PDA

View Full Version : NBA headed to another lockout



Unclebuck
06-28-2004, 11:41 PM
As I was reading this article I realized that many of you were a little young to remember the last lockout in 1998.



Of course the lockout of 1998 brought out one of the best quotes in the history of Sports from from Patrick Ewing. "we make a lot of money but we spent a lot"


Is there another lock out on the horizon for the NBA? According to this Chris Sheridan article, there is.


Expressing pessimism after reviewing NBA owners' initial collective bargaining proposal, the director of the players' union said Monday the league could be heading toward a work stoppage at the conclusion of the 2004-05 season.

Union director Billy Hunter addressed several dozen players at the union's annual meeting during a session devoted mainly to labor issues. His message was that history could very well repeat itself, with a distinct possibility there could be a lockout next summer.

"We don't come to this process as neophytes. We don't have the same kind of naivety that we had before," Hunter told The Associated Press. "The guys understand that the negotiations could ultimately result in another lockout, and they have to prepare themselves for that.

"If the owners are not inclined to retreat from their current proposal, there's a high probability there can be another lockout," Hunter said.

The league had the first work stoppage in its history six years ago, a lockout that began in July of 1998, lasted 191 days, cost both sides hundreds of millions of dollars and scarred a league at the pinnacle of its popularity.

Union members say the league has asked for numerous concessions in an initial proposal presented during two preliminary bargaining sessions held after the All-Star break. Owners are seeking a four-year maximum length for any contract, higher luxury tax rates for the clubs with the largest payrolls and lower thresholds to trigger the luxury and escrow taxes.

"How would I describe the proposal? A step back," Hunter said. "In many ways it mirrors the proposal that was presented in 1998, a proposal that lasted at least five months and called for significant rollbacks and forced the players to dig in.

"I suspect that if that continues to be the attitude of the owners, then they might get the same type of reaction from this group of players as they got in 1998 - becoming just as entrenched and instrident as the owners are in terms of what their position is, and where we should and should not be."

NBA commissioner David Stern, upon hearing Hunter's remarks, took a conciliatory tone.

"I'm optimistic. I'm glad that the players are engaged and involved, because whenever you have people who understand the economics of a business thoroughly, you're more likely to reach an agreement," Stern said in a telephone interview.

"I won't even characterize some of the ideas the players represented that they might like to see, but it's fair to say that whenever the players or owners put forth a proposal, it's done with expectation there could be some changes - but that's where negotiations come in. And those negotiations are where deals get done, not by hurling threats in the newspapers."

The two-day union meeting also marked Shaquille O'Neal's introduction to the inner workings of the organization. He is the newest of six vice presidents on the executive council.

O'Neal, the only player to arrive for the meetings with a bodyguard and personal assistant in tow, has said he would like to succeed Michael Curry as president of the union. Curry, a free agent, would have to resign from his post under union bylaws if he does not receive a contract for the upcoming season.

"He told me he wanted to get involved in January when I met with the (Lakers), and all the players on that team were encouraging him, telling him he needed to be involved in the union and have it be his legacy in the game," Hunter said of O'Neal.

"I've spoken to several people that work with him and for him, and they've told me he's serious. And I think that was reflected (Sunday) when he had several other appointments yet he sat through a three-hour meeting of our executive committee," Hunter said.

Hicks
06-28-2004, 11:43 PM
*groan* There better not be another lockout. The last one sucked.

Young
06-28-2004, 11:49 PM
Please no. I love the summers cuz no school but hate them because no NBA then.

Kstat
06-28-2004, 11:50 PM
Someone better sign Michael Curry this offseason. He's by FAR the best union president the NBA has had since since Bob Lanier. I shrudder to think of what SHAQ might do.....

That said, there won't be another lockout. This is all just strategy. There simply aren;t enough serious issues between the two sides like there we in 1998.

