Why do I keep seeing people solely blaming the players for this predicament? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

oh the horror

11-10-2011, 10:46 PM

Dave3

11-10-2011, 10:47 PM

SourGrapes

11-10-2011, 10:49 PM

oh the horror

11-10-2011, 10:55 PM

Don't think people are blaming the players, just saying the ball is in their court because this will be the best they can get, even if it's terrible. If they refuse and there's no season, the offers will only get worse from here on in, so they're really without any choice.

To be flat out honest, the players would be FOOLS to take what they're being given right at this moment. They're STILL easing up on VARIOUS stances, and the owners are STILL trying to get more and more. From the reports im hearing, its literally RIDICULOUS how greedy these owners are, and frankly I wouldnt want the deal the owners are presenting.

The basics of it are this...the owners know the players cant go elsewhere, so they're using thug tactics to take them to the cleaners. Its REALLY distasteful to hear as a fan....and while I know the players get paid a LOT to play ball....they're having basic freedoms as athletes being taken away from them and the owners still want more...

I mean hell, even the NFL lockout wasnt this sorry to see....there has to be a basic "back and forth" and so far im ONLY seeing the owners blasting them out of the water, and I think its really pathetic given how horrible some of these owners run their franchises.

NuggetsFan

11-10-2011, 10:57 PM

LOL at anybody taking either side. Both sides could careless about us and yet you see guy's sticking up for the players or tearing them down taking the owners side. Both sides are going to do what's best for them. Both sides could be considered "greedy" I guess. Are the owners bending over the players? Probably and that's because they have the leverage to do so. Can't expect them not to use it. Just like if the players could bend the owners over while cancelling a season? They wouldn't think twice.

Both sides can go f*ck themselves as far as I'm concerned :oldlol:

Dave3

11-10-2011, 11:07 PM

To be flat out honest, the players would be FOOLS to take what they're being given right at this moment. They're STILL easing up on VARIOUS stances, and the owners are STILL trying to get more and more. From the reports im hearing, its literally RIDICULOUS how greedy these owners are, and frankly I wouldnt want the deal the owners are presenting.

The basics of it are this...the owners know the players cant go elsewhere, so they're using thug tactics to take them to the cleaners. Its REALLY distasteful to hear as a fan....and while I know the players get paid a LOT to play ball....they're having basic freedoms as athletes being taken away from them and the owners still want more...

I mean hell, even the NFL lockout wasnt this sorry to see....there has to be a basic "back and forth" and so far im ONLY seeing the owners blasting them out of the water, and I think its really pathetic given how horrible some of these owners run their franchises.
Would they not end up just getting a worse deal or losing more money than if they just accepted this one though?

longtime lurker

11-10-2011, 11:11 PM

Dave3

11-10-2011, 11:15 PM

The players are willing to make a deal, it's the owners that want it all or nothing. Or should we say a small minority of owners. Players have give up 7% of the BRI which covers all of the owners losses. They've reduced contract lengths, raises etc. If the owners wanted a season they could have a started one already.
I don't disagree with anything. But like people have been saying, it's not about who's right or wrong or what's fair or unfair. It's about who has the money and bargaining position and who doesn't. Trust me, no one dislikes the owners for this more than I do (an investment with guarranteed return? that's the stupidest thing ever) but what can we do?

Collie

11-10-2011, 11:19 PM

Dave3

11-10-2011, 11:23 PM

There's lots of blaming
For them not taking the deal because they won't do better, not because it's a fair deal.

If we get 50 dollars and I offer you only 2 or 1, they both suck, but you should still take 2 and you'd be blamed if you didn't.

longtime lurker

11-10-2011, 11:25 PM

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I believe should happen. I won't cry a river over 3% of the BRI or whatever these guys want.

Is it selfish? Then sue me.

So why doesn't it work the other way? Shouldn't the owners just take the deal that covers their losses so we can play basketball?

Dave3

11-10-2011, 11:35 PM

So why doesn't it work the other way? Shouldn't the owners just take the deal that covers their losses so we can play basketball?
Because the players will lose more. If the owners lose money, they'll just offer an even worse deal and the players will have to take it then.

Deuce Bigalow

11-10-2011, 11:36 PM

**** David Stern and the owners

Collie

11-10-2011, 11:36 PM

So why doesn't it work the other way? Shouldn't the owners just take the deal that covers their losses so we can play basketball?

Actually, I don't care either way which side gives in, but at this point, it's more realistic to expect the players to do so.

longtime lurker

11-10-2011, 11:41 PM

Because the players will lose more. If the owners lose money, they'll just offer an even worse deal and the players will have to take it then.

But the owners are already getting money back to cover their losses. They've pretty much just broken even without actually having to put any work into how they run their business. I'm just saying the owners have gotten everything they asked for and more. To say the players are holding this up is just doesn't make any sense.

Collie

11-10-2011, 11:44 PM

Sometimes it isn't what's fair, but what's practical. Is it really practical to lose a season's worth of salary over something that might be changed during the next CBA negotiations?

I'm not sure.

SourGrapes

11-10-2011, 11:47 PM

For them not taking the deal because they won't do better, not because it's a fair deal.

If we get 50 dollars and I offer you only 2 or 1, they both suck, but you should still take 2 and you'd be blamed if you didn't.

I'd blame you for not negotiating in good faith if previously I'd been guaranteed 20

longtime lurker

11-10-2011, 11:58 PM

Sometimes it isn't what's fair, but what's practical. Is it really practical to lose a season's worth of salary over something that might be changed during the next CBA negotiations?

I'm not sure.

I'm not even talking about what's fair, I'm just saying the players have shown that they're willing to make concessions in order for there to be a season. The owners thus far have not really conceded anything which leads me to believe they actually want to lose a season which wouldn't only hurt the players but themselves too. And with the players talking about decertifying everyone would be royally fcked so why not reach an agreement now for the good of everybody instead of trying to run up the score.

