams full of of D2 flakes all on the same contention level? I mean damn you could pay them the minimum too and they'd take it.


They could, but run the risk of losing all NBA players to a new league.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

I know. The point I'm making is the league is only the product because of the players that made it, so in essence the players are by far the most important piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

They are, just like apple is the iPhone, macbook and ipad. So if apple were to lock out their money makers, sure they could replace them with Dell's, kindles, and palms. Sure they function the same, but you can't charge apple prices for not apple products. The NBA would have to lower its value proposition AND risk someone else picking up the iPhone, Macbook and iPad and selling it to us.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

You can't have replacement players because this is not a strike. The players are not refusing to play. The owners and the league are refusing to let them play. The players are under contract to play games and if you have games then the owners have to pay the players for them.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

That still doesn't really refute what I was saying, that replacement hypothetical was one vessel towards my point


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Diable's right. This is not a strike, so replacement players are not under any consideration. The other problem the NBA has is that ex players are given jobs in the front office. They are woefully unqualified for these GM/President jobs for the most part, yet it keeps happening. It's why guys like Sam Presti are kicking butt because they understand cost/value and don't get caught up in the jock stuff. 

I would never have ex-jocks in my front office when it came time to making financial decisions. Jocks can be scouts. Guys like Jerry West and Pat Riley are the exception.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

But how can you find out a guy's not West or Riley until you give him a shot

There's just as many guys who were never on the court (Weisbrod, Layden) who bombed. I don't agree with that at all.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



e-monk said:


> since when is 19ppg 7rpg worth a max contract?


He didn't get a max contract, even though he was hideously overpaid.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

The players would not have gone on strike, because in effect they would have been going on strike against themselves. The NBA and it's teams acknowledged the importance of the players in the last CBA, which in effect has made the league and the players partners. The NBA knows perfectly well that they need the players. In fact if you took the best 20 players out of the NBA and put them into the ACB that would probably be the best league in the world. There are very few analogs for that situation and it is something that the NBA owners need to be able to deal with, because no one gives a damn about them or how much debt they put themselves in to buy NBA teams.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

So now the players want to file an antitrust suit against the NBA. That would probably be the end of at least this season if that happened.

As HKF pointed out already, there are plenty of leagues where these guys can go. Turkey, Israel, Spain, China, Italy, etc. Hard to see how the NBA is a monopoly.

The whole reason that the players had the 57 and the owners the 43 in the split was because of the hypothetical situation where the players can shuck off the owners and make their own league. Effectively it's cutting out the middle man to get more money. The owners being the middle man. But that's no longer a valid scenario. In the current global economy, you're going to fail trying to recreate what you have with the NBA owners. You're not as good as they are at securing sponsors and television deals, you're not going to run the business as well as them, and you're going to lose all your fans. If the players ever ventured out on their own they would end up with a worse product and a split that is mockingly percentages close to what they refused from the old NBA.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

lol Ain't nobody trying to start some new league. If we miss this year we miss it..but they'll eventually compromise, they need each other.

Anyway the two sides had their best shot last week to do this and somewhat surprise people...now if this weekend goes the same way shit has hit the fan and we can all kiss the season good bye. 

They both played footsie for too long and now the players are about to get in their corner just as most of the Owners have theirs...and we wait out a bunch more legal bullshit before we even come close to them sitting down again.

There are plenty of Owners who don't care if they miss this year because they feel they can make the funds up with a nice CBA for the next decade. 

The players are sick of Hunter and Fisher placating the Owners and relenting on everything, and now the Agents are trying to poison the water for good.

This wouldn't end up good for the players though. Big bank takes little bank.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

The decertification should have been their first play. I think Hunter played the players. I'd be pissed if I was a player. The guy who is your chief negotiator has given up over a billion dollars out of your pocket, and got NOTHING for it. If Hunter wasn't so incompetent, this thing could have gotten done already.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

yeah they should have decertified this summer or at least used the threat of it - they do it now we wont have any kind of season


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dre said:


> This wouldn't end up good for the players though.


It won't end up good for the NBA itself. If the players decertify by the time it hits the courts we could be looking at two years lost. In which case, the league is done. No sports league can sit out for two years like that and come back IMO.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> Deal imminent


HB, you really _are_ wrong about _everything_. It's amazing.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Oh also, I wouldn't be shocked if this was a tactic by the players to counteract the crazy owners who want to go back to 47 percent on Saturday.

Between those owners threats to lower the deal, and the players threats to decertify, I think the pressure is on Hunter-Fisher to get this done on Saturday. If it doesn't get done then, then I think that's the season. Just seems like everyone is playing their leverage card this week, and it's right after Stern said they were 95 percent there...so this might just be the last push to get some last minute concessions on system issues before ending up at 50/50. I mean all the owners have to do to get a deal at this point I think is to change how that 50/50 is calculated in terms of how deductions are factored in.

I think the players are ready to get back to it and play.

It's funnny, of the two groups the players probably want to play games more than the owners do. But fans are hugely behind the owners, who want to get rid of this season and maybe next season.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

I'm praying it's a tactic, I think it is - if they're serious we wont see pro hoops until sometime in late 2012 at best


----------



## tdizzle (Apr 12, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Am I the only one who thinks if Billy Hunter started rocking some of DeMaurice Smith's ridiculous hats things would get done?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Cinco de Mayo said:


> HB, you really _are_ wrong about _everything_. It's amazing.


Huh? Last week most of the NBA blogosphere were talking about how close they were to a deal. The only thing holding up a deal is the BRI issue. 90% of it is done. Obviously its a contentious issue.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Brian Windhorst
Actions louder than words: Wade took $18M less than market value in '10, now upset at union for not getting best deal


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> Huh? Last week most of the NBA blogosphere were talking about how close they were to a deal. The only thing holding up a deal is the BRI issue. 90% of it is done. Obviously its a contentious issue.


You said the word "imminent" 10 days ago.

Wrong again, HB. Wrong again.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Again, the folks who actually write for the NBA (Howard Beck and co.), said after that marathon session that we'd have a deal going into that weekend. That was before Stern said Hunter stormed out of the building because of the 50-50 split. They were even talking about a 74 game season at that point.

Anyhoo, moot point, obviously that won't be happening. You can keep patting yourself on the back about me being wrong though. Want some cookies too?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> Again, the folks who actually write for the NBA (Howard Beck and co.), said after that marathon session that we'd have a deal going into that weekend. That was before Stern said Hunter stormed out of the building because of the 50-50 split. They were even talking about a 74 game season at that point.
> 
> Anyhoo, moot point, obviously that won't be happening. You can keep patting yourself on the back about me being wrong though. Want some cookies too?


None of that meant "imminent," and nobody used the word "imminent."

You were wrong again, HB. Wrong again.

Now bust out thesaurus.com and let's keep this thing rollin'!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Meh good for you...dont do the whole back and forth thing anymore.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

As it has been in most of these articles, the media is dead wrong.

No reason for the owners to even strike a deal unless the players give in before Nov 15th. Ive been saying that for well over 6 months. Now look what is happening? The players are turning on each other, and rightly so.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> Meh good for you...dont do the whole back and forth thing anymore.


You're doing it right now, HB. Wrong _again_!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

As compared to the VC thread responses...nah homie! (Last post on this btw)


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> As compared to the VC thread responses...nah homie! (Last post on this btw)


HB's next post talking about how he's not talking about this is imminent.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



futuristxen said:


> It won't end up good for the NBA itself. If the players decertify by the time it hits the courts we could be looking at two years lost. In which case, the league is done. No sports league can sit out for two years like that and come back IMO.


They're not going to lose two years, for the last time. They can have the civil war this season and go through the courts but most rational human beings have an "enough is enough" gene. 

I really find it hard to believe you believe both factions are stubborn enough to not even have a league if they can't get there way. Like seriously? We can't have our 52% so we'll take 0 instead.

From what I've read it looks like the desertification inquiry is somewhat of a tactic but they're also legitimately interested in what the antitrust route could do for them if the Owners are still playing hardball this weekend. It's primarily leverage, but if talks still end up with the Owners raping the players it becomes more than that.

