NBA Lockout: NBPA Rejects Offer, Announces Intention To Challenge Lockout In Court
by Mike Prada on Nov 14, 2011 2:21 PM EST
in Links
Email
PrintUPDATE: Clarification made on decertification.
And so it continues. After a four-hour meeting, the NBPA announced it rejected the league's latest offer and will file for a disclaimer of interest, which is essentially decertification without having to petition for votes. That means the NBA lockout will almost certainly be continuing for a while, and it also means the entire season is very much in jeopardy.
"We're prepared to file this anti-trust action against the NBA. We think that's the best situation for the players to achieve and get their due process," NBPA Executive Director Billy Hunter said.
Both Hunter and Derek Fisher said the players had simply given too much back to accept the latest NBA proposal. Fisher added that the decision to file for decertification was unanimous. Therefore, there's a pretty good chance we may not see the NBA for quite a while.
I'm still trying to digest what decertification might end up doing for this whole process and whether the NBA can win in court. In the meantime, this is a sad, sad day for the NBA. After a year where so much momentum was gained, the league risks losing all of that with a prolonged labor stoppage.
UPDATE: Stern goes on SportsCenter and spits fire. Predictable and infuriating.
174 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think the players are seeking to file a disclaimer of interest
since, according to Hunter, decertification is a longer process.
Now we may find out who has the stomach for Kobe’s “nuclear winter”.
incredible
we’re gonna end up losing a season . Stern’s comments over the weekend basically dared the players not to accept a deal. I mean if you are negotiating in good faith why make so many statements undercutting Union leadership dissing the players in general saying they are either mis or uninformed and threatening to screw them with a worse deal.
Either Stern is clueless or he’s doing this at the strict instructions of the majority of his owners.
I gotta believe Stern’s legacy is important to him and basically losing a season isn’t go show well for his if thats what happens and sadly I think it is.
Exactly
He is trying to paint them as the bad guys and make seems like if they don’t accept the deal then they are just trying to hurt the league and don’t care about the fans. It’s a two way street, both sides deserve blame, not just the players.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Nov 14, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
No Vote. Couldn't let the Entire Players Union vote on it?
Because the Executive Committe and Players Reps and Billy Hunter knows that if they let the common player vote, HE WOULD VOTE TO PLAY.
I guess the Rank and File players are just IDIOTS. That’s exactly what they were just told.
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 2:46 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Haha Billy Hunter and Fisher did just that
“You guys are too stupid to vote on this the ‘right’ way”
by KurisuDevil on Nov 14, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
here's why
best case scenario: Ex-com and player reps are well versed in the CBA, and know the consequences of any deal. Maybe this deal hurts the NBA players.
worst case scenario: ex-com wants to keep its power
Logical fallacy
If the players don’t like the union structure, then they need to vote to change said structure. Like any voting body in a democratic institution that wants to have exactly their say on a major issue.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 15, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
but if the members vocally show their displessure with its reps
shouldn’t they organize a vote?
The players did not do this, so if the rank and file can’t cry now or in the future imo.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
I’m surprised. I’d be interested to learn why the union thinks there’s more to gain by ending the season than putting the plan to a vote.
by Tbonebullets on Nov 14, 2011 2:57 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
The Union mostly has to do what the players (or at least the ones with pull) tell it to do
The players (or the attorneys who stand to make millions in an antitrust suit) have convinced themselves that they will gain serious leverage (thus more money) by filing suit. I would bet dollars to donuts that most of the players supporting the suit don’t actually intend for it to play out (which could takes years, counting appeals) and are simply playing what they think is their “Ace up the sleeve” to get the better deal their agents have convinced them is out there.
Of course, the agents don’t care which players are collecting the checks when the “better deal” comes along.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 14, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Maybe Owners Will be Allowed To Talk Now
One of the real ironies of all this—almost proving the antitrust issue by itself—is the NBA-enforced gag order on its own owner-members. Maybe we can actually hear from Ted himself at some point to know where he stands on all this; at least he probably can afford to keep this franchise; I suspect other owners aren’t going to survive.
Contraction is a serious possibility if this suit drags on
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 14, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
I actually think the owners will be fine.
Since there won’t be any games, they won’t have any checks to sign.
True
but only new owners are paying off loans, and most of those owners have other business investments that should make paying off loan interest relatively easy. The teams that really need a season to start are probably the Hornets (no owner) and the Kings (the Maloofs are broke) Outside of these two teams i feel like the rest of the owners are happy to lose one or more seasons.
It's so damn simple.
The owners are not going to accept a CBA where they bear the all monetary risk while the players get rich. The hard liners (mostly smaller, poorer teams) won’t let it happen.
The players – out of pride, solidarity, ignorance, whatever – refuse to recognize that economic realities mean that either they compromise or everyone (fans, owners, players, vendors) but agents and maybe future players loses. Unfortunately, they chose the latter. Paycuts and job loss are part of the new economy — recognize it.
The antitrust suit is a transparent attempt to gain bargaining leverage — what’s their plan if it fails (which could take a couple years)? The cynic in me thinks the agents have out-maneuvered everyone. I hope I’m wrong.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 14, 2011 3:00 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Are you serious?
The players agreed on 50-50 with the owners, so the agreement broke down due to system issues, not how much money the owners would get.
by Bassanova on Nov 14, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't let anyone else convince you otherwise - this is about money.
“System issues” is just a euphemism for arguing about money. If the owners guaranteed the players 57% and kept the remaining pieces of the offer the same, I highly doubt the negotiations would be in the position they are. It’s about money.
Also, can you provide a cite to where 50/50 was agreed upon?
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 14, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
You're right...I don't know if the NBPA officially agreed to 50-50.
It was reported that the players were willing to accept 50-50 if they liked the system.
Assuming they were to agree to 50/50, my understanding is if the aggregate of player salaries exceed the agreed upon split, the players would have to pay the league back out of an escrow account. So from my view, the split largely settles the money issue. Now if you’re talking about agents for high-profile players, then yes, those guys are fighting for favorable system rules because they stand to make more money when a big-name player has very few limitations on where and under what conditions he’ll play.
Maybe if Stern had approached this differently...
For Hunter and the players this may have turned into about a little bit more than just money.
The fact that Stern has consistently treated the guys opposite of him at the negotiating table, like mindless, clueless punks that are not capable of sticking up for themselves, surely has Hunter and Fisher up in arms. Maybe had Stern approached this differently from the start, expecting the same outcome, he could have gotten a different response.
But when you go into a room treating successful grown men like your own personal bitches, said grown men are eventually going to become a little defensive. Not to mention the deliberate, obnoxious, bold-faced lies that Stern has thrown in our faces trying to make the players look plain foolish.
I understand that a lot of guys will choose money over their own pride. But when Stern has been as relentlessly disrespectful and obnoxious as he has, it would be easy to become a bit near-sighted, forgetting the long-term benefits of taking the deal as it is assuming that deal would be beneficial to you.
So basically, had Stern not come into this as an arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, asshole, who thought he could treat grown men, most of whom are successful millionaires themselves, things could have went a lot smoother.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Nov 14, 2011 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
well when you consider the fact
that more and more NBA players of today have left college early or not at all, there is some arrogance there by the NBA owners side (almost all of them if not all of them have at least a college degree). And many people with educational credentials do have arrogance about people without such credentials.
If almost all the NBA players were college grads, it is possible that Stern may not be looking down on players as much as he appears to be doing, and yes, I do think that he looks down on the players as a group.
Possibly
I think Stern is an arrogant prick and his (and the NBA’s) own worst enemy. He should have taken a back seat in all this and let someone else play the bad cop. At this point no one trusts him but his ego won’t allow him to get out of the way. Of course, it’s too late now anyway.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 15, 2011 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe it's time for the owner's to face a reality check
You want a 7% paycut and further changes to be accepted, you are going to have to open your books for real. And stop falling over yourselves to overpay players during the Summer of Lebron while crying poor house the very next season. Much of the claimed losses are LIES, that is obvious enough based solely on the owner’s behaviors with regards to FAs etc. Hell, even these CBA proposals contain various provisions to ensure the owners will spend more money. They are full of shit as far as I am concerned, when you apply $12mill in your private jet expenses to the team and then claim a loss you are playing the game- not living with the new economic realities.