Dave3

11-11-2011, 12:00 AM

I'd blame you for not negotiating in good faith if previously I'd been guaranteed 20
Yeah, you can blame me for being a jerk, but at the end of the day it doesn't change your choices. Either 1 or 2. 2 is the right choice if you can't do any better. People have been blaming the owners all along, but at the end of the day, they have the power, so it doesn't matter what's fair. All that matters is what is.

Dave3

11-11-2011, 12:02 AM

But the owners are already getting money back to cover their losses. They've pretty much just broken even without actually having to put any work into how they run their business. I'm just saying the owners have gotten everything they asked for and more. To say the players are holding this up is just doesn't make any sense.
The players don't have a choice. That's why they're considered holding it up. If you have no choice but to take the offer, then what more can you do?

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 12:15 AM

Yeah, you can blame me for being a jerk, but at the end of the day it doesn't change your choices. Either 1 or 2. 2 is the right choice if you can't do any better. People have been blaming the owners all along, but at the end of the day, they have the power, so it doesn't matter what's fair. All that matters is what is.

the question is who to blame for holding up a deal. the starting location of discussions colors who's being a jerk, but either side can end the lock out instantly.

that the players get the blame for that is myopic

Dave3

11-11-2011, 12:24 AM

the question is who to blame for holding up a deal. the starting location of discussions colors who's being a jerk, but either side can end the lock out instantly.

that the players get the blame for that is myopic
Well, if they have no choice but to accept now or later, why not accept now? It's going to get "more worse" for them than it will for the owners, so they have more to lose, so they're the ones that have to give in.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 12:26 AM

Well, if they have no choice but to accept now or later, why not accept now? It's going to get "more worse" for them than it will for the owners, so they have more to lose, so they're the ones that have to give in.

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)

Dave3

11-11-2011, 12:30 AM

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)
If that's an option that's great, but for the most part it hasn't seemed like it. From what I understand they're going to get owned anyways. Obviously they're going to try to get owned as little as possible, but at the end of they day, they're going to have to accept something over no season.

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 12:32 AM

not true. the other choice is to negotiate with the owners, as they have been, and for the owners to make more concessions, as they have been (allegedly)

true, but its beginning to reach that point in which its either deal time or blow up time.

it honestly just seems like the players are trying to save face now. they have lost...which doesn't even matter...because everyone knew they would. i don't like how the players have handled this, but if they get a deal done in the coming days then so be it.

but they better be aware of what happened in the nhl. they better be aware that there are a number of owners that are not happy with this current offer. they want to squeeze the players more. they want to miss more games or the season.

each passing day without a deal brings in a greater chance that those owners start making more noise....and brings in the chance that stern follows through on a deadline and resets the offer back to 47 and a hard cap. if that actually happens, the season will be lost most likely and players will be kicking themselves for not taking the deal right now.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 12:35 AM

true, but its beginning to reach that point in which its either deal time or blow up time.

it honestly just seems like the players are trying to save face now. they have lost...which doesn't even matter...because everyone knew they would. i don't like how the players have handled this, but if they get a deal done in the coming days then so be it.

but they better be aware of what happened in the nhl. they better be aware that there are a number of owners that are not happy with this current offer. they want to squeeze the players more. they want to miss more games or the season.

each passing day without a deal brings in a greater chance that those owners start making more noise....and brings in the chance that stern follows through on a deadline and resets the offer back to 47 and a hard cap. if that actually happens, the season will be lost most likely and players will be kicking themselves for not taking the deal right now.

agreed. a small part of me wants them punished for their poor negotiating. those stupid t-shirts were almost as insulting as the owners' pretending they've negotiated in good faith

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 01:12 AM

agreed. a small part of me wants them punished for their poor negotiating. those stupid t-shirts were almost as insulting as the owners' pretending they've negotiated in good faith

but what is good faith? its very difficult to define. it basically means that the owners are giving the players their word that they want to get a deal done and will try.

that doesn't really mean anything for the terms or points of this CBA though. its not in bad faith for the owners to ask for 47% and hard cap. why would it be? the economy sucks. there are real issues impacting these teams. over 20 teams are losing money. the future of the nba in terms of attendance looks bleak.

and throw all of that in with the nba players getting way too much money over the last decade.

good faith is being tossed around way too much as if it means anything. the owners are not being so absurd that what they want is unreasonable. this deal should not and will not be "fair"....that would just be bad business by the owners.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:20 AM

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:35 AM

but what is good faith? its very difficult to define. it basically means that the owners are giving the players their word that they want to get a deal done and will try.

that doesn't really mean anything for the terms or points of this CBA though. its not in bad faith for the owners to ask for 47% and hard cap. why would it be? the economy sucks. there are real issues impacting these teams. over 20 teams are losing money. the future of the nba in terms of attendance looks bleak.

and throw all of that in with the nba players getting way too much money over the last decade.

good faith is being tossed around way too much as if it means anything. the owners are not being so absurd that what they want is unreasonable. this deal should not and will not be "fair"....that would just be bad business by the owners.

bringing to the table a set of demands that doesn't alter the landscape of the agreement more than it has to, and one that historically makes sense relative to other agreements signed previously, is good faith. starting with a reduction from 57 to 45% bri to the players is bad faith negotiating. it really isn't that hard to define

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:37 AM

Because the players are employees of the owners, and make more than most people will make in a lifetime.

Do you get that?

The owners, can do whatever they want with their business, and that includes setting wages above minimum.

If the players don't like it, they can always find another job like the rest of us.

wrong. because the owners are exempt from antitrust laws as a result of the players bargaining power (the creation of the union), they have to have honest negotiations with the players at times like these

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:42 AM

wrong. because the owners are exempt from antitrust laws as a result of the players bargaining power (the creation of the union), they have to have honest negotiations with the players at times like these

Wrong, because the players can go work elsewhere if they don't like the conditions they are working under.

Playing basketball for millions isn't a right, its a privilege, and they've grown far too spoiled. That however, is the owners fault for spoiling them,

but nobody is making them play in the NBA, they chose to.

bdreason

11-11-2011, 01:44 AM

If the players don't like it, they can always find another job like the rest of us.

