The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
PurpleHaze
All-Star
As I understand union decertification, that means they would be voting to go on strike, something they are not at this point since it's merely an NBA lockout. Not only would players not get NBA pay checks which will start to disappear soon anyway, but anti-trust aspect of decertification means it all goes straight to the courts for endless litigation with lots of multiple law suits going on for many, many, many months. The season would be canceled simply because there would be no pay allowed under a "null and void CBA" unless they would play for free - fat chance! Still, many players (maybe most) might be able to play for free since commercial endorsements, appearance fees, investments, etc. far exceed their NBA salary.
est.1999
Starter
Wondering the same thing.
Deron Williams. By "we" he meant the NBA, not the Kings.
Trueblood
Bench
Pretty much. The only way things would work for us fans is if they get the votes to start the decertification process but the league and union continue to negotiate. The union doesn't dissolve until after the NLRB rules on it and that takes 45 days. If the owners and league can come to an agreement before the 45 days are up, they can recertify or just call off the process, vote on whatever the agreement is and since Fisher would hypothetically be recommending it, there is no way it wouldn't be ratified.
Problem is, I can see these hard line owners just calling off the season, taking their chances that the players lose in court and then the players, assuming they do lose, come back a year later with their tails between their legs and settle for an even worse deal then what's out there right now. That sucks for the fans because we lose a season, sucks for the owners because they'll lose a ton of fans and revenue and most of all, sucks for the players since they lose a season's worth of pay checks and settle for a worse deal.
My hope is that common sense prevails, the 2 sides meet late tomorrow night and make some tweeks to what's on the table now and shake hands after midnight. Stern begs his owners to take the deal, Fisher recommends it to the players and we have basketball before Christmas. That would make more sense than going the decertification route.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I share you hope! I also agree with your analysis. Right now, the union only has three choices. Take the deal on the table. Refuse the deal, but ask to have futher negotiations. Or vote to decertify. The last choice, while not a certain season ender, would be a giant step in that direction. If the players decide to decertify, and I still have doubts that they have enough votes to pull that off, they will be taking a huge step into the unkown. If the 2nd circuit court rules in favor of the league in their suit, then decertification will have been for nothing. The whole point is for the union to bring an anti-trust suit against the league.
There's also the possibility that after 45 days the NRLB will rule against them. Then where are they? Its just an iffy proposition. I guess they see decertification as their only means of leverage. To my mind, its a package thats ticking. Do you really want to open it and see whats inside?
Tweets
TrueHoopHenry Abbott
"I would anticipate we'd probably have a meeting before 5pm tomorrow." -- Billy Hunter
1 minute ago
TrueHoopHenry Abbott
Billy Hunter says David Stern can expect a call hoping to inspire new talks. His board is authorized to move on BRI with system wins.
5 minutes ago
http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=TrueHoop
Billy Hunter is not taking David Stern's threat seriously, saying he expects that 50/50 offer will linger
http://t.co/6v5chtbr
TrueHoopHenry Abbott
"I would anticipate we'd probably have a meeting before 5pm tomorrow." -- Billy Hunter
1 minute ago
TrueHoopHenry Abbott
Billy Hunter says David Stern can expect a call hoping to inspire new talks. His board is authorized to move on BRI with system wins.
5 minutes ago
http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=TrueHoop
Billy Hunter is not taking David Stern's threat seriously, saying he expects that 50/50 offer will linger
http://t.co/6v5chtbr
Last edited:
bajaden
Hall of Famer
After reading all the tweets, and then trying to read between the lines, I think a compromise can be reached. The players union has stated that they're authorized to accept a 50/50 split, if the league will make some changes in some of the system issues. Personally, I think the main issue with the league is the 50/50 split, and the system issues are the bargaining chips. By that, I mean the league has left some wiggle room there. I don't really think the sign and trade for teams over the cap is that big an issue and could be dumped. The mid-range esception could be loosened up a little more.
If they can meet tomorrow, and some concessions can be made, then the union saves face, and the league still gains its main objective. I had to laugh when Fisher said that the players have the right to decide their own working conditions. Referring of course to the system issues. He has an entirely different idea of what working conditions are than I do.