The owners did open their books and the NBPA doesn't dissagree that the league is losing money
All the books are open to the NBPA, just not the press. The players only dissagree with the extend of the losses because they don’t feel the interest payments should be included.
"We’ve given these players those numbers," Stern told Mike & Mike. "We’ve given them our certified annual reports of all of our teams. We’ve given them the combined summaries. We’ve made available the income tax returns
. http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/david-stern-says-nba-will-lose-300-million-this-season (sorry, iphone)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And once again, Dutch - you are buying into David Stern's propaganda
The players association paints a different picture of the league’s health. “Our belief,” Hunter told ESPN.com’s Henry Abbott, “is that a small number of teams are suffering, and their problems can be addressed through revenue sharing.”
Union president Derek Fisher placed the blame squarely on the teams’ front offices. “We’ve run into situations where teams have either mismanaged spending, overpaid staff, or made decisions on rosters and personnel that weren’t in their best interest — things that we’re now being asked to take the hit for,” Fisher said in October.
The league says it has provided full financial data to the players association to substantiate its losses. “We’ve given [them] our certified financial statements,” Stern said. “We’ve provided access to our tax returns, and if there’s more needed, they’ll get more.”
“We’re very comfortable because we’ve given the players association more financial information than has ever been done in the history of sport,” he said.
But the union disagrees with the story the numbers tell.
“There has been ongoing debate and disagreement regarding the numbers, and we do not agree that the stated loss figures reflect an accurate portrayal of the financial health of the league,” Hunter said in a statement released during the All-Star break.
The players association contends that a significant portion of the losses is merely an accounting artifact, and doesn’t reflect an actual operating loss.
“There might not be any losses at all. It depends on what accounting procedure is used,” Hunter said. “If you decide you don’t count interest and depreciation, you already lop off 250 [million] of the 370 million dollars.”
Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves. These show up in the balance sheet, but there is little or no economic substance to the amortization. It does not represent actual money that is going out the door.
So – once again – Stern is able to get his voice heard…. and everyone nods and says “yes David…. those greedy players need to have their hands slapped”……
David Stern said it – it must be true….
David Stern said it again – it must really be true….
David Stern said it once again – it must really, really be true…..
And the more David Stern says it – the more people cement it into their heads.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Nov 14, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
But Rook, in your quote Hunter admits that he received the books ánd that he doesnt agree with amortizing the loans...
The players association contends that a significant portion of the losses is merely an accounting artifact, and doesn’t reflect an actual operating loss
That’s what I said…
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I misread your reply to Alpha_Snail....
However the point remains that there are a ton of people that hear David Stern droning on about:
23 of 30 teams losing money….
League lost $300 Million….
Salaries are out of control…..
Owners have a “right” to make money…..
And slurp it right up…… digesting everything he says like they are facts.
Without asking or finding out:
23 of 30 teams losing money…. Wait David – which 23 teams are losing money – and why? Was it poor personnel decisions; poor management; bad luck ; or the fact that the League has added 7 teams in questionable locations over the past 10 years? Maybe it’s because there are teams that make a ton of money, but don’t want to “revenue share”…. The NFL has huge national contracts that are shared with EVERY TEAM. The NBA has local TV deals that are NOT SHARED…. Why not put all the TV Money into a pot and share everything?
League lost $300 Million…. Mr. Stern.. Why do you say $370 Million losses -but reputable financial organizations and the Union say differently? What are included in your “losses” ? Are interest and depreciation of the purchase of the Teams included in your expenses? Why are “other expenses” spiraling out of control? What are those “other expenses” ? no… I mean, specifically, what are those “other expenses” ? If the NBA is such a poor investment, why do you have potential Owners lining up to buy teams at incredibly exorbitant prices? (Is it possibly because even teams that lose money each year, STILL APPRECIATE at a faster rate than the losses?)
Salaries are out of control….. Now I’m confused Mr. Stern. When the CBA was first signed (during a normal ecomomy), teams were making money. The Salaries have remained constant at 57% of Basketball Related Income. Meanwhile, revenues are up across the board – even during the latest economic downturn. If Revenues are up…. and Salaries have remained constant – how can you now be losing money? What ELSE has changed?
Owners have a “right” to make money….. Why? I’m sure that the CEO’s of every major company would like to agree with you…. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the United States constitution or any of it’s laws that states that a Company MUST make profits. Obviously, if you have a viable business – with a product people want – and you’re in a good location – and you run your business the right way – you SHOULD make money… But you have no inherent “right” to profits. I’m also sure that most CEO’s in the Country would also love to get the kind of sweetheart tax deals you get… or the quirky real estate deals for adjacent land to build uber-profitable side businesses…. or road improvements so people can get to their locations easier….. , and most importantly, public funding to help build their Manufacturing plants and offices…. But you seem to have reserved all that for your own business…. AND YOU’RE STILL LOSING MONEY MR. STERN? Someone needs to come in and clean house – there are some serious mis-management issues going on in your business.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
And ultimately . . .
when the facts of the case get decided in a court of law, rather than in the court of public opinion, Stern’s voice will be just one among many, and the judges hearing the case will be able to decide the issues on the merits without worrying about the need to curry favor with the NBA ownership in advance of the next set of TV negotiations.
There's risk in owning a pro sports franchise?
Heck, several of these supposedly bankrupt money losing franchises are selling for a huge ROI over just a 10 year period. NBA teams across the board have seen a massive increase in their valuations even at a time when they are supposedly “losing money”. When a billionaire buys a franchise he isn’t doing it blindly. Unlike the players, odds are he’s spending millions on accountants to audit the books in order to make sure that the expenditure is worth it. The actions of the purchasers put the lie to the notion that NBA franchise ownership entails significant risk. Even the NBA itself bought out George Shin’s interest in the Hornets for $300 million — an increase of $270 MILLION over the original purchase price in 1987.
At a fundamental level, even if you believe that the players should make accommodations, it doesn’t stand that ONLY the players need to make accommodations. If the NBA did a better job of sharing revenue between large and small market teams — as the NFL does — then the owners should be able to achieve profitability with a “measly” $200 million a year in player concessions as the players themselves were willing to do with a 52.5 to 47.5 split.
Yes, of course the anti-trust suit is an attempt to gain bargaining leverage. And when the courts have a chance to review the league’s process of artificially capping wages as a means of constraining costs (as no other business venture does outside the sports-entertainment industry), we’ll see how the owners fair.
Even with the previous CBA in place, there are many billionaires who would have killed for the chance to get a shot at owning a share of an NBA sports team. Even in cases where owners lose “millions” over the course of a year or two (which they can use as a write-off to reduce tax liability), they still stand to cash in big-time when they decide to sell.
The biggest risk to the value of NBA franchises isn’t the talent, which drives traffic to the stadiums and TV screens in the first place — it’s the short-sighted greed of some of the owners.
That's asuming prices will always go up....
That’s what the bankers thought too when they over financed property and packeged the risks in credit default swaps…
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The Wall Street analogy doesn't hold in this case . . .
No one looks to flip a franchise as quickly as possible. The other owners have the ability to veto sales and pick and chose who they want to let into the club. Part of that process entails making sure that owners have the willingness and capacity to be long investors. Too much leverage = we will not let you into the club. These are privately held investments, which tends to limit the “other people’s money” side of the equation as well. With the possible exception of Donald Sterling, owners don’t look to leverage the asset to the gills, and strip it of its equity before dumping it. Even George Shin wasn’t allowed to overleverage his holding in the Hornets. When he approached a certain level of debt, the other owners simply stepped into the breach and bought out his interest. If these were truly toxic holdings, the league would have desperately sought an outside buyer at the first opportunity.
Additionally, Wall Street’s revenue came from generating fees and making deals. Some were able to make negative bets against securities that they sold as “AAA” rated investments. I don’t really see how any of those incentives are at play here. Additionally the NBA isn’t “too big to fail” so it can have no reasonable expectation of a bailout on the part of taxpayers.