Or the players can decertify the Union and sue the shit out of the owners for breaking anti-trust laws by manipulating wages.

I have no doubt the players could get a better deal in court... but will that better deal make up for a years worth of lost salaries?!? Probably not.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:44 AM

Wrong, because the players can go work elsewhere if they don't like the conditions they are working under.

Playing basketball for millions isn't a right, its a privilege, and they've grown far too spoiled. That however, is the owners fault for spoiling them,

but nobody is making them play in the NBA, they chose to.

they can go elsewhere. they can also negotiate, which is the modern standard. clearly, they've chosen the latter... so, not wrong

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 01:44 AM

bringing to the table a set of demands that doesn't alter the landscape of the agreement more than it has to, and one that historically makes sense relative to other agreements signed previously, is good faith. starting with a reduction from 57 to 45% bri to the players is bad faith negotiating. it really isn't that hard to define

actually it is. because the old deal is no longer in play actually. there are no rules or regulations that dictate what one side offers the other. The players basically started at 53%. That is really where the negotiating started. 57% in this climate is absurd....the players knew that.

good faith is not a binding term. it really just means that one party is not trying to sabotage the talks for whatever reason. it would be like the owners offering an unreasonable deal and making no effort to actually negotiate.

that is not what is going on. the owners have certainly negotiated and come off a lot of their hard line stances.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 01:45 AM

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:46 AM

actually it is. because the old deal is no longer in play actually. there are no rules or regulations that dictate what one side offers the other. The players basically started at 53%. That is really where the negotiating started. 57% in this climate is absurd....the players knew that.

good faith is not a binding term. it really just means that one party is not trying to sabotage the talks for whatever reason. it would be like the owners offering an unreasonable deal and making no effort to actually negotiate.

that is not what is going on. the owners have certainly negotiated and come off a lot of their hard line stances.

so the old deal actually is in play. it is referenced, as you just did

bdreason

11-11-2011, 01:47 AM

57% in this climate is absurd....the players knew that.

Don't state things as fact when you have no idea what the numbers are. NHL players just got 57%, and the NHL doesn't make near the revenue, and spends most its time on the Versus network.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:47 AM

they can go elsewhere. they can also negotiate, which is the modern standard. clearly, they've chosen the latter... so, not wrong

They have been negotiating, and they're being greedy, ungracious ****s.

What other job allows you to share revenue with the employer?

If I work for Frito Lay, do I get a percentage of every bag of chips sold?

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:48 AM

Are people still this misinformed? :roll:

State one thing thats wrong.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:50 AM

They have been negotiating, and they're being greedy, ungracious ****s.

What other job allows you to share revenue with the employer?

If I work for Frito Lay, do I get a percentage of every bag of chips sold?

i can't speculate about every job in the world, but presumably many that are company/union oriented

and as for frito lay, i don't know their specifics

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 01:50 AM

State one thing thats wrong.

Are you serious? Look at the two other posts quoting you. While the owners may have leverage, the players would sue the pants off of them for breaking anti-trust laws.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:50 AM

Or the players can decertify the Union and sue the shit out of the owners for breaking anti-trust laws by manipulating wages.

I have no doubt the players could get a better deal in court... but will that better deal make up for a years worth of lost salaries?!? Probably not.

They can do that as well, and then the owners can simply decide, "we'll just fold the NBA altogether and spend our money on our other businesses".

lol lost salaries? These clowns are making millions. The only people truly hurting are the ones who work at the stadiums. These players talk about missing checks, but what about the guy who depends on the NBA to provide for his family 400 bucks a week?

Those are "lost salaries". The players don't realize how good they truly have it.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:52 AM

Are you serious? Look at the two other posts quoting you. While the owners may have leverage, the players would sue the pants off of them for breaking anti-trust laws.

The players can sue all they want, still doesn't make anything I said false.

Let them go find a regular job like everyone else for a year and see how quickly they come back to their horrible working conditions.

Its dumb****s like you that stick up for people who don't know you, or even care to know you. They simply want you to keep paying for their lifestyle.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 01:54 AM

i can't speculate about every job in the world, but presumably many that are company/union oriented

and as for frito lay, i don't know their specifics

I worked for Frito Lay.

We got an hourly wage, and thats it.

I work in a union now,

we get no revenues and I don't know anyone that works a regular 9 to 5 who does either.

So, again, why do these players want revenues again?

Because they're greedy and can't be content with what they already have.

Now, if you want to bash the owners, fine by me, but they are the ones who put up the money in the first place. Without the owners, there isn't even a league to play in.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 01:55 AM

The players can sue all they want, still doesn't make anything I said false.

Let them go find a regular job like everyone else for a year and see how quickly they come back to their horrible working conditions.

Its dumb****s like you that stick up for people who don't know you, or even care to know you. They simply want you to keep paying for their lifestyle.

I'm not sticking up for anyone, just pointing out your ignorance. You sound totally uneducated about what's going on here.

I'm of the opinion these players are over-paid too, but what you're saying is absolutely egregious.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 01:58 AM

I worked for Frito Lay.

We got an hourly wage, and thats it.

I work in a union now,

we get no revenues and I don't know anyone that works a regular 9 to 5 who does either.

So, again, why do these players want revenues again?

Because they're greedy and can't be content with what they already have.

Now, if you want to bash the owners, fine by me, but they are the ones who put up the money in the first place. Without the owners, there isn't even a league to play in.

apparently the union you are in now isn't in a strong enough position to demand a revenue split. obviously the nbapa has such outstanding individuals in it that they have a strong enough position to bargain from that they've obtained revenue

despite your best wishes, there is nothing normative about these discussions. there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts, only what is possible and practical

JohnnyWall

11-11-2011, 02:11 AM

despite your best wishes, there is nothing normative about these discussions. there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts, only what is possible and practical

But you feel that it's acceptable for the blame to be shifted onto the owners instead? If, like you say, there shouldn't be normative or moralistic judgements on what each side is pushing for in the new deal, then neither side is deserving of blame. Both are just positioning themselves out of self-interest.