If they can meet tomorrow, and some concessions can be made, then the union saves face, and the league still gains its main objective. I had to laugh when Fisher said that the players have the right to decide their own working conditions. Referring of course to the system issues. He has an entirely different idea of what working conditions are than I do.
fansinceday1
Starter
Stern just said that here is no wiggle room beyond what the owners and the national labor board came up with over the weekend. He will however always take Billy Hunters calls, out of respect. It doesn't sound like the owners are willing to move at all. Goodbye season.
Larry David
Starter
I don't think this is right. After the past 2 years, a lot of owners are freaked out about star players running off to the big markets and teams that don't care about paying tax. After watching the value of the Cavs destroyed and Mello blowing up the Nuggets season, there are a lot of small market teams that have to make it as hard as possible for the player to leave AND make it where super teams like the Heat or Knicks with Paul can't win because they can't add the role players they need with the MLE. If you look at the system changes, that's where it's going. It's more about preventing the Heat 2.0 than parity.
If I'm in the small markets, preventing a super star from leaving makes me more money than 2% more BRI split 30 way.
I think the players think they can go to 50/50 and get the league to keep the system the change. David's last offer with the players system is 47% to 53% and frankly, I'm not sure he can get that passed 15 owners. I think that was made because they were sure the players wouldn't take it and they wanted to land on the current offer.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Some quotes from the New York Post on the lockout.
“To present that in the context of ‘take it or leave it,’ in our view, that is not good faith,” Kessler, who also represented the NFL players in their labor dispute with the NFL, said in a telephone interview Monday night. “Instead of treating the players like partners, they’re treating them like plantation workers.”
In a phone call Tuesday, Stern blamed Kessler for the stalled talks and said he deserved to be “called to task” for the remark.
“Kessler’s agenda is always to inflame and not to make a deal,” Stern said, “even if it means injecting race and thereby insulting his own clients. . . . He has been the single most divisive force in our negotiations and it doesn’t surprise me he would rant and not talk about specifics. Kessler’s conduct is routinely despicable.”
Maybe I'm living in the bubble, but to my mind, the way the players are being treated is a tad better than how the plantation workers were treated. Kessler is one of those guys that you hate when he's on the other side of the table, but you'd like to have him on your side when you need a tough attorney. In any case, that remark was out of line, and hardly a depiction of reality.
“To present that in the context of ‘take it or leave it,’ in our view, that is not good faith,” Kessler, who also represented the NFL players in their labor dispute with the NFL, said in a telephone interview Monday night. “Instead of treating the players like partners, they’re treating them like plantation workers.”
In a phone call Tuesday, Stern blamed Kessler for the stalled talks and said he deserved to be “called to task” for the remark.
“Kessler’s agenda is always to inflame and not to make a deal,” Stern said, “even if it means injecting race and thereby insulting his own clients. . . . He has been the single most divisive force in our negotiations and it doesn’t surprise me he would rant and not talk about specifics. Kessler’s conduct is routinely despicable.”
Maybe I'm living in the bubble, but to my mind, the way the players are being treated is a tad better than how the plantation workers were treated. Kessler is one of those guys that you hate when he's on the other side of the table, but you'd like to have him on your side when you need a tough attorney. In any case, that remark was out of line, and hardly a depiction of reality.
Telemachus
Starter
Fisher's whole idea of what the players (employees) have a right to dictate tells me he hasn't be involved with many businesses. I can't think of a single business that allows the "employees" to dictate how the business is run. I am pretty sure being the owner should somehow give you that right.
Uncia03
Starter
I agree with this. If you take a look at the current offer and the restrictions to teams over the cap, it would seriously hamper talks about the Lakers landing Dwight Howard or Chris Paul.
I think that most of the owners would rather have something in place to keep their stars than an extra % or so of the BRI, so I don't see them relenting too much on the system issues.
Perhaps they would let the MLE be 4 years across the board and increase the tax-teams Mini-MLE to 3 million, but I don't see them allowing sign-and-trades for over-the-cap teams, or allowing over-the-cap teams to have the full MLE.
We'll see how things play out. But if nothing changes tomorrow, and if the owners really do put their 47% flex-cap offer on the table as their next move, then the only thing the players can do at that point is go the decertification route.
