PDA

View Full Version : NBA files suit against NBPA



wintermute
08-02-2011, 12:23 PM
http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/31052471

NBA files suit against NBPA

By Matt Moore

The NBA today announced it is filing suit against the NBPA for "unfair labor practices" with the National Labor Relations Board, countering the same move from the NBPA last month, and a federal suit to pre-emptively cut off any potential civil actions pertaining to antitrust law violations.

From the NBA's release:



NBA FILES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE AND FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST NBPA

NEW YORK, August 2, 2011 – The NBA filed two claims today against the National Basketball Players Association: an unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board, and a lawsuit in federal district court in New York. The unfair labor practice charge asserts that the Players Association has failed to bargain in good faith by virtue of its unlawful threats to commence a sham “decertification” and an antitrust lawsuit challenging the NBA’s lockout. The federal lawsuit seeks to establish, among other things, that the NBA's lockout does not violate federal antitrust laws and that if the Players Association's “decertification” were found to be lawful, all existing player contracts would become void and unenforceable.

“These claims were filed in an effort to eliminate the use of impermissible pressure tactics by the union which are impeding the parties’ ability to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement,” said NBA Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer Adam Silver. “For the parties to reach agreement on a new CBA, the union must commit to the collective bargaining process fully and in good faith.”


You may remember these moves from "NFL Lockout 2011" and "What The League Said It Didn't Want To Do." This is essentially a pre-emptive strike to cut off the union's legal maneuverability at the knees. Whether this indicates that the NBPA threatened decertification in Monday's meeting after reports of an agent mutiny pushing for legal moves last week is unclear. What is clear is that the NBA is not kidding around about winning this lockout using any and all available means. For months, the league and the union have both said they wanted to avoid taking this dispute into the courts because of how bitter and drawn out it can become. Then in a month and a day, we now have three different legal charges from the two sides including a federal lawsuit.

Don't say Ken Berger of CBSSports.com didn't warn you when he predicted this precise scenario last week. The NFL used the exact same description of the decertification approach in their legal battles, calling the NFLPA's decertification a "sham." Stern's comments after Monday's bargaining session seem like premonition at this point. Ken Berger notes that this is as much about setting the venue as the federal court as it is about anything else. It's a move by the NBA to get the ball in the court they want it, so to speak.

We've hit a new level and all-out legal warfare is now in play.

Oh, fun.

-----

This isn't news that anyone wanted to hear, I think. But it seems like the NBA has gone for the nuclear option.

I guess today's bargaining session didn't go well.

Brad8888
08-02-2011, 12:28 PM
Eek...:-o

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/NBA-takes-legal-action-against-locked-out-players-080211


NBA takes legal action against players
Updated Aug 2, 2011 11:42 AM ET
NEW YORK (AP)

The NBA has filed an unfair labor practice charge and a federal lawsuit against the NBA Players Association, accusing the players of failing to bargain ''in good faith'' and of ''impermissible pressure tactics'' in labor talks.

The claims were filed Tuesday.

The unfair labor practice charge was filed with the National Labor Relations Board. It accuses the players of making ''unlawful'' threats to break up their union and pursue an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA, a strategy used this year by NFL players to fight their lockout.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in New York. It asks the court to declare the NBA lockout does not break antitrust laws. The NBA also says it wants to void existing player contracts if the NBPA sheds its union status.

Welcome to HARDBALL...

Brad8888
08-02-2011, 12:33 PM
Please merge with wintermute thread.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 12:39 PM
The players are about to get BONED. Targets number 1: Players that signed contracts with other teams in Europe.

Brad8888
08-02-2011, 12:42 PM
Apparently, the owners want a season, and are hoping the threat of completely obliterating everything the players currently have will create the required incentive to negotiate within the players.

That said, I wonder if the NBA is crossing a line with respect to good faith negotiations by preemptively striking against the players with this lawsuit. If courts found that to be so, the players would not have to budge and could even enjoy a little bump in public opinion supporting their side in this "negotiation".

Otherwise, both sides seem to be "negotiating" the heck out of each other without the benefit of either dinner or even a kiss.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 12:45 PM
Isn't it not negotiating in good faith to go and take a contract over seas for less money than what the NBA wants to pay you? Sorry, but I don't have pity on the NBA players, they have a good deal, they are being asked to make some slight concessions and they are saying "Look I know you're paying me about 14 million and you only want to pay me about 10 million so in order to prove my point, I'm going to go take a 2 million dollar contract to play in Turkey." Um...what?

Does that make sense to anyone? Because it shouldn't.

Hicks
08-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Well, at least this is happening August 2nd instead of later into the year, I guess.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 12:48 PM
Well, at least this is happening August 2nd instead of later into the year, I guess.

I agree it certainly seems to be a gauntlet being thrown down. Could make it very ugly, but it also could accelerate the process. There will probably be some casualties along the way though.

wintermute
08-02-2011, 12:53 PM
A few more details:

From Gabe Feldman http://twitter.com/#!/SportsLawGuy



By making first move, NBA now has home (federal) court advantage.

NY is in Second Circuit. Second Circuit has been very favorable to NBA in previous antitrust litigation with the players.

For those keeping score: NBPA is rep'd by same attorney who rep'd NFLPA. NBA is represented by same firm that rep'd the NFL.

NBA has retained Paul Clement, former solicitor general, who argued NFL's appeal in front of 8th Circuit. It's the same, old song...


From Larry Coon http://twitter.com/#!/LarryCoon



Complaint says: 1) Failed to bargain in good faith; 2) Unlawful threats to commence a sham decertification; 3) Lockout doesn't violate antitrust laws; 4) If decertification is lawful, then all contracts are null & void.


I don't know how much impact these legal manuevers will have. After all, at the end of the day, the league and players still need to hammer out a CBA between them - no court is going to dictate the terms of an agreement.

It does show though that the 2 sides are still very far apart, enough that they are still escalating the conflict rather than trying to find common ground. Very depressing.

The threat to declare all existing contracts null & void is interesting. Does the NBA really want that? Would be a huge mess for the owners too. Though I think if they do carry out their threat, the NBA will eventually reinstate all old contracts in a new CBA.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 12:55 PM
Wow, those law firms are getting PAID this summer. They must love this.

Brad8888
08-02-2011, 12:58 PM
:banghead:

:boxer:

:bond:

:mjpopcorn:
:vaderno:
:ohsnap:
:haha:

:signit:

Kstat
08-02-2011, 12:59 PM
The difference between the NFL and NBA is the NBA is being proactive and not waiting for the players to make the first move.