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 02:16 AM

But you feel that it's acceptable for the blame to be shifted onto the owners instead? If, like you say, there shouldn't be normative or moralistic judgements on what each side is pushing for in the new deal, then neither side is deserving of blame. Both are just positioning themselves out of self-interest.

my blame isn't moralistic or philosophic, it's about adhering to standard legal requirements for negotiations, for the benefit of both sides, and the fans.

JohnnyWall

11-11-2011, 02:51 AM

my blame isn't moralistic or philosophic, it's about adhering to standard legal requirements for negotiations, for the benefit of both sides, and the fans.

Ah. Then yes, I agree there. If either party is breaking the law then blame should be given accordingly. But I personally haven't seen any evidence of illegal actions by the owners. I know that decertification would likely lead up to court trials and antitrust charges, but I'm not so sure the players would win those trials.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 05:38 AM

apparently the union you are in now isn't in a strong enough position to demand a revenue split. obviously the nbapa has such outstanding individuals in it that they have a strong enough position to bargain from that they've obtained revenue

despite your best wishes, there is nothing normative about these discussions. there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts, only what is possible and practical

Name one industry outside of sports where owners share revenue with their employees.

You really have no clue how generous these owners are being.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 05:40 AM

I'm not sticking up for anyone, just pointing out your ignorance. You sound totally uneducated about what's going on here.

I'm of the opinion these players are over-paid too, but what you're saying is absolutely egregious.

You still can't mention one thing that I said was false,

but I'm the ignorant one.

lol

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 11:45 AM

You still can't mention one thing that I said was false,

but I'm the ignorant one.

lol

You haven't said anything false per se, just nothing veritably practical. Your argument sounds nice, but what about the consequences these owners makeup? From my perspective, you know a little bit about everything and a lot about nothing.

pegasus

11-11-2011, 11:58 AM

This has been such an emotional roller-coaster for me. One day I want to side with the owners, next day I want the players to get a better deal than what's presented. And today, I say f*** both of them!

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 12:01 PM

Don't state things as fact when you have no idea what the numbers are. NHL players just got 57%, and the NHL doesn't make near the revenue, and spends most its time on the Versus network.

this isn't the NHL....the NFL players get almost 10% less than that. climate does not just mean economic climate. its about what went on the last 10 or so years and what the next 10 or so years hold. the nhl also has a completely different system..etc.

i'd prefer we not talk about other leagues as other leagues or different. there is a reason why the players started talking at 53...they knew asking for 57 was absurd.

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 12:02 PM

so the old deal actually is in play. it is referenced, as you just did

please don't try to get cute with responses like that. me saying 57% is absurd does not mean the old deal is in play. pick any number over 52 and I'll say the same thing.

The players know this as well and that is why they are now at 50/50.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 12:21 PM

Name one industry outside of sports where owners share revenue with their employees.

The entertainment industry.

And the NBA is sports, so why would they not get a share of the revenues, when every other sport pays like that.

You really have no clue how generous these owners are being.

They aren't being generous at all. They made zero concessions.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 12:23 PM

please don't try to get cute with responses like that. me saying 57% is absurd does not mean the old deal is in play. pick any number over 52 and I'll say the same thing.

The players know this as well and that is why they are now at 50/50.

Saying the old deal is not in play is just as absurd as you saying 57% is absurd. They use the old deal as the basis for the new deal. Otherwise both sides come in saying they want 100%, and negotiations start from there, which clearly they don't.

JohnnyWall

11-11-2011, 02:38 PM

Name one industry outside of sports where owners share revenue with their employees.

You really have no clue how generous these owners are being.

I'm not defending the players, but there are industries that use profit sharing as part of their employees' pay structures. Most of the time it's allocated in the form of common stock in the company though, especially if it's public. Profit sharing isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's no question that NBA players are generously compensated.

11-11-2011, 04:25 PM

Don't state things as fact when you have no idea what the numbers are. NHL players just got 57%, and the NHL doesn't make near the revenue, and spends most its time on the Versus network.
54% at the max for NHL players. And as a group what would you rather have 54% of 2 billion or 50% of 4 billion?. You're comparing apples to oranges the two leagues are not even in the same stratosphere. NBA is 450 players splitting near twice a much money as over one 1000 players in the NHL

And you have the nerve to call out somebody on not knowing the numbers involved

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 04:31 PM

Saying the old deal is not in play is just as absurd as you saying 57% is absurd. They use the old deal as the basis for the new deal. Otherwise both sides come in saying they want 100%, and negotiations start from there, which clearly they don't.

They use the framework. But nobody starts a negotiation asking for 100% of something. Its amazing I even have to respond tot his.

The players are no more entitled to 57% than they are 50% when a new CBA deal is being done. Just look. The players are now basically down to 50. Why? Because the current circumstances are dictating that. You really think the old deal is that much in play? LOL....the players have lost so much from the last deal. Nobody in there right mind would ever agree to losing so much if they actually thought the last deal was the basis for a new one.

The negotiation starts at a reasonable starting point for both sides. Doesn't matter if the last deal was 90% owners or players. A new deal negotiated now would always look somewhat like the one they are going to ultimately agree on.

Its just rhetoric and semantics from both sides...talking about concessions and crap. You can't concede something you don't have. Both sides are just coming off their initial demands...which is exactly what a negotiation is.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 04:32 PM

[QUOTE=B

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 04:35 PM

They use the framework. But nobody starts a negotiation asking for 100% of something. Its amazing I even have to respond tot his.

The players are no more entitled to 57% than they are 50% when a new CBA deal is being done. Just look. The players are now basically down to 50. Why? Because the current circumstances are dictating that. You really think the old deal is that much in play? LOL....the players have lost so much from the last deal. Nobody in there right mind would ever agree to losing so much if they actually thought the last deal was the basis for a new one.

The negotiation starts at a reasonable starting point for both sides. Doesn't matter if the last deal was 90% owners or players. A new deal negotiated now would always look somewhat like the one they are going to ultimately agree on.