I agree they should've went for de-cert earlier, the Owners wouldn't be so confident playing hardline with the risk of going to the courts. Stern doesn't want to risk a final say being out of his hands.

At this point the only thing really holding up a deal is the hardliners who didn't even wanna move past 47% on the split not budging on system issues. Hunter could probably get everyone cool with 51% or even 50 if they get some help elsewhere, but some Owners want to have their cake and eat it too...and that's where we're at.

FWIW the "Jordan Faction" as it is now (like 13 teams I think) isn't big enough to block a new CBA if the Owners were to vote on a proposal, but If the Owners make certain concessions it could grow. They're still influencing stubbornness in the actual negotiations. 

I hope Cohen gets involved. Stern hasn't agreed to it for whatever reason. I believe it's his ego.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



Dre said:


> They're not going to lose two years, for the last time. They can have the civil war this season and go through the courts but most rational human beings have an "enough is enough" gene.


It would take until next season even for the desertification to get through the courts with all of the various appeals. So if both sides decide to pull the nuclear option this weekend, two years is realistic. I didn't just make that number up either. It's definitely been mentioned in the media a few times.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

They still have the option to negotiate in the initial phases:



> The rules in place dictate that 30 percent of the union -- roughly 130 players -- sign a petition to request a vote. The case would then be taken to the National Labor Relations Board, which would have an estimated 45 days to decide on whether such a vote should be held.
> 
> If a new labor deal was not completed within that 45-day span and a second vote is sanctioned by the NLRB, decertification would then require a simple majority vote of the league's 450-odd players to pass. At that point, players would have the freedom to sue the NBA under antitrust law and attempt to bring an end to the lockout via court system.


This would be a serious grenade, that's why so many people believe it's just a leverage move to get the Owners back in good faith. 

My opinion is it doesn't get that far, maybe it gets to the 1st vote to scare the Owners, but eventually the posturing subsides and they can hammer this down. I could be wrong depending on what happens this weekend, but at many points in this thing there have been surprising pop up meetings with progress, I'd be very surprised if it got to that vote and people didn't really start sweating and trying to get something real down.

This is basically a trump card the players are trying to use to get some fairness back in place, I don't think it will go all the way. Stern doesn't want this in the courts and Hunter doesn't want to lost a million dollar salary.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Right I agree it is probably a negotiation tactic. Though the players could also be pissed enough with Hunter that they are legitimately not wanting to be in the union.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*

Yeah, a certain faction is, and they're the ones spearheading this. But you also have a faction of young players and certain vets (Fisher, Kobe) that think 50/50 is fine and think they're close. We'll see what side ultimately wins out.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



futuristxen said:


> I think the players paycheck thing is going to be a reality check for the owners. The players seem ready this time for the most part. I think the owners think they can take the players for a ride--and they're going to be mistaken.
> 
> 53 percent is more than fair. It's crazy that the players went all the way down to 51. That's a lot of money to give back when the game is as popular as it's ever been.


The thing is, I asked some casual friends in Hong Kong and they have no interested to watch James. Some people stop watching NBA after Jordan retired.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share!*



John said:


> The thing is, I asked some casual friends in Hong Kong and they have no interested to watch James. Some people stop watching NBA after Jordan retired.


What about YMCA Jordan? Lmao chinese guys playing pickup ball in fancy shoes and headbands. I dunked on one today, trying to do dribble moves but just shoots set shots and doesn't even hustle. Am I racist?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: NBA Players union refuse a 50/50 revenue share*



HB said:


> As compared to the VC thread responses...nah homie! (Last post on this btw)


So when you said deal imminent you weren't wrong because you were parroting the media? Brilliant logic.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

edit: info was posted in other thread


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



> NEW YORK – NBA commissioner David Stern delivered the Players Association a take-it-or-leave-it offer, threatening the owners’ proposals will become substantially worse if the union doesn’t accept the deal by Wednesday.
> 
> The league’s latest proposal was derived from compromises federal mediator George Cohen suggested in Saturday’s negotiating session and included a revenue split that would range from 49 to 51 percent for the players. Stern said union attorney Jeffrey Kessler rejected the proposal.
> “Hope springs eternal and we’d love to see the union accept the proposal that’s now on the table,” Stern said.
> ...


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_110511

The 2011-12 NBA Season:


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

Wow they didn't even try to negotiate.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

Anyone else watching the press conference?


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

Sounds like Fisher is saying they agree on the bri, but they want some system changes...

@AlexKennedyNBA: Billy Hunter said NBPA will reach out to David Stern tonight or tomorrow and try to schedule another meeting

Henry Abbott
Sign and trade, mid-level, repeater tax, the cliff, escrows ... players willing to pay for changes to those.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

The ball is in the owners hands. Sounds like if they're willing to give a few concessions on the system issues then they get the 50-50 from the players.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Dre said:


> Wow they didn't even try to negotiate.


They've been negotiating for 2 years. Enough is enough. 

You just can't live in 1999 when its 2011. From this point the Owners have all the leverage and the players will be sliding backwards from here. 

What do the players think will be any different without a union ? Or waiting till next year ? This is it for them this time. End of the road !


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



LA68 said:


> They've been negotiating for 2 years. Enough is enough.


Bullshit. The owners started off at 37 percent BRI, salary rollbacks, and a hard cap. And stayed on that until this summer. How is that negotiating?

The sides are so close, it's complete bullshit that either side is making ultimatums.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

I agree. I think all this doomsday posturing is so they can collectively come together and squeak it over the goal line. Yes, the players put a lot on the table, they effectively lost, but they're actually finally admitting they're fine with 50/50 if the system issues aren't so reprehensible.

I don't think the Owners budge past 50% but they could stand to be more lenient on the MLE and Luxury Tax. The Dolans and Buss' need to step up and say ok you broke Owners got the BRI, so give us some leeway on these taxes. 

And 2 years my ass, none of those meetings until this year meant anything


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

I think they'll meet tomorrow one more time before close of business, and I hope that artificial deadline disappears and then everybody who matters comes in this weekend to nail it. There's a deal to be made...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Dre said:


> I think they'll meet tomorrow one more time before close of business, and I hope that artificial deadline disappears and then everybody who matters comes in this weekend to nail it. There's a deal to be made...


It would be funny if we get something like a 48 hr extension of the deadline for two more marathon negotiation sessions, where they still don't come out of it with a deal...lol

I read somewhere they are only like .50 apart on the luxury tax.

And something like the sign and trades being banned is a silly issue for either side to give a shit about--there's only been 3 sign and trades since the last CBA. It doesn't happen enough to be important to either side. It's probably just in there to buy Orlando's vote...though I would think they would want a sign and trade, rather than losing him for nothing on the free agent market to either Brooklyn or Minnesota(would you rather play with Jameer Nelson or Kevin Love?)


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

Deal is imminent lol


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

Kevin Willis 1998
Kevin Martin 2011


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



> David Aldridge: Just heard from 3 people who are, as we say, directly involved in talks. "Not true...long, long list of things to go." "He is wrong." "No."





> Chris Broussard: 3 sources have told me David Checketts' report that union/owners have deal is wrong. Direct quotes: "Absolutely not true," "No"





> Sam Amick: That being said, a source close to it told me today that a particular owners' concession late last night broke off the talks in a good way. I wasn't given details on which issue, but created positive bridge to today that could explain "nothing changed since last night" comments.


Be quiet HB


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*

What I imagine is that they're close and need people to shutup and fall back so there's no last minute fireworks. Stern and Hunter both still would have to take these proposals back to their groups so obviously there wouldn't be an agreement for another day at the earliest.

I think both sides played it right pinning Wednesday as D-Day because some progress has been made. That's what we need every day, constructive negotiations, not someone getting their feelings hurt and then taking a week off with posturing. It's like grow up already


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*



> Kate Fagan: Source briefed on talks says this about having reached a deal: "Not yet, we have to cross T's and dot I's. Right there though."





> Adrian Wojnarowski: Stern hasn't brought completed deal - nor framework - to owners for approval yet, source says. After strong Wednesday, momentum does remain.