Like I said before, they do not want to get into an all-out war with David Stern. He got to where he is today by being damn near unbeatable as the NBA's top attorney. I don't believe he's ever been defeated in court since he's worked for the NBA, and he's not going to start now.

wintermute
08-02-2011, 01:02 PM
Isn't it not negotiating in good faith to go and take a contract over seas for less money than what the NBA wants to pay you? Sorry, but I don't have pity on the NBA players, they have a good deal, they are being asked to make some slight concessions and they are saying "Look I know you're paying me about 14 million and you only want to pay me about 10 million so in order to prove my point, I'm going to go take a 2 million dollar contract to play in Turkey." Um...what?

Does that make sense to anyone? Because it shouldn't.

Nah, that's not what the league is complaining about. They're pre-empting the players in case they try the decertification tactic (which the NFLPA did).

If anything, players going overseas is a good thing for the NBA. One condition for a lockout is that workers (players) shouldn't be deprived of their means of livelihood. The NBA can gleefully point to the few players with big overseas contracts while the pressure continues for the majority of players unable or unwilling to go overseas.

Kstat
08-02-2011, 01:05 PM
Nah, that's not what the league is complaining about. They're pre-empting the players in case they try the decertification tactic (which the NFLPA did).

If anything, it's a good thing for the NBA. One condition for a lockout is that workers (players) shouldn't be deprived of their means of livelihood. The NBA can gleefully point to the few players with big overseas contracts while the pressure continues for the majority of players unable or unwilling to go overseas.

This.

From the beginning, I had a feeling that the NBA's total lack of apathy towards players going overseas was a bit chilling, against the NBAPA's enthusiasm for sending their guys overseas.

It;s going to backfire on them. Just a matter of time.

Brad8888
08-02-2011, 01:06 PM
Seems like the NBA is choosing to go uptempo, while having a dominant inside game, while the players are attmpting to go to the four corners with no shot clock to minimize the impact of the inferiority of their squad compared to the owners.

The question is, will the small school win, or will the big city school simply overpower it with speed, shooting, and a huge front line?

BillS
08-02-2011, 01:54 PM
From the beginning, I had a feeling that the NBA's total lack of apathy towards players going overseas was a bit chilling

Total lack of apathy? Wouldn't that be over-the-top enthusiasm? :zip:

Kstat
08-02-2011, 02:10 PM
My point is they did absolutely nothing to stop it. They never even attempted to curb it.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 02:14 PM
Nah, that's not what the league is complaining about. They're pre-empting the players in case they try the decertification tactic (which the NFLPA did).

If anything, players going overseas is a good thing for the NBA. One condition for a lockout is that workers (players) shouldn't be deprived of their means of livelihood. The NBA can gleefully point to the few players with big overseas contracts while the pressure continues for the majority of players unable or unwilling to go overseas.

I'm just saying the player's logic in that decision makes no sense.

The NBA is paying you 14 million

They want to be paying you 10 million

So your solution is to go play in Turkey for 2 million? How does that make sense?

Speed
08-02-2011, 02:33 PM
I'm just saying the player's logic in that decision makes no sense.

The NBA is paying you 14 million

They want to be paying you 10 million

So your solution is to go play in Turkey for 2 million? How does that make sense?

I see more like, during the lockout the NBA is paying you zero, so you can go make 2 million until its settled.

Since86
08-02-2011, 02:36 PM
I see more like, during the lockout the NBA is paying you zero, so you can go make 2 million until its settled.

If you actually think about it, but the NBPA is hoping you'll buy their "we have other and equal opportunities elsewhere" line.

Speed
08-02-2011, 02:39 PM
If you actually think about it, but the NBPA is hoping you'll buy their "we have other and equal opportunities elsewhere" line.

If I was Stern, I'd consider it free advertisement for his product, actually. I wouldn't care at all, there isn't an infrastructure to make this a solution for the players, at all. I guess if a 'star' got hurt, but to me thats really the only downside.

BillS
08-02-2011, 02:40 PM
My point is they did absolutely nothing to stop it. They never even attempted to curb it.

That would be a lack of <i>antipathy</i>, probably. Lack of opposition is what you seem to be going for, I think, rather than a lack of lack of caring.

LetsTalkPacers
08-02-2011, 02:41 PM
Well, at least this is happening August 2nd instead of later into the year, I guess.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nz4KmMvuX24/TZ4g0TvL4YI/AAAAAAAABIk/F1D_LTnIYHo/s320/Glass%2BHalf%2BFull%2Bblog.jpg

Speed
08-02-2011, 02:44 PM
Camp should be scheduled to open in 2 months, they need to get something going, thats for sure.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 02:57 PM
I wasn't necessarily saying the players playing overseas is bad for the NBA, but it is bad for the players.

Sookie
08-02-2011, 03:09 PM
If you actually think about it, but the NBPA is hoping you'll buy their "we have other and equal opportunities elsewhere" line.

No, but that's not the point.

The NBA and the Euroleague or whereever, isn't looking for equal opportunities.

It's a need factor.

The NBA players don't NEED the NBA. Sure, they'd make less money..but they don't HAVE to negotiate anymore, they've got a job. (Unlike the last lockout)

This forces the NBA teams to concede some things, that they might not have had to, if all of those players were out of work.

The funny thing is, I think the league's team's need to fix a few things before even looking at the players. Things like revenue sharing will help small market teams a heck of a lot more than cutting Granger's salary from 14 million to 10 million.

I'm also more on the players side, I guess. It's not that I don't think they're overpaid..they are. But these NBA owners are business owners. Be smart with your money. You give out a bad contract, then deal with it. NBA players who are underpaid don't get to go "Oh hey, I should be making more money" and change the deal just because they signed a bad contract. Why should the owners get out of it?

Since86
08-02-2011, 03:29 PM
The leagues aren't looking for equal opportunities, the players are.

They're saying "Hey look, we can get paid big money by other leagues! You better pay us what we want."

When the reality of the situation is they can take a paycut from the NBA, and still make more money than going anywhere else.

Sookie
08-02-2011, 03:37 PM
The leagues aren't looking for equal opportunities, the players are.

They're saying "Hey look, we can get paid big money by other leagues! You better pay us what we want."

When the reality of the situation is they can take a paycut from the NBA, and still make more money than going anywhere else.

But I don't think that's the players point.