Credit default swaps? Come on, these are non-sequitors. I have no idea how that analogy even remotely applies. In the case of AIG you had a firm that was making bets with other financial firms without putting money in reserves to cover its bad bets. How does that apply in the NBA?
The only place where the analogy might hold is based on the fact that assets have increased substantially in value over a short period of time (e.g. with the implication that maybe there is some kind of a bubble). However, even if incomes miraculously started collapsing amongst the kind of buyers who are best positioned to buy these clubs, you still have the reality of revenue streams from multi-billion dollar TV deals, sales from attendance, and other factors, which represent a real revenue stream (unlike mortgage securities where creditors are unable or unwilling to pay for underwater mortgages, or naked default swaps which were purely speculative bets made without any stake in any asset — the payouts were based entirely on the movement in price of a particular class of asset). Even in cases where a franchise might lose value, for a number of these owners, this losses can be capitalized as a way of limiting a single year’s tax liability.
A better analogy in this case would be an owner who holds equity in an asset, but who looses that equity over time because he decides he doesn’t want to pay plumbers or for necessary upkeep costs of the property.
A better analogy . . .
the early investors are akin to those who have bought a growth stock before it was close to becoming a “blue-chip” holding (let’s say these early investors are like people who bought a bunch of shares in Microsoft when it was first publicly traded). Later investors will never seen the kind of returns as the original owners did, but they will still continue to see decent returns (an even better deal than an NBA franchise). Even if the ROI simply averages to about 4 or 5 percent a year over the course of the decade that’s still a pretty decent ROI for the quantity of money that’s being put into the investment.
This analysis certainly points in that direction:
Yeah, my point was mainly the faulty assumption that value automatically will always go up
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 4:55 AM EST up reply actions
Sums up Billy Hunter /Stern /Negotiations
by KurisuDevil on Nov 14, 2011 3:05 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
so stern is the chubbier dude
fisher the girl
and billy hunter the third wheel?
I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!
Stern must be hot!
This could potentially bring the NBA way back down (given a lost season) and could take years to get back to flourishing. The league said it was losing money before… wait till it actually comes back, then they can legitimately say that. Unless fans just come back, but after the way many previous lockouts have gone (when a season was lost), I highly doubt that will happen.
So Stern might be leaving the nba at a low point. Teams could be contracted, many teams could be losing money, ratings could plummit, and if Stern follows through with nulling all contracts, the nba could implode. Say day today, worrysome days ahead. If the league loses a season, my love for the game will definitely be tested. I might wind up one of those fans that doesn’t come back. But if the contracts are nullified, I won’t be coming back at all.
I kind of feel for Stern though
It at least appeared that he was trying to give something back to the players. He at least wasn’t on the hard line owners side of just “blow it up, take everything you can, give nothing back”.
At the same time he is partly responsible for things turning out this way. But you could see the desperation in his attempts when he posted that memo to players, basically dressing everything “he did” to give back to the players.
Stern’s darkest fears are alive right now. Now, does he cave in, or does he follow suit and let the hard line owners take over? Just like that, in a matter of days, the tables have completely turned to Stern being in the hot seat, as apposed to Hunter.
Bold move by Hunter though. Guess he figured, if you are going to lose out on what you want, might as well take the other side down with you at the same time.
I think Stern is going to have to let the hard liners take it over for a little bit
they were left out this whole time. Just like the NBPA’s guys will now have their hard liners.
Funny how Stern didn't mention what role the hardliners' stance
played in today’s outcome. As for his anger, let’s not forget Stern is a top-notch lawyer and good lawyers tend to have a little theater in them. The fans, his intended audience, are upset and Stern wants to make them think that it’s all on the players. It’s part of the dance for Stern. I certainly don’t feel sorry for him.
by Bassanova on Nov 14, 2011 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No one buys his bullshit anymore, not for years now imho
There are people who will always blame the players and they’ll love the red meat in Stern’s theatrics but past that I think the nba’s problems are falling on deaf ears. The sport is not nearly as popular as the owners and players apparently believe, I’m afraid they are about to find out the hard way
by DCrez on Nov 14, 2011 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yup its now entered Lose-Lose territory
Owners look like the greedy ruthless assholes that they are. It’s been made apparent that many owners do not love basketball like their fans and players do. They have bought the teams for the “psychological benefits”, the panache, and the prospect of “guarenteed profits”.
Unfortunately the players will 90% of the time always lose in the court of PO. Lots of people already thinnk this is a strike. The average sports fan hearing this news on ESPN (i.e. not us) is pissed at players who refuse to take a 7% pay cut when that 93% of their originial salaries still amounts to 6, 7, 8. or 9 figures per year.
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Nov 14, 2011 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
monetarily, the players do not (and at least did not) lose any money on their contracts, so in the short term, it's more of the same.
However, the BRI split over the next six years (and possibly more) is over 12% less than it was last time. This is likely what the union and the league are fighting over as well as the long term system changes.
Sums it up for me perfectly
There is an agenda and Stern makes it so obvious. He must think we’re all stupid and would have been better off not releasing his statement. The players have been the ones making the majority, if not all, of the concessions for this new agreement. I’m still laughing at the fact he didn’t even mention the owners, he makes it seem like the players are just declining deals to fuck with the public.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
by qthaballa on Nov 14, 2011 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I could see myself cancelling my season tix
After missing a whole season….I probably wont care enough to start going to 30-40 games a year again, not after having all that free time. Can always watch on TV afterall
Hahaha Trevor Booker's tweet
“Y doesn’t Billy Hunter shake our hands draft night instead of David Stern?”
Booker is so money, gonna miss him and the rest of the Wiz-kids
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can’t help but yell that every time he grabs a rebound.
Can’t help but yell it every time he misses a layup
by XAGMNINETY on Nov 14, 2011 4:49 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
So you both get to shout about 5 times a game! lol
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe Owners Can End Lockout Now?
Publish schedule, set rules, call for players to report to training camp … there is no union to call a strike.
Players got played
A lot of the hardliners (including our own Teddy-boy) wanted a long lockout in order to squeeze the players as much as possible. Owners were always going to run up the score on the players as much as possible until some legal action takes place (look up historical precedents if you don’t believe me) so in a way this way inevitable. What players do not realize is that suing the NBA doesn’t = a fair deal. It might lead to a worse deal.
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Nov 14, 2011 4:26 PM EST reply actions
Ain't that the truth!
They might get a worse deal, but it can’t be said that they didn’t fight for something they believe in. Of course that might not make the bitter pill of, say, 43% BRI and a rock-hard cap more palatable.
Exactly!
The players may think they’re all tough now, they they sure showed the owners, but in reality they shot them selves in the foot.
Their billions of garuanteed contracts are now going down the drain sunce decertification will lead to voiding the excisting contracts ánd its pretty likely that most of the players will be worse off.
Either there is no union so there is a free market. Teams will bid like madman on the few stars, leaving little money for the rank and file ór there is going to be a new NBPA so that a new CBA can be negotiated but the owners will have all the leverage again as the players will be screaming for a paycheck by then. The owners will push for an even worse deal for the players to make up the losses.
This is a lose-lose situation indeed, but moreso for the players imho.
Most of all for us, the fans though… I’m sad.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
No way the owners void their contracts and lose control. Leonsis is going to give up John Wall? hells no
"You taught me a lesson, I was going to give someone the benefit of doubt, and I almost did, then something said, no don't, don't, its not for you, its not my thing" Larry David,
by Mac G on Nov 14, 2011 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Amen.
Not only that, Leonsis and the smaller market teams have been fighting tooth and nails to limit the movement of franchise players like Wall precisely because they fear losing those marquee players. They would love to retain them as well at below market value.
The league would be much better of if it made an attempt to improve competitive balance by strengthen revenue sharing by and between owners, not simply by squeezing the players.
Some owners may have wanted a long lock-out . . .
but none of them wanted a decertification vote. This was one of the big mistakes of the 2005 NHL collective bargaining battle. The players foolishly tried to wait the owners out, kept the union in place, and in the end, the billionaires had more staying power than the millionaires.
The threat of litigation raises the stakes for the owners. It means they go from having clawed back at least $300 million a year in concessions, to being on the hook for as much as $6 BILLION in damages — not over the course of the next deal but for this season alone. That’s a real reversal.
