ESPN Lawyer Breaks Down The Truth About NBA Lockout & Beyond

[themurph]

Basically the only thing the players are truly guilty of is not having a better PR machine than Stern...It's really interesting how some people on this site are calling the players' dumb and greedy for decertification (that's a whole other can of worms given such talk has rarely been attached to NFL/NHL players during their own union struggles)...

Anyway, Here's the piece breaking down the true legal aspects of the "decertification" (there's a catch here)...It's a good read....


-----

Untangling Monday's NBA lockout web



By Lester Munson
ESPN.com

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/munson-111114/questions-answers-nba-players-announcing-disclaim-their-union

Negotiations between NBA owners and players have again broken down, with both sides issuing melodramatic ultimatums and claims on Monday. The owners' commissioner, David Stern, says the players are "hell-bent on destruction." The players counter that they will "disclaim" their rights as union members and file antitrust litigation against the owners. The conflicting positions raise significant legal issues and questions. Here are some of the questions and their answers:

What do the players mean when they say they will "disclaim" their union status and file antitrust litigation?

The word "disclaim" is important. It is a new word in this context since we went through the NFL lockout earlier this year, and it is the first step in a new process that the players hope will expedite their antitrust litigation and give them some negotiating leverage they do not now have. When the NBA players "disclaim" their union rights, it is different from the "decertification" of union rights that the NFL players did when they were locked out by NFL owners.

What difference will the change of words and procedures make?

The players have obviously learned from what happened when the NFL players decertified: They were unable to stop the NFL owners' lockout with an injunction. It is not a big surprise that they learned from that experience. The same lawyers who decertified the NFL union are now disclaiming the NBA union -- Jeffrey Kessler and David Feher. But there is some doubt that the disclaimer will eliminate the owners' legal position. The owners will argue that the move is a sham, but the players will have a more persuasive response to that claim. They will tell the judge that the union is no longer bargaining and that the only possible bargaining after disclaimer can be with plaintiffs (players) who file the antitrust lawsuit. Instead of delaying the antitrust case for months, I believe the owners' claim of a sham will be quickly ended in a ruling for the players.

Among the rhetoric being exchanged on Monday was this from David Stern about the union's move to disclaim: "It's just a big charade and it's really irresponsible given the timing of it." Is the commissioner right or wrong?

He is wrong. Stern may wish the players' action was a charade, but it is a serious legal action against an obvious monopoly that is using its total control of the market to take money and benefits from players. Stern and the owners have been worried about this since they began their lockout. The timing shows only that the players patiently negotiated until they realized the owners were asking for too much.

Well-known attorney David Boies has signed on the represent the players. In the NFL dispute, he represented the owners. From the players' side, we heard this on Monday from attorney Jeffrey Kessler: "The fact that the two biggest legal adversaries in the NFL players' dispute over the NFL lockout both agree that the NBA lockout is now illegal and subject to triple damages speaks for itself." How significant is the switching of sides that Boies has done in this case?

There is no doubt that Boies is one of the nation's most formidable advocates. But his work for the players is not as significant as Kessler suggests. Kessler and his team are experienced and knowledgeable and need little help. The owners already had their own powerhouse attorney in place in Paul Clement, another of America's great lawyers. Boies and Clement will become more important as the litigation moves into the higher courts and, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court.

It all sounds very complicated. Why don't the players simply continue to bargain with the owners?

It is complicated, but the players have concluded that there is no chance to reach an acceptable bargain with the owners until they, the players, have more leverage. The antitrust lawsuit should give them that leverage. It could lead to an injunction that would stop the lockout. It could lead to discovery of accurate financial data from the owners. And it could lead to billions of dollars of damages for the players if they suffer the loss of a season. With these possible outcomes, many players and many of their agents have been demanding that the union take this step. It is the path that allowed NFL players to achieve free agency and massive increases in salaries and benefits when bargaining collapsed during their negotiations in the early '90s.

Now for the BIG question: Will a disclaimer and the filing of an antitrust lawsuit eliminate the 2011-12 season?

Not necessarily. If the owners, as expected, cannot persuade a judge that the disclaimer is a sham, then the case could move along quickly. The players hope to expedite the case. If the federal court moves quickly and a court issues an injunction that would stop the lockout, there would be serious bargaining and then an agreement.

Who will file the antitrust case, and where will they file it?

The players are now deciding the identities of the players who will lend their names to the lawsuit as plaintiffs, as Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and seven others did in the NFL lawsuit. The names in the NBA players' suit will be big as well. They are also deciding where to file. The lawsuit can be filed in any market where the NBA plays. One possible alternative is to file it in California, but there is no final decision yet.

Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[Rican_Havok]

Good post

[HurricaneKid]

Among the rhetoric being exchanged on Monday was this from David Stern about the union's move to disclaim: "It's just a big charade and it's really irresponsible given the timing of it." Is the commissioner right or wrong?

He is wrong. Stern may wish the players' action was a charade, but it is a serious legal action against an obvious monopoly that is using its total control of the market to take money and benefits from players. Stern and the owners have been worried about this since they began their lockout. The timing shows only that the players patiently negotiated until they realized the owners were asking for too much.


This is key to me. Thanks for the quality post.

[oolalaa]

:applause: Thanks.

This is a good summary of the current situation.

[Derka]

Good article, good read.

I still give the players shit for not taking the deal that would have been a decent compromise and would have gotten basketball underway, and I give the owners a lot of shit for trying to strong-arm and essentially screw over the players.

Both sides deserve heaps of shit for screwing over the game and its fans in favor of getting as much money as possible.

[Fiasco]

Thank god. Great article.

[SunsCaptain]

:sleeping

All this article discussed was what the players are currently doing by "disclaiming" their union.

Its like a FAQ....

I still say the players are greedy and stupid. This article did nothing to say otherwise...

I mean thanks for the breakdown but I wouldn't go as far to say this helps the players argument...

I found this part interesting and would like to know more about the leverage they wish to gain:

It could lead to an injunction that would stop the lockout. It could lead to discovery of accurate financial data from the owners. And it could lead to billions of dollars of damages for the players if they suffer the loss of a season.

But with this step by the players they are basically taking a big risk...

[themurph]

:sleeping

All this article discussed was what the players are currently doing by "disclaiming" their union.

Its like a FAQ....

I still say the players are greedy and stupid. This article did nothing to say otherwise...

I mean thanks for the breakdown but I wouldn't go as far to say this helps the players argument...

I found this part interesting and would like to know more about the leverage they wish to gain:

It could lead to an injunction that would stop the lockout. It could lead to discovery of accurate financial data from the owners. And it could lead to billions of dollars of damages for the players if they suffer the loss of a season.

But with this step by the players they are basically taking a big risk...


You just don't get it...No one ever said the players were not going through an uphill battle...No one has ever said that the players have less leverage than the owners...No one ever said that this is NOT at all a roll of the dice...

But here's the rub: What does any of this^^^^ have to do with the union's right to fight for the players and not cave in to strong arm tactics and BS deals?...

They have given the owners enough...In fact, they have given far more than they should, but given that they lack the press machine of Stern and the owners they are looked at as spoiled, greedy black athletes, something different from their counterparts in the NFL, MLB and NFL...

No one are angels in this battle...But when I come on a site dedicated to basketball and read posts about how the players are stupid and greedy for standing their ground I take exception to that...

I get it...Most of you just want basketball back..So you are iching to find a scapegoat: i.e. the players...

It's a selfish, immature conclusion...

[SunsCaptain]

It's a selfish, immature conclusion...

Players fighting over who gets more millions isn't selfish and immature? When there are countless jobs focused around basketball? People who make barely make enough to survive have their lives on the line because NBA players want to make 5 million instead of 4 million dollars?

I guess getting basketball started sooner is pretty selfish...I guess assuming players could find a way to live on 4 million a year is pretty immature...It would be insane to think owners want to turn a profit.

People dont need jobs anyways... The times we are living in is wonderful. They should be fine. As long as my favorite player gets 5 million or even 6 million dollars! I wouldnt mind a few families going hungry...Lets hope this lockout is good and long!!!! MORE MONEY FOR THE PLAYER LESS FOR THE COMMON MAN!

[bdreason]

Players fighting over who gets more millions isn't selfish and immature?



Just slightly less selfish and immature than Billionaires (Owners) fighting over a few million.

[ConanRulesNBC]

blah blah blah... those poor players. Who gives a sh*t? They're being paid millions to play a sport. I'm so tired of anyone feeling sorry for the players in this sh*t.

Yeah, those poor players. The owners are trying to take money from them. They'll get only $99 million instead of $100 million. Those poor players.

F*ck them.

Go get a real job making $70 thousand a year and then you can complain when the owner of the company you work for wants you to take a pay cut.

[bdreason]

blah blah blah... those poor owners. Who gives a sh*t? They're being paid millions to own a sport. I'm so tired of anyone feeling sorry for the owners in this sh*t.

Yeah, those poor owners. The players are trying to take money from them. They'll make $99 million instead of $100 million. Those poor owners.

F*ck them.