I think its

"You better pay us what you promised us, or we'll go elsewhere." And it doesn't matter that it's less. 10 mill, 14 mill, 5 mill..doesn't matter anyone can live well off of that. But 4 million less then you were promised. That's irritating. IMO, it's a power game more so than it is about money. This deals with players rights. Their point being, you can't give us less than what was offered in our contract. Not because it's less money, but it's because it's what you promised. It's the contract you guaranteed.


They aren't fighting with the overseas leagues. They're fighting the idea that a team can promise a player one amount, and then simply reduce it because NBA GM's got stupid.

Since86
08-02-2011, 03:45 PM
The length of the CBA is the thing promised. Once the CBA ended, so did the promise.

If that's the case, then the players need to go back a couple CBA's and hold up their end of the bargain.

You really don't think that the point of the NBPA floating out article after article, like this one http://www.slamonline.com/online/news-rumors/other-news/2011/07/kobe-bryant-open-to-playing-overseas/ isn't to put pressure on the NBA of losing it's stars to other leagues?

And the notion that GMs got stupid isn't the whole story. They got stupid because players got greedy, and you have to play ball in order to get their services. Just one GM can screw over the other 29 GMs, and shift the pay scale upwards.

That exact reason is why the AGENTS are pushing the NBPA to decertify. Agents don't care about the NBA, because they have MLB/NFL/NHL to pick up the slack. They care about their bottom dollar, and that means get the most money for their clients regardless if it means the league is better off, or worse off.

They don't care about the NBA.

Speed
08-02-2011, 03:49 PM
I bet no one of consequence goes overseas, I think they are bluffing, basically. If some do its going to be such a small group. I don't think it will have any impact. There may be some overseas barnstorming done, but I just think its all a ploy that has no punch in it as far as Stern is concerned.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 04:00 PM
The leagues aren't looking for equal opportunities, the players are.

They're saying "Hey look, we can get paid big money by other leagues! You better pay us what we want."

When the reality of the situation is they can take a paycut from the NBA, and still make more money than going anywhere else.

This is what I'm trying to say also.

Since86
08-02-2011, 04:08 PM
Waterminute and I discussed this very thing when Deron Williams first signed on. It doesn't make any sense, and IMHO it actually hurts the players stance.

If you feel like you're being compensated fairly when being paid $250,000 every month, or whatever the number is, then how can you try and say that the NBA is being unfair by trying to offer you 1 million per month? (going on memory that DWill is scheduled to make 16mil next year, and I put in a 25% pay decrease to 12mil instead. Divide that out by 12months to 1 mill per month)

All you've done is show that you're willing to work for a 1/4th of what you're currently being paid, in order to receive money, as you ***** about a 20% paycut, or whatever the final number is going to be.

Scot Pollard
08-02-2011, 05:13 PM
Another reason the owners will win.

I don't get how Stern isn't optimistic. Unless he secretly wants the players to win.

I think this is good news for the NBA as a whole as far as the hard cap being put in place.

We can use our cap space well.

d_c
08-02-2011, 07:40 PM
Waterminute and I discussed this very thing when Deron Williams first signed on. It doesn't make any sense, and IMHO it actually hurts the players stance.

If you feel like you're being compensated fairly when being paid $250,000 every month, or whatever the number is, then how can you try and say that the NBA is being unfair by trying to offer you 1 million per month? (going on memory that DWill is scheduled to make 16mil next year, and I put in a 25% pay decrease to 12mil instead. Divide that out by 12months to 1 mill per month)

All you've done is show that you're willing to work for a 1/4th of what you're currently being paid, in order to receive money, as you ***** about a 20% paycut, or whatever the final number is going to be.

I buy that, but on the players' part, this really isn't about the principle. That's not why they're doing this.

As it was mentioned somewhere else, these lockouts and negotiations are about one main thing: pain threshold.

The players and owners know the NBA is not going to fold up and go away. There WILL be an NBA. It's just a matter of when. It's not as if they're going to fold the league. There's too much money to be made.

Everyone knows that there will eventually be a league, so this is about who is going to cry uncle sooner between the players and owners. The players want to make some extra cash to soften the blow of negotiating while at the same time not playing in the NBA. That's pretty much it.

I would venture to guess that in year 1, the players are probably going to hurt more. Particularly with the guys who live paycheck to paycheck. But if it rolls into year 2, the owners are going to start hurting pretty badly too, as they have employees, staff, maintenance and all sorts of other expenses to pay for while not making a single cent of revenue to show for it.

Really, the biggest problem for the players using Europe as a leveraging ploy is that there just aren't nearly enough open spots for NBA players to make it a viable tactic on a large scale. Does anybody even think 10% of all NBA players will find a job in the Euro Leagues? I've got my doubts.

Constellations
08-02-2011, 07:50 PM
I have no sympathy for the players at all. The players are the enemies keeping us from a season.

Merz
08-02-2011, 08:15 PM
I have no sympathy for the players at all. The players are the enemies keeping us from a season.

Well technically, since it is a lockout and not a strike, the owners are the ones keeping us from a season. But it is something they need to do as the current system is broken. The owners are to blame as well. If they didn't agree to this broken system, just 13 years ago, they wouldn't have this problem now.

RLeWorm
08-02-2011, 08:39 PM
even though the sides are still very far apart im glad Stern is going to let them have their way. The players are ungrateful motherf******.

Isaac
08-02-2011, 08:45 PM
I'm just saying the player's logic in that decision makes no sense.

The NBA is paying you 14 million

They want to be paying you 10 million

So your solution is to go play in Turkey for 2 million? How does that make sense?

Well, the players deserve most of the share since they are the product that makes the NBA happen. The NBA creates at least 5 times more revenue than the Euroleagues do, so its only fair that the players make a lot more while playing in the NBA. They are the reason for all the money that is made off the NBA, why should they have to take pay cuts for mistakes the owners made? They love playing basketball and will do it for whatever amount of money, but they are the workers and are being treated the same way workers are treated in our society. Unfortunately our society rewards the people who make the money off the workers so the owners will win.

Pingu
08-02-2011, 09:11 PM
even though the sides are still very far apart im glad Stern is going to let them have their way. The players are ungrateful motherf******.

Care to elaborate on this point?

Isaac
08-02-2011, 09:15 PM
The owners are ungrateful motherf******.

Fixed

Hicks
08-02-2011, 10:10 PM
50/50 revenue sharing, multiply the luxury tax by at least three fold. Just get it over with.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 11:18 PM
Waterminute and I discussed this very thing when Deron Williams first signed on. It doesn't make any sense, and IMHO it actually hurts the players stance.