Much will depend on how the litigation proceeds, but if the players start winning some court battles, the owners will find a way to broker a more reasonable agreement.
But if litigation doesn't deliver a speedy union victory
You make a valid and important point. If the players win their initial court battles, they will certainly gain important negotiating leverage. However, the flip side of that is if the players don’t win these opening litigation rounds, their leverage will diminish and, on top of that, they’ll be out the wages they would have earned this season and perhaps next. And with the average player’s career only lasting about 5 or so years, that’s a lot of income they’re risking by this decision.
That's definitely part of the risk . . .
the litigation could be drawn out. The outcome uncertain. On the other side, the litigation escalates the costs on the owners side as well — especially if there are victories by the players. The threat of litigation also creates uncertainty for the owners who could almost certainly outlast the players in an environment where the two sides play a waiting game.
I think the hope on the players side is that they create an environment where the downside risk for the owners increases more than it would in the absence of decertification (or at least the threat of decertification) and litigation. Additionally, the reality is that some owners are losing real money and that the longer the process goes, and the greater the losses for those owners. Add to the balance sheet downside risk of legal damages — something that could come into play for owners in large and small markets — and you increase the pressure to cut a deal.
None of this is ideal. Ideally the owners would have found a way to meet the players at least half way in creating a situation where there was “competitive balance” — at a minimum where there was more sharing of revenue between large and small market teams — perhaps even buying out dead-weight legacy owners like Donald Sterling who aren’t maximizing the value of the market in which he operates.
Additionally there is always the risk that the players lose in the court room (if it comes to that), although, given the course of negotiations and the degree to which the players have been willing to make concessions, they may be OK.
Given the bad situation, however, from the players perspective the worst possible outcome was to reject the owners’ “final offer”, keep the union together, and simply try to hope that the owners would move in a more favorable direction on their own (it never would happen). If the players made a calculation that they were unlikely to prevail in court, or that they couldn’t persist in drawn out litigation, then they might have been better off taking the deal. If they wanted to fight for a more equitable deal, however, they really only had one option left — and that is the course they have decided to pursue. Whether this gets litigated remains to be seen however.
by Vegas010 on Nov 14, 2011 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why didn't the union call for a player vote?
Henry Abbott asks a question that I’ve wondered about.
The last time the NBA and the players association met, the meeting ended early Friday morning with an offer from the league. The NBA then sent that offer in writing to every player, and quietly prayed that the union would let the players vote on it, expecting it would pass and the NBA season would begin.
It never happened, however. Instead of putting the decision to 450 players, the union put the decision to 30 player representatives who, the union says, were unanimous in rejecting the deal and taking new legal action.
As soon as that decision was announced, I asked union spokesman Dan Wasserman, who was standing in the back of the room next to attorney Jeffrey Kessler, why the union was turning to the group of 30 representatives.
The union has three player bodies it can consult: The executive committee, the 30 elected representatives and the full membership. Why that middle body?
I was asking what I thought was a fairly boring question. I would have been satisfied with a response about by-laws or somesuch. But Wasserman and Kessler blew up. I couldn’t even finish the question before both were loud, gruff and dismissive.
The gist of the response was that you cannot give your adversary direct access to the membership. “That’s not how any union in America, that I’m aware of, operates,” said Kessler. If the NBA is just going to send offers straight to the players, why even have a union? The idea is that the union is savvier, and knows a good deal when it sees one. And only when the union is sure that the deal is in players’ best interests will they present it to the workers.
I guess I’m left wondering how many “workers” would have preferred having their vote counted.
This is actually very insulting to the rank and file
We know what’s best for our members! They don’t need a say in what ultimately influances their livelyhoods and that of their families. We are ‘savvy’ to descide what’s good for them!
I would be pretty pissed if I was denied my vote on this if I was Aaron Brooks, Samual Dalembert, Mba Amouté or Wesley Johnson & co
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why bother to elect representatives?
Clearly the owners would have preferred a full vote of the membership — it might have delayed the process further, and many players might not have understood exactly what they were voting for, which is exactly why the ownership would have hoped for.
If the players chose poorly in their team reps, then its hard to imagine that they would have chosen wisely in a direct vote. My sense is that the players probably did a good job of selecting the reps they did. Many of these reps are rank and file veterans, who stand as much to lose as anyone — they’re smart vets who understand what this fight is about and what the long-term consequences are likely to be if they settled for a bad agreement now.
Going to be very hard....if not impossible
for the owners to put forth an offer that is worse for the players than this last one – the gov’t won’t allow it. This is hardball and the players will get some additional concessions. Basically the union called the owner’s bluff.
if so, how did the NHL get 24% rollbacks, super hard cap the first year of the CBA, etc.
without government intervention? Sure the system in the NHL was much more broken than the NBA, but I don’t see any way the owners can still give 50/50 after this is over barring a summary judgment going totally in the players’ favor and being backed by a higher court after appeal.
by thewiz06 on Nov 14, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
anyone one here have any sort of legal/labor background?
What exactly are the chances the players get a better deal? or one that’s worth losing parts of or all of the season?
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Nov 14, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
Not a lawyer, but if the federal mediator (and a former union guy) says the losses are real
then you know the owners are in good shape.
I hope the players enjoy their 37% next year
Because their not going to enjoy 50% this year.
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 5:48 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Hamady wants to know is it burgerking.com or bk.com for his job application
I cant believe the well off financially set players just screwed the rank and file
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 5:58 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Hunter and Fischer just proclaimed West Virginia college graduate Hamady Injay too stupid to vote on the owners proposal
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 6:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
It's Hamady N'Diaye and he went to Rutgers.
by DCrez on Nov 14, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
well, i guess i am just as stupid as the rank and file
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 6:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
big east defensive player of the year from West Virginia
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 6:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Rutgers
and why should the Union make decisions based on it’s lowest paid members? The median nba salary is around $1.5mill isnt it? That means there are less players like Hamady than there are millionaires in the league
by DCrez on Nov 14, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think someone else wrote this in another comment
but it appears that the stars of the league don’t really want the responsibility of being union leaders as well as the franchise players between the period of the last lockout and now.
Seems that the union rep responsibility is being handed down to random players, though other teams may vote on that.
There is something to be said about the players union being made up of rank and file players, rather than all superstars. That way in theory, the ex-com and the body of union reps are representative of the NBA’s players, and most of the NBA’s players are rotation players or fringe rotation players.
The guy went to Rutgers . . .
international student, 4-year player, a graduate, played collegiate sports at a high level, I’m sure that BK would love to have more than his “application” — he could probably land a job with the corporate offices in Miami-Dade if he wanted to.
I know what you are desperately trying to say, but Hamady N’Diaye isn’t a very good example. Even without the NBA, he has a good shot at landing on his feet and doing much better than most of us.
Oh My....it's finally come down to this
First let me say that I’m a business owner and have founded a number of companies and have probably hired in excess of 500+ employees in my career.
I love the game, the league, and the players so this is not a post about taking sides and who’s side I’m on and so forth.
I did want to say that from my perspective, this is a huge huge misstep by the players. It’s a huge misstep by the top tier stars and an even bigger mistake by the rank and file players and this is the reason why I say this:
The rank and file players allowed the agents, union leaders and the star players to silence their voices and only allowed the voices of those agents, union leaders and stars to be heard. Most of the union are rank and file players, and I find it completely ludicrous that the majority of the players were so uninformed as to let these special interests completely screw up their career and income earning capability.
The agents are beyond rich, and the stars are obviously as well. The rank and file players need income on a monthly basis because we’ve all seen the statistics that show the average NBA player’s career is 4.8 years. So given that the average player is only able to play 5 years in the league, to basically lose an entire season’s worth of pay is equal to losing 20% of their entire high earning capability in the NBA.
Some observers of the NBA might say that is no big deal for NBA players to lose an entire seasons worth of pay because they’ll make it up after they’ve forced the league into a better deal, but this is completely FALSE and this is the basic reason why:
There are only 30 teams and 15 roster spots per team, so that means there are essentially only 450 NBA jobs every year. Every year, there is a draft in June and that means there are 60 new players that try to join the league every year. The system is set up to ensure player turnover. At LEAST 60 new guys come into the league every year to try and take away 60 jobs from existing players.
