NBA Lockout Update: Disgruntled NBA Players Discuss Decertification, Mess Everything Up
by Mike Prada on Nov 4, 2011 9:35 AM EDT
in Links
Email
PrintYesterday was supposed to be a good day for the NBA lockout because the owners and players had agreed to meet again on Saturday. Instead, it turned into one of its worst, thanks to the actions of a number of frustrated players who are beginning to show some desperation. According to multiple reports (Adrian Wojnarowski, Howard Beck), a group of 50 players, led by Paul Pierce, have participated in conference calls with anti-trust lawyers to discuss the possibility of decertification without the knowledge of Billy Hunter or Derek Fisher.
Via Wojnarowski's report.
The players, frustrated with the deal union officials have been negotiating, held a call on Tuesday to discuss the state of labor talks with the NBA, and explored their options on Thursday with the antitrust attorney, sources said.
Said one player on the calls: "If nothing else, this takes us off our heels."
The players are already upset that the union has conceded this much and want to explore a leverage strategy in case the union concedes any more. If decertification happens, it'll probably lead to the cancellation of the entire season because it'll all be tied up in court.
Ugh.
Right off the jump, let's note the caveat that just because the players met to discuss decertification doesn't mean they will automatically decertify. They could very easily just have wanted more information on its ramifications. But if they're serious about this, it's a really, really bad play.
A few reasons why:
- Decertification as a leverage ploy takes a long time to plan out to do it right. As Tom Ziller writes, you need to have the right resources on your side. The players don't right now. The right time to do this was with everyone on board, and it was in July.
- Decertification basically becomes toothless when you aren't aligned as a union. You think Hunter and Fisher want to go along with this when they've been cut out of the process? No chance. Without Fisher and Hunter, the threat becomes far less severe. Instead of a whole union, the owners only have to deal with a handful of players.
- Decertification as a leverage tactic won't work as well in the NBA as in the NFL. In the NFL, the threat of losing games was serious. In the NBA? Even if you don't believe the owners are losing money, the financial pain of losing a handful of games early in the season isn't nearly as large as losing a week of the NFL. Many owners are in this for the long haul, so this won't scare them.
- Finally, did decertification really work all that well in the NFL anyway, or was it the threat of a lost season of the most successful professional sport in this country that caused everyone to get back to the negotiation table.
At the end of the day, this measure is way too desperate to work, and it illustrates the difficult job Hunter and Fisher have to keep everyone aligned. It's much easier to unite 30 owners with the threat of six-figure fines than 420-plus players with none of that.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My belief is that decertification helps the top 10% of the league
It kills the rank and file.
IF they go through the whole decertify process then:
Season is done!
Lawyers and Court and lawyers and court and…….
NBA career will be over for possibly up to half the players. If you only have 3 years to cash out and you will have not one but 2 years of new college and foreign players to compete against and all the new players have been actually playing ball the odds are against you.
by jmpalomo on Nov 4, 2011 9:47 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
This
There’s absolutley no way the union decertifies unless every single nba players is behind is. 50 players are not the equivalent to 500.
Geting it done.
There are plenty enough players who can easily afford to miss the season
for the sake of whatever principle (read: big ego) they want to protect. Not coincidence this comes just days after all the media outlets are going on about how the owners have crushed the players and now it’s time for the players to beg for a deal. Sure, guys like Nick probably just want to play and don’t care about public perceptions of who “won.” But players like Paul Pierce and the other top dogs are much more likely (imho) to be feeling “Fuck You” in regards to the owners and willing to consider going nuclear on them at the expense of everyone involved.
Because for all the power the owners have, if (BIG IF), the players are actually willing to miss a season and de-certify…..suddenly all bets are off and it’s owner-vs-owner with the future of the league in doubt. Not good!
And I gotta say Billie Hunter and Derek Fisher suck. They should have had desertification in play months ago, it was their only real protection against owners like Ted who would cap Wall’s salary at $1mill/yr if he could.
It's horrible timing to do it now
It’s toothless and won’t get anything done. The time to do it was in July, and even then I’m skeptical about how much it would have really done.
by Mike Prada on Nov 4, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Most likely...
but is anything going to happen when the union is fracturing? Why would Stern concede anything at this point?