If you feel like you're being compensated fairly when being paid $250,000 every month, or whatever the number is, then how can you try and say that the NBA is being unfair by trying to offer you 1 million per month? (going on memory that DWill is scheduled to make 16mil next year, and I put in a 25% pay decrease to 12mil instead. Divide that out by 12months to 1 mill per month)

All you've done is show that you're willing to work for a 1/4th of what you're currently being paid, in order to receive money, as you ***** about a 20% paycut, or whatever the final number is going to be.

Yep, it's completely *** backwards logic.

Trader Joe
08-02-2011, 11:19 PM
Well, the players deserve most of the share since they are the product that makes the NBA happen. The NBA creates at least 5 times more revenue than the Euroleagues do, so its only fair that the players make a lot more while playing in the NBA. They are the reason for all the money that is made off the NBA, why should they have to take pay cuts for mistakes the owners made? They love playing basketball and will do it for whatever amount of money, but they are the workers and are being treated the same way workers are treated in our society. Unfortunately our society rewards the people who make the money off the workers so the owners will win.

Sorry, but that argument goes out the window once you accept a lower pay somewhere else.

wintermute
08-03-2011, 04:03 AM
Waterminute and I discussed this very thing when Deron Williams first signed on. It doesn't make any sense, and IMHO it actually hurts the players stance.

If you feel like you're being compensated fairly when being paid $250,000 every month, or whatever the number is, then how can you try and say that the NBA is being unfair by trying to offer you 1 million per month? (going on memory that DWill is scheduled to make 16mil next year, and I put in a 25% pay decrease to 12mil instead. Divide that out by 12months to 1 mill per month)

All you've done is show that you're willing to work for a 1/4th of what you're currently being paid, in order to receive money, as you ***** about a 20% paycut, or whatever the final number is going to be.

Do you mean me? :D

As I recall, what I stated then is that Deron with an opt-out is worth a lot less than Deron with a multi-year obligation. So you can't compare the numbers directly.

And anyway, as just about everybody has pointed out (including yourself), it's about putting pressure on the other side. No one seriously thinks that Deron will choose to play for less in Turkey when (not if) the NBA resumes.

I don't think the union's strategy isn't going to be effective though, simply because there aren't enough places for all 450+ NBA players. What they could do, is find places for the 20 or so stars (the Kobes, Lebrons, etc) and basically use that as blackmail against the owners (Hey Jerry Buss! How do you like to see Kobe wearing out his knees on some Chinese court?). It could backfire though if the non-elite players start to resent the ones who are better off, plus for all the talk there's no guarantee that most of the other stars will follow Deron's lead - there's significant risk to the players involved, after all.

On the other hand, there simply aren't many options for the players' union at this point. Decertification was their big legal weapon, and Stern is aiming to take that away. It would have helped the union a lot if they have a significant war chest saved up, but I've heard nothing of that sort.

wintermute
08-03-2011, 04:12 AM
For everyone saying the players are overpaid, what do you think of David Stern making between $20m-$23m a year? That's a nice salary for a chief executive who's claiming that his corporation is losing $300m a year.

A while ago, Hicks posted a question asking how the lockout is David Stern's fault. Well, here's Wojo's take on it

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AqOHVHisZHdl3ORycy1P3ke8vLYF?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_080111


Players union bends under Stern’s rule
By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports Aug 1, 12:25 pm EDT

As the calendar flips to August, the NBA still unmoved with a take-it-or-leave-it offer for the Players Association, here’s the question the union ought to be asking itself: Why is the easiest, most logical target in this labor Armageddon untouched, unscathed and remarkably unchallenged?

Why is the union so afraid of David Stern?

The union talks about the owners, and it never registers with the public. The owners are a vague, fairly anonymous cast of characters who elicit no loathing, no emotion. Hard to rip Mark Cuban when he’s willing to go deep into the luxury tax, lose money and win a championship. Most fans wish he owned their team, instead of some of these deadbeats. And yet, Stern is the figure who most fans are dubious over, from his iron-fist control of officiating, to his complicity in hustling the Sonics out of Seattle, to his arrogance of ruling the league like a small-town mayor without term limits.

The reason for the union finally scheduling a meeting with the owners on Monday in New York City is simple: Union officials are trying to convince the players they’re doing something, but it’s worthless. This is a show. There’s nothing to negotiate, nothing to discuss. The NBA commissioner has made sure of it. Stern promised a new crop of owners that should they buy into the NBA, he’d give them the most one-sided labor deal in the history of sports. No fan has sympathy for these two sides, nor should they. Just understand this, though: When the NBA goes silent for a full year following a most wildly successful season, Stern will deserve full blame for the sport’s shutdown.

He won’t stand up to these owners, and why should he? He has the greatest job in sports, and someday soon he’ll be the highest-paid player in the NBA. Stern doesn’t need to push his owners on revenue sharing – the most viable solution for long-term league solvency – when it’s so much easier to go after the players and shut the sport down. He’s taking the easy way out, but it’s understandable considering the staggering salary these owners pay him.

Strange, but the union never has the courage to bring up the mystery surrounding Stern’s salary. Many owners don’t even know what Stern makes. “I’d say three or less know,” one NBA owner told Yahoo! Sports. Several believe it’s somewhere in the range of $20 million to $23 million a year, but no one knows for sure. Maybe it’s more than that, but the fact that some owners don’t know the answer is beyond belief.

Mostly, it speaks to the authoritarian culture created within the league office, and how Stern carries it out through the NBA. Some younger owners have been warned to never push the issue with him, never ask, because it’s simply unadvisable to get on the wrong side of the commissioner.

Everyone is so scared of Stern. They want to work in the league again, and know he has the power to crush them. This is part of the reason so many are watching Players Association president Derek Fisher closely now. Will he ever come out swinging at Stern? After all, from owners to team executives to agents, everyone knows the dirty little secret of that job. Play ball with Stern in labor talks, and history shows the league will take care of you.

Bob Lanier has been on scholarship as an NBA ambassador for two decades. Isiah Thomas was given part ownership and the general manager’s job with the expansion Toronto Raptors. When that imploded, Thomas landed a league-sanctioned analyst’s job for NBC. Lanier and Thomas were smart and tough in processes, but Stern’s message is hard to miss. Eventually, you’ll all work for us again.