And if the players do decertify then all the power that Hunter and Fisher currently have will evaporate, and should the players end up losing the decert gambit, then you have to blame the pair of them for not accepting the offer presented them.
I hope that something gets done tomorrow...
Larry David
Starter
The players tipped their hands saying they will give up more BRI to keep the system.
I just cannot undestand why 450 people would decide take a 8% or 9% pay cut, instead of 6% or 7% to ensure that 6-13 players will be able to work in LA, NY, Chicago, Dallas or Miami each year. That's insane.
If you are Jason Thompson, you are giving up money on your next contract to ensure that the Heat can overpay Baron Davis this summer if they want to.
The players are looking to make it even worse on the small markets. When they talk about "the cliff," they want all teams to share in the tax. That would take millions out of the pockets of the small markets, and put it right back into the pockets of the teams that were taxed - thus defeating the purpose.
The NBA is setting up a system that makes more money for the league because people in Sacramento, Portland, ect know that they'll have a chance to make a real team and keep it.
Players want the hope that they can all get paid in a cool city and not have to worry about the contract getting pulled. Sorry, some of you'll have to be overpaid on the Bucks and Bobcats.
I just cannot undestand why 450 people would decide take a 8% or 9% pay cut, instead of 6% or 7% to ensure that 6-13 players will be able to work in LA, NY, Chicago, Dallas or Miami each year. That's insane.
If you are Jason Thompson, you are giving up money on your next contract to ensure that the Heat can overpay Baron Davis this summer if they want to.
The players are looking to make it even worse on the small markets. When they talk about "the cliff," they want all teams to share in the tax. That would take millions out of the pockets of the small markets, and put it right back into the pockets of the teams that were taxed - thus defeating the purpose.
The NBA is setting up a system that makes more money for the league because people in Sacramento, Portland, ect know that they'll have a chance to make a real team and keep it.
Players want the hope that they can all get paid in a cool city and not have to worry about the contract getting pulled. Sorry, some of you'll have to be overpaid on the Bucks and Bobcats.
Last edited:
Larry David
Starter
The players want no part of a decert fight they probably can't win in court.
The time to do that was in June. At which point, the appeal of the restraining order could be close to done and the 2nd Circut's ruling could save the season. At this point, even if Billy pulled the disclaimer to avoid the 45 days, the season is gone if you want to make this a real legal fight. The players MIGHT be able to win a trial no sooner than 18 months from the start, but they aren't getting a restraining order and getting it upheld on appeal. It worked out both ways for the NFL, and the NBA players have a worse case because they are nowhere near an impasse. They are still getting closer to a deal and making new offers.
The problem is the players want to jump in the decert car and play chicken because they assume they've got 45 more days to make a deal and it will scare the crap out of the owners.
However, the owners know that they have almost no chance of being forced back to work by a court before the end of 2013. And a lot of owner owners don't want another 50 game season starting in Feb.
If they don't make a deal on Wednesday, and I don't think they will, the players will decert only to play chicken. Because the union will have to recertify to ratify, the process of going from a deal to season goes from 30 days to more like 40. At which point, the NBA has less than a month to save the season from two sides that are completely dug in.
The players have no idea what the market is or where this is going, they are going to shoot to make their best deal on the eve of the season going away, and based upon their sense of this - I think they are going to miss. At which point, they will have no leverage, no season, no union, and a lawsuit they don't want and cannot win before the 12-13 season. At which point, the players will have to take the roll back.
The time to do that was in June. At which point, the appeal of the restraining order could be close to done and the 2nd Circut's ruling could save the season. At this point, even if Billy pulled the disclaimer to avoid the 45 days, the season is gone if you want to make this a real legal fight. The players MIGHT be able to win a trial no sooner than 18 months from the start, but they aren't getting a restraining order and getting it upheld on appeal. It worked out both ways for the NFL, and the NBA players have a worse case because they are nowhere near an impasse. They are still getting closer to a deal and making new offers.
The problem is the players want to jump in the decert car and play chicken because they assume they've got 45 more days to make a deal and it will scare the crap out of the owners.