Fixed. :D

[ConanRulesNBC]

Fixed. :D

How about the last part of my post about the players going and finding real jobs that only pay $70,000 a year. If you're working at some factory busting your ass for 10 hours a day or working at a sh*t job like Wal-Mart and then the owners say they want the workers to take pay cuts. I'm on those peoples sides. But when you have athletes making millions and the owners want them to take a pay cut but they'll still be making millions, I'm sorry. You don't have my support. Go find something else to do.

[themurph]

Players fighting over who gets more millions isn't selfish and immature? When there are countless jobs focused around basketball? People who make barely make enough to survive have their lives on the line because NBA players want to make 5 million instead of 4 million dollars?

I guess getting basketball started sooner is pretty selfish...I guess assuming players could find a way to live on 4 million a year is pretty immature...It would be insane to think owners want to turn a profit.

People dont need jobs anyways... The times we are living in is wonderful. They should be fine. As long as my favorite player gets 5 million or even 6 million dollars! I wouldnt mind a few families going hungry...Lets hope this lockout is good and long!!!! MORE MONEY FOR THE PLAYER LESS FOR THE COMMON MAN!

Get this BS^^^ out of here...lol



I love it when folks equate their lives to entertainers/athletes...I know plenty of people who are struggling....Yet, when they come home after trying to find a job for days, when Sunday hits they have something to look forward to when the NFL games come on...

When they struggle with their finances and mortgages, they can follow their favorite baseball team...When they are having trouble dealing with the realities of a $hitty economy they can buy a movie ticket and watch their favorite superstar actor/actress who just got paid $20 million to do two hours of work..

In other words, it's all entertainment...And the NBA is no different...And it should be judged as such (entertainment)

It is not in the bylaws that you have to buy a ticket to a basketball game..Or that you HAVE to watch a game..You are a grown man/woman...What the union does for their players has nothing to do with the public...While you are busy counting the players pay checks, there are others who are mature enough to understand that the issue is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be...

But there's one thing I will find interesting...When players from other sports (i.e NHL, NFL, MLB ) fight for their rights I wonder how much of the terms "stupid" and "greedy" we will hear from the fans?....

I'm betting not much given that a lot of the public has a hard time finding sympathy for a young, majority black sports league...

Yeah...those greedy bastards...

[ConanRulesNBC]

and the NBA players just said "f*ck you" to all those people you just described who watch it.

It is entertainment. It's entertainment that is only possible because fans pay for it all and buy tickets and buy their merchandise and now the entertainers are turning their backs. So f*ck them. It would be the same with any other sport. But right now it's the NBA. If the NFL would have missed this season there would be so many people saying the same thing about the NFL players.

[gigantes]

i agree that stern strong-armed the players (shouldn't really say "the owners," because many owners are actually against the hardline stance), but in today's economy this needed to be done for many, many reasons.

YES, the players (so far) are getting somewhat of a raw deal here in terms of how this is playing out, but the reality is that the players had an insanely luxurious, favorable deal for many years... one that was bound to break down eventually. and the future is now. this is the part that few mention and fewer still are willing to accept IMO.


- over 50/50 BRI for any group of employees anywhere is pretty much insane.
- long-term guaranteed contracts without recourse by mgmt when the player drastically underperforms is pretty much insane.
- $5 million avg player salary is not only insane for modern economies going forward, but is also insane if the league is struggling to make a profit as a whole.


those are the main sticking points for me. it also sucks pretty bad that the union did not give the body of players a chance to vote on the final proposal. speaking of stern moves, that's kind of a stern move right there...

[SunsCaptain]

Honestly...I dont know how to respond to you OP....because in all honesty I think you are so dumb you didn't understand my post.

And if you did understand then why did you quote the post and then ramble on about something completely different....

:facepalm

Sorry if that was a little harsh but i'm speaking from my <3

[bdreason]

How about the last part of my post about the players going and finding real jobs that only pay $70,000 a year. If you're working at some factory busting your ass for 10 hours a day or working at a sh*t job like Wal-Mart and then the owners say they want the workers to take pay cuts. I'm on those peoples sides. But when you have athletes making millions and the owners want them to take a pay cut but they'll still be making millions, I'm sorry. You don't have my support. Go find something else to do.


There are plenty of other Unions out there. And you know what they do when the boss tries to rape them? They go on strike to gain leverage for bargaining.

This isn't anything new or unique to the NBA. What makes the situation more sensitive is the amount of money each player makes. However, other Unions argue for much larger sums of money, only it's for more employees.

It's not the players fault that they are worth what they are worth. Fans of Basketball dictate how much revenue is generated from the sport, and the players are only trying to get their fair share of the pie.

Now, I don't claim to know what should be considered "fair" because I haven't seen the numbers... nobody has, because the owners won't show anyone (which is their right). Maybe the players are just being greedy, maybe the owners are full of shit... who knows? Hopefully when this goes to court, some financial records are exposed, so we can have a better idea of what's really going on.




Personally, until the Owners show me the numbers, I call BS on their claims of major losses league wide in the highest rated season since the late 90's. I'm sure some teams are losing money, but other teams are printing dollars, and nothing will change that fact (except maybe a lockout, hah). The answer is, and has always been, an improved revenue sharing deal between the Owners themselves. It is impossible to guarantee profitability of uninterested, small-market teams without raping the players of their true value.

[SunsCaptain]

YES, the players (so far) are getting somewhat of a raw deal here in terms of how this is playing out, but the reality is that the players had an insanely luxurious, favorable deal for many years... one that was bound to break down eventually. and the future is now. this is the part that few mention and fewer still are willing to accept IMO.



Bingo. The players were spoiled for years. As much as it was the owners fault its time to come back to reality.

[bdreason]

When the NBA players signed their last CBA, everyone claimed they got SCHOOLED by Stern and the Owners. They added the rookie payscale and capped all contracts across the board. If it wasn't for Hunter caving, there wouldn't have been a season at all. Do your history before claiming the players made out in the last CBA negotiations.

[Bernie Nips]

There are plenty of other Unions out there. And you know what they do when the boss tries to rape them? They go on strike to gain leverage for bargaining.

This isn't anything new or unique to the NBA. What makes the situation more sensitive is the amount of money each player makes. However, other Unions argue for much larger sums of money, only it's for more employees.

It's not the players fault that they are worth what they are worth. Fans of Basketball dictate how much revenue is generated from the sport, and the players are only trying to get their fair share of the pie.

Now, I don't claim to know what should be considered "fair" because I haven't seen the numbers... nobody has, because the owners won't show anyone (which is their right). Maybe the players are just being greedy, maybe the owners are full of shit... who knows? Hopefully when this goes to court, some financial records are exposed, so we can have a better idea of what's really going on.




Personally, until the Owners show me the numbers, I call BS on their claims of major losses league wide in the highest rated season since the late 90's. I'm sure some teams are losing money, but other teams are printing dollars, and nothing will change that fact (except maybe a lockout, hah). The answer is, and has always been, an improved revenue sharing deal between the Owners themselves. It is impossible to guarantee profitability of uninterested, small-market teams without raping the players of their true value.

This may be the best post I've seen on ISH on this subject.

[SunsCaptain]

When the NBA players signed their last CBA, everyone claimed they got SCHOOLED by Stern and the Owners. They added the rookie payscale and capped all contracts across the board. If it wasn't for Hunter caving, there wouldn't have been a season at all. Do your history before claiming the players made out in the last CBA negotiations.

Just because at the time people thought they got schooled...is in no way a measurement of what happened thereafter.

Players made out like bandits.

[themurph]

and the NBA players just said "f*ck you" to all those people you just described who watch it.

It is entertainment. It's entertainment that is only possible because fans pay for it all and buy tickets and buy their merchandise and now the entertainers are turning their backs. So f*ck them. It would be the same with any other sport. But right now it's the NBA. If the NFL would have missed this season there would be so many people saying the same thing about the NFL players.

Listen...I don't know how old u r...But I'm old enough to remember the NFL strike when the league used Scabs because the players refused to play due to what they saw as a $hitty deal...And no one called them selfish...When the MLB had their strike sure you had a few folks call them greedy...But the majority of the people didn't call them dumb, greedy ect...And really, the NHL could not even afford a work stoppage...They are at best a niche sports so they had to take the owners were offering...

Like I said, I don't count another man's/woman's paycheck unless it has a huge effect on me...This is not a Occupy Wall Street case where the 1 percent is getting by without paying their fair share...The NBA is entertainment...They get paid outrageous sums of money because fans support said sports...But you really don't have to go to the game or watch it on TV, do you? It's not a life/death decision is it? It's grown men playing kids games...

So you can move on or have the maturity to understand that 6'6 guys with 46 inch verticals are millionaires for a reason...If we all could run through linebackers, hit a curve ball or shoot 3's under pressure there would be no millionaires in sports...

In other words, fall back and grow up...

[themurph]

Honestly...I dont know how to respond to you OP....because in all honesty I think you are so dumb you didn't understand my post.

And if you did understand then why did you quote the post and then ramble on about something completely different....

:facepalm

Sorry if that was a little harsh but i'm speaking from my <3


Nah...you are just being immature and simplistic....

