Talks Resume To End Labor Impasse!!!

[airchibundo507]

Players willing to accept 50-50 BRI split. Must have handshake agreement by this Friday. (source: ESPN)

[airchibundo507]

Agreement would result in 66 game season starting at the end of December.

[JGXEN]

PLEASE END THIS LOCKOUT :cry: IM SICK OF EUROLEAGUE TROLLING IN NBA FORUMS!!!!!

[Heavincent]

False Hope: Volume 47

[Kobr]

Agreement would result in 66 game season starting at the end of December.

I could live with that... now make it happen Stern and Silver and Hunter and Fisher and Kessler!

[DuMa]

False Hope: Volume 47

false hope is better than no hope at all.

[airchibundo507]

No, this isn't false hope like the other times. the players must have had an epiphany. You don't just make a hard push for litigation only to shy back into negotiations.

[Clutch]

I could live with that... now make it happen Stern and Silver and Hunter and Fisher[ and Kessler!

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Stern and Kessler loathe each other. Removing Kessler from lead role and putting measured, reasonable Quinn in room could be huge.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
. @HowardBeckNYT reports players hired Jim Quinn to close deal. He appears to have replaced Kessler as lead negotiator. nyti.ms/uxeJ1d

[ace23]

Would make a great Thanksgiving/Christmas gift for this thing to end.

[jlip]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7274143/nba-lockout-new-nba-talks-aimed-resolving-lawsuits-sources-say

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/11/23/wednesday-labor.ap/index.html

[Sarcastic]

Players should accept 50/50 on the condition that Stern quits after this season.

[AMISTILLILL]

If it happens, it happens. I'm not very optimistic though (and I doubt very many people are).

[AI3Anthony]

This was so random that I think the players want it. The desertification was a bluff. I think we get a deal done Friday.

[kurple]

Don't see it happening.. Players will have to miss a lot more paychecks before they give in

[Fiasco]

Players should accept 50/50 on the condition that Stern quits after this season.

ANOINT THIS MAN

[Sarcastic]

The owners wanted everything plus the kitchen sink. The players gave them everything except the kitchen sink. The decertification will allow the players to hold onto the kitchen sink.

[JohnnyWall]

The owners wanted everything plus the kitchen sink. The players gave them everything except the kitchen sink. The decertification will allow the players to hold onto the kitchen sink.
You really ought to hop off the players' cocks sometime soon.

[InspiredLebowski]

Players should accept 50/50 on the condition that Stern quits after this season.Regardless of the terms of the agreement whenever they reach it Stern and Hunter both need to go. They've overseen two labor stoppages, in what world is that acceptable?

Anyway, let's say 50/50 and full MLE, just like it was, that enough?

[Fiasco]

Regardless of the terms of the agreement whenever they reach it Stern and Hunter both need to go. They've overseen two labor stoppages, in what world is that acceptable?

Anyway, let's say 50/50 and full MLE, just like it was, that enough?

That's enough for me.

I want to see Griffin drop another 47 on the Pacers so badly. :D

[InspiredLebowski]

That's enough for me.

I want to see Griffin drop another 47 on the Pacers so badly. :DHe was lucky Hansbrough only played like 12 minutes, Hansbrough woulda ripped one of his arms off with 30 mins.

[Sarcastic]

You really ought to hop off the players' cocks sometime soon.

When you hop off mine.

[Sarcastic]

Regardless of the terms of the agreement whenever they reach it Stern and Hunter both need to go. They've overseen two labor stoppages, in what world is that acceptable?

Anyway, let's say 50/50 and full MLE, just like it was, that enough?

I think so. Let the players save face. The owners already won this thing. No need to rub their noses in it.

[Rowe]

So the players aren't getting that 51-49 split? What a waste of time to even attempt to decertify and only come back 1 week later and take a 50-50 deal.

Billy Hunter is done as Union Leader.

David Stern probably wants to oversee the first Miami Heat-Los Angeles Lakers NBA Finals so he can flood NBA advertisements of the long awaited Kobe vs LeBron matchup. After that, I think he would have no problem retiring and turning the league over to Silver. A Kobe/LeBron NBA Finals is something he has wanted for nearly 6 years, he probably wants this more than he wanted to see Magic/Bird or Jordan win his first ring.

[tpols]

David Stern probably wants to oversee the first Miami Heat-Los Angeles Lakers NBA Finals so he can flood NBA advertisements of the long awaited Kobe vs LeBron matchup. After that, I think he would have no problem retiring and turning the league over to Silver. A Kobe/LeBron NBA Finals is something he has wanted for nearly 6 years, he probably wants this more than he wanted to see Magic/Bird or Jordan win his first ring.
How is an old Kobe versus prime Lebron and Wade going to be even remotely fair? Unless Kobe is really back to his 09 shape and Pau grows a set of balls it wont be close..

[InspiredLebowski]

I think so. Let the players save face. The owners already won this thing. No need to rub their noses in it.I side with the owners for the most part, but that really has been their biggest mistake. They were stupid in the past so they really tried to overcorrect, and while I see why they want to, that's just not how labor negotiations work. You can't have an existing structure and basically say OK this thing is ****ed, so every single thing we want is happening this time. Once the players accepted the 50/50 three weeks ago or whatever it was and the owners still tried to force their demands that's when I just said screw both sides. I mean hell, they just gave you 7%. I'd understand them taking 50/50 then you maybe go another week trying to get what you want, but now we're down to hoping for Xmas games.