After retiring with the Detroit Pistons, Michael Curry scored a job as the NBA’s vice president of basketball operations. Antonio Davis has an NBA television job. In labor talks, they were considered the enemy, but the underlying message for everyone in that job is unmistakable. Don’t push Stern too hard, don’t go nuclear. It goes on and on.

So, yes, everyone waits on Fisher now. He has big aspirations post-basketball, big possibilities. Stern knows it, too. It’s no accident that Stern’s deputy, Adam Silver, fawns over Fisher in stories. Oh, it’s so great to have him across the negotiating table. Yes, that’s just what the union rank and file should want to hear.

Will Fisher ever try throwing haymakers with the commissioner? He’s the consummate politician, but reason will get the union nowhere with these owners. The NBA doesn’t want negotiation, it wants capitulation. That’s why Monday’s talks were a waste of time, why nothing will happen until November and December when the players start missing checks. That’s when these owners – whatever they pay Stern – expect him to come for the kill, come to take everything back. If the players put up a fight, there’s no basketball this season. And that will be on David Stern, always and forever. There’s a case to be made in public now, the case of the commissioner, and now is the time to find out whether the union has the stomach for it.

Roaming Gnome
08-03-2011, 07:39 AM
I have no sympathy for the players at all. The players are the enemies keeping us from a season.

Complete nonsense! It's both sides that are keeping this lockout going. I've never understood why owners in sports always seem to get a free pass when it comes to fan ire over a work stoppage in any sport. Is it the money the players make? Well, let me throw this out there.... Do you not think Schick, T-Mobile, Anheuser Busch and Right Guard pay TNT and ABC/ESPN millions upon millions of dollars to have their products advertised? What about the said networks and their billion dollar rights fees they gladly fork over to the league? It seems like a lot of you feel the players should make a wage comparable to "Joe 6-Pack" because he is just "playing a game" while the owners just get over and essentially print their own money. Last time I checked, NBA style basketball will still be played in Fort Wayne this fall, but no one will care because it isn't the league.... It's the players that make it worth watching.

As for this lockout, I wholeheartedly feel the players have to give concessions because the model for this league has been broken for a while as far as competitive balance goes, but for the owners to bankroll all these changes on the players alone is just going to lead to missed games. If the NBA is truly losing in the neighborhood of $300M a season, it stands to reason with me that yeah, you have to recoup some of that from player salaries, but the owners also have to seriously look at revenue sharing to be taken seriously from who they are trying to "collectively bargain" with!

Personally, I don't feel this is any kind of negotiation, just a waiting game for checks to get missed and like the past lockout, the real negotiations won't start until there is some pain felt.

Unclebuck
08-03-2011, 09:02 AM
50/50 revenue sharing, multiply the luxury tax by at least three fold. Just get it over with.


Yeah, I have been thinking that seems like an easy solution to me, because with the escrow clause in place all you need to do is adjust the revenue split and you are good to go. The owners need to work out a revenue sharing system amongst themselves, and after that we should be good to go.

Trader Joe
08-03-2011, 09:20 AM
Whoa, the NFL owners did not get a break, they looked pretty bad in the media IMO.

Since86
08-03-2011, 10:01 AM
Do you mean me? :D

Yes, sorry.

As I recall, what I stated then is that Deron with an opt-out is worth a lot less than Deron with a multi-year obligation. So you can't compare the numbers directly.[/QUOTE]

When you're paying for the services for a player, on a one year rental, the players usually get more money for that one year, compared to the first year of a mutli-year deal. I agree you can't compare the directly, and I'm not trying to really do that.

I'm saying DWil is severly UNDERPAID in Europe. Agreeing to a massive paycut, when you're union isn't wanting paycuts is stupid and it undercuts your leverage.




And anyway, as just about everybody has pointed out (including yourself), it's about putting pressure on the other side. No one seriously thinks that Deron will choose to play for less in Turkey when (not if) the NBA resumes.

Agreed. Which is why it's stupid for the NBPA to keep floating out all these articles that X superstar is open to the idea of playing overseas. It doesn't help your cause at all, and if they do sign, it actually hurts it. Less money, plus an outclause if/when the NBA starts back up again, shows that the NBA will still be king, regardless of how the new CBA shakes out.

Since86
08-03-2011, 10:04 AM
Fixed

IT'S THEIR MONEY!!!!!

If you don't like what you're getting paid for doing your job, then find a new freaking job!!!

The owners take ALL the risk. When they lose money, they don't say "Hey Kobe, I lost 10% this year so I'm reducing your salary by 10%." Hell no. They pay the full salary.

These players don't have a right to play in the NBA. Go out and find a different ****ing job, if your's is so awful. Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is pampered with a silver spoon.

Speed
08-03-2011, 10:19 AM
50/50 revenue sharing, multiply the luxury tax by at least three fold. Just get it over with.

For real, I can't find any holes in this basic logic. If the teams want cost control, triple luxury tax should be an incentive. If the players believe the Cubans and Lakers of the world will still exceed it, they'll make up a chunk of that percentage.

Sprinkle in some revenue sharing across teams and we have a deal.

I still think the new tv contract is a key carrot for getting the players to believe 50% of the new contract > 57% of the current.

BillS
08-03-2011, 10:49 AM
What is the actual league national TV contract? I had always heard it was a fraction of the contract for baseball or football, so not the huge cash cow so many assume it to be. Local TV is where the TV money comes from in the NBA, isn't it?

rexnom
08-03-2011, 11:07 AM
I don't care about who is right or wrong or whatever. I just want a hard cap and,in owners' negotiations, revenue sharing. It will safe guard our franchise for the long haul. This means backing the owners. As a fan, I'm willing to lose a season to get the hard cap.

Speed
08-03-2011, 12:00 PM
What is the actual league national TV contract? I had always heard it was a fraction of the contract for baseball or football, so not the huge cash cow so many assume it to be. Local TV is where the TV money comes from in the NBA, isn't it?

I found this so far, its a great question. I based my entire premise of it being a carrot for the players on the new TV contract, so I guess this makes sense to find out.

I have heard/seen that its being speculated they'll get a nice bump in the amount.

An article from June 2007.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2007-06-27-3096131424_x.htm

"The NBA will receive about $930 million a year for all its broadcast rights, an increase of more than 20 percent from the previous average of $767 million,..."

Speed
08-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Found this interesting...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/tv-dollars-give-nba-owners-advantage-over-players-during-lockout

.."
The networks that air NBAgames (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/tv-dollars-give-nba-owners-advantage-over-players-during-lockout#) are still on the hook to pay rights fees even if the season doesn’t start as planned.