Each team probably has 3 or 4 guys that are in the at-risk group of “I have an NBA roster spot and a job right now, but I may be out of a job in the next 1-3 years”
Would you want to be one of those at risk players right now?
Let’s use someone like Dominic McGuire as an example. As much as we like Dom, we know that he’s a fringe player. He’s barely hanging on in this league as it is. 60 new guys coming into the league from this past June’s draft and next June’s draft is really not good for Dom.
I’d even go as far as to say a player like Yi Jianlian. Last year, Trevor Booker stole his minutes. This season (had we had one), he’s out of a job with the Wizards because Jan Vesely and Chris Singleton came in via the draft and effectively has taken Yi’s job away. But it gets worse. Because next season you got guys like Harrison Barnes, Perry Jones, Terrence Jones and many other players that are coming into the league to force Yi out of wherever his next NBA stop is going to be.
Most NBA players are much close to Yi and Dom’s situation than they are to LeBron and Kobe’s situation. So how in the world did Dom, Yi, Nick Young and hundreds of players like them just let the agents and stars walk all over them and take away an entire year’s worth of pay from them?
Unbelievable!
I am so SO mad for the fringe NBA players.
by formula0 on Nov 14, 2011 6:15 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Don't forget it was the owners that locked the players out
Their strategy was to deprive the players of income, thinking that would give them all they want. Many industries successfully resolve labor disputes even after the expiration of a CBA. The owners did NOT want to be paying out salaries—to Dom and Yi, too—and have them play, while “negotiations” were still ongoing.
by rsilbe on Nov 14, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
fringe or rank-and-file?
Rank-and-file indicates a majority, fringe is just that- guys barely in the league. Is the Union mainly made up of Dom Mcguires? If it is, there’s the argument that the Union didnt have the majority of its members best interests in mind. But no team is made up of Dom Mcguires is it? The majority of players on every team are millionaires with guaranteed salaries. Is it impossible those guys decided to fight for something better just as previous players did resulting in current player’s big salaries?
You're correct, I was using both terms interchangeably
But regardless, my point stands:
The average player only lasts 4.8 seasons in the NBA so this 4.8 season is lick a ticking time bomb that just counts down for the average NBA player. When it hits zero, they are out of an NBA job and either has to go to the D-League, go overseas, or seek employment outside of playing.
Losing this entire season does not stop their clock.
So it doesn’t matter if you’re a fringe player or a rank-and-file player……all players on average have just lost an entire season worth of paychecks that they will never get back.
I understand what you’re saying about players fighting for something better, but that is an emotional point that appears to have zero business sense. Zero. Being emotion and losing a season doesn’t benefit the average NBA player who just lost an entire year of compensation.
….And with the 8th pick of the 2012 NBA Draft, the Washington Wizards select……Austin Rivers of Duke University. (Goodbye Nick Young, you just lost your job in DC)
And that is why this is sooooo stupid for the players. This is not about pride or any kind of labor solidarity. When you get to an average of $5 million in salary with a serious minimum guarantee it is a difference in kind, not degree, from the usual mgmt-labor dispute. This should be a strictly business decision. The CBA can be renegotiated in 6 years – virtually every player playing now will lose money based on missed games alone. And clearly the previous CBA has no governing authority in the next negotiation. So remind me as to what they are fighting for?
by DCWizFan on Nov 14, 2011 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
How would 6yrs from now be different than today?
The same logic you’re using would still apply, namely, missing games costs the players so much money it’s not worth doing. So next time it would be the same scenario, except the owners will be demanding 28% and a hard cap…..and the players should just take it rather than miss paychecks?
Any time you accept a less than ideal deal
You could make that case. You make your stand when there is something worth standing for …. please tell me the thing (economic not emotional) the players are standing for.
Again for a group of players averaging 4.8 years. They’re gonna lose more $$ than if they had accepted 37%.
should the CBA be 4.8 years then?
There will always be players whose careers fall right into the spot where there is labor strife. Protecting those guys from losing any money at all costs means you cant negotaite anything because you must take whatever offer ownership puts forward rather than miss games.
what is the business sense in always capitulating?
by your logic, because the avg career is 4.8 seasons, EVERY time there is standoff the players should just accept whatever the owners offer as it’s better than $0 they get when not playing.
So they’re losing money now to establish a better position in their NEXT CBA negotiations? Hmmmm …. doesn’t seem to be a good business decision.
They are losing money today to get more money over the next 10yrs
and maintain the level of free agency etc the guys who came before them fought (and lost money) to get. Why is it so hard to imagine that some of them are greatful for what players in the past did and arent going to shortsell future players by just giving in to everything without a real fight?
Im saying that there ain’t no guarantees in life. They were put in the position of doing these negotiations in the worst economic environment in most living memory. Sorry, but this deal was always going to be worse (Simmons has been calling it the No Benjamins Assn for years) and that only got compounded by the general economic situation. Now they may lose a year of salary and harm the longterm value of the league. Stupid on the part of owners but suicidal on the part of players. Yippee. Maybe in 2 years of legal wrangling they’ll get 52.5% of a much smaller pie.
They are losing money today to get more money over the next 10yrs
That’s a false premise. Anything but certain they will succeed and if they don’t, they played high stakes poker and lost. Bigtime.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 4:57 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Played High Stakes with their lifelihoods that is.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 4:58 AM EST up reply actions
please not Rivers.
Please lottery gods throw us a bone and grant us a real 3 or 4 this year…oh wait….
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Nov 15, 2011 2:12 AM EST up reply actions
dont forget about...
the # of players in the league in their mid 30’s….this could be their last chance EVER to make anything close to this kind of money. That’s probably 10-15 % of the players right there who should have taken the deal. Add in the rank and file. This is rediuclous.
by NotGivinUpOnDray on Nov 14, 2011 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
you mean players like Matt Bonner?
The Spurs player rep who just voted to reject the deal? Or our own Maurice Evans, who also voted to reject? Most of the players reps are probably the very veterans you are talking about, yet they all voted to reject the owner’s offer.
At what point do we stop assuming the players are too stupid to know what they are doing and start considering they (the majority) know exactly what they are holding out for?
by DCrez on Nov 14, 2011 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Fisher said the vote between the player reps was unanimous
And most player reps are rank and file players
by Mike Prada on Nov 14, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
And Romdo said it was
“pretty unanimous,” whatever that means.
Im thinking abt the possible player reps for the teams
I dunno if theres an official list anywhere, but while a few are of the true rank and file nature, others like Mo Evans (im assuming hes wiz rep) and Ethan Thomas and others i cant think of, while they dont have the massive contracts of star players, they’ve been in the league for a while and seen a quite a lot of money. So i can’t put them ina rank and file group or mindset as…oh i dunno Roger Mason jr, and it seemed to me that there were more long standing NBA vets as reps than of the RM variety. Get the JJ Reddicks and Eric Maynors in there and i dont think u get close to unanimous. And Rondo saying ‘Pretty unanimous’ obv a smart guy like rondo isnt going make his union look bad, so in no way would he say it was anything but majority rule, but at the same time i feel like there was a decent enough split among reps for him to say ‘pretty unanimous’ and not just unanimous, but everytime i think that i think abt how early into the day the decision came so, i dunno.
by KurisuDevil on Nov 14, 2011 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This isn't great news . . .
but given the owners negotiating stance, part of me is happy to see the players stand their ground. I am curious to see how this plays out and hope the players are ready to see this through.
The worst of all possible worlds for the players would have been to reject the deal and try to wait the process out (ala the 2005 NHL labor fiasco — at least from a players perspective). Now they have a chance to take some of the initiative. There’s risk on either side with this strategy, but my sense is they could have a strong case.
Relative to the original contract, the owners gave up nothing and demanded the sky. The players gave them much, and took back nothing that they didn’t already have. If the entire industry was tanking and on the verge of bankruptcy, that might be one thing, but the industry itself was profitable, even if some of the members were not. The owners themselves made almost not effort amongst and between themselves to help shoulder the burden.
but given the owners negotiating stance, part of me is happy to see the players stand their ground
This is the problem…. Its more about ego then ratio.