When I read this: "I still say the players are greedy and stupid." there's not else to get out of your comment...You said it all...lol

[SunsCaptain]

When I read this: "I still say the players are greedy and stupid." there's not else to get out of your comment...You said it all...lol

Well at least I said all that needed to be said.

/thread

:pimp:

[themurph]

There are plenty of other Unions out there. And you know what they do when the boss tries to rape them? They go on strike to gain leverage for bargaining.

This isn't anything new or unique to the NBA. What makes the situation more sensitive is the amount of money each player makes. However, other Unions argue for much larger sums of money, only it's for more employees.

It's not the players fault that they are worth what they are worth. Fans of Basketball dictate how much revenue is generated from the sport, and the players are only trying to get their fair share of the pie.

Now, I don't claim to know what should be considered "fair" because I haven't seen the numbers... nobody has, because the owners won't show anyone (which is their right). Maybe the players are just being greedy, maybe the owners are full of shit... who knows? Hopefully when this goes to court, some financial records are exposed, so we can have a better idea of what's really going on.




Personally, until the Owners show me the numbers, I call BS on their claims of major losses league wide in the highest rated season since the late 90's. I'm sure some teams are losing money, but other teams are printing dollars, and nothing will change that fact (except maybe a lockout, hah). The answer is, and has always been, an improved revenue sharing deal between the Owners themselves. It is impossible to guarantee profitability of uninterested, small-market teams without raping the players of their true value.


Gets it^^^^^^

[gigantes]

When the NBA players signed their last CBA, everyone claimed they got SCHOOLED by Stern and the Owners. They added the rookie payscale and capped all contracts across the board. If it wasn't for Hunter caving, there wouldn't have been a season at all. Do your history before claiming the players made out in the last CBA negotiations.
changing a totally insane CBA into a somewhat less insane CBA is not exactly 'working the plantations'.

[themurph]

Well at least I said all that needed to be said.

/thread

:pimp:


Yes u said it all....You are a simplistic person who looks at life from a limited viewpoint...

Pimp on, pimpin'

All jokes aside, this is what unions do...They fight for their employees...Just because these guys are millionaires does not mean they don't have the right to not get F##ked in a deal...Yes, we are all spoiled and WANT the NBA back...But that has nothing to do with the players fighting for their future...

[Kevin_Gamble]

Listen...I don't know how old u r...But I'm old enough to remember the NFL strike with the league used Scabs because the players refused to play due to what they saw as a $hitty deal...And no one called them selfish...When the MLB had their strike sure you had a few folks call them greedy...But the majority of the people didn't call them dumb, greedy ect...And really, the NHL could not even afford a work stoppage...They are at best a niche sports so they had to take the owners were offering...

Like I said, I don't count another man's/woman's paycheck unless it has a huge effect on me...This is not a Occupy Wall Street case where the 1 percent is getting by without paying their fair share...The NBA is entertainment...They get paid outrageous sums of money because fans support said sports...But you really don't have to go to the game or watch it on TV, do you? It's not a life/death decision is it? It's grown men playing kids games...

So you can move on or have the maturity to understand that 6'6 guys with 46 inch verticals are millionaires for a reason...If we all could run through linebackers, hit a curve ball or shoot 3's under pressure there would be no millionaires in sports...

In other words, fall back and grow up...

Well said.

[Godzuki]

this article is a joke,.....he's either being paid to propaganda for the players or scoring brownie points for future articles. i bet players don;t get any leverage in court. teams are a business, and judging by how many teams have been sold of late reinforces that teams are losing money....players have it so good in the nba its crazy theyre fighting for every penny.,,,,and this BS about nba players being treated right 15 years from now is insulting :facepalm

fukk these greedy hood rats. i swear they have things far better than any other team sport pros.....lol i didnt even know they cant even get drug tested year round but it sure explains a lot. i would love to see these aholes having to work real world jobs then reflwct back to this :mad:

[themurph]

fukk these greedy hood rats.:


Racist or just plain stupid?

You decide....

(btw...this point proves my point.....)

[ConanRulesNBC]

Listen...I don't know how old u r...But I'm old enough to remember the NFL strike with the league used Scabs because the players refused to play due to what they saw as a $hitty deal...And no one called them selfish...When the MLB had their strike sure you had a few folks call them greedy...But the majority of the people didn't call them dumb, greedy ect...And really, the NHL could not even afford a work stoppage...They are at best a niche sports so they had to take the owners were offering...

Were athletes back then making millions of dollars during that NFL strike?

It took years for MLB to make up for their losses during the strike in '94. People were pissed and did call them dumb.

The NHL now is actually in a better position than they were before the lockout. The owners won that one. It's also way more than just a "niche" sport. Nice try though...


Like I said, I don't count another man's/woman's paycheck unless it has a huge effect on me...This is not a Occupy Wall Street case where the 1 percent is getting by without paying their fair share...The NBA is entertainment...They get paid outrageous sums of money because fans support said sports...But you really don't have to go to the game or watch it on TV, do you?

I couldn't care less personally what they make. I just find it ridiculous that anyone makes even a million a year playing a sport. Then you have athletes making hundreds of millions of dollars and they're refusing to play because they're being asked to give some money up? That's pathetic. You're right the fans do support it. We pay our hard earned money to buy a ticket to a game, buy that $100 jersey or those $175 pair of shoes. So yes when they decide that it's not enough that we do all that and they refuse to accept this deal and play then it does suck.


So you can move on or have the maturity to understand that 6'6 guys with 46 inch verticals are millionaires for a reason...If we all could run through linebackers, hit a curve ball or shoot 3's under pressure there would be no millionaires in sports...

I love how I'm immature because I don't share the same opinion. I'm not changing my opinion that the NBA players look stupid in all of this.


In other words, fall back and grow up...

Or you could learn to accept other peoples opinions.

[Godzuki]

Racist or just plain stupid?

You decide....

(btw...this point proves my point.....)


stfu nerd :rolleyes:

[themurph]

Were athletes back then making millions of dollars during that NFL strike?

It took years for MLB to make up for their losses during the strike in '94. People were pissed and did call them dumb.

The NHL now is actually in a better position than they were before the lockout. The owners won that one. It's also way more than just a "niche" sport. Nice try though...



I couldn't care less personally what they make. I just find it ridiculous that anyone makes even a million a year playing a sport. Then you have athletes making hundreds of millions of dollars and they're refusing to play because they're being asked to give some money up? That's pathetic. You're right the fans do support it. We pay our hard earned money to buy a ticket to a game, buy that $100 jersey or those $175 pair of shoes. So yes when they decide that it's not enough that we do all that and they refuse to accept this deal and play then it does suck.



I love how I'm immature because I don't share the same opinion. I'm not changing my opinion that the NBA players look stupid in all of this.



Or you could learn to accept other peoples opinions.


I can't when said opinions lack depth and understanding...

NHL being a niche sport? Nice Try? I'm not the only one saying this (Google it..)....The reason why the players had no juice in their union issues is A) the NHL players are not American commercial commodities (i.e. you couldn't pick them out from a line up like you could say Albert Pueljos or Brady or even Eli Manning....But more importantly, they lack a true television contract, which is the real reason why people call the NHL a niche sport...

Again...why is it so hard for you to understand? You don't have to pay tickets so see your favorite sport...You don't have to buy the sneakers or jerseys...

You sound like a 8 year old kid who doesn't understand how the world works...And really, that optimism is cool and should be applauded...But sooner or later you have to understand how entertainment works...

[themurph]

stfu nerd :rolleyes:


Yep...stupid (and maybe racist...)

[Godzuki]

Yep...stupid (and maybe racist...)


smarter than u fgt :pimp:

[gigantes]

calmer than u fgt :pimp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCujz2HzE7M

(disregard hebrew subs- i assume they were planted there by bagelred)

[97 bulls]

Were athletes back then making millions of dollars during that NFL strike?

It took years for MLB to make up for their losses during the strike in '94. People were pissed and did call them dumb.

The NHL now is actually in a better position than they were before the lockout. The owners won that one. It's also way more than just a "niche" sport. Nice try though...



I couldn't care less personally what they make. I just find it ridiculous that anyone makes even a million a year playing a sport. Then you have athletes making hundreds of millions of dollars and they're refusing to play because they're being asked to give some money up? That's pathetic. You're right the fans do support it. We pay our hard earned money to buy a ticket to a game, buy that $100 jersey or those $175 pair of shoes. So yes when they decide that it's not enough that we do all that and they refuse to accept this deal and play then it does suck.



I love how I'm immature because I don't share the same opinion. I'm not changing my opinion that the NBA players look stupid in all of this.



Or you could learn to accept other peoples opinions.
Look at it this way. How many jobs are that importants? There's only a select few jobs that I feel are so important that we can't afford to lose them.

Police officers
Teachers
Medical doctors
Soldiers
Firemen

Every other job is based off of a demand. Athletes are no different.

[gigantes]

Police officers
Teachers
Medical doctors
Soldiers
Firemen
agree. unfortunately teachers followed by cops & fireman have been getting their asses kicked economically for quite a few years, now. i'm amazed any young person these days wants to be a teacher or a cop with honorable intentions. those two jobs in particular are getting exponentially more stressful by the day. it's like sticking your head into a partial noose...