The NBA’s (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/tv-dollars-give-nba-owners-advantage-over-players-during-lockout#) contract with ESPN/ABC is worth $485 million annually, while the contract with TNT is worth $445 million. That means the league will be paid $930 million -- or $31 million per team -- in national broadcast rights for this season. Owners, of course, are already losing substantial revenues, as sponsorships dry up and local broadcast rights stand unpaid. And deputy commissioner Adam Silver pointed out that the league gets the payment as a loan -- it would have to be paid back (with interest) if there are no games this year. But the national TV revenue stream does give the owners an advantage over players in the meantime..."

d_c
08-03-2011, 01:20 PM
Personally, I don't feel this is any kind of negotiation, just a waiting game for checks to get missed and like the past lockout, the real negotiations won't start until there is some pain felt.

That's exactly what it's about. It's not about some morals or principles. Each side is just trying to wait the other one out.

It's all about the pain threshold. All about when the guys who don't make the megabucks, don't have the mega endorsements and live check to check cry uncle. Or perhaps when the owners are sick and tired of paying for employees and maintaining their arenas while not earning any revenue.

That's when negotiations will really start and they'll actually come to a compromise.

Right everyone is they're just posturing, talking tough and drawing a line in the sand. Nothing more. We'll see exactly how deep their convictions are when they start feeling the pain of the lost revenue.

d_c
08-03-2011, 01:27 PM
These players don't have a right to play in the NBA. Go out and find a different ****ing job, if your's is so awful. Welcome to the real world, where not everyone is pampered with a silver spoon.

No, they don't have a right, but they're smart enough to know that the NBA is always going to return to operations eventually. They're smart enough to know that these rich NBA owners need them just like the players need the owners. After all, the owners just can't start a season and roll out a bunch of replacement players that they dig up from the local Y. Fans wouldn't pay for that.

If players somehow got the feeling that the NBA seriously might not ever come back, then yeah, I'm sure you'd see guys actually looking for a different job. But that's not happening because the owners still need them. They need the players because that's who the fans pay to watch.

Again, it's not about principles here. Not for the owners and players anyways. It's all about who can take more punishment from missing out on big checks.

You and I may and the rest of the fans may not like the way this is playing out (I certainly don't), but this is the cold hard reality we deal with. It's what happens when billions of dollars are on the table between a bunch of rich people. When that happens, you get a bunch of litigation, negotiation and posturing like we see now.

Unclebuck
08-03-2011, 01:31 PM
What is the actual league national TV contract? I had always heard it was a fraction of the contract for baseball or football, so not the huge cash cow so many assume it to be. Local TV is where the TV money comes from in the NBA, isn't it?


NFL is what is about 4 times the NBA. I believe MLB is in the same ballpark as the NBA.

Off the top of my head, I believe each NBA team receives approximately $32M per year from national TV.

I believe each NFL team received over $120M per year.

oops, I see Speed beat me to it

BillS
08-03-2011, 01:45 PM
"The NBA will receive about $930 million a year for all its broadcast rights, an increase of more than 20 percent from the previous average of $767 million,..."

so about $30M - or less than half the salary cap. Even less for the Pacers when you take out the Spirits Extortion/Best Sports Deal EVAH (pick one) money.

Helpful, but not particularly thrilling when compared to the assets of the big teams.

Since86
08-03-2011, 02:15 PM
No, they don't have a right, but they're smart enough to know that the NBA is always going to return to operations eventually. They're smart enough to know that these rich NBA owners need them just like the players need the owners. After all, the owners just can't start a season and roll out a bunch of replacement players that they dig up from the local Y. Fans wouldn't pay for that.

If players somehow got the feeling that the NBA seriously might not ever come back, then yeah, I'm sure you'd see guys actually looking for a different job. But that's not happening because the owners still need them. They need the players because that's who the fans pay to watch.

Again, it's not about principles here. Not for the owners and players anyways. It's all about who can take more punishment from missing out on big checks.

You and I may and the rest of the fans may not like the way this is playing out (I certainly don't), but this is the cold hard reality we deal with. It's what happens when billions of dollars are on the table between a bunch of rich people. When that happens, you get a bunch of litigation, negotiation and posturing like we see now.

And none of this addresses the OP that I quoted, calling the owners "greedy."

You don't end up owning a NBA franchise by making stupid investments, unless you were born with a massive trust fund already setup and ready to go.

These are smart businessmen, who either built their empires or are smart enough not to tank them.

You don't do that by throwing 15mil dollars down the drain, like the Simons were doing with PS&E.


Did I ever say the NBA didn't need players? No.

I said they don't have a right to work in the NBA. That's true. That's all I said, so let's stay within what I did say, and not try to take the conversation in another direction.

Will the NBA be stronger or weaker with players maxing out at 16mil per, rather than 20mil? Uh.... stronger. It would shift player salaries down, reducing salary payroll, making it actually profitable to own a franchise and invest into it.

A NBA player standing up and *****ing about making 16mil, instead of 20mil, pisses me off.

Whether we like it or not, the NBA is a business. The point of a business is to make money. If the league doesn't make money, it will fold. There's no way around it.

Hicks
08-03-2011, 03:05 PM
I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.

Sandman21
08-03-2011, 03:24 PM
I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.

Just lock them all in a room and don't let them out until either a deal is made or they die of thirst!:devil:

count55
08-03-2011, 04:14 PM
I just wish they were all smart enough as a collective to come about this with a sense of collaboration instead of divided sides each hoping to "bleed out" the other. The way they've taken this is never ideal.

It was the only way this could happen.

This isn't about splitting up money, though that's the simplest way to quantify it. The owners want to change the fundamental relationship, from a bizarre quasi-partnership to a more classic employer/employee relationship.

The players say - correctly - that this relationship is part of the basic compact between the two parties, and the owners have - in word and deed - treated them as both partners and the "product" to be promoted, thus confirming the players' status.

The owners say - correctly - that they made those agreements and took those actions at a different time in a different situation, and if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't. The model under which the NBA has operated is ****ed in the head, and the size and structure of player compensation is a huge drain on the league. It discourages growth into new markets, stability in current markets, and puts the players ahead of everything, including what they actually to believe to be the product - which is "the teams". (Of course, the teams are them, so it's an understandably self-serving argument.)

It is an unreasonable expectation to think that either side would willingly accede to a system that would satisfy the other without a fight. The only real possibility that no games would be missed was if the owners just simply decided to suck it up for another five years - which is what happened in 2005 - and that wasn't going to happen this time around.