From a rational point of view the players threw them selves of a cliff, entering a world of pain and uncertainty since they basically voided their own contracts for a (very) longshot at a better deal.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
They haven't voided their own contracts
Would decertification kill current contracts?
The player contracts in the NBA have guarantees that are laid out with specific language about payment even in the event of release for lack of skill, injury, etc. Unless they make explicit reference to what Stern is referring to — such as the guarantee “not applicable during a strike, lockout or other work stoppage” — I would not anticipate the Court reading that language in nor invalidating the contracts.
by djnnnou on Nov 14, 2011 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's just the opinion of that writer...
The only thing we can look at is the precedent mentioned in the same article:
The CBA is the creator and governor for such contracts. Feerick’s decision was based on the premise that player contracts specifically refer to numerous CBA provisions. According to Feerick, the contracts are “dependent upon and closely intertwined” with the CBA
Contracts are ’dependend on the CBA. The CBA is an agreement between 2 parties. 1 of those parties seizes to excist so any agreement between those 2 seize to excist as well.
Thát is the precedent and there is nothing that would suggest otherwise, just a random writer who says he ‘would not anticipate it’
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Random writer?
Early in his career, Brandt worked for ProServ, Inc., where he represented marquee athletes such as Michael Jordan, Boomer Esiason and Arthur Ashe. He left ProServ in 1990 to become the general manager of the NFL World League’s Barcelona Dragons, leading the team through its appearance in the inaugural World Bowl in 1991 at London’s Wembley Stadium. At the time, he was the youngest GM in professional sports.
Following the World League, Brandt returned to player representation for Woolf Associates in Boston, representing NFL players including quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, Super Bowl champion kicker Adam Vinatieri and Heisman Trophy-winning running back Ricky Williams. He left Woolf to join the Packers in 1999.
In 2008, Brandt, in collaboration with other NFL insiders, launched The National Football Post (www.nationalfootballpost.com) – a leading online resource and publication focusing on NFL business news and statistical analysis. He continues to pen his sports business columns for the site and is a full-time lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. He teaches sports law, sports business and negotiations, and his academic work earned him the prestigious Whitney Award for excellence in undergraduate teaching.
by djnnnou on Nov 14, 2011 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't care if he was Vladimir Putin for my part
He doesnt give an argument that supports his gut feeling.
The only real precedent comes from the ruling and that was that contracts áre voidable since they are "dependent upon and closely intertwined" with the CBA. Once the NBPA seizes to excist there is no agreement anymore (you need two to tango to speak in Ted’s words)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Feerick
Feerick found that “salary provisions of the Player Contracts are not effective or operative during a valid lockout,”
by djnnnou on Nov 14, 2011 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The owners don't have to pay the players during the lockout
That was the ruling, not that the contracts were voidable.
by djnnnou on Nov 14, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And that's why this move by the players is significant . . .
under labor law, if the lockout is valid, the owners are able to cease payment for the duration of the lockout and yet the contracts are also still valid, so that when the lockout is lifted, the situation returns to what it was before (or it is modified by a new CBA). Under anti-trust law, which is where the legal battles are now likely to take place, the contracts may become voidable, but if that happens every other provision of the CBA disappear. Rookie payscale? Gone. Limits on the duration or amount of contracts? No longer exist. Salary cap? Ceases to exist. Even the age restriction could go out the window. Even the draft itself could become a relic of the past. When players opt to go pro, they can pick and chose the team that they want to play for at the highest price that a team is willing to pay. In theory that is the world we could be entering.
Owners in pro sports actually like operating under the terms of a labor agreement, because they create predictability and limit downside risk — especially with younger players. Without those rules, it becomes the wild west. Players get paid what the market bears, and unless there is collusion by the owners, the elite players are likely to get paid even more. For players under rookie contracts as well, you could see big deals lined up.
I don’t think that will actually happen. If the legal process gets to a point where the previous CBA and all of its provisions are null and void, and yet the owners can no longer legally lock-out the players, the owners will have a strong incentive to get back into a system where there are limits on player compensation. However, the owners would lose most of their leverage. If the players lose their case, then the owners emerge with even more leverage than before.
A case could be made though
that if Stern actually voids the contracts, he’s shooting himself in the foot, and possibly killing the NBA. If there are only 4 competitive teams in the league, who continuously win, who’s gonna watch? If no one watches, what sponsors are gonna fund the NBA? If no sponsors fund the nba, where does the money come from? Could be the death of the NBA.
Stern might just be bluffing on that one.
It's about ego on both sides . . .
but it’s also about money — a lot of it. The players would have been throwing themselves off a cliff by bending to the ownership demands. The owners proposal had serious consequences for player movement and would have effectively ended free agency for the players who generate the most revenue for the league. The league’s “middle class” also would have been squeezed. This litigation threatens to throw sand in the gears. There’s risk on both sides, but my sense is that it creates even greater uncertainty for the owners. They went from a situation where they had locked in almost $300 million a year in the very near-term concessions — billions of dollars over the course of the deal. Now that all goes out the window. The players can put the owners on the hook for triple damages, which means several billion of damages just this year in the event that the lockout persists. Depending on how things go, this could create a very strong incentive for the owners to come back to the table with fewer threats and a more serious offer. Time will tell.
Like I said, its a lose-lose situation indeed
But the owners are not losing their livelyhoods, the players are.
The owners proposal had serious consequences for player movement and would have effectively ended free agency for the players who generate the most revenue for the league. The league’s "middle class" also would have been squeezed.
How is that? I read the six page proposal and if anything shorter contracts improve player movement overall. As for the mid-level, yes the tax paying teams get less to spend than the non tax paying teams but we’re talking about a total of 9 midlevel contracts a yr in the old deal. The stars are more financially encouraged to stay than in the old deal, but they can still sign elsewhere if they want.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 14, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The players are losing their livelihoods . . .
over the short-term in the hope of securing better earnings for many more players who will continue to play in the league and those who will enter the league later. The fights over free agency are hugely consequential. Also, the consequences of this negotiation have an impact on the next deal.
As far as the mid-level concessions go, I tend to believe that Fischer is probably correct when he said that the deal will squeeze the NBA’s middle class. Yes, you will have more player movement amongst the lower-tier veterans, but you will also have shorter contracts and a smaller pool of revenue to split between players. Additionally, with provisions like the D-League reassignment/demotion/pay cut you are looking at a completely different ballgame for younger players as well.
Personally, I would rather see the players collect more revenue, but for the contracts to be only partially guaranteed (along the lines of the NFL). e.g. so that the money goes to players who are the most productive. Of course, I’m not in the negotiations. The owners “concessions” in this process have been outlandish.
The players are losing their livelihoods over the short-term in the hope of securing better earnings for many more players who will continue to play in the league and those who will enter the league later.
The notion that decertifying=better deal is a false premise. The players are risking significant portions of their career and still might get a worse deal than the one that was on the table.
Also, the consequences of this negotiation have an impact on the next deal.
Agreed and that’s also true if they get a worse deal out of it.
you will have more player movement amongst the lower-tier veterans, but you will also have shorter contracts and a smaller pool of revenue to split between players.
How is shorter contracts hurting player movement?
Personally, I would rather see the players collect more revenue, but for the contracts to be only partially guaranteed (along the lines of the NFL). e.g. so that the money goes to players who are the most productive.
Totally agree
The owners "concessions" in this process have been outlandish.
People keep saying this but I’m not sure I agree. The owners entered the negotiations with a wishlist (BRI & system changes). The players entered with the wish to keep the status quo as much as possible. The owners didn’t get all the system changes they wanted (no hardcap, no elimination of the exceptions, no 47% or lower) and the players didn’t get the to keep the status quo as some system changes were in the deal and 50% instead of 57%.
It’s true that the players ‘lost’ something they actually ‘had’ would they have agreed to the proposal and the owners would not have lost something they ‘had’. However, they didn’t get all the changes they ‘wanted’.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 5:22 AM EST up reply actions
The notion that decertifying=better deal is a false premise. The players are risking significant portions of their career and still might get a worse deal than the one that was on the table.