However, the owners know that they have almost no chance of being forced back to work by a court before the end of 2013. And a lot of owner owners don't want another 50 game season starting in Feb.
If they don't make a deal on Wednesday, and I don't think they will, the players will decert only to play chicken. Because the union will have to recertify to ratify, the process of going from a deal to season goes from 30 days to more like 40. At which point, the NBA has less than a month to save the season from two sides that are completely dug in.
The players have no idea what the market is or where this is going, they are going to shoot to make their best deal on the eve of the season going away, and based upon their sense of this - I think they are going to miss. At which point, they will have no leverage, no season, no union, and a lawsuit they don't want and cannot win before the 12-13 season. At which point, the players will have to take the roll back.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
If decertification went ahead and this thing went to court, who'd be more likely to win and why?
Just to discuss this one point, poeple all over take pay cuts so fewer people at the company get laid off. We did at my company a couple years ago. My wife's school voted to do the same thing. Some folks don't mind giving up a little to help a coworker. Especially if they are friends.
And remember, this is a union, where the main goal for the union leadership is to have as many members as possible.
Larry David
Starter
Just to discuss this one point, poeple all over take pay cuts so fewer people at the company get laid off. We did at my company a couple years ago. My wife's school voted to do the same thing. Some folks don't mind giving up a little to help a coworker. Especially if they are friends.
And remember, this is a union, where the main goal for the union leadership is to have as many members as possible.
That's not the same In your case, all of the people gave up some money to ensure everybody could keep a job. You all spread the risk of getting fired equally. I get that.
The money is the same ___% of BRI. The system has zero impact on the total salary paid to players.
Yet, the players are taking the position that they will give up games, a season, or more BRI for all the players to ensure that tax teams can use the full MLE or sign and trade. That's not good for the majority of the players, which is why it's a poor position for a union to take.
50% of the league will have careers that last only a few years. They are giving up a lot of money to ensure that Ron-Ron can sign the the Lakers and not the Twolves. That makes no sense.
Using your facts, it would be like your entire company agreeing to take an equal pay cut, so 5% of the office could keep working in LA, while 95% lived here. If your union agreed to that, they didn't represent the whole union well.
Larry David
Starter
Dime Dropper, it depends.
The players want an order before trial forcing the NBA to go to work while they keep talking. It depends upon the judge, but they probably don't get that because they are probably still a union, not at an impase, and the Court are supposed keep things the same until a trial sorts it out except for exceptional cases. No matter what happens in trial court, somebody will appeal and the 2nd Circut, who probably says no wait for trial. That's what happend to the NFL. So they probably lose early
But if the players waited for a trial, they have a decent chance at winning. They can probably prove the NBA is a monopoly for pro hoops in the US and the max contracts, draft, ect are clearly restraints on trade. The NBA and all pro sports get to use them because they bargain for them. So they probably win in the end. That also happened in the NFL.
Except, they've got to wait for this to go to trial. If they were prepared to give up this season and decertify, the time to do that - while still bargaining as a trade association - was June. Now, they won't see the inside of a courthouse until some point next season and the union breaks before then. So, they'll never get to the win.
The players think decertification is a magic bullet and they can use it as leverage to make a deal. In reality, it just slows things down while also shortening the time to make a deal, so it gets them really close to ending the season right now. Hey, players, you can already do that by just not taking the deal for 45-60 more days.
The don't understand and it's sad. They think that KG acting tough at a meeting, or letting Kesler play bad cop, or busting out Unity T-shirts has some impact. It doesn't. I wish these guys had more honest agents and more college.
The players want an order before trial forcing the NBA to go to work while they keep talking. It depends upon the judge, but they probably don't get that because they are probably still a union, not at an impase, and the Court are supposed keep things the same until a trial sorts it out except for exceptional cases. No matter what happens in trial court, somebody will appeal and the 2nd Circut, who probably says no wait for trial. That's what happend to the NFL. So they probably lose early
But if the players waited for a trial, they have a decent chance at winning. They can probably prove the NBA is a monopoly for pro hoops in the US and the max contracts, draft, ect are clearly restraints on trade. The NBA and all pro sports get to use them because they bargain for them. So they probably win in the end. That also happened in the NFL.