The owners are always going to want a hard cap, limits on guaranteed contracts, and a compensation program that is not attached to revenue or revenue growth.

The players are never going to willingly agree to such a structure.

There is no real middle ground here. There's no area to collaborate.

As to making either side the "bad guy" or "good guy" in this, that's just a complete waste of time. Both want what they want. Both have well-developed justifications as to why they should get what they want. It's not like there's actually a "right" or "wrong" here. There's just the outcome.

The upcoming season was always less important to the two parties than the issues that they are fighting over. The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that the NFL is fundamentally healthy, and always has been. The NBA is fundamentally broken, and really, always has been - even during the huge growth of the '90's.

d_c
08-03-2011, 04:27 PM
Will the NBA be stronger or weaker with players maxing out at 16mil per, rather than 20mil? Uh.... stronger. It would shift player salaries down, reducing salary payroll, making it actually profitable to own a franchise and invest into it.

A NBA player standing up and *****ing about making 16mil, instead of 20mil, pisses me off.

Whether we like it or not, the NBA is a business. The point of a business is to make money. If the league doesn't make money, it will fold. There's no way around it.

Don't disagree with any of that.

My point is, there will be a compromise. And assuming everyone is smart and sees a money making opportunity, eventually they're going to a situation where taking the deal is going to be much better than not taking a deal.

I think the league's salary situation is in need of changes, sure. But how big are they going to be? Something tells me they're not going to be as big as the one the owners are demanding.

As you said, the owners have to make money. Right now, the owners aren't going to make any money because they're not going to play games. They have to compare whatever potential agreement is on the table to sitting and not making money.

The main thing I'm trying to get at is that someone eventually going to give in, and THAT is what's going to drive this negotiation process to a finish. And I'm guessing both sides are going to give in to some degree because both sides are going to be taking it on the chin in the "not earning any money to cover my expenses" department.

Since86
08-03-2011, 04:42 PM
The owners are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain.

I wonder if anyone has looked into how much the Simons are going to lose by sitting out this year?

Even if it's, say $50mil (which I doubt), they'll be better off after year 4 with a new deal (assuming they post a profit or break even) than they would have by keeping the old system in place.

Eleazar
08-03-2011, 05:01 PM
The owners are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain.

I wonder if anyone has looked into how much the Simons are going to lose by sitting out this year?

Even if it's, say $50mil (which I doubt), they'll be better off after year 4 with a new deal (assuming they post a profit or break even) than they would have by keeping the old system in place.

If they have been losing money on the Pacers like they say, Simon will actually increase his profit as he won't have to dip into his other businesses in order to pay for the Pacers.

BillS
08-03-2011, 05:18 PM
If they have been losing money on the Pacers like they say, Simon will actually increase his profit as he won't have to dip into his other businesses in order to pay for the Pacers.

Well, no, there are still costs even if they play no games. Come on, now, don't buy into the whole "the Simons get everything for free" stuff.

shags
08-03-2011, 11:50 PM
The bottom line is this:

The owners want to CRUSH the players in this deal. Absolutely destroy them. And what they're hoping for is a repeat of 1999, when a big reason the lockout ended was because too many players were running out of money.

That's why Billy Hunter has told players for 3 plus years to save their money. That's why one agent had 4 of his clients, including Zach Randolph and Ben Gordon, 2010-11 salaries paid over two seasons. That's why the NBPA is encouraging players to sign overseas.

The NBPA doesn't want to be forced into a bad deal because enough of the players are out of money. If the players have saved enough, or are earning money elsewhere, than they can afford to sit out a season. Reading anything else into the players signing overseas is ludicrous.

So, if I'm the players, and I'm confident enough that my clientele is secure enough financially to survive a missed season, I would tell the owners and David Stern to not even bother meeting with us until you've come up with a reasonable revenue sharing plan. There's no point to otherwise. I'd then float reasonable compromises such as a harder salary cap, less guaranteed contract years, and a lower % of BRI.

I'm not confident in there being a 2011-12 season. I think enough of the owners are willing to miss a season to get what they want, while enough of the players will be able to afford to miss a season financially. I hope I'm wrong.

Hicks
08-04-2011, 12:37 AM
It was the only way this could happen.

This isn't about splitting up money, though that's the simplest way to quantify it. The owners want to change the fundamental relationship, from a bizarre quasi-partnership to a more classic employer/employee relationship.

The players say - correctly - that this relationship is part of the basic compact between the two parties, and the owners have - in word and deed - treated them as both partners and the "product" to be promoted, thus confirming the players' status.

The owners say - correctly - that they made those agreements and took those actions at a different time in a different situation, and if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't. The model under which the NBA has operated is ****ed in the head, and the size and structure of player compensation is a huge drain on the league. It discourages growth into new markets, stability in current markets, and puts the players ahead of everything, including what they actually to believe to be the product - which is "the teams". (Of course, the teams are them, so it's an understandably self-serving argument.)

It is an unreasonable expectation to think that either side would willingly accede to a system that would satisfy the other without a fight. The only real possibility that no games would be missed was if the owners just simply decided to suck it up for another five years - which is what happened in 2005 - and that wasn't going to happen this time around.

The owners are always going to want a hard cap, limits on guaranteed contracts, and a compensation program that is not attached to revenue or revenue growth.

The players are never going to willingly agree to such a structure.

There is no real middle ground here. There's no area to collaborate.

As to making either side the "bad guy" or "good guy" in this, that's just a complete waste of time. Both want what they want. Both have well-developed justifications as to why they should get what they want. It's not like there's actually a "right" or "wrong" here. There's just the outcome.

The upcoming season was always less important to the two parties than the issues that they are fighting over. The difference between the NFL and the NBA is that the NFL is fundamentally healthy, and always has been. The NBA is fundamentally broken, and really, always has been - even during the huge growth of the '90's.

I mostly agree, but since the truth of the matter is eventually a deal will get done, why can't whichever side is weaker just admit that and work cooperatively towards a deal now rather than having to lose money and hurt the league and hurt the fans?

I'm assuming the players are the ones who will blink first, and while not all of them are the brightest crayons in the box, their representatives are, and those guys have to know what the reality is here. So why not admit it and think long and hard about what they will eventually concede, get it over with, and save the season?

I'm assuming the answer boils down to pride, and I guess, to me, that's just not good enough. They're only delaying the inevitable, and they're only making it harder than it has to be.