They're still talking..good vibes...let's see what ****s it up..I'm gonna say it's HB putting his energy into the situation


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

Yeah, shut up HB.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*



> One of the people said league negotiators signaled a willingness to raise the so-called "mini mid-level" to three years starting at $3 million for teams above the luxury-tax level, to be available every other year. The previous offer was a two-year deal starting at $2.5 million, available every other year to tax teams. *There was no indication union negotiators were ready to agree to this slight improvement in the owners' proposal, as it would reduce the mid-level exception for tax teams from last year's five-year, $37 million total to three years and $9 million for teams above the tax line.*





> Also Thursday, a new hurdle emerged in the discussion over when teams would face the new restrictions owners are proposing for teams above the luxury tax threshold. Two of the people briefed on the talks said *owners were pushing for teams under the tax at the time of the transaction to be restricted from using the full mid-level -- four-year deals starting at $5 million -- if the signing put the team over the tax.* In that case, the team would be restricted to use of the mini mid-level. *Union negotiators want the new restrictions to be based on where a team's payroll sits in relation to the tax prior to the use of the exception* -- not where it stands afterward.





> Also slowing progress in the bargaining room, according to one of the people briefed on the talks, was the fact that *the league still has not fully shared details of its plans to enhance revenue sharing -- a mechanism that would redistribute money from high-revenue teams to low-revenue teams at supposedly more aggressive rate than previously.* Hard-line players and agents are resisting further system concessions, which the league says it needs to create more competitive balance, until it becomes clear what owners are going to do in that regard through revenue sharing.


....


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



HB said:


> Deal is imminent lol


Ok, it's cute when you ruin teams chances in the playoffs, but now you need to stop.


----------



## M.V.W. (Apr 2, 2011)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Jamel Irief said:


> Ok, it's cute when you ruin teams chances in the playoffs, but now you need to stop.


:laugh:


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

So the new, revised deal that the owners gave the players, should the players agree to this revised proposal, would have a 72 game season beginning on December 15. The playoffs would be pushed back a week to accommodate all the games. Hunter and Fisher will meet with the 30 player reps on Monday or Tuesday to see how they feel about this new offer. Stern said that if they dont agree to this deal, that the 47/53 BRI split and flex cap will be what they're next offer will include.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

I think they still have things to tweak based on what I posted. I wouldn't take it to the player reps until it was a final proposal. There are still various issues that haven't even been addressed.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

Well I really don't know that either side really has the votes for this sort of agreement. There is just a large percentage of the player electorate for which this deal is going to be completely unacceptable. A lot of the owners are only interested in selling their teams, so they don't care at all about anything except maximizing the value of the team in a sale.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

I disagree. Fisher and Hunter can convince them this is the best they can get and they'll grudgingly accept. The agents and 50ish players were only interested in decertifying because the Owners just were not budging and they felt disrespected. And of that 50 who's to say how many were just curious about it, not necessarily extremely willing to go that route. 

I think you're overrating the number of players that wouldn't do this, I don't know that a lot of players will still feel like the deal they reach (given strictly Owner concessions from here on out) is that bad for them, mainly because at this juncture this is the best they will get. 

You already hear the middle class (that this is really about) belly aching about wanting to get back to business, so if _they_ want to play, then let's go.

50/50 is finally pretty much agreed on, now they can nail down the other issues. At this point for the players they take a little more crumbs from the Owners and play ball, it's either that or a missed season of checks and you probably still end up with the CBA looking close to this.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



HB said:


> Deal is imminent lol


As always. Wrong again, HB. Wrong again.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

I don't think Fisher has the votes for this kind of deal. I don't know that Stern really does either, but that's whatever. They may need another month lost. Remember the actual drop dead date is in January for the whole season to get cancelled. I would be suprised if we got a deal this early.

Yeah the owners say they'll go down to 47 percent, but they'll come back up over another month. The deal is there to be made. The Owners just need to give a litttttle bit more on the system issues, or give back on the BRI.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

I'm not really following all of this as closely as I should be so one of you guys (not HB) enlighten me. Will there be an NBA season this year?


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

No


----------



## goodfoot (Feb 28, 2009)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

I was for sure we wouldn't have a season when Stern made the ultimatum, but since he backed off it I think we will get the 72 game season.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*



goodfoot said:


> I was for sure we wouldn't have a season when Stern made the ultimatum, but since he backed off it I think we will get the 72 game season.


He didn't really back off of it all he did was extend the deadline one week and tweak the offer a little.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

NBA players have to be the most have their cake and eat it players in the world. These guys don't want restricted player movement, but also won't go for three year deals. Like if you went for three year deals, you could move all you want. That's why I am happy with restricted moves via sign and trades.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*



VanillaPrice said:


> I'm not really following all of this as closely as I should be so one of you guys (not HB) enlighten me. Will there be an NBA season this year?


At this point noone really knows, it can go either way. My gut says probably not though.

If the players are as unhappy with this proposal next week as they are tonight, and the league reverts back to the 47% offer, then the players decertify and that takes about a month and a half for just the first stage. We can negotiate in between that time, but it's unlikely with that looming over everything.

I'm not ruling out a season but I'm not optimistic about it either


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

Decertification takes a lot of time and money, who's gonna pay for it ?? Do the agents have that kind of money ?

If there is no union, every player is for himself. That's a disaster. The owners can still put in the same caps and limits as before. And the players have no way to fight against it. 

And most judges want unions and management to work things out. They don't like to get in the middle. So this is not anything that's gonna happen. 

The players have no leverage. The threats of going to Europe made absolutely no difference. At this point its just macho posturing while money just goes down the drain for no real reason.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

The decertification is just a maneuver, the Union would cease to exist in name only. In reality they would proceed as before, but with greater pressure on the league. That is like going Nuclear, because it has the potential to literally destroy the league. In my opinion the owners who are the most set upon the hardline in negotiations are also the ones who would vulnerable to a lost season, so they could very well change their positions if the Union stands up to them.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: League Sources "cautiously optimistic" on negotiations; Players mulling decert*

Don’t think for a second owners’ latest offer is what fans want
Kurt Helin
Nov 11, 2011, 11:02 AM EST
96 Comments 
Getty Images 
Let’s be honest about what you really like — trades and teams full of stars.

You like seeing basketball, too, which makes the new offer from NBA owners appealing to fans. Because it means 72 games and a full playoffs, basically a normal season. I want to see it in place for the same reasons.

You may get it (not that we have any say) but know that the owners offer — the parts the players are opposing of it particularly — goes against what fans have shown they want.

The owners have preached “competitive balance” and sold it sort of like the NFL’s parity. The NBA is never going to have the parity of the NFL (because the stars of the NBA control the game much more and are so much better than their peers). But that’s not really what is at the heart of all this. Small market owners watched LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony control the process, take all the power and force their way where they wanted to be. The owners want that power back.

I know what is coming in the comments — you say you want that, too. You’ll say that you want Grizzlies to be able to compete with the Lakers every year. You say you don’t want the Knicks to make all the big trades. You’ll say you want sanity in the system.

The numbers tell a different story. The numbers being every measure of fan interest we can find, whether it is television ratings or Internet traffic or ticket sales

....http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....second-owners-latest-offer-is-what-fans-want/


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



> Shaun Powell: Source added that the rank-and-file want to play, uninterested in decertifying or additional negotiations.
> 
> Shaun Powell: Source said the proposed 51-49 revenue breakdown will only get worse, so players want to play.
> 
> ...


various stuff I came across


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



> Nazr Mohammed: If this deal is accepted...I advise guys to stay in school and get ur degree, Master's if possible. U might be able to make more $ that way than playing in the NBA in ur 1st five years. Being the 1st pick of the draft would mean nothing.


This is almost comical.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

the players are exposing themselves as the spoiled little brats they are. football players would love to have a lot of the perks NBA players have.

if they decert they are going to mess up a lot of stuff for future players


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

No one has any clue what decertification would lead to. I really don't think it could be much worse from the perspective of the players than it would be if they agreed to this deal. Of course there is even less chance that there will be a season. The owners are the ones who have pushed the players to the brink, they were the ones who chose this course of action and they are the ones who could have easily ended the lockout at any time, while gaining immense benefits to themselves. In fact the deal the players were ready to sign would have guaranteed that even the biggest moron could have made money owning an NBA team. It isn't enough for them, or at least enough of the owners want Armageddon that the others can not stop them.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



ChosenFEW said:


> the players are exposing themselves as the spoiled little brats they are. football players would love to have a lot of the perks NBA players have.
> 
> if they decert they are going to mess up a lot of stuff for future players


46% of 9 billion or 50% of 4 billion. Yeah, NFL players are real jealous of the nba players.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

I'm trying to figure out how anyone whos really following this could still be on that "spoiled brats" shit


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Hyperion said:


> 46% of 9 billion or 50% of 4 billion. Yeah, NFL players are real jealous of the nba players.


wasnt just speaking about the money split when i said PERKS, but yes.



dre said:


> I'm trying to figure out how anyone whos really following this could still be on that "spoiled brats" shit


if you were following this you would see that there are quite a bit more than what you are assuming.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Hibachi! said:


> This is almost comical.


Agreed. Does he think that all it takes is a Masters degree to walk into a multimillion dollar job? Haha.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Hyperion said:


> 46% of 9 billion or 50% of 4 billion. Yeah, NFL players are real jealous of the nba players.


There are 1696 players in the NFL (53 players on 32 teams), as opposed to 384 players in the NBA. So even though they take in a over twice the revenue, there are over four times the amount of players. The NFL players are responsible for being the most popular sport in America, so theoretically they should command more, while still allowing each NFL team owner to be profitable. As in, they could be taking in 53% of revenue and STILL allow all owners to be profitable. But they have that reversed. They can be cut at any time (see Felix Jones), and make very little in guaranteed money. So yes. They should be jealous.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Guaranteed contacts have nothing to do with collective bargaining. last I checked, rookies can demand whatever they want for their contract. 5 year 50 million for a first rounder? This is especially beneficial for players since most careers last less than 4 years in either sport.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

*The Proposal*


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



ChosenFEW said:


> if you were following this you would see that there are quite a bit more than what you are assuming.


I'm not assuming a god damn thing, I'm following this as heavy, if not heavier than anyone on here. I know what I'm talking about, and like I said anyone still on that "selfish players" tip after they concede more at every corner is the one not paying attention.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

i guess a couple espn analysts following this are wrong as well. But hey what do they know, right?


and its funny you put "selfish players" in quotes when the correct quote would be "spoiled brats"

it seems as if you just make up stuff in your own head sometimes


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

You know what the hell I mean. Selfish, Spoiled, Vain, whatever...

And which ESPN analysts said the players were "spoiled"? As if ESPN analysts are the holy grail, we shit on them all the time now all of a sudden they're gospel and my opposing opinion is wrong. Honestly, sometimes I wonder what they actually know

They fall in to the same group of people who just want basketball because their livelihood depends on it. Actually worse because in the end they're just mouthpieces for Stern's agenda. They're on the same side that will have the TV contract when every single player in the NBA currently is retired, so why should they promote a pro player agenda again?

I repeat again, anyone trying to label the players selfish, spoiled brats or anything else after they do nothing but concede to Ownership is stupid. 

Who should be labeled the spoiled brats between the millionaires conceding and the billionaires taking the stance that they won't even offer basketball unless they get exactly what they want? Are you kidding me


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Dre said:


> You know what the hell I mean. Selfish, Spoiled, Vain, whatever...
> 
> And which ESPN analysts said the players were "spoiled"? As if ESPN analysts are the holy grail, we shit on them all the time now all of a sudden they're gospel and my opposing opinion is wrong. Honestly, sometimes I wonder what they actually know
> 
> ...



just because youre conceding doesn't mean anything. It just means you have no leverage. The players tried their hardest but were called out on their bluff. Now, they're scrambling to get whatever crumbs they can get off the plate.


I know you know your shit. just dont put words in my mouth that i didn't say.

spoiled and selfish are two different things. Can they overlap in meaning yes they can (depending on how you were taught). but if i wanted to say selfish i wouldve said it.

just for chuckles:

spoiled - Treat with great or excessive kindness, consideration, or generosity

selfish - Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



ChosenFEW said:


> just because youre conceding doesn't mean anything. It just means you have no leverage. The players tried their hardest but were called out on their bluff. Now, they're scrambling to get whatever crumbs they can get off the plate.


Obviously the players feel like they still have some leverage and are being unfairly treated with this decertification. If it was as simple as just having their bluff called we'd be talking about free agent signings right now


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

The owners are completely responsible for this situation and blaming the players for not giving up everything is beyond moronic. This is not a strike. The owners opted out of the CBA, they chose this course of action. At any point in the past month they could have ended the lockout and gotten a deal that was totally favorable to them.

I don't think Lebron James is telling any of you how much of your money you should give back to your bosses and it is really stupid for people to assume that they have a right to tell the players they have to give up everything just because they want to watch basketball. I want to watch basketball too, but I am not dumb enough to think that the players are going to agree to something which is manifestly not in their interest just so that we can watch basketball.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

*How League Offer Could Alter Movement and the Market*



> In the reimagined, recalibrated N.B.A. of the future, Carmelo Anthony would have a tougher time forcing his way out of Denver. LeBron James would take a steeper pay cut to flee Cleveland. Gilbert Arenas would be a free agent, instead of a payroll albatross.
> Contracts would be shorter. Players would become free agents sooner. Making trades would be simpler. The gap between rich and poor teams might be smaller. There might be fewer superteams and more parity, too.
> 
> In theory, anyway.
> ...


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

some good information that knicks4life just posted... some of you should absorb some of that because in no way shape or form are players giving up everything or are going to bankruptcy because of it.

SMH at some of you


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Who is saying with a straight face anyone is going to go bankrupt


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

What is interesting is what the new CBA does to Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. Those are two conference defining situations


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Dre said:


> What is interesting is what the new CBA does to Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. Those are two conference defining situations


It really doesn't changes their situation at all they both can still force a trade or leave in free agency the only leverage their current teams have is a fifth year on the next contract.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Howard is, but Paul isn't.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

If it's better for the league as a whole, I am in favor of it. I am simply against the age limit.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



> Wondering what Billy Hunter has had to say during NBA's 24/7 PR blitz? Hunter sent out two-paragraph letter to players this AM w/one message
> 
> Hunter wrote: "I am requesting that you contact your team player rep and fully voice your opinion(s) on the matter." That's pretty much it


http://twitter.com/#!/ESPNSteinLine

*Stern's Memo to player*


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

I am just bemused by the fact that not one media source called the NBA on their "projection" that average player salary will increase. Unless the total number of NBA players _decreases_ significantly, this is an impossibility.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



> Orlando Magic will accept deal


http://twitter.com/#!/CDuhonStandTall

1/30


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



> Hunter: We've arrived at the conclusion that the collective bargaining process has completely broken down. Union has served disclaimer.


No season.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

How sad that the youngest and most unlikely successful (majority black in a majority white society) of the major leagues would commit suicide like this. They're never going to become as big as they were. Can't believe both sides can't get something done without the involving the courts.

They will lose their fans and most won't be back. There are already polls showing that Americans don't miss the NBA. Reminds me of when I was in Vegas a year back and their championship rodeos were going on in town. Meeting people in the sports books and talking to so many people from that segment of America who could care less about the NBA was eye opening.



MemphisX said:


> I am just bemused by the fact that not one media source called the NBA on their "projection" that average player salary will increase. Unless the total number of NBA players _decreases_ significantly, this is an impossibility.


The league projects revenue to increase which is tied to player salary so that would increase as well...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

That's one season for sure. Again, wouldn't be shocked if this takes out two seasons--and maybe ends the league. David Stern said if they decertify all of their contracts are void. In which case I would think they would all start signing in new leagues.

Turns out the players have more of a spine then a lot of people gave them credit for. Probably costs most of them their careers, but there you go.

You can't negotiate like the owners did, and expect things to end well. They were disrespectful and greedy. They pushed the players to this.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

The problem is that we lost the Pollins and Davidsons of the NBA. The vetting process failed. The league ruined itself by blindly accepting sales of franchises to the wrong people, people who are now with equal voice in the bargaining and are not trying to build something together with the players that will be worth more in the future.