Except, they've got to wait for this to go to trial. If they were prepared to give up this season and decertify, the time to do that - while still bargaining as a trade association - was June. Now, they won't see the inside of a courthouse until some point next season and the union breaks before then. So, they'll never get to the win.
The players think decertification is a magic bullet and they can use it as leverage to make a deal. In reality, it just slows things down while also shortening the time to make a deal, so it gets them really close to ending the season right now. Hey, players, you can already do that by just not taking the deal for 45-60 more days.
The don't understand and it's sad. They think that KG acting tough at a meeting, or letting Kesler play bad cop, or busting out Unity T-shirts has some impact. It doesn't. I wish these guys had more honest agents and more college.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Unlike you, I do think something might get done today. The union is standing on the edge of a cliff and once it jumps off, there's no turning back. If they decide to decertify, and proceed down that road, both Fisher and Hunter become irrelevant, and suddenly the power broking agents are in control. Somehow, I can't see Hunter and Fisher being on board for that. I think they, despite their rhetoric, want to make a deal. But I also think they need to save face. So the league needs to throw them a bone. Something they can take back to the players and tout as a concession by the league.
I think that bone could be the sign and trade restriction that the league wants on over the luxury cap teams. As someone pointed out, its only been used 6 times in the last 6 years, so how big a deal can it be. If thats enough, then a deal can be made. I doubt the league is going to budge very much on the other restrictions, for the reasons you outlined. I could be wrong, and it could be wishful thinking on my part. I have the problem of approaching things logically. Therein lies the flaw in my thinking.
Larry David
Starter
I have yet to see anybody explain the players argument that the new system rules will destroy the middle class.
Players offer - the max contracts are capped, and the upper middle class and middle class take most of the rest. No matter what, the players get 50% of the BRI. Most of players want to sign with good teams and big markets and they can.
Owners offer - same, except less players can sign with the Lakers and Heat.
It seems logical that if the tax teams can't sign the 2nd level of free agents, those players can get about the same money from the other teams. So no change.
But even if that didn't happen, the players won't take a pay cut because the 50% of BRI money is held in escrow and no matter what they get the money.
More escrow money isn't going to the stars because their contracts are capped. So no change.
Also, the owners will send the escrow money where ever and however the players want it split. That's their issue. So if it's an escrow split problem, work on that players because the league doesn't care.
But as I see it, with BRI locked down this doesn't impact the middle class much if at all. The union and the agents are misleading the middle class to keep this going.
Players offer - the max contracts are capped, and the upper middle class and middle class take most of the rest. No matter what, the players get 50% of the BRI. Most of players want to sign with good teams and big markets and they can.
Owners offer - same, except less players can sign with the Lakers and Heat.
It seems logical that if the tax teams can't sign the 2nd level of free agents, those players can get about the same money from the other teams. So no change.
But even if that didn't happen, the players won't take a pay cut because the 50% of BRI money is held in escrow and no matter what they get the money.
More escrow money isn't going to the stars because their contracts are capped. So no change.
Also, the owners will send the escrow money where ever and however the players want it split. That's their issue. So if it's an escrow split problem, work on that players because the league doesn't care.
But as I see it, with BRI locked down this doesn't impact the middle class much if at all. The union and the agents are misleading the middle class to keep this going.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7211473/nba-lockout-owners-players-meeting-labor-sources-say
more in the linked article.....
more in the linked article.....
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Dead on! I agree completely. I watched the interview yesterday between David Aldridge and Hunter. Hunter said that the players had only been getting their info from the media and twitter, and once they had the leagues offer explained to them, they thought it was a horrible deal. First, as far as I know, the media has been getting their info from the union and the league. So unless both parties have been lying to the media, the reports should be accurate. If they have been lying, then the misinformation is the fault of the union and the league. Second, if the media has been reporting it accurately, Hunter is implying that the players are too stupid to really understand it. So in a sense, he's insulting the players he's representing.