Its just rhetoric and semantics from both sides...talking about concessions and crap. You can't concede something you don't have. Both sides are just coming off their initial demands...which is exactly what a negotiation is.

What the hell man? They use the old deal as a basis for the new one, which is why we have salary caps still, caps on max salaries still, minimum wage still, etc, etc. If they renegotiated every single thing every time, it would take even longer than it is now.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 05:00 PM

The entertainment industry.

And the NBA is sports, so why would they not get a share of the revenues, when every other sport pays like that.

They aren't being generous at all. They made zero concessions.

Sports falls within the entertainment industry, try again.

A business owner has no obligation to his employee but to provide a safe and practical work environment and pay.

Anything else, is extra and at the discretion of the owner.

NBA owners are being very generous to the people they pay to play a game of throw a ball in a basket.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 05:00 PM

You haven't said anything false per se, just nothing veritably practical. Your argument sounds nice, but what about the consequences these owners makeup? From my perspective, you know a little bit about everything and a lot about nothing.

Everything I've said is practical.

If the players don't like it,

they can find another job like the rest of us.

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 05:03 PM

What the hell man? They use the old deal as a basis for the new one, which is why we have salary caps still, caps on max salaries still, minimum wage still, etc, etc. If they renegotiated every single thing every time, it would take even longer than it is now.

They use it for the framework.....

We were talking about revenue split. It doesn't matter if the players had 75% of revenue last time.

This new deal would ultimately end up where it is now. Which is 50/50....why? Because it makes sense given the circumstances. Power, leverage, and circumstances dictate this stuff. Not what the last deal was based on the breakdown of income sharing.j

Its so overblown and simply rhetoric from the players about concessions. Its hilarious.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 05:10 PM

They use it for the framework.....

We were talking about revenue split. It doesn't matter if the players had 75% of revenue last time.

This new deal would ultimately end up where it is now. Which is 50/50....why? Because it makes sense given the circumstances. Power, leverage, and circumstances dictate this stuff. Not what the last deal was based on the breakdown of income sharing.j

Its so overblown and simply rhetoric from the players about concessions. Its hilarious.

You realize money comes off the top that goes directly to the owners to cover expenses, so the 50/50 is really about 46% to the players.

Anyway, the season is gonna be canceled. The owners are trying to sabotage it on purpose. They don't want a season.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7220959/nba-lockout-players-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

Adding this D-League provision will never be accepted by the players.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 05:11 PM

Sports falls within the entertainment industry, try again.

A business owner has no obligation to his employee but to provide a safe and practical work environment and pay.

Anything else, is extra and at the discretion of the owner.

NBA owners are being very generous to the people they pay to play a game of throw a ball in a basket.

What do you think sports is? Manufacturing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entertainment_industry_topics

2LeTTeRS

11-11-2011, 05:11 PM

I agree man. This stance is what prompted me to start my blog. After a few months and beginning to seek employment by some of the same people that I was criticizing I stopped writing as much, but my opinion remains the same.

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 05:13 PM

You realize money comes off the top that goes directly to the owners to cover expenses, so the 50/50 is really about 46% to the players.

Anyway, the season is gonna be canceled. The owners are trying to sabotage it on purpose. They don't want a season.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7220959/nba-lockout-players-unlikely-accept-owners-proposal-sources-say

Adding this D-League provision will never be accepted by the players.

Its becoming more clear that a group of the owners simply don't want a season...or want to squeeze the players more. Not fair, but reality. If the players really want to play....agree to the deal. If they want to fight it...then fight it.

I just don't see much leverage for the players. Each passing day they lose any leverage or power they might have.

If I was a player I wouldn't be happy with the deal, but its their job to determine if its the best deal they can get. Missing a year doesn't help them at all. It only hurts them.

I just hope the players are aware of the ramifications of not playing this year. It will set the league back at least 5 years and will drastically shrink the BRI they are splitting to begin with.

The players are adults and can make the choice for themselves. I just hope they are smart enough to understand the consequences of losing a season.

Kevin_Gamble

11-11-2011, 05:15 PM

Name one industry outside of sports where owners share revenue with their employees.

Easy. You don't even have to leave the NBA to find that. An NBA player's agent splits revenue 5/95 with the player he's representing.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 05:20 PM

Its becoming more clear that a group of the owners simply don't want a season...or want to squeeze the players more. Not fair, but reality. If the players really want to play....agree to the deal. If they want to fight it...then fight it.

I just don't see much leverage for the players. Each passing day they lose any leverage or power they might have.

If I was a player I wouldn't be happy with the deal, but its their job to determine if its the best deal they can get. Missing a year doesn't help them at all. It only hurts them.

I just hope the players are aware of the ramifications of not playing this year. It will set the league back at least 5 years and will drastically shrink the BRI they are splitting to begin with.

The players are adults and can make the choice for themselves. I just hope they are smart enough to understand the consequences of losing a season.

The players haven't used their leverage yet. Their leverage is decertification, but they won't use it until they know for certain the year is lost.

Billy Hunter is an idiot and should have used it in July.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 05:20 PM

What do you think sports is? Manufacturing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entertainment_industry_topics

Sports is entertainment.

Try again.

The players are lucky to even be getting the contracts they get.

I seriously don't get why fools such as yourself, cry over their money, as if you're going to get any.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 05:25 PM

Mr Know It All

11-11-2011, 05:37 PM

The players must stop nitpicking about this deal, they must accept that essentially they have no choice. Is it fair? No. Are they going to get anything better? No. Are they going to get something far worse if they reject it? Yes. Are the owners going to be intimidated enough by decertification to make their proposal better? Probably not.

With all this in mind, there's only one direction the NBPA can take that makes sense. They've lost this thing, yes the owners have been disgusting in how much they have decided to squeeze the players, but it is what it is. The players have had things very good in the expired CBA, now things are about to swing, they should accept this deal and prepare for the next fight. Get rid of Billy Hunter and appoint someone who can get the job done properly next time.

All that being said, looks like the players will be stubborn with this new deal. I think the season is toast folks.