[PleezeBelieve]

agree. unfortunately teachers followed by cops & fireman have been getting their asses kicked economically for quite a few years, now. i'm amazed any young person these days wants to be a teacher or a cop with honorable intentions. those two jobs in particular are getting exponentially more stressful by the day. it's like sticking your head into a partial noose...
Before decertification:

Owners offer players 50/50 split. Players refuse.

After decertification:

Owners offer 47/53 split. Even players win decertification case, an unknowm amount of games are missed for the owners to eventually settle with players for a 50/50 split.


Why are the players doing thjs again?

[themurph]

Before decertification:

Owners offer players 50/50 split. Players refuse.

After decertification:

Owners offer 47/53 split. Even players win decertification case, an unknowm amount of games are missed for the owners to eventually settle with players for a 50/50 split.


Why are the players doing thjs again?



Because the players felt like the deal was crap...No one ever said that labor strife is easy....Business 101...Owners will always have the upper hand...But that's not a good enough reason to wave a white flag...If you believe in something you fight for it...win or lose...

[gigantes]

the players did not decertify and they did not move to decertify. that's the first thing to know.

second thing to know is that there are a lot of unknowns with the case going before the bar. that's for sure.

[B]

Because the players felt like the deal was crap...No one ever said that labor strife is easy....Business 101...Owners will always have the upper hand...But that's not a good enough reason to wave a white flag...If you believe in something you fight for it...win or lose...Dumbest thing I ever read.

"We're fighting over money so we'll make sure we really lose a lot of it it prove our point Why because we believe in it"

It's business for Christs sake sometimes you win sometimes you lose, players have been on the winning end for the last 12 years and don't want to take a loss. Any good business person will never take a huge loss to prove a point or feel good about themselves in the morning but the union from the very start of this was in full denial and is getting their asses handed to them.

The players are too emotional in this or at least some of them are, some had their heads screwed on straight but the ones pulling the strings are doing this for all the wrong reasons. The whole fighting for the future of the players of tomorrow is BS rhetoric.

The problem is you had Hunter who wanted to go out with a bang leave his mark on the players union By screwing over Stern one more time and Derek Fisher who was too timid to stand up to him and his cronies and actually represent the players who put him in place. That's why they didn't put this to a player vote Monday and let the players speak for themselves. And spare me the Kessler comments about not letting the opposing parties speak to the rank and file.

The players were never given copies of the previous owners proposal early in November even when the requested copies of it. That's why with the latest proposal the NBA went public because they knew the players were being railroaded by the leadership

Hunter nor fisher or team reps never invited players to this meeting until Sunday night when Hunter sent out a mass e-mail

Some players are complaining their reps never even contacted them for their views on the latest proposal.

Some players have not heard from their reps once since this began.

This union has been so horribly repped from the beginning I'll wage a dollar to donuts Hunter finds himself in a lawsuit brought on by players when this is over. It's so sad these players have been repped this way and steered down this path that does nothing for them but costs them millions of dollars with a 10% chance at a moral victory in 3 or 4 years.

I can understand being a player fan and wanting the best for them in all this but player fan guy had better open his eyes and realize the players are about to be shafted on a grand scale and it's not the owners who are doing it.

[thejumpa]

Stand for something or fall for nothing. Players did what they had to do in order to get a fair deal. I don't blame them. Hopefully it works out for both sides. They need to get their business straight and get back on the court.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Were athletes back then making millions of dollars during that NFL strike?

It took years for MLB to make up for their losses during the strike in '94. People were pissed and did call them dumb.


No, it took one year for MLB to gain back the fans.



The NHL now is actually in a better position than they were before the lockout. The owners won that one. It's also way more than just a "niche" sport. Nice try though...


Has nothing to do with the CBA, does it? People go to hockey games to watch hockey. They don't make that decision based on how much players make.

By the way, average ticket price for an NHL game is now 25% higher than when the lockout happened. I guess it's great for the fans that money moved from players to owners.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Because the players felt like the deal was crap...No one ever said that labor strife is easy....Business 101...Owners will always have the upper hand...But that's not a good enough reason to wave a white flag...If you believe in something you fight for it...win or lose...

Especially owners who are allowed to engage in noncompetitive business practices that is illegal for regular businesses. Just imagine if Google and Oracle got together to institute a salary cap for engineers.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Or you could learn to accept other peoples opinions.

Players make the game and should get paid..but my God, in this economic era..what are they thinking? Lets put a jump suit on them..give them the average american salary and give them a few kids asking them to pay what it might cost to see a game and get some snacks! See how fast they go "Doah!" Enoough already. Sprewell tried this and look what happened to him. He could not feed his kids on 20 million? What the **** were they eating..Jurassic Park animals?

[Kevin_Gamble]

Players make the game and should get paid..but my God, in this economic era..what are they thinking? Lets put a jump suit on them..give them the average american salary and give them a few kids asking them to pay what it might cost to see a game and get some snacks! See how fast they go "Doah!" Enoough already. Sprewell tried this and look what happened to him. He could not feed his kids on 20 million? What the **** were they eating..Jurassic Park animals?

Obviously he was using a figure of speech, or do you take everything literally?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Obviously he was using a figure of speech, or do you take everything literally?

I'm sure he was. Anyway, these players are grossly overpaid, which was the underlying point - a point that clearly went over your head.

[zabuza666]

I still don't understand why the players feel they deserve 50% of winnings. It honestly boggles my mind.

[zabuza666]

There are plenty of other Unions out there. And you know what they do when the boss tries to rape them? They go on strike to gain leverage for bargaining.

This isn't anything new or unique to the NBA. What makes the situation more sensitive is the amount of money each player makes. However, other Unions argue for much larger sums of money, only it's for more employees.

It's not the players fault that they are worth what they are worth. Fans of Basketball dictate how much revenue is generated from the sport, and the players are only trying to get their fair share of the pie.

Now, I don't claim to know what should be considered "fair" because I haven't seen the numbers... nobody has, because the owners won't show anyone (which is their right). Maybe the players are just being greedy, maybe the owners are full of shit... who knows? Hopefully when this goes to court, some financial records are exposed, so we can have a better idea of what's really going on.




Personally, until the Owners show me the numbers, I call BS on their claims of major losses league wide in the highest rated season since the late 90's. I'm sure some teams are losing money, but other teams are printing dollars, and nothing will change that fact (except maybe a lockout, hah). The answer is, and has always been, an improved revenue sharing deal between the Owners themselves. It is impossible to guarantee profitability of uninterested, small-market teams without raping the players of their true value.

Fair share of the pie? The owners are losing money ffs, so obviously the players are getting more then their "fair share"

[ZenMaster]

I still don't understand why the players feel they deserve 50% of winnings. It honestly boggles my mind.

They're used to getting more. When you give someone so much over a period of time they will feel entilted to it.
Just like a lot of other people in the western world who felt entilted to this and that because they where born in a certain place.

[cortices]

I still don't understand why the players feel they deserve 50% of winnings. It honestly boggles my mind.

What don't you understand? Why do you think they don't deserve it? And please, try something a little more intelligent than "omgs thay put bal in hole. that no worth nothing.".

The fact is, they are the product. People all around the world pay billions of dollars each year to go to their games, to see them play, to buy their jerseys and shoes. There's no one else in the world that can do what they do as well as they do it. Why shouldn't they get a big piece of that? Even most of it?

[Yung D-Will]

Honestly I just want the games back.

However I really was hoping the players signed the last deal because I wanted to see the nba under a more restrictive system when it comes to player movement

[HiphopRelated]

Were athletes back then making millions of dollars during that NFL strike?

It took years for MLB to make up for their losses during the strike in '94. People were pissed and did call them dumb.

The NHL now is actually in a better position than they were before the lockout. The owners won that one. It's also way more than just a "niche" sport. Nice try though...



I couldn't care less personally what they make. I just find it ridiculous that anyone makes even a million a year playing a sport. Then you have athletes making hundreds of millions of dollars and they're refusing to play because they're being asked to give some money up? That's pathetic. You're right the fans do support it. We pay our hard earned money to buy a ticket to a game, buy that $100 jersey or those $175 pair of shoes. So yes when they decide that it's not enough that we do all that and they refuse to accept this deal and play then it does suck.



I love how I'm immature because I don't share the same opinion. I'm not changing my opinion that the NBA players look stupid in all of this.



Or you could learn to accept other peoples opinions.

If you want them making less, tell your friends and family to stop watching...stop watching the espn highlights too...don't buy any merchandise either.