Young
06-28-2004, 11:52 PM
Pacers number one priority this offseason:

Sign Michael Curry.:bowdown:

Unclebuck
06-28-2004, 11:54 PM
Someone better sign Michael Curry this offseason. He's by FAR the best union president the NBA has had since since Bob Lanier. I shrudder to think of what SHAQ might do.....

That said, there won't be another lockout. This is all just strategy. There simply aren;t enough serious issues between the two sides like there we in 1998.



I completely agree with you on both of your points

Lord Helmet
06-29-2004, 01:21 AM
NOOOOO!!!In the last one wasn't the season cut short to 50 or 40 games?

Kegboy
06-29-2004, 01:27 AM
Well, I knew that AD had been heavily involved with the union for some time, so I did a little research.

http://www.nbpa.com/aboutus/committee.html

It notes that Tony is 1st VP, with 7 other veeps, and Pat Garrity as Secretary and Treasurer. :laugh:

Alonzo Mourning is one of the veeps, so I would assume that Shaq is taking his spot. The same as I would assume that Tony would take over as President if Curry retires, though I'm sure he'd need to be elected.

The wierd thing about Shaq is, he's not one of the player reps. I don't know if he's EVER been. And he just up and gets to be a VP. Strange.

It should also be noted that the Pacers are one of 6 teams that doesn't have a player rep listed. Hmm.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Brad used to be our rep. We probably hadn't chosen a new one after he was traded by the time they listed this.
---
:duel:
[edit=67=1088487157]addition

Anthem
06-29-2004, 02:37 AM
The funny thing is, the last CBA was a good thing. It went a long way towards ensuring that the league is sustainable. It drastically increased the NBA's "minimum wage." There's only a very small number of players that would have been better off under the old system.

Doug in CO
06-29-2004, 05:54 AM
I love that Patrick Ewing quote - I can't believe I had forgotten that... no wonder John Thompson tried to keep him away from the media

indygeezer
06-29-2004, 06:47 AM
They talk as if the LT is the big issue, but from what they've said in past it wit's a smokescreen for an age limit. The LT will become a bargaining chip. And nobody thought there'd REALLY be a lockout in '98 either.


[B]POSSE'S AND HANGER-ONS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!
THROW OFF THOSE SHACKLES THAT BIND YOU. THE EVIL EMPIRE OF THE PLAYER YOU REPRESENT HAS HAD IT'S DAY AND NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE BROTHERHOOD TO WALK ARM-IN-ARM TO DEMAND FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL WHO WOULD BE LEECHES.

ABADays
06-29-2004, 08:35 AM
Yeah sure - go ahead, damage the game even more.

beast23
06-29-2004, 09:10 AM
Funny thing is you have the owners and the players represented.

Too bad the fans aren't represented.

Maybe the owners and the players would start making concessions to the fans and the ticket prices would start to roll back after a couple of years..... and much reduced salaries.

Suaveness
06-29-2004, 09:53 AM
98 was bad...

But I don't think it'll happen again.

indygeezer
06-29-2004, 10:46 AM
Funny thing is you have the owners and the players represented.

Too bad the fans aren't represented.

Maybe the owners and the players would start making concessions to the fans and the ticket prices would start to roll back after a couple of years..... and much reduced salaries.
++++++++++

Our only option is to not attend or watch the games.
But then all you hear is biatching about how the fans of xyz don't supprot their team and ain't it a shame etc. Oh, and 10,000 threads about how it's emabarrasing for Conseco to have empty seats and quiet crowds.

Kstat
06-29-2004, 12:01 PM
Funny thing is you have the owners and the players represented.

Too bad the fans aren't represented.

Maybe the owners and the players would start making concessions to the fans and the ticket prices would start to roll back after a couple of years..... and much reduced salaries.



......yeah, I can see that. A multi-billion-dollar corporation saying "hey, we can make all this money, but why should we? Lets all voluntarily make LESS....:rolleyes:

Nobody here would do that in their own professions, so why should they? As long as people are going to the games, they should see no reason to cut back prices.