The truth is, the union has backed itself into a corner, and needs the league to bail them out. I'm sure there are owners out there that would love to see Hunter and company go down the tube. Hopefully they're in the minority. I guess we'll know soon. I have my fingers crossed that sanity will prevail.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Everybody negotiated the terms of the deal. The only remaining variable to negotiate was the revenue split. Now the players say, ok, we'll go with the 50-50 split, but we want to open the terms of the deal. Problem is, those terms are many interconnected moving parts. The already negotiated woven fabric of terms could very easily turn into a knotted ball of twine, which could easily end the season because of the months it could take to finally agree on the terms again. The players are making the situation worse with this tactic.
Well, on the bright side, an NBA spokesman apparently just told the reporters they could safely go to dinner (an hour after the 5 PM "deadline") so it appears that the two sides are talking, and talking at least somewhat seriously. On the flip side, so far "serious talking" has only turned into no deal followed by name calling at 2 in the morning.
I will once again hope for a deal, but I'm far beyond expecting one.
PurpleHaze
All-Star
Ditto. As lousy a negotiator Attorney Hunter has been Attorney Kessler injecting himself lately has been worse. Bringing up that "plantation" comparison AGAIN after it was first ranted by a member of the media, Bryant Gumbel, is not only pathetic, insulting, race baiting - but totally adsurd. It's going to be very hard to reach a deal with deadline looming (or just expired) and it now seems less about so-called hardcore owners and more about a dumb union negotiating strategy and poor leadership at the top of the heap.
Uncia03
Starter
I wonder what the mindset of Hunter and Fisher were, going into today's last-ditch negotations.
If they don't come to an agreement today, then the owners will have no choice but to submit their hardline offer. And since there isn't any way that the union can begin to negotiate with the league with that as a starting point, the only real option is the threat of decertification.
If they can't come to an agreement tonight, I don't see how they are going to come to an agreement in the 45-day window prior to the decertification vote, as such an option is going to result in another month or two of lost games, and therefore lost revenue that both sides are going to want to recoop.
And if they do decertify, then Hunter and Fisher lose all their power, and if things end up going badly for the players in the courts, they will share the majority of the blame for destroying things on the player's side.
So I go back to their mindset. If they can't get something done today, they will most likely lose their power and things will be out of their hands. Will that mean that they will be willing to accept a deal, even it isn't what they want?
Say they want 5 changes and the league gives them a single change, and then says "Take it or leave it", will that one item be enough for them to "save face" and take back to the players to vote? Or are they going to push for 2, 3, 4, or all 5 items in order to make a deal?
I don't know how many issues they are going to want to negotiate, I just wonder at how little will be just enough for them to accept.
If they don't come to a deal, I'm positive that Stern will indicate what items the league decided to relent to the union, and he'll indicate how those concessions by the league were still not enough for the Union, and so they are now forced to pull the offer and begin anew with their hardline offer.
We'll see...I want to be hopeful that pride isn't going to ruin this season.
If they don't come to an agreement today, then the owners will have no choice but to submit their hardline offer. And since there isn't any way that the union can begin to negotiate with the league with that as a starting point, the only real option is the threat of decertification.
If they can't come to an agreement tonight, I don't see how they are going to come to an agreement in the 45-day window prior to the decertification vote, as such an option is going to result in another month or two of lost games, and therefore lost revenue that both sides are going to want to recoop.
And if they do decertify, then Hunter and Fisher lose all their power, and if things end up going badly for the players in the courts, they will share the majority of the blame for destroying things on the player's side.
So I go back to their mindset. If they can't get something done today, they will most likely lose their power and things will be out of their hands. Will that mean that they will be willing to accept a deal, even it isn't what they want?
Say they want 5 changes and the league gives them a single change, and then says "Take it or leave it", will that one item be enough for them to "save face" and take back to the players to vote? Or are they going to push for 2, 3, 4, or all 5 items in order to make a deal?
I don't know how many issues they are going to want to negotiate, I just wonder at how little will be just enough for them to accept.
If they don't come to a deal, I'm positive that Stern will indicate what items the league decided to relent to the union, and he'll indicate how those concessions by the league were still not enough for the Union, and so they are now forced to pull the offer and begin anew with their hardline offer.
We'll see...I want to be hopeful that pride isn't going to ruin this season.
Similar threads