Derka

11-11-2011, 06:03 PM

I mostly blame the owners. They screwed up the last deal that was made and that pretty much set the tone for how immobile they're being with this round of negotiations.

The players are overpaid and the system does need to be fixed, but it seems like when the players move just a little bit towards the center, the owners respond by pulling the center back in their direction just a bit more. And the part that sucks is the owners have all the leverage...none of them are financially dependent on their NBA franchises to stay stinking rich. For the players, this is their livelihood being taken away from them. Their options are approximately zero and there's nothing preventing the owners from continuing to act in bad faith.

11-11-2011, 06:11 PM

57%

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/learnthegame/a/nhl_salary_cap.htm

I think hockey revenues are almost $3 billion now. The salary cap this year for the NHL is $64 million. The cap for the NBA was what? $58 million? Obviously the soft cap allows teams to go over if they want, but that is their own choosing.
"Estimates" was the key word there in your quote... Reports are it's going to be at 54% again because the economy took a hit as did hockeys sales. I'll see if I can did that up again I posted it in another thread somewhere around here last week.

Another point I did not mention is Hockey teams take a lot more off the top of the income numbers in the way of deductions than the NBA does. You may be correct hockey will have 3 billion in gross numbers but by the time they get done splitting it with the players it can be less than 2 billion

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 06:37 PM

please don't try to get cute with responses like that. me saying 57% is absurd does not mean the old deal is in play. pick any number over 52 and I'll say the same thing.

The players know this as well and that is why they are now at 50/50.

That's not being cute, it's me pointingnout your failure. Please don't tell ,e how to post.

I's amazing I even have to point out that 57 percent is the basis on which the new talks are taking place. As in "57 percent is too high for today's economic climate"

So moving from 57 percent, what works? Not, what works regardless ofmthe history of league union negotiations.

My guess is you won't acknowledge that negotiations happen in the context of two parties taking into account what has been and what need to be. I'd that is the case, don't respond to me pretending that you want honest discussion

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 06:42 PM

Name one industry outside of sports where owners share revenue with their employees.

You really have no clue how generous these owners are being.

They are generous because the union has leverage. Again,this isn't normative. The circumstances of the past have been decided upon because of real leverage each side has. Not because of "generosity" or a deviation from what "should" happen

DMAVS41

11-11-2011, 06:51 PM

That's not being cute, it's me pointingnout your failure. Please don't tell ,e how to post.

I's amazing I even have to point out that 57 percent is the basis on which the new talks are taking place. As in "57 percent is too high for today's economic climate"

So moving from 57 percent, what works? Not, what works regardless ofmthe history of league union negotiations.

My guess is you won't acknowledge that negotiations happen in the context of two parties taking into account what has been and what need to be. I'd that is the case, don't respond to me pretending that you want honest discussion

They take into account everything.

I'm talking about BRI....its going to be somewhere from 40% to 60% per side. That is really just a fact.

Just because it was 57% last time does not mean the players have a right to have it start at the number this time. What dictates that discussion and actual debate is economics, climate, outlook....everything. Very little of any debate in a negotiation like this would be:

"Well, we had 57% last time and that is what we want again"

Sorry, doesn't work like that in real life. You actually have to present legit arguments and evidence to prove why you are entitled to something. The argument of "we had it last time" just simply doesn't fly.

Maybe your mentality is the exact problem and why these negotiations have gone so poorly. The players think they are starting with everything they used to have. They aren't. They currently have nothing. The old CBA expired. This is a new deal for a new time. I don't care if the players had 90% the last decade. This new deal would still end up at 50/50....because that is what makes sense given the climate and the owners' position.

Do you really think that if the players had 75% of BRI the last decade that the owners would agree to 60% because the players are conceding 15%...which would be more than they are conceding now? Of course they wouldn't. So the past number just doesn't matter all that much.

They use the old deal as a framework for some of the other stuff. They aren't redoing the entire system. I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing this notion that the players are conceding so much on BRI because they had 57% last time. I don't think that matters all that much. Old deal is gone. Its dead. 57% didn't exist the day the old deal expired. New deal now. Simple as that.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 07:49 PM

They are generous because the union has leverage. Again,this isn't normative. The circumstances of the past have been decided upon because of real leverage each side has. Not because of "generosity" or a deviation from what "should" happen
Generosity is in full effect in athletes pay rates.

Nowhere does any rule state that players have to make millions for playing a simple game.

What happened to "I'd play this sport for free because I love it so much"?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 07:57 PM

Everything I've said is practical.

If the players don't like it,

they can find another job like the rest of us.

No, if they don't like it, they resume meetings (which is what they've BEEN doing). If owners completely locked them out like you suggested (without negotiating) their anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices would be heavily scrutinized. The union would sue and win.

Your argument is far from practical. Try again.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 07:59 PM

No, if they don't like it, they resume meetings (which is what they've BEEN doing). If owners completely locked them out like you suggested (without negotiating) their anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices would be heavily scrutinized. The union would sue and win.

Your argument is far from practical. Try again.

No, if they don't like their working conditions,

they can simply quit and look for work elsewhere like everyone else.

Btw, I didn't suggest anything.

But you know whats really far from practical?

Making a million dollars to play 82 basketball games a year while a teacher struggles to make 60,000.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-11-2011, 08:04 PM

No, if they don't like their working conditions,

they can simply quit and look for work elsewhere like everyone else.

The players aren't going to "simply quit" and look for "work elsewhere". Again, that's NOT going to happen. Your opinions hold no water and are a far cry from reality. For some of these guys, this is all they know, what they've trained and practiced their entire lives.

There's no NBA without the owners concessions, but the league is equally irrelevant without its players.

Sarcastic

11-11-2011, 08:49 PM

[QUOTE=B

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 10:39 PM

Generosity is in full effect in athletes pay rates.

Nowhere does any rule state that players have to make millions for playing a simple game.

What happened to "I'd play this sport for free because I love it so much"?

No it's not. The athletes that get paid as much as they do are compensated as such because of how good they are at their jobs, how scarce that resource is, and because of the hard work put in by owners and the union in past negotiations. Not "generosity"
:oldlol:

This fool wants to pretend the status quo is a result of charity

SourGrapes

11-11-2011, 10:45 PM

They take into account everything.

I'm talking about BRI....its going to be somewhere from 40% to 60% per side. That is really just a fact.

Just because it was 57% last time does not mean the players have a right to have it start at the number this time. What dictates that discussion and actual debate is economics, climate, outlook....everything. Very little of any debate in a negotiation like this would be:

"Well, we had 57% last time and that is what we want again"

Sorry, doesn't work like that in real life. You actually have to present legit arguments and evidence to prove why you are entitled to something. The argument of "we had it last time" just simply doesn't fly.

Maybe your mentality is the exact problem and why these negotiations have gone so poorly. The players think they are starting with everything they used to have. They aren't. They currently have nothing. The old CBA expired. This is a new deal for a new time. I don't care if the players had 90% the last decade. This new deal would still end up at 50/50....because that is what makes sense given the climate and the owners' position.

Do you really think that if the players had 75% of BRI the last decade that the owners would agree to 60% because the players are conceding 15%...which would be more than they are conceding now? Of course they wouldn't. So the past number just doesn't matter all that much.

They use the old deal as a framework for some of the other stuff. They aren't redoing the entire system. I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing this notion that the players are conceding so much on BRI because they had 57% last time. I don't think that matters all that much. Old deal is gone. Its dead. 57% didn't exist the day the old deal expired. New deal now. Simple as that.

it doesn't work like the stupid exchange you just made up in your text.

but the history of agreements always is a major force in negotiations. the league bases what they offer in part on where the bri split was previously. the union bases what they accept in part on where the bri split was previously.

you are correct. the old deal expired. no one thinks it hasn't. the new deal hasn't been generated. one consideration of future behavior is past behavior. simple as that

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 11:33 PM

The players aren't going to "simply quit" and look for "work elsewhere". Again, that's NOT going to happen. Your opinions hold no water and are a far cry from reality. For some of these guys, this is all they know, what they've trained and practiced their entire lives.

There's no NBA without the owners concessions, but the league is equally irrelevant without its players.
:roll:

boo ****ing hoo. :cry: me a river.

For many people in this country, the job they've done for the past 30 years, is all they've known. Its what they've trained for and practiced their entire lives.

That didn't stop the hardest recession from taking away their livelihood. The funny thing is, in those 30 years, they still haven't made what some NBA players make in one year.

The league, can move on without its players. I'm more than positive there is some guy out there who would love to take their pay right now.

The Iron Fist

11-11-2011, 11:35 PM

No it's not. The athletes that get paid as much as they do are compensated as such because of how good they are at their jobs, how scarce that resource is, and because of the hard work put in by owners and the union in past negotiations. Not "generosity"
:oldlol:

This fool wants to pretend the status quo is a result of charity

No, they get paid because the owners kept outbidding each other for their services taking salaries higher and higher.

That, is generosity when you look at the reality of things. Idiots like you want to pretend that these NBA players are in the welfare line during the off season begging for scraps.

SourGrapes

11-12-2011, 03:06 AM

No, they get paid because the owners kept outbidding each other for their services taking salaries higher and higher.

That, is generosity when you look at the reality of things. Idiots like you want to pretend that these NBA players are in the welfare line during the off season begging for scraps.

I don't though.

What a strange thing to say

Sarcastic

11-12-2011, 03:25 AM

The Iron Fist

11-12-2011, 06:04 AM

So the owners are asking for a system that protects them from themselves.

Basically, and theres nothing wrong with that. Everyone makes mistakes. They made a mistake in overpaying these guys. Now, as businessmen, they're trying to correct it.

Can't really blame them, especially when you give a guy a great contract after a career year, and then he plays sub par for the next 5.

The Iron Fist

11-12-2011, 06:05 AM

I don't though.

What a strange thing to say

lol, sure you aren't, yet you're here crying about how unfair the deal is to millionaires.

SourGrapes

11-12-2011, 01:51 PM

lol, sure you aren't, yet you're here crying about how unfair the deal is to millionaires.

So now i'm crying, huh? I get it. You're not in here to enjoy honest discussion. You're here to vent about anything because of some deficiency in your life.

Regardless of the history of negotiations, the unique talent of the nba labor pool, et al, you fixate on the wealth of a few because of your circumstances. I wonder who's really crying?

Unlike for you, these negotiations and our discussions of them aren't personal for me

The Iron Fist

11-12-2011, 02:34 PM

So now i'm crying, huh? I get it. You're not in here to enjoy honest discussion. You're here to vent about anything because of some deficiency in your life.

Regardless of the history of negotiations, the unique talent of the nba labor pool, et al, you fixate on the wealth of a few because of your circumstances. I wonder who's really crying?

Unlike for you, these negotiations and our discussions of them aren't personal for me

Who said I was here to enjoy an honest discussion?

I'm wondering why people are acting like the players are in any way, suffering.

My life, is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you'd like to know, I'm content with my situation, content enough that I don't have to moan about millionaire athletes not getting a fair shake from their employers.

Keep crying, you'll never get any sympathy from any one of them though.

Sarcastic

11-12-2011, 03:54 PM

Who said I was here to enjoy an honest discussion?

I'm wondering why people are acting like the players are in any way, suffering.

No one is saying the players are suffering.

My life, is irrelevant

We finally agree on something :cheers:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

11-12-2011, 05:29 PM

boo ****ing hoo. :cry: me a river.

For many people in this country, the job they've done for the past 30 years, is all they've known. Its what they've trained for and practiced their entire lives.

The players aren't going anywhere. That's the point, which went completely over your head.

Kobr

11-12-2011, 06:53 PM

is there a deadline for this proposal? monday/tuesday?

SourGrapes

11-12-2011, 11:55 PM

Who said I was here to enjoy an honest discussion?

I'm wondering why people are acting like the players are in any way, suffering.