It may not get the players a better deal – but it is the ONLY avenue left to them to TRY to get a better deal. The Owners backed the Union into this corner…. Take the deal, or else!
The players chose – “or else”…..
Now the Owners, instead of negotiating from an unqualified position of strength – have had a huge uncertainty thrown into their laps… They dare not allow this to go to the courts. The lost time alone (2 seasons or more) would be catastrophic to the League. The chance that the players could win in Court (slim as that may appear right now) – should be enough to force the Owners back to the negotiating table….. Except this time, they’ll be negotiating with hard line Lawyers (Jeffrey Kessler and David Boies) instead of old softie Billy Hunter.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I see the players have hired David Boies . . .
very smart move. He’s doesn’t come cheap, but he’ll be worth every penny. The NFL owners hired him in their litigation against the NFL players this past year. Paul Allen might remember him from his work on behalf of the DOJ in its dispute with Microsoft over anti-trust violations.
Im done
See you all when ball is being played again.
:(
by jmpalomo on Nov 14, 2011 8:34 PM EST via mobile reply actions
You know, I'm with you
This whole thing is so mind-numbingly stupid that I think it’s time to tune out. Sorry Mike et al, love what you’ve done with this blog and community, but I’m too depressed to read about the NBA anymore. Maybe that’ll change …… or maybe not.
yup
gonna sell my 2k11 game, put my John Wall jersey in the bottom drawer by the christmas sweater and try to get excited about the Capitals since the Redskins have already thrown in the towel on this season. I love the site and yall do a great job but this lockout it really pissing off fans and driving people away from the NBA, me included. I’d except this sort of feeling is pervasive on other NBA blogs in the sbnation. Y’all should be the angriest dudes here.
by Ron Carlos Jeines on Nov 15, 2011 2:21 AM EST up reply actions
I read the union's move
as strictly a negotiation ploy. The union is going with the “quick” dissolution option to try to scare the owners into giving the players a better deal before the NBA decides to cancel the whole season.
Will the ploy work? I have no idea.
hell na it wont work
Stern already addressed on SC that it wont work, and the Union has effectively screwed the pooch on this one
Yeah
Because we should all take everything that David Stern says at face value – and validate it as fact.
Stern says that the dissolution of the Union will not work – because….. uh…… his reason was because…………..uh…………………………………………………….. there was a reason, right? ……..uh………..OH Yeah! – Because he says the Owners will not back down.
.
They have drawn this line in the sand – THIS FAR, NO FURTHER…
.
.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Nov 14, 2011 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But he's visibly pissed, u can see it
And beyond what he said, I feel like the owners are truly gonna nail them to the wall. They have no reason not to imo
by KurisuDevil on Nov 14, 2011 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
** of all the things Stern has said so far, this one felt the most genuine and frankly bitter
Right now its not popular to believe anything he says, yet i get the sense that he aint playin, neither are the owners and its evolved beyond augmentative to a legal matter and why not buy in that he’s elevated himself to the seriousness of the situation
by KurisuDevil on Nov 14, 2011 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
He's lost control of the process . . .
that’s a big part of the reason he probably lashed out. He no longer gets to be a judge in his own case.
I also think he’s probably angry, because he is caught in a nearly impossible situation with deeply divided camps within the ownership ranks. His job is about to get much, much harder.
david stern should really come out and just cancel the whole season
so many people are fed up with all this shit. if I had a nickel for every time I’ve had to explain what “basketball-related income” is to my idiot friends over the past 6 months I would be a rich man…
by XAGMNINETY on Nov 14, 2011 10:47 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
While I'd like to see closure in this.
he’s the Billy Hunter of the owners and has to appease both sides. Stern is on the side of the moderate owners (at least through yesterday), so he will leave any window for a season as long as possible while talking tough so the hard line owners are also pleased.
by thewiz06 on Nov 14, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Can I have 47%? ;-)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 5:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I saw a tweet right when the news broke
That Stern pulled Hunter and Fisher out of the room yesterday(I think) and told them that they still had some wiggle/negotiating room if they declined the deal. He reaffirmed that to them in person, and then let it out to the media, that the offer is final and will only get worse if they declined.
Seems like he just boldface lies to the media, like our opinion has some sway in the matter. And Fisher has constantly come out ans said it. That Stern has told flat out lies throughout this entire process.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Nov 15, 2011 12:11 AM EST reply actions
Where is that tweet?
If Stern told them that and then is doing this, then that is totally unacceptable….
Not sure If I believe that though
Haven’t seen such a tweet anywhere and I follow DA, Ash, Simmons, bucher, sekou, hollinger, NBA labor, nbpa and Mlee. I’m sure one of them would have picked it up if it was true.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 5:46 AM EST up reply actions
I'm trying to find the tweet(I follow wayyyy too many sports sources, I am learning)
It definitely wasn’t one of the ESPN or other main sources.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Nov 15, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
it is getting sad when we check twitter on lockout updates.....
that’s what I’ve been doing nonstop the last month
Hehe I don't use twitter at all
and made an account especially to follow the NBA labor updates and occasionally I’ll look at an interesting trending topic
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 16, 2011 4:23 AM EST up reply actions
Stern is
smart, he’s cunning, tricky, and has grade A posturing maneuvers. You get the position that he has without having all of these things in spades, but you also dont get to have his job without being able to bang the hammer on whoever/whatever when its time to get serious and being a bluff artist all the time. But regarding him giving side talks to fish and hunter, anything is possible i suppose
by KurisuDevil on Nov 15, 2011 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
At this point you have to believe one of 3 things about the players
1. They are stupid
or
2. They think the owners will quickly back down
or
3. They actually care about future players and are willing to sacrifice for the greater good
I do not believe 1 or 2 so I am now left with #3.
by MR on Nov 15, 2011 9:43 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Unbelievable...
I’m keeping an ear to the ground for choice #4…but for now…I’m wit chu
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 15, 2011 9:47 AM EST up reply actions
ding-ding-ding
I think Stern and the owners (and much of the public) views the players as ignorant jocks with insatiable appetites for stupid stuff (jewelry, women, houses) that they simply cannot control. Take away even ONE paycheck and they’ll all come crawling back broke and accepting any deal. Apparently not.
They actually care about future players and are willing to sacrifice for the greater good
but again: decertifying does not garuantee getting a better deal. If anything the odds are against them.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But again
the Owners left them with NO OTHER CHOICE….
If the players want ANY chance at a better deal, disbanding the Union is the only option left to them….
20% odds are still better than ZERO !!
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I agree with you there
if the players believe that getting a better deal is worth the risk of losing in court, even if they’re likely to get burned, then I can’t blame them for taking that risk. Obviously if they get burned in court, then the media will harp on them, but at the same time, doing this may put the NBPA in a better position to bargain in the future, even if it means taking a really bad deal now.
I don't blame either party for negotiating in what they think is in their best interest
I just don’t like the players’ chances at a better deal than the one that was on the table, or even the 47%/hardcap one for that matter.
20% odds are still better than ZERO !!
Yes, that’s true BUT 80% chance they aren’t getting a better deal, with a good chance that the deal they will get is even worse than the last proposal.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 15, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
it's a near certainty that the next deal is better for the owners
barring the players winning a battle in multiple courts or a court mediator who will help construct a deal based out of the last bargaining position before the disclaimer…
Maybe they hope that the Supreme Court will help ’em out if the court will hear NBPA vs NBA……
Even if #3 is true
I don’t get the logic. I guess I can respect it – but here’s why #3 doesn’t make sense to me.
1. Decertification and the lawsuit are a real gamble. I’ve done some antitrust law – trust me. This litigation is short-term bargaining leverage at best – not a way to resolve the parties’ issues. So while it helps #2, it does nothing for #3.
2. Fans get no season. And maybe no season or a shortened season next year.
3. The future players will make their millions regardless of whether the current players piss away a season or two.
4. The agents will make even more millions in the future regardless of what happens now.
5. The NBA is going to seriously suffer from an extended lockout both in terms of fan support and maybe even number of franchises. What’s the point in obtaining a greater percentage of the pie if the total pie shrinkage negates the percentage increase?