MSA2CF
06-29-2004, 12:04 PM
STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS TOPIC YOU"LL ONLY JINX IT! THE END OF THE WORLD IS COMING NOW, THANKS GREAT YOU GUYS!

;)

Sorry, I just wondered how it felt to type like Sassan. :P No offense, buddy.

DisplacedKnick
06-29-2004, 12:43 PM
There won't be a lockout this time. This will be a tweak contract - at least compared with '98 when a slew of entirely new concepts were introduced.

The issues just aren't big enough to screw the game up again.

Though if a laockout meant the Knicks would get to the finals again ...

rabid
06-29-2004, 01:49 PM
Funny thing is you have the owners and the players represented.

Too bad the fans aren't represented.

Maybe the owners and the players would start making concessions to the fans and the ticket prices would start to roll back after a couple of years..... and much reduced salaries.



......yeah, I can see that. A multi-billion-dollar corporation saying "hey, we can make all this money, but why should we? Lets all voluntarily make LESS....:rolleyes:

Nobody here would do that in their own professions, so why should they? As long as people are going to the games, they should see no reason to cut back prices.

:rolleyes:

A little lesson in economics for you: lower ticket prices do not automatically result in lower profits - especially when you're having trouble selling out games.

The more people that can afford to go to your games, the larger your fan base gets. The larger your fan base, the more merchandise you sell and the higher your TV ratings get.

Kstat
06-29-2004, 01:54 PM
Funny thing is you have the owners and the players represented.

Too bad the fans aren't represented.

Maybe the owners and the players would start making concessions to the fans and the ticket prices would start to roll back after a couple of years..... and much reduced salaries.



......yeah, I can see that. A multi-billion-dollar corporation saying "hey, we can make all this money, but why should we? Lets all voluntarily make LESS....:rolleyes:

Nobody here would do that in their own professions, so why should they? As long as people are going to the games, they should see no reason to cut back prices.

:rolleyes:

A little lesson in economics for you: lower ticket prices do not automatically result in lower profits - especially when you're having trouble selling out games.

The more people that can afford to go to your games, the larger your fan base gets. The larger your fan base, the more merchandise you sell and the higher your TV ratings get.


In this case, if they're making money and selling tickets the way things ARE, then lowering ticket prices WOULD reduce profits. A lot of pro teams not located in Indianapolis DO sell out games, and many of the ones that dont flat out stink and wouldnt draw fans anyhow.

If a team is making money now and telling seats, lowering ticket prices wotn help profits any.

If your issue is with Pacer ticket prices, then address them directly. Dont group the entire NBA in with the "poor fans cant go to the games" routine.

Will Galen
06-29-2004, 02:31 PM
We get our information from the media, so
no one on here has any viable information on whether there will be a strike or not. Things change, people have their own agendas, etc.

What I thought of when reading this is Reggie has an option year after this one. If there's a strike, I believe Reggie will retire for sure.

As for Shaq, what does he have in common with the average player? Why is he suddenly interested in being a union guy? He was just quoted that he looks after himself first. I like Shaq as a person, but I suspect his motive in joining the union.

Anybody remember what it was that Michael Jordan wanted when he was still in the league? Maybe Shaq is wanting the same thing.

Skaut_Ech
06-29-2004, 03:11 PM
..We get a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money..--Patrick Ewing

We have families and our competitive juices are
flowing. Right now we are being neglected and and it's an unfortunate situation. --Alonzo Mourning


ARRGHHHH!!!! First they argued over semantics..lockout...strike..WHATEVER!! I actually quit attending games, stopped posting on the NDYSTAR forum and watched a bare minimum of games due to that damn situation.

Does the NBA care that they didn't get my time or money. I'm sure not, but I felt it was a symbolic stand.

I don't know of any other fan who followe suit.

Let me share an old article that I though really hit point for me at the time:

*******************************************

Maverick just antsy to hoop it up again

01/01/99

By Tim Cowlishaw / The Dallas Morning News

At this time of year, we like to engage in behavior that makes us
feel better about ourselves. Contribute to a charity, feed the
homeless, adopt a pet - there is no shortage of good deeds to be done.