There's something to be said about men who bought their franchises for less than $10 million in the 60's and then sold them for nearly a billion dollars a couple decades later.

Men like Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver are incapable of turning their current teams into $5 billion teams 20 years from now. They're just water fleas. Not like the players are exempt from all this scorn. They're the worst generation of talent ever, spoiled, and overpaid. Both sides are disgusting.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Shoutout to all the egos involved that wouldn't allow a deal to get done.

And honestly, that's all this came down to - not 1%, just pride


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Marcus13 said:


> Shoutout to all the egos involved that wouldn't allow a deal to get done.
> 
> And honestly, that's all this came down to - not 1%, just pride


Have you been following what is going on? This is not about 1%, and that is pretty obvious.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> Have you been following what is going on? This is not about 1%, and that is pretty obvious.


That's what I just said


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Welp, looks like this season is toast. Nice, just nice. I love watching millionaires fight over money.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

It will be funny/sad if the players lose their antitrust suit and are forced to accept an even worse deal than the one that was offered.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Doesn't matter to me. I'll just watch college basketball. This is the writer's strike all over again.


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



GrandKenyon6 said:


> It will be funny/sad if the players lose their antitrust suit and are forced to accept an even worse deal than the one that was offered.


This. Damn I kinda knew we wouldn't have a season so I'm not shocked, but it's weird. Thought we'd get somewhat of a season.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Marcus13 said:


> That's what I just said


Sorry, misinterpreted what you posted.

That being said, 1% is no longer an issue. It seems to be about Luxury tax, MLE, and escrow witholdings and payments.

The escrow thing is a really big issue.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

lol they want to decertify now. The union leadership is a joke and has never stood united in any of this.. hence the position we are in. First red flag should have been when players were jumping ship to sign elsewhere... Fisher, Hunter, all of them have no clue and are greatly outmatched in the suit and tie battle... disappointing to say the least.

Whatever, is it baseball season yet? Not sure i'll be ready to come back when the NBA is ready.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



HB said:


> Deal is imminent lol


.........


----------



## MarionBarberThe4th (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

fans making minimum wage will pay to watch basketball but owners need to win every aspect of the CBA to watch basketball . Can't budge an inch.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



chilltown said:


> lol they want to decertify now. The union leadership is a joke and has never stood united in any of this.. hence the position we are in. First red flag should have been when players were jumping ship to sign elsewhere... Fisher, Hunter, all of them have no clue and are greatly outmatched in the suit and tie battle... disappointing to say the least.
> 
> Whatever, is it baseball season yet? Not sure i'll be ready to come back when the NBA is ready.


Stay strong union. Don't cave in to the bloodsucking, power hungry owners.

Sometimes being in a Union means sacrificing for the greater good of the Union members and future union members.

As for being outmatched, guess the people who formed this nation should have just surrendered to the British, as they were greatly overmatched.

Principle, my friend, or maybe you should just bend over.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> Stay strong union. Don't cave in to the bloodsucking, power hungry owners.
> 
> Sometimes being in a Union means sacrificing for the greater good of the Union members and future union members.
> 
> ...


nearly as bad as comparing the situation to slavery... but I guess you are right. Billy Hunter is as great a leader of man as our revolutionary leaders.

This union never was unified. From jumpstreet players were bailing to play overseas.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> The problem is that we lost the Pollins and Davidsons of the NBA. The vetting process failed. The league ruined itself by blindly accepting sales of franchises to the wrong people, people who are now with equal voice in the bargaining and are not trying to build something together with the players that will be worth more in the future.


Pretty much. If the NBA survives this, hopefully they'll have a better vetting process going forward.




> Men like Dan Gilbert and Robert Sarver are incapable of turning their current teams into $5 billion teams 20 years from now. They're just water fleas. Not like the players are exempt from all this scorn. They're the worst generation of talent ever, spoiled, and overpaid. Both sides are disgusting.


The funny thing about Gilbert is he only bought the Cavs because of Lebron, and what they were worth there. He really would have preferred to own the Pistons.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



chilltown said:


> nearly as bad as comparing the situation to slavery... but I guess you are right. Billy Hunter is as great a leader of man as our revolutionary leaders.
> 
> This union never was unified. From jumpstreet players were bailing to play overseas.


You mean these players are trying to earn some money while the owners are trying to screw them? Interesting take of the situation on your part.

Remember, the players are not on strike, they have been locked out.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



MarionBarberThe4th said:


> fans making minimum wage will pay to watch basketball but owners need to win every aspect of the CBA to watch basketball . Can't budge an inch.


This


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



futuristxen said:


> This


What about how much money the owners make. 

Players' salaries bother you, but the incredibly super rich owners trying to get richer off the players (and the minimum wage earners) doesn't bother you?

Are you expecting ticket prices, NBA League Pass and the price of hot dogs at arenas to go down if the owners get what they want?

If that is what you expect, I'd have to classify you as a moron that is at this moment assuming the position.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> You mean these players are trying to earn some money while the owners are trying to screw them? Interesting take of the situation on your part.
> 
> Remember, the players are not on strike, they have been locked out.


The expired CBA isn't an acceptable system simply because it's the long established system. The contract length and flexible cap have been shown to poorly affect the game ("rebuilding," salary dumps, competitive balance, etc.) and there has to be a change.

The purpose of a union is to at least maintain if not increase the benefits of a place where Nazr Mohammed can gross $60 million and counting. It's not a good system for the owners to pay a scrub like that so much money, and many more scrubs like him, but more importantly it has been shown to not be good for the game.

But a union is succeeding when Nazr Mohammed is making $60 million. Frankly, it's hypocritical to denounce corporate greed and then celebrate union greed. The owners are hardly "screwing" anybody. 50-50 is pretty damn fair and three year contracts is more than fair considering they're guaranteed.

The players are loathe to accept the changes because why would a Nazr Mohammed willingly choose to make $20 million over the life of his career when he could make oh so much more? The NBA tried a system where even the Nazrs are elevated to partner status in the system due to their earning but it doesn't work because at the end of the day they're still 7 ft stiffs that have never scored a meaningful basket in their entire lives.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

It would be a horrible precedent for future negotiations to give in to the owners ultimatum of "accept this offer, or our offers will get worse" and accept the offer. This is not collective bargaining. The owners took their stance, and the players either had to take it from behind and accept the owners insulting offer, or go the route of legal action. The ultimatum really created a no-inbetween situation. The legal route will take longer, but I can't really hold it against them for not taking it from behind by accepting the owners insulting offer. 

It's sad for the fans, but I blame the owners. They have been epicly stubborn.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> The expired CBA isn't an acceptable system simply because it's the long established system. The contract length and flexible cap have been shown to poorly affect the game ("rebuilding," salary dumps, competitive balance, etc.) and there has to be a change.
> 
> The purpose of a union is to at least maintain if not increase the benefits of a place where Nazr Mohammed can gross $60 million and counting. It's not a good system for the owners to pay a scrub like that so much money, and many more scrubs like him, but more importantly it has been shown to not be good for the game.
> 
> ...



Babble on, pal. Fact is Owners did not lose ONE CENT last season due to players' salaries.

And of course, it was the moronic owners themselves that were smart enough to sign all these players to contracts they didn't deserve.

Should the players have the turned down these lucrative contracts? Would you have turned down a contract for more than you were worth?

Get a grip, chump. Because you are leading a miserable life doesn't mean everyone should.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

I thought Shaq's comments with the TNT guys were very interesting partly because it's something that I've heard quite often lately.

He said, 'Why should the players have to pay because of the mistakes of the owners in giving out all these contracts?'

If you freely acknowledge that the contracts weren't deserved and should not have been given then what's the difference between a system where those mistakes are impossible to make versus one where they should not be made? It's just a matter of legislation.

At the end of the day, the players that should be paid are paid and the scrubs are getting a taste of reality. Sorry that guys like Nazr Mohammed were living celebrity status all this time but those days should be over.