Boycott everything NBA and you can fight the power that is the horrible NBA player:facepalm

[Yung D-Will]

I love how the pro player people try and make it seem like their opinion is superior to anyone who supports the owners.:oldlol:

[blacknapalm]

I love how the pro player people try and make it seem like their opinion is superior to anyone who supports the owners.:oldlol:

both sides though. there's been some grossly inaccurate statements given by pro owner posters. lots of name calling, facepalming and general 'lolz' with broad accusations. then selectively not quoting responses to those they have nothing to retort with. it's 'wahhh, the teams are losing money. players earn lots, wahhhh. teachers should earn more, wahhhh'

funny thing is at the end of the day, i do think teachers should be paid way more. that isn't how it works though. thousands of people don't watch teachers teach or surgeons perform surgery. that's why hospital bills are so high. millions of people don't watch live kidney and bone marrow transplants and pay to do so. nor do they fill up arenas and buy food from concessions stands or get season tickets. good teachers do great things, especially those who work with special education students or horrible economic situations and past. politics aside, you can make great ground on at least an individual standpoint. it takes great patience. but again, who is funding this? keep this in perspective.

if you guys really want those people to be paid more, push for that movement. let's get some surgeon TV going and sell front row tickets. the entertainment business is separate from the economy. it's why people save to go to the movies or carnivals and why those movie stars are paid so much. are people complaining about the top level baseball players that are paid 150 million+ or beckham who was paid 250M? at least these guys have talent. how rich are the kardashians for kim sucking d!ck on cam? that's what launched that great enterprise after daddy kardashian died. it's pop culture and unfair but there you go. there's still millions of mindless people that follow their every move and help line their pockets. get rid of the whole business then.

no seriously, if you guys start a deep brain tissue surgery TV channel or teacher private lessons TV, i'd sign up

how many people buy top 40 albums and movies? you're lining those pockets too. do you immerse yourself in pop culture or do you support bands that are actually strapped for money to continue? do you buy merch?

change this entire culture. break new grounds. a major part of the reason cops are corrupt is because they're so underpaid and therefore standards are less stringent. reward your best workers. b!tching about it on the sideline doesn't do anything and this is where i side with kblaze. i gave to teen challenge a couple times and the next week a different person asked me for money. i'm sure she hears the excuse, 'i've donated just recently' but it was the truth. i'm no saint and i didn't donate a lot but it is what it is. another time, i was pulling out of mickee dee's. i go there about once a month and there was a homeless guy. i offered him a cheeseburger that i got for extra. he wanted cash and i refused. am i dick? his sign said he was hungry. i have no idea where that money goes.

am i pessimistic? probably. i'd prefer the term apathetic, haha. i wish there were more things in the system to make me feel that a group of citizens could do something larger. i don't feel that. the majority lobbies will hold control and two major democratic parties will cater to them and pay lip service to the public. we can analyze the mini chess game all we want in politics. there's better politicians than others but at the end of the day, the whole thing stinks. getting off topic now, lol

since you feel so betrayed, that tells me you just want to watch b-ball. isn't that somewhat selfish in its own right? you feel that this is your right. get over it. owners have billions and athletes will always get paid millions because they're partly in the entertainment industry and tons of people watch them. stop buying tickets and watching them if you don't want them to get paid that much. the same people that want this lockout to end will go right back and help everyone profit and make the huge contracts worthwhile.

as long as the owners are willing to sign them to huge contracts and fans are willing to buy tickets, jerseys and tailgate, that's what you have. it's a billion dollar industry where 450 players are the main attraction. you are hypocritically part of the problem. you want to pump a billion dollar industry and proclaim that teachers and surgeons are underpaid. while you watch them and pay money? do you donate to those causes? or do you just say, 'wahh, come work at my job, wahhh'. have you given more to teachers as opposed to money spent on jerseys, ticket sales, NBA league pass and time?

[Sarcastic]

I still don't understand why the players feel they deserve 50% of winnings. It honestly boggles my mind.

Because it's right in line with what other sports leagues pay their players.

[themurph]

both sides though. there's been some grossly inaccurate statements given by pro owner posters. lots of name calling, facepalming and general 'lolz' with broad accusations. then selectively not quoting responses to those they have nothing to retort with. it's 'wahhh, the teams are losing money. players earn lots, wahhhh. teachers should earn more, wahhhh'

funny thing is at the end of the day, i do think teachers should be paid way more. that isn't how it works though. thousands of people don't watch teachers teach or surgeons perform surgery. that's why hospital bills are so high. millions of people don't watch live kidney and bone marrow transplants and pay to do so. nor do they fill up arenas and buy food from concessions stands or get season tickets. good teachers do great things, especially those who work with special education students or horrible economic situations and past. politics aside, you can make great ground on at least an individual standpoint. it takes great patience. but again, who is funding this? keep this in perspective.

if you guys really want those people to be paid more, push for that movement. let's get some surgeon TV going and sell front row tickets. the entertainment business is separate from the economy. it's why people save to go to the movies or carnivals and why those movie stars are paid so much. are people complaining about the top level baseball players that are paid 150 million+ or beckham who was paid 250M? at least these guys have talent. how rich are the kardashians for kim sucking d!ck on cam? that's what launched that great enterprise after daddy kardashian died. it's pop culture and unfair but there you go. there's still millions of mindless people that follow their every move and help line their pockets. get rid of the whole business then.

no seriously, if you guys start a deep brain tissue surgery TV chennel or teacher private lessons TV, i'd sign up

how many people buy top 40 albums and movies? you're lining those pockets too. do you immerse yourself in pop culture or do you support bands that are actually strapped for money to continue? do you buy merch?

change this entire culture. break new grounds. a major part of the reason cops are corrupt is because they're so underpaid and therefore standards are less stringent. reward your best workers. b!tching about it on the sideline doesn't do anything and this is where i side with kblaze. i gave to teen challenge a couple times and the next week a different person asked me for money. i'm sure she here's the excuse, 'i've donated just recently' but it was the truth. i'm no saint and i didn't donate a lot but it is what it is. another time, i was pulling out of mickee dee's. i go there about once a month and there w as a homeless guy. i offered him a cheeseburger that i got for extra. he wanted cash and i refused. am i dick? his sign said he was hungry. i have no idea where that money goes.

am i pessimistic? probably. i'd prefer the term apathetic, haha. i wish there were more things in the system to make me feel that a group of citizens could do something larger. i don't feel that. the majority lobbies will hold control and two major democratic parties will cater to them and pay lip service to the public. we can analyze the mini chess game all we want in politics. there's better politicians than others but at the end of the day, the whole thing stinks. getting off topic now, lol

since you feel so betrayed, that tells me you just want to watch b-ball. isn't that somewhat selfish in its own right? you feel that this is your right. get over it. owners have billions and athletes will always get paid millions because they're partly in the entertainment industry and tons of people watch them. stop buying tickets and watching them if you don't want them to get paid that much. the same people that want this lockout to end will go right back and help everyone profit and make the huge contracts worthwhile.

as long as the owners are willing to sign them to huge contracts and fans are willing to buy tickets, jerseys and tailgate, that's what you have. it's a billion dollar industry where 450 players are the main attraction. you are hypocritically part of the problem. you want to pump a billion dollar industry and proclaim that teachers and surgeons are underpaid. while you watch them and pay money? do you donate to those causes? or do you just say, 'wahh, come work at my job, wahhh'. have you given more to teachers as opposed to money spent on jerseys, ticket sales, NBA league pass and time?


End of the thread^^^^^ (or at least it should be...)

[themurph]

[QUOTE=B

[ConanRulesNBC]

Look at it this way. How many jobs are that importants? There's only a select few jobs that I feel are so important that we can't afford to lose them.

Police officers
Teachers
Medical doctors
Soldiers
Firemen

Every other job is based off of a demand. Athletes are no different.

:facepalm You're really going to compare athletes to any of those?

Being a doctor or a firefighter is way more important than dribbling a ball down a court.

[ConanRulesNBC]

If you want them making less, tell your friends and family to stop watching...stop watching the espn highlights too...don't buy any merchandise either.

Boycott everything NBA and you can fight the power that is the horrible NBA player:facepalm

People should after this. I'm waiting right now. If a season starts up soon I'll probably watch. But if we miss an entire season, I'm done with the NBA.

[Hammertime]

I'm not a "player" fan...I'm a union fan...big difference...

Again, you guys are getting it twisted...Within the history of professional sports unions have ALWAYS faced an uphill battle...Whether its the NFL or baseball in the 70s, it is not always an uncertainty in terms of winning/losing....

Unions are the backbone of this country...Without them u would still have 80 hour work weeks...And whether or it's a teacher or a professional athlete, unions work the same way...They are there to protect their workers even if some of the workers don't agree or have a vote (this is the case with a lot of unions...most workers will complain during a strike because they don't see the big picture...)

Bottom line: The players may lose this one...They may take a big fat L...But what folks don't seem to understand is the players were indeed ready to settle...Specifically twice...Unfortunately, the owners were of the mind that it wasn't enough to accept their own victory (because that's what it was...They got mostly everything they wanted...But then they wanted to spike the ball in the players' faces....That's some other $hit...

A teacher and an NBA player are NOT the same thing. You cannot simply equate them because both jobs are unionized. The fact that some players are trying to appeal to this logic is ludicrous. It's funny how a few months ago we were all just poor losers who will have to wake up tomorrow to our pathetic lives while players are playas and now suddenly players are hard-working Americans just like you and me.

[ConanRulesNBC]

LMAO at comparing teacher unions or factory unions or any other types of unions to pro sports unions. It's a completely different thing. Teachers and factory workers aren't making millions of dollars a year.