My life, is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you'd like to know, I'm content with my situation, content enough that I don't have to moan about millionaire athletes not getting a fair shake from their employers.

Keep crying, you'll never get any sympathy from any one of them though.

apparently it's not, you keep talking about how things should be, rather than discussing the way negotiations unfold. you're entire reason for posting about this is a personal referendum on what the players deserve, in normative terms, rather than what they deserve, in terms of negotiations.

the fact you keep saying i'm crying let's everyone know you take this stuff personally, rather than treating this as a discussion.

i don't care what the players get, as long as the two sides conduct legally sound and appropriate discussions... which i don't believe the owners have done.

that's nothing to do with who "deserves" what, unlike you

11-12-2011, 11:57 PM

is there a deadline for this proposal? monday/tuesday?The deadline is open. Basically whenever the league hear's back from the players. Tuesdayish

Human Error

11-13-2011, 12:49 AM

I keep seeing people on this board full on blaming the players here.

From the reports im hearing out there, the owners seem to be bending them over a table right now....I mean, literally the owners dont seem to be giving AT ALL.....yet the players have eased on their stance on SEVERAL levels, and things involved in this.

So, what is it....are you falling for the PR war, and BS put out there, or do you HONESTLY believe the players should take an absolutely horrible deal so you can see some ball?

Why should owners that make HORRIBLE decisions with their money be rewarded or rather, protected from losing money?

Again, from reports im hearing...owners arent giving MUCH back into this, but rather taking, and taking, and taking.
Basketball is far from being the most popular sports and NBA isn't the sport brand that generates the most income yet NBA players are getting far more than other professional athletes and teams are losing money.

You know there's something systemically wrong when majority of owners are saying they'd be financially better off not having a season because at least it will keep them from bearing loss. On the other hand, not many players would be able to say they'd be financially be better off skipping a season. What players don't get is the ball is in owners' hands, not in players.

NBA players have to listen to NHL players who did the same idiotic mistake by thinking they can put pressure on owners by quitting a season, the cold hard reality is that the league is being run by owners and if players wait a year without accepting the current offer the owners will lower their offer next year, then players will have to take it. I'm not blaming the players for wanting a better deal. But if someone is to blame players for not being able to understand that they have nothing to gain by rejecting the current offer, I think the blame on the players can be justified.

ConanRulesNBC

11-13-2011, 02:47 AM

The players just need to shut the f*ck up and play already. Get this season going. Don't like it? Try finding a real job not making anything close to even a million a year.

F*ck these greedy bastards. Players and owners.

ConanRulesNBC

11-13-2011, 02:51 AM

Sports is entertainment.

Try again.

The players are lucky to even be getting the contracts they get.

I seriously don't get why fools such as yourself, cry over their money, as if you're going to get any.

Exactly. They're whining because they might lose some money but they'll still be making millions. What is there to complain about?

Blue&Orange

11-13-2011, 08:36 AM

I find it lovely that the NBA superstars that are highly paid, are going abroad to get more money, stealing jobs from the mid\low level NBA guys with
opt-out clauses ready to jump on that sweet NBA money, are preaching fight to the low\mid level guys when themselfs aren't doing none, see d-will.

Owners offer will be voted, it will be ridiculous other way, and it will be approved, Durant doesn't get it that superstars are a minority in the union and he doesn't get it that when you come to public trying to sway the way of the vote, it's not a good idea to announce as well that your about to steal another job from the low\mid level NBA guys.

PP34Deuce

11-13-2011, 11:57 AM

Far from an expert but what I observe in language talks and interviews is....

-David Stern is really Neutral. People say he's on the owners side but he really isn't. He is not a president that can Veto the owners proposal. He's got more pull than Goddell had in NFL CBA talks, but when you have owners like Paul Allen, Michael Jordan, Buss who impact the world( not just basketball) Stern can only do so much. Stern seems to be warning the players "It doesn't get any better boys, take this deal before they get ridiculous."

-Players like Paul Pierce,Melo,Lebron,Kobe,Durant,Davis can afford to have Decertification and canceled season. I don't think people realize that the union is not doing this deal for NOW. These players and Hunter are protecting your Kyrie Irving,and your Stephen Currys who are very young and a couple years away from their "max" contracts. the current players in the board rooms are mostly outside of Lebron,Wade,Durant,Melo, 2-3 years away from retiring.

I used to feel like some of you guys on how its a privilege to make millions of dollars in the NBA and that they should try working a regular job like regular people. I think we forget to mention that these athletes aren't regular people. Sure there may be 5-8 percent of guys extremely lucky to be in the NBA, but 92 percent of these guys are gifted in some way and can do it better than us sitting on this computer.

They impact the world as much as a software developer,actor, or musician. If any of you could have the connection and talent to be an NBA player, you would be thinking different.

Sarcastic

11-13-2011, 12:35 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2011/11/09/likely-nba-labor-resolution-will-transfer-250-275-million-from-players-to-owners/

[QUOTE]NBA owners and Commissioner David Stern are awaiting feedback from the players

StarJordan

11-13-2011, 03:54 PM

if players have public concern in mind, let them play for 50000 a year and donate the rest of 4 million to charity....they are not concerned about fans and most of them don't deserve even 1 tenth of what they make.

Lebowski

11-13-2011, 05:10 PM

Its "people" like you that stick up for people who don't know you, or even care to know you. They simply want you to keep paying for their lifestyle.

This is one of the most interesting things in this mess. I would really like to know the reason for getting behind any side in this argument so strongly, like getting behind the players in this thread for example. Because they, as you mention, do not care about us. I mean they might say they do but come on now, no one here can actually believe that? And while right should be right, there are people in this world who really, really need our time and effort, and money, better then these chumps.

Doesn't it make a difference to you guys that they actually are millionaires/billionaires? Or soon to be anyway (rookies)? I think that makes all the difference. I do not care, I just want there to be NBA basketball again. But I wont rally behind any part in this mess, others in this world need my effort however little it is more then these billionaires and millionaires.

This might be an american phenomenon perhaps?