If anybody is getting screwed it's the superstars by guys like Nazr Mohammed. As Jerry Buss said, if there was no salary cap Kobe would be part owner of the Lakers. Instead, the players have a union and his salary is capped so guys like Nazr Mohammed get big bucks. The union rejoices when a scrub gets more than he would in a non-union universe.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> What about how much money the owners make.
> 
> Players' salaries bother you, but the incredibly super rich owners trying to get richer off the players (and the minimum wage earners) doesn't bother you?
> 
> ...


I'm on your side...who is the moron now?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> I thought Shaq's comments with the TNT guys were very interesting partly because it's something that I've heard quite often lately.
> 
> He said, 'Why should the players have to pay because of the mistakes of the owners in giving out all these contracts?'
> 
> ...


Yeah but for every Nazr Mohammed that is overpaid, you have guys like the superstars and rookies who are making far below their market value.

I mean it evens out in the current system. Yeah it sucks that the Magic have Lewis's contract--but they also had Dwight Howard for like five years on a rookie contract, when he probably should have been on superstar money from his second year on...

Look at the Cavs situation with Lebron--they got a bunch of overpaid role players, because they underpaid Lebron with a rookie contract the whole way through.

If you had a no cap situation, superstars would make a ton of money, and the scrubs wouldn't make anything. It's because the superstars lost the last CBA that their money got shifted to the mid-level and lower guys.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



futuristxen said:


> I'm on your side...who is the moron now?


I obviously misinterpreted your post, but as I read it again, I can see how I did that, as you were being sarcastic, but not sarcastic enough for it to be obvious.

And the morons are the un-rich that support the owners who wish to bring America back to the economics of the middle ages.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Your position is why many people are in favor of unguaranteed contracts. If Lebron, Derrick Rose or Dwight Howard outperform their deals they should be allowed to negotiate better contracts while lesser players who are earning too much should be cut. The players refuse to go with unguaranteed deals, so here we are.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



HKF said:


> Your position is why many people are in favor of unguaranteed contracts. If Lebron, Derrick Rose or Dwight Howard outperform their deals they should be allowed to negotiate better contracts while lesser players who are earning too much should be cut. The players refuse to go with unguaranteed deals, so here we are.


It should be unguaranteed both ways then. Players should be able to opt out at any point, if owners can cancel the deal at any point.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

The players can always hold out for better contracts in an unguaranteed scenario, which again, I am fine with.


----------



## BeeGee (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

The NBA owners are liars just like most owners are when it comes to being truthful about income+/-

The players are a scapegoat and an easy card for $tern to play to the media.

I say shut the whole season down, then capture $tern and Billy Hunter and flog them publicly..


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



HKF said:


> The players can always hold out for better contracts in an unguaranteed scenario, which again, I am fine with.


No they wouldn't hold out. They would just leave for more money or a better location, whenever they wanted--just like you or I.

So if Dwight Howard was sick of Orlando, he could go join Kobe and the Lakers, mid-season--if he wanted.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

That's not how that works.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Cinco de Mayo said:


> .........


That was for you CDM...notice the lol


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



HB said:


> That was for you CDM...notice the lol


Just stop posting before every country in the world outlaws the game of basketball.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



King Joseus said:


> That's not how that works.


It is in FuturWorld.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Cinco de Mayo said:


> Just stop posting before every country in the world outlaws the game of basketball.


If you haven't noticed, college basketball is back


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> And the morons are the un-rich that support the owners who wish to bring America back to the economics of the middle ages.


I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the noble strikes of 100 years ago for safe working conditions, respect, and fair compensation, which a generation of brilliant writers supported, to a system which creates paper millionaires who take as much as they want with no regard to who it hurts. There are unions in the world, in my home country for one, that are fighting for living wages and it's perverted to compare that to a group of entitled assholes. "Middle ages"...


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



HB said:


> If you haven't noticed, college basketball is back


HB posts "Hey guise, college basketball is back!!!1"

Five minutes later...

BREAKING NEWS: "College basketball canceled, every team sanctioned."

Another headline: "Local message board enthusiast wrong about everything, gets basketball outlawed!"

And no, I didn't notice because college basketball is borderline unwatchable until around St. Patrick's Day.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Cinco de Mayo said:


> Just stop posting before every country in the world outlaws the game of basketball.


I still remember when he jinxed that Memphis vs. OKC game. I take it you're still bitter? :laugh:


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Union and League to meet on 5th ; Players mulling decert*



Cinco de Mayo said:


> HB posts "Hey guise, college basketball is back!!!1"
> 
> Five minutes later...
> 
> ...


I suppose you think you are funny...good for ya. Anyhoo some of us aren't spending as much time on here anymore, hope you get your NBA back. Peace!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



King Joseus said:


> That's not how that works.


Didn't say it was. Where did I say it was?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the noble strikes of 100 years ago for safe working conditions, respect, and fair compensation, which a generation of brilliant writers supported, to a system which creates paper millionaires who take as much as they want with no regard to who it hurts. There are unions in the world, in my home country for one, that are fighting for living wages and it's perverted to compare that to a group of entitled assholes. "Middle ages"...


The owners moves to restrict player movement and rights was really what broke this deal IMO.


----------



## MarionBarberThe4th (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Stern:" we were very close and they decided to blow it up"


So close and yet you still had to give them an ultimatum and a deadline before you go to a ridiculous 47%/hard-cap/roll back CBA.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



MarionBarberThe4th said:


> Stern:" we were very close and they decided to blow it up"
> 
> 
> So close and yet you still had to give them an ultimatum and a deadline before you go to a ridiculous 47%/hard-cap/roll back CBA.


Yeah the ultimatum stuff was ridiculous. They should have just kept negotiating and worked to close the gap.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



futuristxen said:


> No they wouldn't hold out. They would just leave for more money or a better location, whenever they wanted--just like you or I.
> 
> So if Dwight Howard was sick of Orlando, he could go join Kobe and the Lakers, mid-season--if he wanted.





futuristxen said:


> Didn't say it was. Where did I say it was?


What the heck is the point of your post?

"They wouldn't do that, they'd do _this_."

"Oh, I know _this_ isn't actually possible."

Silliness.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



King Joseus said:


> What the heck is the point of your post?
> 
> "They wouldn't do that, they'd do _this_."
> 
> ...


Rep.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



HKF said:


> Your position is why many people are in favor of unguaranteed contracts. If Lebron, Derrick Rose or Dwight Howard outperform their deals they should be allowed to negotiate better contracts while lesser players who are earning too much should be cut. The players refuse to go with unguaranteed deals, so here we are.


To be fair, there is nothing currently precluding owners from handing out non-guaranteed contracts... the market is responsible for where we've ended up in terms of guaranteed deals. Those that want non-guaranteed contracts are really looking for guaranteed contracts to be outlawed (obviously a huge blow to the players), as opposed to some new right for owners.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the noble strikes of 100 years ago for safe working conditions, respect, and fair compensation, which a generation of brilliant writers supported, to a system which creates paper millionaires who take as much as they want with no regard to who it hurts. There are unions in the world, in my home country for one, that are fighting for living wages and it's perverted to compare that to a group of entitled assholes. "Middle ages"...


Are you saying that the NBA players should settle for minimum wage?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

He's clearly not saying that at all. This thread, oy.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

**** this bunch of spoiled, self entitled assholes. From both sides.

Apparently Basketball does stop.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



King Joseus said:


> He's clearly not saying that at all. This thread, oy.


Clearly? So tell me what exactly he's saying?

The workers should settle and be glad for what they get, and the rich should just keep getring richer, as that is what they are entitled to?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

Hyperbole seems to be your friend.



Adam said:


> I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the noble strikes of 100 years ago for safe working conditions, respect, and fair compensation, which a generation of brilliant writers supported, to a system which creates paper millionaires who take as much as they want with no regard to who it hurts. There are unions in the world, in my home country for one, that are fighting for living wages and it's perverted to compare that to a group of entitled assholes. "Middle ages"...


I think his words are pretty clear. Cut out all the extras if you need to:



> I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the strikes of 100 years ago to a system which creates paper millionaires


Looks to me like he's just stating his opinion on the current state of affairs. I believe that's what these boards are for, though I could be wrong.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Adam said:


> I find it intensely depressing that you are comparing the noble strikes of 100 years ago for safe working conditions, respect, and fair compensation, which a generation of brilliant writers supported, to a system which creates paper millionaires who take as much as they want with no regard to who it hurts. There are unions in the world, in my home country for one, that are fighting for living wages and it's perverted to compare that to a group of entitled assholes. "Middle ages"...


The exploitation is no different. I think you are missing the point. You are stuck on the numbers. Players make a lot of money and should be grateful. Most are very grateful. That's not the issue. They're not saying they're not getting paid enough to live. They're saying they're not getting paid enough with regards to the sheer amount they earn for the league, and that is exploitation. 

At this point, you have to ask what the operating cost is for the league. If the players are the big bucks and are the primary investment by the league. Why then do you need $50 million a year to run the team? Is the team running through incredible supplies? The building is paid for, the staff makes at most $10 million combined. What is it? Flights? I couldn't see that costing more than $15 million. Why is operating cost so high for the league? On top of that, the owner can sell the team at any time for a tidy profit as shown by the sale of the Warriors, Nets, Wizards, and Pistons. Owning a team requires an ROI of 10% PLUS profits from the sale? The owners can go **** themselves. 

How about they drop the percentage to the players and lower ticket prices from an obscene $60 for shitty upper deck corner seats to the reasonable $20. Maybe the league is broke from running a bunch of crappy, "are you orang?" campaigns. Hey idiots, spelling orange ORANG isn't cool, it's illiterate. I hate these owners and I am starting to hate anyone who pretends like they're the innocent ones.


----------



## ziyemao0 (May 18, 2010)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

greed players


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> Clearly? So tell me what exactly he's saying?
> 
> The workers should settle and be glad for what they get, and the rich should just keep getring richer, as that is what they are entitled to?


Are you a female?

Millionaire basketball players are now "the workers."


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



King Joseus said:


> What the heck is the point of your post?
> 
> "They wouldn't do that, they'd do _this_."
> 
> ...


The context of the conversation, which I don't know why I have to explain it on a message board where you can just scroll up, was HKF saying he was fine if gtd contracts were done this way, and I was saying, I would be fine with that, if they were also done this other way, that also advantages players. HKF was positing a hypothetical, and I was as well.

Dunno what the complication is or why the dickishness was called for.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

No dickishness involved. My mistake in not realizing that your reply to HKF was not, in fact, referring to his post itself (the one you quoted), but was instead linking back to your own thoughts based in a fantasy world.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*

We can go at this all Winter...and sadly we will..


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Wade County said:


> **** this bunch of spoiled, self entitled assholes. From both sides.
> 
> Apparently Basketball does stop.


actually basketball doesn't stop, nike has a point. I was tossing up bricks the other day.



but the NBA sure as hell does!


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Union reps to meet on NBA proposal Monday; Players mulling decert*



Dornado said:


> To be fair, there is nothing currently precluding owners from handing out non-guaranteed contracts... the market is responsible for where we've ended up in terms of guaranteed deals. Those that want non-guaranteed contracts are really looking for guaranteed contracts to be outlawed (obviously a huge blow to the players), as opposed to some new right for owners.


Bet this post goes unanswered


----------



## Babe Ruth (Dec 6, 2006)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

Okay, so just got information from someone involved in the negotiations to purchase an NBA franchise in the past couple of years and they say:

1. Owners are getting 100% of TV revenues, strike or not: and
2. They felt strongly that there would not be a season in '11-12, or at most 50%.

So in that calculus, the owners have much more leverage than I said previously.

My prediction, players will get desperate and there will be a 50% season.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

That last one may have been a bit dickish, sorry futur. I blame your inherent inability to be unbiased when it comes to the Bulls after tossing them aside years ago.

...and the lockout for making me grumpy.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



> Lawsuit being filed in SF. Melo, Chauncey will be plaintiffs.


http://twitter.com/#!/NYPost_Berman

It begins.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

Apparently if they disclaim this process goes on faster but they can't negotiate with the Owners...if they file for regular decertification they can still negotiate until that 45 day period is up.

A disclaimer by Hunter is the real nuclear option...it's not just leverage at that point. People are wondering what Hunter is thinking going with this instead of just decertifying.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

They can still negotiate via settlements though I believe, right? 

Also Hunter is a snake. He should refuse to collect his paycheck as long as his members are not making any money. 

The bad thing now is with the lawyers involved, their financial interest is in making this drag out as long as possible.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

*Document: Complaint filed in Minn.*


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

I wish HB would be like 'it sucks we won't have a season' so I can go to sleep and count on waking up to see Hunter and Stern hugging and raising each other's hands in the air like wrestlers after a great match...


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



Babe Ruth said:


> Okay, so just got information from someone involved in the negotiations to purchase an NBA franchise in the past couple of years and they say:
> 
> 1. Owners are getting 100% of TV revenues, strike or not: and
> 2. They felt strongly that there would not be a season in '11-12, or at most 50%.
> ...


Nope. The NBA is going to find out just like the NFL that tappung into that Tv money will not be that easy. The players are entitled to a part of that revenue and also they will have to explain why a TV network would guarantee you $$$ even if you don't play any games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379



> The union accused the NFL of failing to secure the maximum revenue possible when it restructured broadcast contracts in 2009 and 2010, and claimed the deals were designed to guarantee owners enough money to survive a lockout. The union argued this violated an agreement between the sides that says the NFL must make good-faith efforts to maximize revenue for players.
> 
> Doty agreed.
> 
> "The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players," wrote the judge, who has overseen NFL labor issues since he presided over the 1993 decision that cleared the way for the current free agency system.


Now when you add in the fact that the NBA undersold its Tv rights, big big trouble. In fact it has been my conclusion from day 1 that the players should have challenged the league on this fact and held the position that the leagues losses were self imposed to secure a sweet CBA deal before recouping with the next Tv deal.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/7/...l-david-stern-national-basketball-association



> Sherman notes that growing the game increases expenses, but such a major revenue stream -- this national TV deal, which makes up almost a quarter of league income -- will hold steady until 2016. It's a massive problem.
> How massive?
> If the NBA's TV deal were break-even -- in other words, if ABC, ESPN and TNT sold their NBA ad inventory for exactly what the networks paid the NBA for broadcast rights -- the NBA, by its own estimates, would not be losing money right now. The NBA estimates $300 million in 2010-11 losses. The NBA's TV deal is undersold by $300 million for next season. Yikes.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

*February 29 Court Date For Players v. NBA*


> In the players' antitrust suit against the owners, the case management conference has been assigned a date of February 29, 2012.
> 
> That date would appear to be too late to help save the season, but there are two important qualifiers to that initial impression.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

lawyers dont want this to be solved right away. they want this to drag out to make more money


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



ChosenFEW said:


> lawyers dont want this to be solved right away. they want this to drag out to make more money


Yeah, it's the bloodsucking lawyers fault, not the fault of the bone marrow sucking owners fault.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

Look it's on everyone. There's no boogeyman in this


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*

Call it false optimism, but I still think the millionaires are going to cave. First they need the money more than the owners and maybe just as important, these guys love playing basketball. Kobe is 33 now, he might only have 4 all-star seasons left. It's going to hit hard and they are going to push for this deal they just rejected with maybe a few minor tweaks.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



27dresses said:


> Yeah, it's the bloodsucking lawyers fault, not the fault of the bone marrow sucking owners fault.


You used "fault" one too many times.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



Jamel Irief said:


> Call it false optimism, but I still think the millionaires are going to cave. First they need the money more than the owners and maybe just as important, these guys love playing basketball. Kobe is 33 now, he might only have 4 all-star seasons left. It's going to hit hard and they are going to push for this deal they just rejected with maybe a few minor tweaks.


At this point if you're optimistic you're looking like Scarface in the restaurant after his wife left...they're going through with decertifying...they already petitioned the courts...it's not leverage anymore...


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players mulling decert*



> NBA and players resumed talks on Tuesday to try and end the lockout before the cancellation of Christmas games, two sources told Y! Sports.





> Talks were expected to continue today, sources said, and one league source tells Y!: "We should know more by later this evening."





> Derek Fisher isn't a part of the talks now, sources say.


https://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

The season is toast...


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

HB will **** this up....watch.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

HB, if your invade this thread with your unprecedented stupidity, I will one-touch ban you, I swear.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

I'm confused, aren't they unable to reach an agreement now that the union is gone? I thought by becoming a trade organization or whatever they ended the collective bargaining process?


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

LMAO I love the HB hate around here, it's hilarious to watch cause it seems like people really dislike the kid. And anyone know who's taking part in the meetings for the players?


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Jamel Irief said:


> I'm confused, aren't they unable to reach an agreement now that the union is gone? I thought by becoming a trade organization or whatever they ended the collective bargaining process?





> Technically these are “settlement negotiations” to end the players’ anti-trust lawsuits, so the talks are between the league and the attorneys for the players, as well as Billy Hunter (part of the NBA’s legal team). Fisher is currently president of a trade union not authorized to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, so he has no seat at the table.


http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/23/report-nba-owners-players-have-opened-negotiations-again?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

So they are just talking to end the lawsuits, and if they end the lawsuits we are back to the drawing board?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

I'm just not going to follow this closely anymore.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Jamel Irief said:


> So they are just talking to end the lawsuits, and if they end the lawsuits we are back to the drawing board?


No, if they agree to a settlement it means both side have agreed to a deal.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Knicks4life said:


> No, if they agree to a settlement it means both side have agreed to a deal.


Suspend HB until the lockout is over now.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

You can negotiate a settlement of the lawsuits which in turn would mean an end to the lockout. The trick is to do so while maintaining the fiction that the union is not really operating as a Union.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

There are maybe three to six owners who might be legitimately losing money. They all suck at what they are doing. The other losses are either people cooking the books or owners who are losing money because owning a basketball team is no different to them than one of us buying a ski boat or building a home theater in our basement. How many of these guys care about losing a couple million dollars more than they care about losing ball games? Acting as though it is some great tragedy that the owners refuse to make a settlement is just foolish. They had every opportunity to get a settlement that would have guaranteed that all of them would have been guaranteed to make money even if they performed horribly as owners. Why should we want a league where winning is no longer important to the owners? They should have to do their jobs to earn money just like the rest of the people in this world.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



> In statement, NBPA atty Jonathan Schiller confirms "preliminary settlement discussions with the NBA immediately after Thanksgiving"


http://twitter.com/#!/HowardBeckNYT


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



TheAnswer said:


> LMAO I love the HB hate around here, it's hilarious to watch cause it seems like people really dislike the kid. And anyone know who's taking part in the meetings for the players?


I love HBwoy, he's good people. I would like to follow him around and hear his thoughts and opinions on everything and his predictions for the future...then take the opposite of every single thing and enjoy a lifetime of prosperity.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



> Two sides will meet again on Friday in New York, with Hunter and NBA wanting Fisher to join settlement talks, league sources tell Y!





> Fisher hasn't given indication if he will attend Friday meeting, perhaps out of concern for how his inclusion could affect players legally.





> One league official said "They feel like they need (Fisher) there to continue," but legal question could be: Isn't this same union (cont.)..





> (cont.) ...union group back talking with league? This process was supposed to be taken over by legal team, so unclear if Fisher comes to NY.





> Obviously, the disclaimer and suits filed by the NBPA makes everything so complicated in these talks now.


https://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*

Deal is imminent


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Adam said:


> I love HBwoy, he's good people. I would like to follow him around and hear his thoughts and opinions on everything and his predictions for the future...then take the opposite of every single thing and enjoy a lifetime of prosperity.


I think the only people that really hate hb are Marcus, Sean and Terrence Williams. He ruined their careers.


----------



## 27dresses (Nov 5, 2009)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Diable said:


> There are maybe three to six owners who might be legitimately losing money. They all suck at what they are doing. The other losses are either people cooking the books or owners who are losing money because owning a basketball team is no different to them than one of us buying a ski boat or building a home theater in our basement. How many of these guys care about losing a couple million dollars more than they care about losing ball games? Acting as though it is some great tragedy that the owners refuse to make a settlement is just foolish. They had every opportunity to get a settlement that would have guaranteed that all of them would have been guaranteed to make money even if they performed horribly as owners. Why should we want a league where winning is no longer important to the owners? They should have to do their jobs to earn money just like the rest of the people in this world.


Agree with you absolutely.

To quote some former player, "If you can't make a profit owning an NBA team, then sell the team."

And I'm astounded at how many posters take the side of the owners (my assumption is that they are jealous of NBA players that have turned their particular talents into a million, and mostly multi-million dollars worth of income, while these same posters are quite willing to drop trou and bend over for their bosses, while considering themselves lucky that their boss is willing to give them the proverbial BONE), as the owners and their ilk are what is causing the recession in America. Just hoping it doesn't turn into an actual Depression of the economy.

MORE TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH. And the Government should supply them with HOT HOS also. Of course, gender of said hos to be determined by each individual owner.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Jamel Irief said:


> I think the only people that really hate hb are Marcus, Sean and Terrence Williams. He ruined their careers.


They got a new Williams on draft night but you weren't there in the thread when I was chuckling about it, Archivist.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Union rejects Owners' latest offer; Players decertify*



Adam said:


> They got a new Williams on draft night but you weren't there in the thread when I was chuckling about it, Archivist.


They did? Im just glad they traded their lottery pick. Derrick Williams dodged the hb bullet.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*



> Derek Fisher will attend Friday's labor settlement meeting, source tells Y! Given legal complications, it suggests a deal is within reach.





> As president of NBPA, Fisher and players have to protect selves from league charge that disbanding of union was a "sham" negotiating tactic.


https://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*

That's what I was thinking about earlier today. How are you on one coast of the country in SF contending you're not a union and you want to file suit against the league but on the other coast in NY be negotiating as a union with the NBA. Cmon son. Stern is playing them like fools because no progress will be made but he'll be able to run to the judge and get their claim rejected the second he says the union met with me a week after the disclaimer.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*



> Lawyers 4 players looking 4 league to make concessions Friday. Players want 4-yr full midlevel contracts available every yr,10% cap 4 escrow
> 
> Players also want increase in mini midlevel 4 tax teams, sign&trades 4 tax teams for life of new CBA, fewer penalties for repeat tax teams
> 
> Players also want max salaries 4 superstars to be 30% of cap, not just 25%, as well as higher qualifying offers 4 restricted free agents


http://twitter.com/#!/chris_broussard



> Sources close to NBA talks insist that back-and-forth on specific tweaks has been scarce so far this week. Serious idea swapping starts FRI
> 
> Sense here is more league insiders than not believe deal is forthcoming by MON to start on Christmas. But we've heard that how many times?


http://twitter.com/#!/ESPNSteinLine


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*

Apparently they both agreed beforehand that neither side would use these negotiations as leverage in a courtroom, so they are earnestly negotiating.

Players are still fine with 50/50, but they want a flat MLE, a higher max, and more of the escrow. On a large scale these issues aren't huge, it's somewhat closer but I just don't know if the hardline owners want to budge any further.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*



> Owners dismayed by players asking for 51% BRI 2nite. Players have wanted more than 50 since disclaiming....





> League source says no way deal getting done if players insist on more than 50% BRI.





> League source also said players not getting full midlevel from luxury tax teams..players not asking for full ml, just increase from $3 mill





> Owners' Labor relations committee deflated when told on conference call that players asked for 51% BRI


http://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Sides to meet after Holiday; Players start decert*



> BREAKING: Tentative agreement reached, according to one of the negotiators. #NBA #lockout


http://twitter.com/#!/KBergCBS

Done Deal


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

So what about the amnesty clause? 

I was looking forward to a year without Luke Walton.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

> While it has been widely held that the NBA would like to push the age limit to 20, sources familiar with the dialogue between the two sides now say it is expected to remain at 19 for at least the first two years of the new deal and possibly beyond that. Several alternatives have been discussed, sources said. *One option would be to allow players to enter the draft directly out of high school but have the option to withdraw and go to college, similar to the draft rule used by Major League Baseball. Under this concept, a player would next be required to attend at least two years of college before entering the draft again.*


http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...ist-items-being-discussed-new-cba-sources-say

Very interesting


----------