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Nov 4, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
If I'm Stern, I'll just sit tight and have the players dare to decertify myself.
by thewiz06 on Nov 4, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
His legacy would be ruined...
He would be foolish to do that…he should want this where he can control it as commissioner. Letting it go to uncertain courts is not a bright move.
I think the thing is that
1. He knows, we know, and the players know that they will have to cave before the owners do in a long work stoppage.
2. Stern knows that if he makes a handshake deal by unilaterally moving up to 52.5% or whatever the players want on BRI, the owners will certainly vote it down, and he probably will be escorted out the building soon after that, or maybe he can be forced to retire.
the balance the commish has is to balance getting a handshake deal where most owners will be willing to go forward with it, and hopefully before the players union either decertfies or goes through some severe financial repercussions.
why are you skeptical?
Without a Union, there can be no salary CAP or even any guidelines about contracts etc right? Seems like desertification is the ultimate leverage for the players, but kind of like a suicide bomb also in that they have to hurt themselves to use it
Because this isn't the NFL
Where the financial pain of losing a season freaks people out. In the NBA, there are plenty of owners who would be fine with it, so the threat isn’t as significant.
Regardless, I think we can agree that for it to work, it had to have been a coordinated effort that began in July and one in which the union was completely on board. Not this.
I think the significance is that it could destroy the league
and at the very least, every player would become a FA and owners like Ted who want to keep John Wall forever on the cheap will be faced with the prospect of an $80mill payroll to field a halfway decent team. Really would be abysmal for the league, but just as there are owners like Ted and Sarver who are perfectly happy to lose a season to get their way….surely there are quite a few players who feel the same way.
On the other hand...
If the players are really ready to lose an entire season – and that’s a big if – decertification could eventually work to the player’s advantage.
They could file suit against the League for illegally locking out the players – and they could very well win that suit. along with treble damages ($6 BILLION dollars)
Any restrictions the League tried to put on salaries, contract lengths, spending limits for teams, would be subject to suits under anti-trust law.
Each player could negotiate whatever contract they want… with whatever team they wanted to negotiate with.
A nuclear bomb solution for the players – but one in which the Owners would NOT want to see happen.
Perhaps this will spur some of the less vocal Owners (Jerry Buss, James Dolan, Mark Cuban, etc…) that have been quiet up to this point to start pushing their influence…..
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Nov 4, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agree, players' wanting to decewrtify is a big if.
Also agree, the owners won’t want to see decertification.
Don’t agree that the “less vocal owners” that you list might start “pushing their influence.”
Firstly, they (if you think the ones you list are all unified in their thinking [I don’t]), are very much in the minority. Secondly, they’ll still have to fight the hard-core minority (possible majority by now? in any case, probably greater in number) owners who feel the current NBA offer is too generous.
Larry Coon, as usual, explains the whole mess better than anyone else. (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/decertification-111104/nba-decertification-threat-strong-message).
Although ESPN claims that the renegade wing of the players led by Pierce now number nearly 100, I still find it hard to believe that they’ll find 130 players to initiate the decertification.
Decertifying only helps the top 50 players
The need 135 (450* 30%) players to file for decertification.
Plus the NLRB will not request for decerrification before they rule on the current suit from Stern against the NBPA’s threat to dercitify as a pressure tactic. This would take month’s and the players cannot vote on decertification before getting approval from the NLRB to do so. That could be early next yr or maybe even springtime according to coon.
By then players are screaming for a paycheck and will have learned that they are better off (more than 70% of them anyway) with 47% + true hardcap than in a free market
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 4, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't....the leak like the owners are going to start lowering
offers will only create more players willing to take action.
This is now entering competition mode. The owners are going to regret trying to stare down professional athletes in a game of chicken…IMHO>
I hope the start the decert process…
Decertification won't kill the season.
The owners locking out the players will kill the season. If they negotiate in good faith., the decertification would never happen.
The owners are playing hardball. They are willing to blow the whole thing up. The only way for players to regain any leverage is to make the owners believe they are just as resolute.
I am all for the move, given the owners current negotiating position.
Just my 2 cents…
How sticking to what you want negotiating in bad bad faith?
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 5, 2011 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions
What are they sticking too?
I see them going all over the place, presenting falsehoods, and not being transparent (amount of losses).
If each side is moving towards agreement, that is good faith. If one side is moving towards compromise, and the other is moving the goal posts, that is bad faith negotiation.
Dissagree
They did give the players all the books, they just didn’t give them to the press.
Not sure but I guess you presenting falsehoods is false claims about losses? If so, see above, if not, please explain. Going all over the place? They moved up from 47% to 50% and while they moved off almost all system changes.
Negotiating in ‘good faith’ isn’t moving towards a compromise necessarily. If you try to sell me your house for 300k and I’m offering 250k, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to stay put at 300k or to not go any further than 290k.
Negotiating in bad faith would be if the players say they’ll agree to some of the system changes if they get 53% and then, once the owners agreed to withdraw the system changes quickly demand no system changes again.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 5, 2011 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
crap, that was a messy comment (even for my standards lol) Sorry.
Not sure but I guess you presenting falsehoods is false claims about losses? If so, see above, if not, please explain. Going all over the place? They moved up from 47% to 50% and while they moved off almost all system changes.
I guess that with ‘presenting falsehoods’ you mean owners are lying about losses? Like I said, they did give the players all the books, they just didn’t give them to the press. The players only dispute the extend of the losses, not the losses themselves. Players just don’t agree with including interest.
Negotiating in bad faith would be if the players say they’ll agree to some of the system changes if they get 53% and then, once the owners agreed to withdraw the system changes quickly demand no system changes again.
I meant to say that if the owners agreed to 53% that the players would then reclaim ‘no system changes at all’ again.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 5, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you have a link to the owners providing the full books
My understanding is that they haven’t provided everything.
But regardless, the Sharp, Gladwell, Ziller, and Kevin Murphy have pretty much laid bare the absurdity of the owners arguments about losses, regardless of any books.
NBA.com: The owners will say there’s been a franchise bubble not unlike the housing bubble. A number of them bought high and don’t think they’ll see the equity growth.
KM: The fact is, guys have not done well over the last few years as asset prices generally have gone down. I don’t doubt that. But to say that you lost money in the worst asset crash in memory — and franchises haven’t gone down nearly as much as many assets have gone down — that’s not telling you you need concessions going forward.
If you go back before the last 3-5 years, these guys did incredibly well. Their franchises weren’t going up by 4 or 5 percent, they were going up by 8 or 9 percent a year. They were making money hand over fist. Should [the players] get credit for that? Should we get that money back? Now those are different people in some cases. They need to go get their money from the guys they bought the franchises from. That’s the guy who has all your money. Not us.
But who bought anything in ‘07 that they’re happy with the price they paid? If you bought a house in ‘07, if you bought stocks in ’07, if you bought bonds in ’07 — I don’t care what you bought, you’re not happy with the price you paid. When you buy at the top, you don’t make your money. That’s not unique to the NBA, that’s everywhere in life. But by and large, NBA franchise ownership has been a good investment. You can’t base long-run projections on how you did in the biggest financial downturn of the last 50 years. On that basis, there are no good investments out there. But we know that’s not true.
NBA.com: Management cites rising costs in marketing, ticket sales and other areas.
KM:Ask them to show you how much their costs have gone up as a percentage of BRI. Our moving from 57 to 52.5 covers more than 100 percent of any cost increase they’ve had.
"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, i’m on my phone)
I’ve read it in multiple articles and heard him say it on the B.S. Report interview as well and more importantly, I’ve never heard the players dispute they have given them the books. They don’t dispute the losses either, just the extend of the losses.
As for the writers you mentioned, they are not in a position to dispute the claimed losses since they don’t have the books. Again the players do and I don’t hear them dispute them. Also, way to many ‘journalist’ are biased and suffer from the general disposition against the owners. I don’t like that from bloggers like Ziller either but they are bloggers. A joirnalist should strife for objectivity.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 6, 2011 6:59 AM EST up reply actions
The shit hits the fan....litteraly
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
What's wrong with putting the 50/50 up for a vote. With all the sytems changes pretty much agreed upon.
75% will vote for it immediately.
Play ball.
My guess is after their meeting Hunter and Fisher will say:
They don’t like the agreement but they are going to put it up for a vote.
KG and Pierce and all the other top players will be furious but their will be nothing they can do to stop it.
Interesting strategy...
If you assume that the majority of the players really cannot get along without their paychecks, a vote on a 50-50 split should pass.
As far as decertification goes, I must agree with those who say that this could spell the end of the season as well as the end of the NBPA.
I think this is a good move by the players
The owners are probably feeling that the negotiations are moving in their direction, and I would guess a majority of the owners feel that they are already at a point or are very close to a point where they would be happy with the deal they can get right now. But there mindset has been that if there is no threat of decertification, there is no harm pushing for another 1% or 2%. The worst that can happen is that the players say no.
But if there is a real threat of decertification, then the owners risk that all hell breaks loose, and the good deal they can get now is suddenly at risk of disappearing, with who knows what to replace it.
This can go any which way, and for a business person, that’s the scariest thing. In my opinion, the more real the threat of decertification, more and more owners will be willing to finalize the gains they’ve gained so far in negotiations by signing a deal now, and worry about getting more gains during the next negotiation in a few years. (If Billy Hunter is really good, he orchestrated this whole thing.)
by disgrunted on Nov 4, 2011 11:48 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
True Risk of Decertification for the Washington Wizards- a True Free Agency System
Bye bye John Wall. Unless Ted wants to give him a $40million a year 10 year contract.
Hamady and Owens will get about a $100,000. No need to pay them anymore than that. That still might be too much.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Now you know why Paul Pierce wants to decertify. Don’t think for a second that he thinks it’s for the good of the Players. It’s good for him and the other Superstars.
Hamady and Owens get paid $7.25/hr and only for hours when they are at games and practice.
But I agree.
Decertification is about players looking out for what’s best for their individual situation.
If we lose Wall because Ted is fine with cancelling a season
really there is no one to blame but Ted. Not like he didnt have knowledge of the Wizards financials down to the penny before he decided to buy the team. He bought the team with the full intention of cancelling a season (if need be) to get the financial dynamics he wants out of the organization….if it blows up in his face he can look in the mirror.
It's a defensible move if everyone is on board with it
But this sounds just like a small faction of the NBPA
Agree.
It’s probably a very small faction.
I guess we’ll see.
Influential small faction
The star players should come out and say that they are 100% behind the NBPA. But they should further announce that if they are not happy with the final agreement, they will sit out the year before the NBA negotiates its next national TV deal.
Puts extra pressure on the owners. The star players would give up a couple hundred million while costing the owners billions. The players would have a few years to make arrangements for their “sabbatical” season.
by yop32 on Nov 4, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's a good negotiating tactic and....
…it’s the right move. The owners would be in violation of the antitrust laws colluding with each other to set the amount that they paid individual players.
The owners have a great offer from the players now. It goes downhill for them from here if they don’t take it.
The players ought to also look to a third party to organize a new league.
If anything this hurts the players as a whole imho
The owners will drop an even worse offer. All the garuanteed money on the existing contracts would be lost for ever and most will not make more than half of what they would get now, even with a worse offer.
The rank and file are the majority and they will vote in favor of a bad deal, afraid of losing paychecks and getting far less in a free market because then, all the money will go to a select few.
Remember, it was Stern himself wo asked for voided contracts in case of decertification. This is why.
Disunity amongst the players is always a bad sign. If you’re a player ateasr.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 4, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Remember, it was Stern himself wo asked for voided contracts in case of decertification. This is why.
Be careful what you ask for Stern…. What do you think Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James, or Dwight Howard will be worth on the open market ; with 30 teams bidding to get their services, and NO limitations as to dollars, contract length, etc…? Is Kobe worth $40 Million per year? LeBron worth $50 Million?
If the Union decertifies, then there is no CBA in place to restrict salaries. The League would be unable to institute any rules limiting teams spending, limiting salaries, limiting contract lengths…….
The Lakers will be getting roughly $200 Million a year for their new TV deal (ON TOP OF what they already get for gate receipts, luxury boxes, etc…) – You think they could afford $250 Million in salaries?
Talk to me about parity then.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
O I agree but
It would leave the rank and file in a much worse position and they make up the majority of the NBPA, not Lebron, Kobe and Howard.
So, a 47% split + true hardcap would be a bad deal yes, but a better one then decertification for the overwhelming majority of the players. Therefore, a majority will vote in favor of such a deal if it was brought in to vote. Thát’s Stern’s leverage here.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 4, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can't imagine that Stern personally
cares what any individual player’s salary is or will be.
Personally, I suspect he would very much like to avoid a whole year lockout (he has his legacy to look after, if nothing else).
In terms of his job, it seems to me he’s doing the best he can to broker a deal between the hard-liners and the “haves”. I suspect the hardline owners are ticked that he threw out the “best case” 50-50 scenario much earlier than they would have liked. The haves are ready to close on the lockout at any point (but they’re seriously lacking in numbers).
It’s rather a fascinating scenario.
Rook
Your position is that a free competitive market can’t work because all of the best players will get huge deals and presumably end up in big cities. And the rest of the players will get the crumbs.
It would seem that you don’t like this because Washington DC is a top 1-3 market, and we’ll have a terrible team.
I think you understate the dynamics of a competitive market. For example, the Yankees and Red Sox do a pretty good job of outspending everybody, but the four finalists this year in baseball were from smaller markets than DC.
I’d like to see owners use some business sense in building a winning team, rather than manipulating the system through arcane rules.
Would you sign Lebron to a 10 year contract? Would you give Antwan a 5 year, $50M contract at the end of his career? There is plenty of room for team owners in NY and elsewhere to screw up.
by Izman on Nov 4, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well I think big payrolls give a team a better chance at a better regular season.
and that’s how the Yankees basically get a chance at a world series every year.
However, once the postseason begins, things become a crapshoot
but look how terrible the Mets and Knicks are in the reg season
Did you read the article Mike posted about lack of correlation between payroll and winning? Pretty much explodes the idea that salary is the key to contention.
I forgot to add this, but good management is also part of the equation as well.
If you have good management and money, it makes things sweeter. That’s the the Yankees and Lakers have.
yes I did read it. Reckless spending of course doesn’t help at all in and of themselves
i think the owners will offer a worse offer
by thewiz06 on Nov 4, 2011 1:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, and there's this report:
“The owners’ faction includes between 10 and 14 owners and is being led by Charlotte’s Michael Jordan, according to a person who has spoken with the owners. That group wanted the players’ share set no higher than 47 percent, and it was upset when league negotiators proposed a 50-50 split last month.
“According to the person who spoke with the owners, Jordan’s faction intends to vote against the 50-50 deal, if negotiations get that far. Saturday’s owners meeting was arranged in part to address that concern.”
Forgot a source, sorry.
10-14 owners is not enough...
That is a minority… and only a majority vote of 15 Owners is needed to ratify a new CBA…. So no matter how much Jordan (or Sarver, or Gilbert, or….) rattle their swords, if David Stern brings a 50/50 split to the Owners (along with all the other concessions he’s been able to wring out of the players) – the Owners will ratify.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I'm hoping
that they will ratify, but when sharks smell blood in the water . . . and we all know they’re all sharks (both owners and the major “players”).
they just leaked Jordan's name as a tactic
I would laugh in their face tomorrow and say “I hope you don’t think your leak changed our stance. We can negotiate here, or in the media. Let us know now if you prefer the media”.
Here's why players will HAVE to capitulate...
If you’re an owner who’s losing money (don’t know how many, and I don’t accept the league’s numbers at face value, but it’s still a lot of them) by owning a team, you do better financially by cancelling the season; your losses are cut.
If you’re a player, you lose your year’s salary. You do much, much, much worse financially. You absorb a 100 percent loss for that season.
Fair or not, that’s the simple math I believe will lead to the players caving in to the owners. The risk of losing a season is significantly more horrible for players than owners.
by YellaFella on Nov 4, 2011 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The BIG problem with that assumption
If you’re an owner who’s losing money (don’t know how many, and I don’t accept the league’s numbers at face value, but it’s still a lot of them) by owning a team, you do better financially by cancelling the season; your losses are cut.
Big problem with your argument is that you are only looking at the income and expenses of owning a team… but owning an NBA franchise is also like owning any other appreciating asset – owning a team that is losing a few million per year (or even 20-30 million per year) – is STILL a great investment when team values keep escalating 8-9% every year. Matter of fact, in some cases, you can get tremendous tax breaks for the losses, while your asset continues to grow at an incredible rate……
EXCEPT if you cancel an entire season – then look at what will happen to team values…. especially if players win in the Courts….
Team values will plummet…..
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Agreed with that...
Is that the current appreciation of an NBA team? And what is the confidence level that it will continue to appreciate at that rate? You probably have a better handle on that than me.
Yes, you have to look at asset value, too,
but I suspect that most owners would still be in a better position to lose a season than most players.
I’d like both sides to take a vote—even though we might not ’ever hear the actual results. : )
beat me to it...
owners also have leases to pay, payrolls, etc. They are not justing sitting around without taking losses. (obviously, player salaries are higher, but operating costs are not negligable during a lockout.
That’s simple math
Exactly.
And this is why the leverage has always been the owners’
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 4, 2011 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Reply fail to YellaFella
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 4, 2011 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
If the players capitulate
on the mid-level/sign and trade exceptions for tax payers, I bet they could make a legitimate play for 51% of BRI. Why fight a system nuance that pertains to less than 10% of the player population?
Tax paying teams don’t need sign and trade exceptions. They’ve got Chauncey, Carmelo and Amar’e or Kobe, Pau and Bynum. If their respective GMs can’t find young (affordable) talent to round out the roster then too bad.
Of course this issue hits home with Fisher but the rank and file aren’t affected by this at all. Give in on this early on tomorrow and I bet Cuban, Buss, Dolan and Stern could twist enough arms for 16 votes on 51/49.
Again the golden rule of negotiations is:Nobody is completely happy at the end.
I'd love to see a vote now.
I suspect most of us would be happy (at the result).
Players will vote for a deal
but owners will be very divided whether to do so or not.
by thewiz06 on Nov 4, 2011 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mike...I really think you should stop repeating owners talking points
unintentionally.
Many owners are in this for the long haul, so this won’t scare them.
What is the basis for this assertion?
Why would you not say the same about the players, who have made the same comments?
The owners are playing NBA reporters, and i don’t think you should get ahead of the facts.
If this is your opinion, you should say so. But please do not state the owner’s peacocking as fact. Billionaires don’t like to lose tons and tons of money, and journalists really need to stop doing owners dirty work.
If there are owners, or a set of owners willing to blow up the season, they should be forced to say so on the record, and not on background only to be reported as if it were fact.
One of my biggest journalistic pet peeves, in all areas. Anonymity is way overused.
While agree with your last sentence in general,
I do think owners can last longer for a better deal than the players. Here is why.
Owners, especially the newer ones are going to be here for 10, 20 yrs. The money they’ll make from a good deal over the live of the CBA outweighs the loss from losing this one season. Also, the lower the BRI split for the players now, the lower the starting point for the néxt CBA. If the owners can get it down from 57% to 47%, the next CBA negotiations will start at 47%…. That’s huge for them.
Meanwhile, the players lose a significant chunk of their NBA career. Money they will never get back because they will lose money that can only earned back over the life of the whole CBA (if they are even that lucky). I bet 75% of the players wil not have a long enough career to last that long or even last half of that period.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 5, 2011 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions
It could be true...but journalists should not repeat it as
a fact. It should be qualified that owners have asserted it and why the journalist is reporting it under anonymity. Otherwise, it is nothing but laundered PR in an attempt to persuade the public point of view.
I know this wasn’t Mike’s intent, but sometimes people are not aware of what they are doing. It has become normal.
I am a stickler…I know.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