I think if they were going to see it my way, they would have gotten this done before July 1st, so I know I'd be wasting my time hoping for a change of heart now, but it just..... bothers me. I understand fighting a losing battle under a certain set of circumstances, but this isn't a war, and sooner or later they will all be "friends" again, so why not try harder to cut the crap?

Anthem
08-04-2011, 12:51 AM
Seems like the NBA is choosing to go uptempo, while having a dominant inside game, while the players are attmpting to go to the four corners with no shot clock to minimize the impact of the inferiority of their squad compared to the owners.

The question is, will the small school win, or will the big city school simply overpower it with speed, shooting, and a huge front line?

When do we run the picket fence?

Eleazar
08-04-2011, 01:29 AM
Well, no, there are still costs even if they play no games. Come on, now, don't buy into the whole "the Simons get everything for free" stuff.

I know, my point is though will he lose as much as he does during a normal season or not? I wasn't talking about the Pacers, I was talking about just Simon's own personal bank account. Without knowing how much it will cost without any Pacers games going on it is impossible to say if he will see a larger increase in money going into his bank account or if he will see less money go into his bank account.

count55
08-04-2011, 07:57 PM
I mostly agree, but since the truth of the matter is eventually a deal will get done, why can't whichever side is weaker just admit that and work cooperatively towards a deal now rather than having to lose money and hurt the league and hurt the fans?

I'm assuming the players are the ones who will blink first, and while not all of them are the brightest crayons in the box, their representatives are, and those guys have to know what the reality is here. So why not admit it and think long and hard about what they will eventually concede, get it over with, and save the season?

I'm assuming the answer boils down to pride, and I guess, to me, that's just not good enough. They're only delaying the inevitable, and they're only making it harder than it has to be.

I think if they were going to see it my way, they would have gotten this done before July 1st, so I know I'd be wasting my time hoping for a change of heart now, but it just..... bothers me. I understand fighting a losing battle under a certain set of circumstances, but this isn't a war, and sooner or later they will all be "friends" again, so why not try harder to cut the crap?

No one has any idea of what "the inevitable" is, nor is there any clear indication as to who is actually the "weaker" side.

If the two sides were monolithic entities that voted with a single voice, then the owners would be much, much stronger. It would be a virtual certainty that they could "outlast" the players in a war of attrition. But even then, the owners are exposed to legal risks - both under labor law, or potentially anti-trust litigation. These would be avenues that the players could pursue and have a reasonable chance of winning.

(Though, truthfully, neither side really wants it to spend significant time in a court, because courts are stupid and insane, and could end up requiring all of the players and owners to wear those ridiculously pointy bras that Madonna wore during one of her phases.)

The problem is that these are one-man, one-vote groups. In this regard, the NBPA is potentially stronger. The majority of their rank and file benefit enormously from the current deal, and stand to lose the most in any significant move away from it. It's not hard to keep guys from voting against "poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick."

The owners' situation is more complicated. There are owners who are getting killed by the system, and owners who are making a killing on the system, and a group that span the distance between.

The ones making a killing, like, say Jerry Buss, are already fine with making a settlement with the players on their terms. The ones getting killed will never vote for much less than what the owners are seeking in their latest proposal.

So it becomes all about the group in the middle, and you really only have to get 15 votes to approve a CBA for the owners. Henry Abbott said today that he had been told that the players really only needed to move 4 owners off the hard line to get "a reasonable deal for the players". The owners have to starve out probably more than 250 players.

When you couple this with the fact that the players don't believe the owners' claims of losing money - which can be more accurately stated as they don't have the remotest ****ing clue what any of the financial **** means - then I'd be willing to bet that most of them believe the owners are bluffing.

So, even if the players were to objectively decide they were "weaker", they can still see realistic paths to victory.

As to hurting the league, the problem is, both sides believe they are "the league." The players believe they're the product, and the owners believe that they are the stewards of the teams, and thus, the league. Each assumes what is in their best interest is in the league's best interest, so the only way they can "hurt the league" is to give in.

Hicks
08-04-2011, 08:06 PM
But at the end of the day, which group is going to run out of money first? That's clearly the players, right? Relatively speaking.

Sure, the owners can get hurt, too, but it's not the same thing as it is with the players. Even if it's really only about four owners, they probably can afford to wait longer to blink than those players can, in the long run.

speakout4
08-04-2011, 08:17 PM
I believe that the owners losing money as a group have to be desperate and less willing than the players to compromise. All players make money but all owners don't.. Why would owners who lose money capitulate and sign a CBA for 5 more years so they continue to lose the same or more money? What is their incentive? Players may make less but still make money.

So this lockout is about everyone, players and owners, losing money and the players can now get a taste of what it means to actually lose money. i would normally side with labor over management because in the usual case labor gets screwed but this isn't a normal labor management situation. It's almost as if the owners really work for the players and they are the ones getting screwed.

DaveP63
08-05-2011, 08:44 AM
But I don't think that's the players point.

I think its

"You better pay us what you promised us, or we'll go elsewhere." And it doesn't matter that it's less. 10 mill, 14 mill, 5 mill..doesn't matter anyone can live well off of that. But 4 million less then you were promised. That's irritating. IMO, it's a power game more so than it is about money. This deals with players rights. Their point being, you can't give us less than what was offered in our contract. Not because it's less money, but it's because it's what you promised. It's the contract you guaranteed.


They aren't fighting with the overseas leagues. They're fighting the idea that a team can promise a player one amount, and then simply reduce it because NBA GM's got stupid.

Let's play devils advocate for a second. Let's just assume that the owners are hard core, dead set, absolutely on board with busting this union up and getting things their own way (which is what I think), what happens if they say "So what. Go elsewhere"?

DaveP63
08-05-2011, 08:45 AM
I bet no one of consequence goes overseas, I think they are bluffing, basically. If some do its going to be such a small group. I don't think it will have any impact. There may be some overseas barnstorming done, but I just think its all a ploy that has no punch in it as far as Stern is concerned.

Plausible, but what happens when somebody's starter goes over to prove a point and blows out a knee?

Speed
08-05-2011, 02:54 PM
If I was Stern, I'd consider it free advertisement for his product, actually. I wouldn't care at all, there isn't an infrastructure to make this a solution for the players, at all. I guess if a 'star' got hurt, but to me thats really the only downside.

Agreed DaveP63, post #21, easy to miss though.

I can't even imagine how ticked I'd be as an owner, fan, players, everyone, if someone got hurt playing overseas, while this nonsense is going on.