[bigdog13]

LMAO at comparing teacher unions or factory unions or any other types of unions to pro sports unions. It's a completely different thing. Teachers and factory workers aren't making millions of dollars a year.

It's also different in that a 7th front bumper assembler would make very close if not the same to other 7th year assemblers. NBA has some assemblers making 15 xs as much as other assemblers.

[ConanRulesNBC]

It's also different in that a 7th front bumper assembler would make very close if not the same to other 7th year assemblers. NBA has some assemblers making 15 xs as much as other assemblers.

But even those on the lower end in the NBA still make a few million a year and really what do they do to deserve that much? At least you can say guys like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Durant and all of the top guys in the league do bring in fans. You've got scrubs in the NBA who make about $5 million a season. That's really pathetic.

[longtime lurker]

How did this go from a talk about decertification to the fact that players make more than teachers, doctors etc.

[tpols]

:facepalm You're really going to compare athletes to any of those?

Being a doctor or a firefighter is way more important than dribbling a ball down a court.
He wasn't saying basketball players' jobs are as important as teachers policemen or soldiers.. he was saying that policemen teachers and soldiers all hold jobs that are necessary for society to survive and government to work and that everything ELSE is a result of supply and demand in the market place.

Why does it cost 50 dollars to go to a basketball game? Because thats the general range of what people are willing to pay to see a game. If you lowered it to 20 dollars, the stadium would be overflooded with people and if you raised it to 80 dollars you wouldn't be able to fill any seats. It's basic economics. When you multiply the equillibrium price by the amount of people that pay it, you get millions and millions of dollars being generated over short periods of time. Add in merchandise sales, food sales, tv contracts, and a whole bunch of other revenue streams and you get a entertainment racket that is worth a shit load of money.

My question for you is... where do you want that money to go? Should the owners who built the infrastructure inherit 95% of the profits and just pay the players a modest, median income salary? If that were the case, a lot of players wouldn't want to play in the league because they could make WAY more money off of other things than what it would be worth to play in the NBA. EXAMPLE:

Lebron James gets signed to a 100 million dollar marketing deal with Nike. Marketing research has shown that having someone as popular as Lebron James endorse their product will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in extra sales and it will keep that company competitive and relevant in the market they operate in.

Why the fvck would Lebron play basketball for 70k a year in the NBA when he's making 1000 times that, literally, with an outside contract? How would the stressful 82 game season where he flies all over the country and exhausts himself be worth it when it would be .1% of his total income?

You just dont have a clue how money works.

[Fatal9]

Doesn't the fact that the proposal containing 5 of the 6 suggested solutions by the mediator cut into the union argument that the owners did not negotiate in good faith?

[themurph]

A teacher and an NBA player are NOT the same thing. You cannot simply equate them because both jobs are unionized. The fact that some players are trying to appeal to this logic is ludicrous. It's funny how a few months ago we were all just poor losers who will have to wake up tomorrow to our pathetic lives while players are playas and now suddenly players are hard-working Americans just like you and me.

Are you a morning host on Fox News or something?....

I never said teachers and athletes were in the same boat...I'm talking about the overall function of a union...

Let's chill with the gotcha stuff and debate like adults....

[themurph]

How did this go from a talk about decertification to the fact that players make more than teachers, doctors etc.


Because some folks are using strawman arguments because they can't debate just on the facts alone....

[B]

Doesn't the fact that the proposal containing 5 of the 6 suggested solutions by the mediator cut into the union argument that the owners did not negotiate in good faith?Yes it does. the whole "good faith" argument by the players is just window dressing just like so much of the owners talking points are. It is nearly impossible to prove one side did no negotiate in good faith.

I read in one of the one billion articles on the lockout where an attorney said to prove it, one side basically had to avoid any communication and make outrageous demands and pointed that the fact the players had agreed to nearly 95% of the CBA structure that they'll have an even harder time proving it. How can you agree to so much if the other side is bargaining in bad faith? he asked

[Hammertime]

Are you a morning host on Fox News or something?....

I never said teachers and athletes were in the same boat...I'm talking about the overall function of a union...

Let's chill with the gotcha stuff and debate like adults....

No, I used to be a teacher and I'm well aware of the importance of unions. However, making parallels between NBA players and teachers is disingenuous.

The players' union was fighting for basic rights akin to those of regular workers 30 or 50 years ago.

http://www.apbr.org/labor.html

When players were fighting for pensions, for health benefits, for limits to how many regular season games they can be made to play, for the ability to choose their employer after their contracts expired, they were fighting for the basic labour rights most workers already have or should have.

Now though? They're acting as if guaranteed contracts are an absolute, basic human right? Do you know of any other job where there is absolutely no performance evaluation and the possibility of consequences if you f*ck up badly? When I was first hired as a teacher, they gave me a 5-year contract. During those five years, I could've been fired for poor performance at any point. The 5-year contract did not mean that short of molesting or beating a student, I could do anything. That is what a contract means to an NBA player. Sure, even they can have them voided for really gross violations(though apparently the standards here are so high, even bringing guns to the arena and threatening to shoot a teammate don't meet the definition), but there is absolutely no accountability as far as performance goes. You can sign a contract, get fat, stop bothering with practicing, give no effort on the floor, and there is no way for your team to do anything about it.

Where else does this happen? Even politicians don't get to to this in America. Grey Davis was elected to a 4-year term as governor and recalled within a year. People didn't want him in office and they didn't have to wait 4 years to vote him out. Why the hell are NBA players protected from this, and more importantly, why do they (and some of you) believe that taking this away from them would constitute some flagrant violation of their basic rights?

[ConanRulesNBC]

Because some folks are using strawman arguments because they can't debate just on the facts alone....

Because you're acting as if the NBA union should be treated just as important as other unions. If factory union workers went on strike they'd have my full support because they're not making millions of dollars. The NBA players do not have my support.

[comerb]

I still say the players are greedy and stupid. This article did nothing to say otherwise...




Could you explain to me how the players are the greedy ones and not the owners? The players did give them back enough in BRI to turn a good profit via revenue sharing, and thats basing income off the extremely twisted "deficit" numbers that the NBA published.

They are both greedy, I will agree to that... but the players are the only ones that have been making any sort of significant concession up to this point.

I don't understand this argument that because the players are millionaires, that somehow they should just bend so that Billionaires can get even richer. Why aren't the Billionaires being held to the fire for the same reason?

I'll be the first to admit that I think guaranteed contracts are bullshit, and that contract lengths are too long. Having said that, you can't negotiate on such a key issue if you refuse to give significant concessions on other key issues. Your just spitting in the other sides face and telling them your not playing unless you get everything you want, and that just pisses people off.

[blacknapalm]

Could you explain to me how the players are the greedy ones and not the owners? The players did give them back enough in BRI to turn a good profit via revenue sharing, and thats basing income off the extremely twisted "deficit" numbers that the NBA published.

They are both greedy, I will agree to that... but the players are the only ones that have been making any sort of significant concession up to this point. You need to take off your blinders.

I don't understand this argument that because the players are millionaires, that somehow they should just bend so that Billionaires can get even richer. Why aren't the Billionaires being held to the fire for the same reason?

bingo. not to mention that the owners will also gain money over a lifetime as opposed to most players only earning money through their playing career. owners also have other business ventures and streams of income.

[themurph]

Because you're acting as if the NBA union should be treated just as important as other unions. If factory union workers went on strike they'd have my full support because they're not making millions of dollars. The NBA players do not have my support.


No...I'm acting like the NBA is a whole different animal than factory workers...I don't equate the two because it lacks context....They have nothing to do with each other...Thus, it makes no sense to equate the two...Like I said previously, this is not an Occupy Wall Street situation...An NBA player player $20 million a year does not take money away from the common man in the same way that a multi-millionaire Wall Street executive, who doesn't pay his/her fair share and gets over on massive tax loopholes, does...

It's frankly a strawman argument.....

As many have noted in this thread, the NBA is entertainment...It has become a billion dollar business because of the public's obsessive appetite for sports...

No one is putting a gun to the heads of the public to support the NBA, MLB or NFL...We do so because we want to be entertained...We do so because we can't dunk a ball over a 7 footer or throw a pinpoint 55 yard bomb in a football inzone...

So since we fans demand our sports it makes sense that the athletes get what they are worth in their respective marketplace and more importantly, in a reasonable manner. (This is why I DIDN'T support the MLB during their strike years in the '90s...Their union had become TOO powerful and was getting ridiculous deals in a sport where team franchises are often more important than the players....In the NBA, it's the opposite)...

That's the current issue within the NBA lockout...Not just simply greed....

And again, if people would try to look at this as reasonable mature adults you would see that the owners have already won...They got most of what was on their list and then some...Now they are taking advantage of the situation...

But mostly they are taking advantage of the disturbing (but not surprising) public viewpoint that the mostly black NBA players are spoiled, no nothing, greedy athletes...

Hence the "hood rat" comment you will find in this thread...

It is what it is...