I finally got around to pulling my share of the load this week. I took
an NBA player to lunch.

Specifically, I took my new favorite NBA player to
lunch. The rewards, listening to Chris Anstey speak, were all mine.
And now they need to be shared with you.

Anstey was a rookie with the Mavericks last
season, in case you don't remember the Mavericks.
His is not a voice you have heard from on a regular
basis during the NBA's lockout, now in its sixth
yawn-inspiring month.

Mostly, we hear from Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning
and the rest of the David Falk puppets who echo the
hard-line stance of union negotiator Billy Hunter.

But Anstey isn't interested in following the rest of
the players over the cliff. Anstey is from Australia,
so he brings a different perspective to this pro
sports strike-lockout nonsense to which we have
all grown accustomed in this country.

"I think it's a joke," Anstey said. "To be arguing
over what percentage of the revenues we should be
getting is irrelevant. The owners own the business.
There wouldn't be a game without them.

"Sure, the players are the products, but I'm sure
many or most of the players own their own
businesses or clothing lines or whatever. What if
their clothing salesmen came up to them and said,
'We are your business, we want 50 percent of your
revenues.' It's crazy."

The union won't like hearing those words, not with
the cracks that are showing up elsewhere around
the league. European players are headed back to
Europe to play. Anstey said he has had offers from
Australia but wants to wait it out.

Toronto's Kevin Willis has had the audacity to say
the players should be allowed to vote on the
owners' latest proposal. The union leadership, of
course, won't allow that to happen.

Anstey wrote a letter to Hunter a month ago,
detailing his thoughts and seeking a response, even
a nasty one. It never came.

Anstey, like Willis and others who remain silent,
thinks the players should be permitted to vote.

"I can only speak for myself. Maybe others would
vote it down, and if that's the case, fine. Then the
union would be following the wishes of a majority
of players," he said. "I read the last proposal [from
commissioner David Stern], and I thought it was
fine.

"I mean, I can't believe we're arguing about these
things. I played four years in a league in Australia
where the salary cap was about $500,000 per
team for 12 players. And that was still a good
salary there."

Anstey is below the NBA average with his
three-year deal that will pay him a little more than
$3 million. Or would have paid him that, if not for
the lockout.

"When I get my paychecks here every fortnight, I
feel guilty. I guess it was the way I was brought up.
My dad is an accountant. He has been working for
30 years. I make in one year now what it takes him
to make in 10 or 15. And he works a lot harder
than I do.

"The game is bigger than the players, and everyone
has to recognize that. The people getting hurt by
this aren't the players but the people who work in
the arenas, the kids who sweep the floors and all of
that," Anstey said.

Thank you, Chris. Here, have some more fries.

"My reason for coming here was to become a
better player, to play in the best league in the world
against the best players in the world. I've got a lot
of development to do, and I can't do it just
practicing. We've got to get something done soon,"
he said.

For now, Anstey practices and waits. And he
hopes every day for news that the lockout will end.
And he gets his news from . . . where?
"[ESPN's] Sportscenter, mainly," he said, with a
laugh. "We get newsletters from the union, pretty
biased stuff. But I haven't heard from [Mavs player
rep] A.C. Green. I don't know where he is, to tell
you the truth."

So the NBA creeps closer to suicide. Players with
the highest average salaries in sports want more.
Owners, who locked out players now because by
next year none could legitimately argue they were
losing money, want more.

Anstey just wants to play. And if the top-end
players like Ewing and Mourning were really
looking out for the little guys like Anstey - if you
can call a seven-footer making $1 million per year
little - then there would be an agreement and there
would be games, and every hoops junkie would
have a happy new year.

Instead, it's just a mess.

So happy 24th birthday, Chris. This one's on me.

******************************************

Impending strike? Lockout? FUUCC...:bs::finger::wtf::crazy::censored::scream: