NBA Lockout Update: David Stern Reaffirms Wednesday Deadline, Kevin Martin Speaks Out
by Mike Prada on Nov 7, 2011 6:35 PM EST
in Links
Email
PrintDavid Stern was just on SportsCenter now with a brief interview on the reported Wednesday NBA lockout deadline that the owners set forth to the NBA Players Association for their current offer. Here's a quick transcript of quotes (not 100% exact, just did it by hand)
On the deadline: "We think there's a great offer on table, and we told the players, 'It's getting late.' The only rational thing is to make that deal b/c given what is going on in our business and our industry, it will get worse from there. We told the players ... an offer of 47% will become operative w/ hard cap in effect [if they don't accept."
On decertification: "I don't think it would affect it particularly much. The reality is that decertification route was tried by the NFL players and the court of appeals for 8th Circuit soundly rejected the attempt. I don't know what they're thinking."
On the owners being unified: "They're unified in their willingness to make this deal through Wednesday, then they'll be unified in willingness to negotiate the 47 percent proposal that goes on table at close of business Wednesday." In other words, they're unified because I said so.
On the cancellation of more games: "I don't want to say when we'll call off the season, because clearly we're not there yet and I don't want to make an idle threat."
Greenberg said that they reached out to Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher to go on the show as well, but both declined. That's pretty dumb if you ask me.
Meanwhile, one current player has very vocally said the players should just take the deal. Here's what Kevin Martin told Sam Amick of Sports Illustrated.
"If you know for sure [the owners] are not moving, then you take the best deal possible," Martin wrote in a text message to SI.com. "We are risking losing 20 to 25 percent of missed games that we'll never get back, all over 2 percent [of basketball-related income] over an eight- to 10-year period [of the eventual collective bargaining agreement]. And let's be honest: 60 to 70 percent of players won't even be in the league when the next CBA comes around."
Ouch. Finally, per Adrian Wojnarowski, the two sides are working on a meeting to make a deal. One way or another, this is it.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Martin hit the nail on the head.
And to add to his point, what means more to these players: 2% split up among them all over ten years or this season’s game checks? I’m betting the game checks.
Say no to Prince Fielder in 2012.
by Knubles and Bits on Nov 7, 2011 7:05 PM EST reply actions
I'm betting you're right.
Ad that may be why the union leadership hasn’t wanted to put the matter to a player vote. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the player rep meeting Tuesday.
I dont even care anymore
I’m on the assumption that there will be no season, so yeah
by KurisuDevil on Nov 7, 2011 8:09 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
The ultimatums are not helpful for negotiations
I would walk away and tell them call me when they are ready to negotiate instead of dictate.
On the deadline: “We think there’s a great offer on table, and we told the players, ’It’s getting late.’ The only rational thing is to make that deal b/c given what is going on in our business and our industry, it will get worse from there. We told the players … an offer of 47% will become operative w/ hard cap in effect [if they don’t accept.”
I would tell them, looks like their won’t be an NBA game for a long time since we are not moving from 52%. Call us when you are prepared to negotiate.
If that isn’t the statement, and the want to cave, just get it over with and take the beating and look like chumps. Oh…and Hunter can start looking for a new job while he is at it.
Kevin Martin clearly needs to understand negotiations and keep
his mouth shut…or leave the union.
“If you know for sure [the owners] are not moving, then you take the best deal possible,”
And let’s be honest: 60 to 70 percent of players won’t even be in the league when the next CBA comes around."
Kind of the antithesis of the entire point of a union. Looking out for one’s self exclusively is the type of thing that would really upset me if I were a member of the union.
Did he get this idea from media reports? Likely, because Hunter and Fisher have said they believe the owners will move.
This is why I provided the point of view to MIke in an earlier post that he should not be repeating the “Owner’s won’t move” meme that is clearly a negotiation tactic, without an owner or Stern saying so on the record, and presenting it as assertion instead of fact.
The players are being getting their tails handed to them from a PR and negotiation standpoint, and union leadership has to accept blame for that. Why Hunter and Fisher wouldn’t go on tv to counter argue is beyond me.
by DavidDunn on Nov 7, 2011 8:17 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Amen! To mr. DavidDunn
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 7, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
It never ceases to amaze me
The absolute BEATING Stern is handing to Hunter/Fisher/NBPA (“the players”). Somehow it’s the varsity scrimmaging the JV. If the players had ANY marketing/PR acumen they should be crushing the owners. Maybe I’m just underestimating the apathy of sports fans now that they have their NFL back, but Fish and Billy are down for the count. They can’t “control the message,” they can’t get anyone to buy the story they’re selling, and they can’t even show up to present their side of the argument to the only outlet many people get their sporting news from. These guys are asleep at the wheel. If I’m one of the NBA middle class, I’m outraged and bailing on these fools.
The players are never going to win a PR battle. Young rich black men do not get sympathy from a mainstream public that already disdains the NBA. This labor fight is about gains of the past and the future of players rights. I am shocked Kevin Martin does not understand any of this at all. Should they give up free agency? Their pensions? what else should they just give back to their employer
The owners have won and their plan from the outset was to break the union by holding out, only offering up outrageous demands. They have negotiated in bad faith and at this point, they will not even take their huge wins because they want to squeeze more.
Ted Leonsis tipped their hand long ago with his comments on the NHL salary cap. It is playing out exactly that is what they aiming for and will cancel the season or seasons to get it.
"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 7, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Because they dont want to answer questions like "Why isnt 50/50 fair?"
and “Isnt the avg nba salary $5mill/yr? In these times when people struggle to make end meet yada yada yada”
How many fans know that BRI doesnt include 60% of luxury suites and 60% of adverting revenue at the arena? 50/50 isnt 50/50 and 57% wasnt 57%….honestly the players would have been better off hiring Drew Rosenhaus to rep them
If I were the players, that 49% possibility in the 49-51% “band” is a real killer. Once their percentage of revenue goes below 50%, even once during the life of the agreement, there’s proof for all to see less than 50% is OK. Then the owners could realistically argue during negotiations over the next CBA that the players should take even less…the bar would start going lower for them over time.
So I’d come back to the owners with a flat 50-50 split in order to preserve the perception (from the public’s p.o.v.) of fairness, and not make any possible concession of less than that.
Vote!!
What is needed by the players union is to put this thing to a vote. I laud Kevin Martin for
speaking his mind. Not Billy Hunter’s or Derek Fisher’s mind….his mind. I’m not so sure
that the union leadership isn’t telling the people they are supposed to represent to take or
leave what they’re giving them! For what…for future generations? What about the current
players? And if I were the owners, I’d use replacement players if this thing reaches a stale-
ment to gradually re-start the league…give the thousands of players who would do anything for the opportunity to play in the NBA the chance, and invite any of this current group to join them! It’s extreme and perhaps leagally impossible, but I suggest it because
I don’t think union leadership is representative of the rank and file NBA player. I sense arrogance and ego in their presentation…and the lack of a vote…on ANYTHING.
by Herb Harris on Nov 8, 2011 1:06 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
yes...the entire point of being part of a union
For what…for future generations?
And I would love to see owners try to use replacements…it would be everything the union could hope for in terms of PR, since their actual strategy is apparently inept…
and in case that isn't clear
if earlier unions would have ascribed to your proposed strategy, these current players would not have their current league minimum, free agency, a lack of hard cap,lower pensions (or possibly none), and much lower benefits. All because “current players” wouldn’t be in the league in a few years and would lose money ‘now’. I wonder if it occurred to Martin he wouldn;’t be making anywhere near his salary if his predecessors were willing to cave as easily as him.
Other players should hold him accountable.
by DavidDunn on Nov 8, 2011 3:49 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
it's well documented that Americans have become more and more narcissistic
not surprising that a young like Martin has no thought whatsoever as to why there is a Union and how he ended up making so much money in the first place. But just wait til the next CBA when KG is in Hunter’s position, we’re guaranteed to lose a season then.
One other thing...about Ted (I may write a post on this)
For everyone saying, its just business.
What if Ted said, the DC market was not as lucrative as Chicago, and he planned on moving the team because it was in his business interests?
Would people be as willing to say “it is his team, he can do as he wants?” After the DC public has subsidized much of the financing required to make the team and property the valued asset that it is?
Would this be acceptable to everyone? Especially those who say, owners have the right to do as they please?
Is that really what the impression we as fans want to give hardline owners?
Not sure I understand your point
I understand your argument that it’s wrong for the owners to seek to impose tough unfavorable terms on the players. But I don’t follow where you’re going with that argument. The logic of your position, if I’m understanding it correctly, is that these particular labor negotiations are different than other labor disputes because the public interest is involved here (in the form of taxpayer subsidies, etc.). Leaving aside the question of whether the NBA labor negotiations have a greater claim to the public interest than labor battles in other industries, are you arguing in favor of some sort of government intervention because of the public interest involved? If not government involvement, then what? Some collective action/boycott by the fans if the eventual deal is not “fair” (however defined) to the players?
by Koperro on Nov 8, 2011 7:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I am not implying any difference in these negotiations
The public’s investment is always involved in NBA collective bargaining. However, owners are not taking this into account when portraying themselves as paupers in need of a bailout by players and fans, or else they will burn the village down.6 They are proceeding as though they have supplied all of the capital required to start and run the business. This is blatantly false.
No one is suggesting government intervention except the owners who have already sued to keep antitrust laws in place in an attempt to preemptively block decertification.
They have received what amounts to capitulation from players, and are still acting as though their personal interests are the only things at play, regardless of the impact to the community.
The appropriate action if this is not satisfactory is to take ones entertainment dollars elsewhere, not gov intervention.
And
“There are at least 15 owners who are praying that the players say no,‘’ one source said, "because then they’ll get the deal they want.’’
Broussard article, ESPN
NBA Lockout
They are currently in the middle of nothing. But most important thing is that season probably will be cancelled. Money can always makes problems….
Ivan Antonijevic
http://www.itsmyplay.com/staff/activity/20
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