[ConanRulesNBC]

People enjoy sports, they don't demand anything. I'm sure if most people had their way ticket prices would be cheaper, everything would be cheaper, these players wouldn't be making hundred million dollar contracts. We're forced into paying for these ridiculous prices if we want to enjoy something.

No one is forcing us to go. But if we want to go we don't have a choice over the prices.

[themurph]

Read up guys...This is where the NBA is at...And there's a reason for it's current labor issues...(Hint---it ain't all about greedy players)....

----

Henry Abbott Calls NBA Owners Out for Desire for Competitive Balance

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33268/the-offer-that-should-have-been-accepted

Thursday, November 17, 2011
The offer that should have been accepted
By Henry Abbott

When professional athletes are in a work stoppage, everyone knows that means people with tons of money -- millionaires and billionaires, oh my! -- are scheming ways to get even more.

But, amazingly, the NBA's labor negotiations broke down when no money was at stake. Both sides have made various proposals in which active NBA players will make the same precise amount over the life of the deal, guaranteed not to waver even a single penny.

The league may well come to regret not having taken up the players on their last offer.

With the money essentially agreed to, the entire season is in jeopardy because of a nasty fight over "system issues" the NBA says it wants in order to give 30 teams a shot at the title, but that the finest experts insist would do little if anything to get that done.

The players fought hard on system issues because they have real things at stake -- from the ability as free agents to join a team where they'll be happy to the years of guaranteed income they'll be able to secure.

The owners, though, are tanking the season in the name of a victory that would make owners of also-ran teams feel like they'd have a better chance of winning ... without actually improving their chances of winning.

The essential measure of competitive balance in sports leagues is called "Noll-Scully" named in part after Stanford economist Roger Noll. He is unimpressed by the NBA's proposed system changes that he says would have, he says, "little effect" on parity.

He's in lockstep with every other noted expert who has commented publicly, including David Berri, who has studied the subject intensively across all major sports and found that of all historic attempts at harder caps "none of these institutions had any statistically significant impact on balance in any of these leagues."

British economist David Forrest says "the evidence isn't there."

Even the NBA's own expert on the economics, armed with all kinds of evidence tying payroll and on-court success, admits there is, at best, weak evidence to suggest harder caps have led to greater parity in other leagues.

The NBA itself saw no improvement in competitive balance when it became the first major American sport with a salary cap in 1984.

The NBA owners have put the season at risk, however, pursuing the idea that this time things are different, and that controlling the spending of the Lakers and Knicks is the key to making the Bobcats and Bucks better.

It would be a mighty shame to lose a $5 billion season, and the warm feelings of hundreds of millions of fans, to this weak analysis.


For the players: job quality

If the owners had accepted the players' last proposal, they would have won a 12 percent reduction in current player salaries, as well as a host of wins on systems issues.

The NBA's soft salary cap will be harder, that's for certain. The luxury tax will be steep. The various exceptions that make the cap hard will be smaller and available to fewer teams. It will be harder for every NBA free agent to gain leverage, and many experts suggest the richest teams will spend far less than they used do. Because of the steep luxury tax, one analyst says the league will have a de facto hard cap of $80 million.

Remember that the money issues have been settled -- all players in aggregate will be getting what they get each season, 50 percent of the league's basketball-related income -- if the league will agree to the players' system issues. So those constraints are not designed to save owners money. But players are worried about something very real: that those changes may reduce their job security.

For instance, ask your financial planner if a five-year, $30 million contract is the same as five consecutive one-year, $6 million deals.

That second one is only as good until you get injured, fall out of favor, stop working hard, or lose all your playing time to a new rookie.

Players are worried that the new harder cap will make more players' jobs more insecure. There are also worries that the new deal will hurt the league's middle class, pushing a greater share of earnings to those making a lot and those easily replaced players making very little.


For the owners: the feeling of competitive balance

If the total money paid to players is set in stone, and if owners are creating a new revenue sharing system to get that money where it needs to go to prop up the NBA's weaker businesses, why on earth would the league still be willing to cancel a multibillion dollar season to get a better deal?

The league has said from the start that they want to make it easier for bad teams to become good. They want more close games, and they want seasons to begin with long lists of contenders. They want less predictability, which leads to higher TV ratings, and more money.

(I have long suspected this talk of competitive balance was a ruse, both because there is not evidence anything like it has ever worked, and because the league is ignoring the system tweak that might make a real difference: Letting stars earn so much that no team could afford more than one. Noll calls the maximum contract rule "the biggest factor now causing adverse competitive balance," because it "allows a few teams to stack superstars. This exists solely because of ego issues concerning owners paying so much to a player and the median voter in the union buying the argument that it causes pay to be transferred to them.")

But who can call the owners a ruse now? Even in what Stern calls "the nuclear winter of the NBA," the league has yet to relent on these system issues.

Sources say the Bobcats, for instance, feel they lose so many games because they will never be able to afford the Lakers' payroll. But basketball is not baseball. The Bobcats have not been forced to give up top young talent to basketball's equivalent of the Yankees.

In fact, in the NBA, top players are paid below their market value throughout their careers -- first on strictly regulated below-market rookie deals, and then on below-market maximum deals. There is not a team that can't afford LeBron James. On the contrary, players like James consistently make their owners money -- the Bobcats would be lucky to pay such a player.

The problem the Bobcats -- and most consistently bad teams -- have is that they have made bad decisions, which is especially noticeable in the draft. From 2004 to 2008, Charlotte had a top 10 pick -- the holy grail of NBA assets -- every single year. They picked second, fifth, third, eighth and ninth. Picks like those are the way teams get superstars. They are the way small-market teams like the Thunder (thanks to Kevin Durant) and Spurs (Tim Duncan) have been able to compete with small payrolls.

And out of all that, the Bobcats got Emeka Okafor, Raymond Felton, Adam Morrison, Brandan Wright and D.J. Augustin. Only one of those players even plays for the Bobcats anymore, and none are centerpieces of any franchise. For the same money they paid their picks, the Bobcats could have employed Rajon Rondo, Joakim Noah and Nicolas Batum. Instead, the Bobcats' own decisions left better players to other teams. (Drafting far lower over the same period, the Lakers came up with a comparable haul of Andrew Bynum, Jordan Farmar and Sasha Vujacic, and many teams outdrafted the Lakers through the years.)

Maybe Rich Cho, the Bobcats' new GM, can fix that. But it's far-fetched to think a new collective bargaining agreement can. And so long as that is not fixed, the Bobcats will struggle to compete. The draft matters far more than payroll in determining who wins -- about five times as much, according to a tidy analysis by Tom Haberstroh.

There may be a certain tolerance out there for an NBA season lost to fixing a broken financial model. Everybody at least understands the idea that the league needs to be on solid financial footing. But with the money issues solved, it's unfathomable that we might lose a season chasing the unicorn of competitive balance.

[tpols]

People enjoy sports, they don't demand anything. I'm sure if most people had their way ticket prices would be cheaper, everything would be cheaper, these players wouldn't be making hundred million dollar contracts. We're forced into paying for these ridiculous prices if we want to enjoy something.

No one is forcing us to go. But if we want to go we don't have a choice over the prices.
Wow.. is it really coming to this? When I say demand,I dont mean they 'demand' NBA basketball. Demand means people will offer their time and money to something that they enjoy.. just like you said. Demand is how many people enjoy basketball and are willing to pay to watch it.

You could literally make your stupid argument about anything. I'm sure if most people could have their way homes would be cheaper,and gas would be cheaper, and food would be free, but then there would be no way to differentiate who has money and who doesn't because everything would be to easy to get. All of the people that worked hard in school for years and got great jobs would have done it for nothing because the guy on the corner who put inhalf the effort they did could buy the same shit since everything would be essentially free. Of course everyone would want shit to come easier to them.. the reason it doesn't is because there isn't enough wealth to spread around[whether it be homes, oil reserves, or arena seats].. the ones who work the hardest and/or are the luckiest end up getting a larger slice of that wealth and hence get to buy more things than those who dont.

[HurricaneKid]

People enjoy sports, they don't demand anything. I'm sure if most people had their way ticket prices would be cheaper, everything would be cheaper, these players wouldn't be making hundred million dollar contracts. We're forced into paying for these ridiculous prices if we want to enjoy something.

No one is forcing us to go. But if we want to go we don't have a choice over the prices.

This post is 10 kinds of stupid.

If players made less and tickets were cheaper scalpers would buy them all and they would cost what they do today. They cost what they cost because that is what the market will bear. The reason courtside seats aren't $30 is because someone is willing to pay far more. If they were $30 I would buy them all and sell them to the people who are willing to pay more. And them I would get money that should be going to the teams (and likely a portion of that to the players).

You simply cannot force people to sell products for less than their market value. All you are doing is inviting another entity into the exchange and allowing them to play middleman.

[bigdog13]

I am glad that the Owners are holding out not on money but on a structure that makes it more a competetive balance. Its not the owners who brought this it is Carmelo, Bosh, Lebron and Chris Paul (to the Knicks)

I called Stern a dozen times, no returned calls I mind you as well as Calangelo about how the structure has to change or I will be cancelling my tickets.

Phuck the current structure.

[Kevin_Gamble]

I am glad that the Owners are holding out not on money but on a structure that makes it more a competetive balance. Its not the owners who brought this it is Carmelo, Bosh, Lebron and Chris Paul (to the Knicks)

I called Stern a dozen times, no returned calls I mind you as well as Calangelo about how the structure has to change or I will be cancelling my tickets.

Phuck the current structure.

If owners are really serious about competitive balance, then they can implement an actual, serious revenue sharing. It's an easy fix that only requires the greed of few big market owners to give way.

[Sarcastic]

Read up guys...This is where the NBA is at...And there's a reason for it's current labor issues...(Hint---it ain't all about greedy players)....

----

Henry Abbott Calls NBA Owners Out for Desire for Competitive Balance

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33268/the-offer-that-should-have-been-accepted

Thursday, November 17, 2011
The offer that should have been accepted
By Henry Abbott

When professional athletes are in a work stoppage, everyone knows that means people with tons of money -- millionaires and billionaires, oh my! -- are scheming ways to get even more.

But, amazingly, the NBA's labor negotiations broke down when no money was at stake. Both sides have made various proposals in which active NBA players will make the same precise amount over the life of the deal, guaranteed not to waver even a single penny.

The league may well come to regret not having taken up the players on their last offer.

With the money essentially agreed to, the entire season is in jeopardy because of a nasty fight over "system issues" the NBA says it wants in order to give 30 teams a shot at the title, but that the finest experts insist would do little if anything to get that done.

The players fought hard on system issues because they have real things at stake -- from the ability as free agents to join a team where they'll be happy to the years of guaranteed income they'll be able to secure.

The owners, though, are tanking the season in the name of a victory that would make owners of also-ran teams feel like they'd have a better chance of winning ... without actually improving their chances of winning.

The essential measure of competitive balance in sports leagues is called "Noll-Scully" named in part after Stanford economist Roger Noll. He is unimpressed by the NBA's proposed system changes that he says would have, he says, "little effect" on parity.

He's in lockstep with every other noted expert who has commented publicly, including David Berri, who has studied the subject intensively across all major sports and found that of all historic attempts at harder caps "none of these institutions had any statistically significant impact on balance in any of these leagues."

British economist David Forrest says "the evidence isn't there."

Even the NBA's own expert on the economics, armed with all kinds of evidence tying payroll and on-court success, admits there is, at best, weak evidence to suggest harder caps have led to greater parity in other leagues.

The NBA itself saw no improvement in competitive balance when it became the first major American sport with a salary cap in 1984.

The NBA owners have put the season at risk, however, pursuing the idea that this time things are different, and that controlling the spending of the Lakers and Knicks is the key to making the Bobcats and Bucks better.

It would be a mighty shame to lose a $5 billion season, and the warm feelings of hundreds of millions of fans, to this weak analysis.


For the players: job quality

If the owners had accepted the players' last proposal, they would have won a 12 percent reduction in current player salaries, as well as a host of wins on systems issues.

The NBA's soft salary cap will be harder, that's for certain. The luxury tax will be steep. The various exceptions that make the cap hard will be smaller and available to fewer teams. It will be harder for every NBA free agent to gain leverage, and many experts suggest the richest teams will spend far less than they used do. Because of the steep luxury tax, one analyst says the league will have a de facto hard cap of $80 million.

Remember that the money issues have been settled -- all players in aggregate will be getting what they get each season, 50 percent of the league's basketball-related income -- if the league will agree to the players' system issues. So those constraints are not designed to save owners money. But players are worried about something very real: that those changes may reduce their job security.

For instance, ask your financial planner if a five-year, $30 million contract is the same as five consecutive one-year, $6 million deals.

That second one is only as good until you get injured, fall out of favor, stop working hard, or lose all your playing time to a new rookie.

Players are worried that the new harder cap will make more players' jobs more insecure. There are also worries that the new deal will hurt the league's middle class, pushing a greater share of earnings to those making a lot and those easily replaced players making very little.


For the owners: the feeling of competitive balance

If the total money paid to players is set in stone, and if owners are creating a new revenue sharing system to get that money where it needs to go to prop up the NBA's weaker businesses, why on earth would the league still be willing to cancel a multibillion dollar season to get a better deal?

The league has said from the start that they want to make it easier for bad teams to become good. They want more close games, and they want seasons to begin with long lists of contenders. They want less predictability, which leads to higher TV ratings, and more money.

(I have long suspected this talk of competitive balance was a ruse, both because there is not evidence anything like it has ever worked, and because the league is ignoring the system tweak that might make a real difference: Letting stars earn so much that no team could afford more than one. Noll calls the maximum contract rule "the biggest factor now causing adverse competitive balance," because it "allows a few teams to stack superstars. This exists solely because of ego issues concerning owners paying so much to a player and the median voter in the union buying the argument that it causes pay to be transferred to them.")

But who can call the owners a ruse now? Even in what Stern calls "the nuclear winter of the NBA," the league has yet to relent on these system issues.

Sources say the Bobcats, for instance, feel they lose so many games because they will never be able to afford the Lakers' payroll. But basketball is not baseball. The Bobcats have not been forced to give up top young talent to basketball's equivalent of the Yankees.

In fact, in the NBA, top players are paid below their market value throughout their careers -- first on strictly regulated below-market rookie deals, and then on below-market maximum deals. There is not a team that can't afford LeBron James. On the contrary, players like James consistently make their owners money -- the Bobcats would be lucky to pay such a player.

The problem the Bobcats -- and most consistently bad teams -- have is that they have made bad decisions, which is especially noticeable in the draft. From 2004 to 2008, Charlotte had a top 10 pick -- the holy grail of NBA assets -- every single year. They picked second, fifth, third, eighth and ninth. Picks like those are the way teams get superstars. They are the way small-market teams like the Thunder (thanks to Kevin Durant) and Spurs (Tim Duncan) have been able to compete with small payrolls.

And out of all that, the Bobcats got Emeka Okafor, Raymond Felton, Adam Morrison, Brandan Wright and D.J. Augustin. Only one of those players even plays for the Bobcats anymore, and none are centerpieces of any franchise. For the same money they paid their picks, the Bobcats could have employed Rajon Rondo, Joakim Noah and Nicolas Batum. Instead, the Bobcats' own decisions left better players to other teams. (Drafting far lower over the same period, the Lakers came up with a comparable haul of Andrew Bynum, Jordan Farmar and Sasha Vujacic, and many teams outdrafted the Lakers through the years.)

Maybe Rich Cho, the Bobcats' new GM, can fix that. But it's far-fetched to think a new collective bargaining agreement can. And so long as that is not fixed, the Bobcats will struggle to compete. The draft matters far more than payroll in determining who wins -- about five times as much, according to a tidy analysis by Tom Haberstroh.

There may be a certain tolerance out there for an NBA season lost to fixing a broken financial model. Everybody at least understands the idea that the league needs to be on solid financial footing. But with the money issues solved, it's unfathomable that we might lose a season chasing the unicorn of competitive balance.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Yung D-Will]

If Sarcastic quoted it that means it must be an extremely biased pro player article

:applause:

[ConanRulesNBC]

If Sarcastic quoted it that means it must be an extremely biased pro player article

:applause:

:applause:

[Sarcastic]

If Sarcastic quoted it that means it must be an extremely biased pro player article

:applause:

It basically says the Utah Jazz suck. They are a drain on the league. They should be booted out of the league. They are inept. All their fans are inept too. Anyone who roots for them obviously has some serious brain issues.

[Sarcastic]

:applause:

Hey look, the village idiot who doesn't even know what demand in the context of economics means just posted again.

[Bernie Nips]

:applause:

One of my favourite things about human nature: When someone is proven wrong, instead of conceding that perhaps they're in over their head and they don't quite know what they're talking about, they would rather hold on to their belief because PRIDE is by far the most important thing!

[bigdog13]

If owners are really serious about competitive balance, then they can implement an actual, serious revenue sharing. It's an easy fix that only requires the greed of few big market owners to give way.

The owners have to be forced to share or forced to limit max contacts by collective bargaining. They are too spineless to just do it themselves.

[HurricaneKid]

If Sarcastic quoted it that means it must be an extremely biased pro player article

:applause:

Its not a pro player article at all.

Its anti-owner :)

[HurricaneKid]

I am glad that the Owners are holding out not on money but on a structure that makes it more a competetive balance. Its not the owners who brought this it is Carmelo, Bosh, Lebron and Chris Paul (to the Knicks)

I called Stern a dozen times, no returned calls I mind you as well as Calangelo about how the structure has to change or I will be cancelling my tickets.

Phuck the current structure.

Sometimes posts here make my head hurt. Like two posts above was a concise documentation of how this is an completely untrue. These things would not in any way create a more competitive balance. They are simply attempting to limit their risk. Its a transparent cop out.

[bigdog13]

Sometimes posts here make my head hurt. Like two posts above was a concise documentation of how this is an completely untrue. These things would not in any way create a more competitive balance. They are simply attempting to limit their risk. Its a transparent cop out.

Colangelo could not do anything about the competitive imbalance but he sent my son a plush raptor.