6. It’s a decision based on emotion, not logic. Once the euphoria of standing up to the man and sense of purpose gained from banding together wears off, the player solidarity will fragment, infighting will begin, and the NBA as a product will continue to diminish in value.
7. The damn league is losing money right now and the players are the best compensated in the world — this isn’t the 1960s. Sorry if I don’t see a noble cause in standing up for the rights of future stars to make even more millions (the “system issues” — luxury tax, mid-level, etc. benefit the stars, not the rest of the league. Economics and stuff.).
8. Did I mention no season? God it’s going to be a long time before the NBA recovers its luster….
What a waste. I’m sad.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 15, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
To #6.—→Stern is the one that turned this into more than about the money. He has bullied, beaten and slapped Fisher and Hunter around, lied to them, attempted to intimidate them, given ultimatums, tried to destroy their image as leaders, attacked all men of Fisher’s profession by pretending the players are brainless and prideless, and really just insulting their intelligence and pride in general.
To # 7.—→Even those, like you, who feel that the players are being greedy, and that the stars should be happy with their millions and that the cause is not all that noble, should realize that the owners and Stern have handled this soooo poorly. When you treat a man a certain way you are almost guaranteed to get a particular reaction in return, especially in a public battle like this one.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Nov 15, 2011 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't disagree - but if true it's a decision based on pride and emotion, not logic
I don’t hate the players for being emotional (Stern IS an ass), but I think it’s shortsighted and that they will regret it.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 16, 2011 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
Again, why cant the exact same thing be said of the owners?
It’s reported Dan Gilbert has lost his mind over the Heatles and that some owners think the players need to be taught a lesson…how is that not action based on emotion?
How much value does each franchise stand to lose? Some of the newly purchased teams could be upside down if a season or more is lost…where’s the logic in risking that with a series of deadlines and ultimatums only intended to bully and manipulate?
The entire tone up until now has been that the owners are angry and the players better be scared…whose brilliant idea was that? The players showed up with big concessions in hand and were met with a massive amount of condescension (remember the Wade/Stern incident?) coupled with terms being dictated rather than negotiating.
I buy low for a living….and you gotta make people feel good when you are fucking them. That’s pretty basic stuff and it’s hardly surprising we have reached such an impasse given the public humiliation the league wanted to feed the players while drawing out huge concessions
The league and Stern are at fault too for handling this so clumsily
But that doesn’t negate the fact that the players’ decertification decision is based on pride and emotion, not logic.
It’s a bad idea to let emotions take the lead during negotiations. Emotions and pride are the reason that businesses will pay attorneys millions to litigate against each other rather than simply treating the dispute as a business problem that needs a logical solution. It’s why divorces rarely end with both parties happy. And it’s why everyone will lose in this lockout as well.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 16, 2011 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you gotta make people feel good when you are fucking them.
While this might be in need for a dysphemism, it says it all. Stern knows he is fucking the players on the last deal. He won almost every victory he tried to win. The players gave up 7% of BRI. That has got to be a billion dollars easy right? Now only that, the players gave up concessions on pretty much every other front as well. If Stern didn’t keep playing the “you’re all my bitches now do what we say or else” card, maybe the players would have been more willing to bend over and take the spanking.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Nov 16, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
When the current players signed their first contract
it was under favorable conditions that were the law of the land because a generation before them stood firm.
I can believe that the current players decided it was their turn to stand firm. So that in 10 years players get 10% raises instead of 4% raises just like they do.
If Stern says “take it or leave it” and it’s an unacceptable deal to the players and they feel that to accept it is to betray those that came before them and those that will come after them…what are they supposed to do?
The players care more about the future generation of player than they care about the fans. I can understand that. I think the owners underestimated the player’s feeling of solidarity with the future.
by MR on Nov 16, 2011 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I understand their reasoning
But it’s silly and idealistic for all the reasons I expressed above. Most importantly, future revenues are going to be SMALLER because of the number of fans that get turned off by this nonsense. Thus, even if the “issues” get fixed, the future players will not be better off.
I certainly agree the players are taking this personally, but I am not going sympathize with them — they are treated better and make more than most other athletes. Even the lowest paid NBA player is in the 1% of top income earners (at least while playing). Fighting for a few extra hundred thousand bucks apiece while submarining the future value and revenue of the NBA just doesn’t resonate with me, the fans, or anyone other than themselves and the agents and stars who stand to potentially get richer over the long run.
In sum: the players are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Maybe some of the owners are too, but the majority of the hardliners (small market teams) have good reasons for pushing for long-term systemic changes to ensure the financial viability of the league.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 16, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
they're not fighting for a few hundred thousand dollars a piece
the system changes are a huge deal that would reduce a player’s earning potential by significant millions over the course of their career.
What if we boil it down to this:
Say the average NBA player makes $6mil in his career (a number I just made up).
They’ve just been told “the 6th grader who is a future NBA average player is only going to make $4mil for his career”.
I’m don’t see how objecting to that is irrational, silly , idealistic etc.
Really the only way the player’s strategy makes sense is if you ignore the next two years completely and focus only on what the NBA players of the future would want. In that context what the players are doing (and the owners) makes a lot more sense.
Now I might be wrong about the players’ reasoning, but if I’m right then it is anything but prideful and emotional.
and on top of that, the proposed system changes will severely limit current players
ability to earn progressively more money during their own career. For a guy like Wall, the system changes essentially force him to stay in DC at a fixed price unless he takes a helluva lot LESS money elsewhere. That may be great for us greedy fans, but I really don’t see why he should support that nor why the older players would want to pass that on to the next gen. It surprises me the negative reaction the players receive for standing up to try and keep what they already have
You are looking at this wrong
Only the stars would potentially be in line to get significant millions, and only the young stars (and the bigtime agents repping them) are in line to get those millions out of this deal. For the older players and the average players, it just doesn’t matter that much.
In any event, even if the players win then their victory may be hollow because of the hundreds of millions in future revenue lost due to fans abandoning the game.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Nov 17, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, this litigation is undoubtedly for short-term bargaining leverage.
Boies himself has made that clear by pointing out that the players were not going to seek an injuction because that would take a long time and
“what the players are focusing on right now is what is the fastest way to get this resolved.”
"I hope it is not necessary to litigate this all the way."
"I hope at some point the N.B.A. and the teams will have enough concern for basketball fans that they will resolve these issues and allow the players to start playing."
In other words, let’s negotiate, NBA!
In other words, let’s negotiate, NBA!
Than why not make a counter offer!!? #%$@!!!
They could have come out firing 3 demands at the owners and if they’d fix that, we’d have a season! Name a deadline and threaten the owners to use a signed petition for decertification.
Thát’s putting the onus back on the NBA, creating some leverage for yourself and would completely turn the tables on the PR battle, all while keepin the negotiations going!
I would say they should have made a counter-offer
but, as everyone keeps pointing out, they felt they had run out of leverage—and the growing decertification movement effectively forced Hunter and the union leadership to make a move to prove that they hadn’t totally caved in to the owners’ demands.
The owners aren’t united, but the players certainly aren’t either.
My personal opinion is that there are a number of agents (those pushing for decertification) who have their own long-term interests more at heart than their clients’ short-term interests.
Most players didn’t have access to the NBA’s "final’’ proposal until a leaked copy was published in full by USA Today the night before the crucial meeting of player representatives Monday.
In that meeting, which was meant to decide whether the proposal should be put to a vote of the full membership, each of the 30 NBA teams was supposed to be represented by a player. As reported by my colleague Sam Amick, three teams had no representative at the meeting. Other representatives failed to contact their teammates or lacked the understanding of the proposal that was necessary to engage their teammates in the debate. Therefore a large number of players wound up having little or no say in the decision that was made to abruptly end the negotiations, disband the union and file a lawsuit against the NBA.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/11/16/David.Stern.lockout/index.html#ixzz1dvODzihX (entertaining piece)
The lack of internal organization/communication is really shocking...
That’s on Hunter. He runs the NBPA for almost 2 decades now… Hire PR and internal communication people Billy! Jesus.
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 17, 2011 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
Every time they have made a counter offer, the NBA bulldozes them
So I can see why they were tired of making counter offers
Boies insists that negotiations will be "reset"
now, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they resume.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