[Rowe]

I think so. Let the players save face. The owners already won this thing. No need to rub their noses in it.

[Small market] Owners won the battle, not the war.

Owners like Dan Gilbert, Robert Sarver, etc are about to face a cold new reality in which their franchises just became even less desirable than they were before the lockout. Every single owner who sat in those meetings and pushed for this lockout in a way to re-coup their financial losses due to their poor management resulting in overpaid players, losing records, & poor ticket sales is about to be on the blacklist.

If Dan Gilbert thought it was an unfair advantage of him having to overpay guys to play in Cleveland because they'd prefer a larger market, he better be ready to have to overpay them even more to come there. Michael Jordan ruined his "good will" that he had with current NBA players who once looked up to him with his actions in the labor dispute. He better lower the price of the next pair of Jordans to under $100 in an attempt to apologize to basketball fans.

[Sarcastic]

LOL @ Jordan's for under $100. Phil Knight would never let that happen.

[Rowe]

How is an old Kobe versus prime Lebron and Wade going to be even remotely fair? Unless Kobe is really back to his 09 shape and Pau grows a set of balls it wont be close..

Doesn't really matter about Kobe. He is still an Elite player and is just 1 season removed from his 5th ring and Finals MVP.

Kobe & LeBron are #1 and #2 as far as best NBA players of the 00's. Because they have never played in the Playoffs, the NBA has had no ability to create a rivalry between the two players. For the last 5 years we have thought we would eventually see a Kobe/LeBron Finals. This past season had all of the makings of finally being the year, and LA blew it in the Playoffs. Before that, LA reached the Finals for 3 years as Cleveland consistently blew it in the Playoffs.

Can you imagine how badly stern wants Kobe's quest for a 6th ring to cross paths with LeBron's quest for his 1st ring? It would generate the highest ratings of a NBA Finals, ever. Im pretty sure the 2 largest NBA fanbases are Kobe stans & LeBron fans. Coming off of a lockout in which the league risked ruining all of the positives of the 2010-2011 season, a LeBron/Kobe NBA Finals would be enough to push the NBA back into where it was during the Jordan years as far as interest.

That would be the perfect & only way for Stern to go out.

[Rowe]

LOL @ Jordan's for under $100. Phil Knight would never let that happen.
:oldlol:

True.

That extra money those Jordans bring in goes towards creating new uniform combinations for the Oregon Ducks.

[Meticode]

Here's the article...


The sides in the NBA labor dispute, which reached its 146th day Wednesday, have re-opened negotiations to make one last run at trying to start the season on Christmas Day.

The two sides agreed Monday to resume talks for the first time in nearly two weeks, according to sources close to the situation, with discussions commencing Tuesday and continuing Wednesday aimed at resolving lawsuits recently filed by the players. Talks are expected to resume Friday after a break for Thanksgiving, with almost no wiggle room left to get a deal done in time for Christmas.

The primary push for the talks, according to The New York Times, is a desire to try to finally end to the five-month impasse in time to start the season on Dec. 25, which has historically marked the start of the NBA's annual introduction to the national network TV schedule. But the latest talks are considered part of settlement talks relating to the litigation as opposed to outright negotiations, according to the Times.

The Times also reported that the league has a 66-game season in mind if the sides can agree to the outline of a new labor deal in time for Christmas Day games. NBA commissioner David Stern has said on numerous occasions that the league needs a month after the sides shake hands to finish putting a new labor deal in writing and allow for a compressed training camp and free agency period before the regular season begins.

NBA Players Association attorney Jonathan Schiller, in a statement issued Wednesday night, confirmed "preliminary settlement discussions with the NBA immediately after Thanksgiving."

Yet sources on both sides preached caution, noting that the talks have collapsed several times when a deal appeared to be within reach.

Lawyers from both sides are primarily involved in the latest discussions, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard, along with Stern and NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter. Hunter and his team are prevented from negotiating a new labor agreement now that the union has disbanded, but settlement talks could lead to the reforming of the union, which could then ratify a new collective bargaining agreement.

Yahoo! Sports, which first reported the resumption of talks Wednesday, reported that union president Derek Fisher has not been part of this week's negotiations. The union filed a "disclaimer of interest" last week to dissolve itself and file a series of antitrust suits against the NBA in California and Minnesota following the latest breakdown in talks.

The NBA said Wednesday that "it remains in favor of a negotiated resolution (to the lockout)" but declined to comment further.

A 66-game game season, with the playoffs pushed back at least a week later than normal, would be 16 games shorter than the usual 82-game regular season and six shorter than the 72-game season with a Dec. 15 start date that Stern offered to the union before it disbanded.

There were three games on the league's original Christmas schedule -- Boston at New York on ESPN, followed by an ABC doubleheader featuring an NBA Finals rematch pitting Miami at Dallas and Chicago visiting the Los Angeles Lakers -- but league officials are expected to draft an entirely new schedule if a deal can be struck to save the season.

Sources close to the situation told ESPN.com that Stern has privately surveyed a handful of owners about their willingness to ease the restrictions on the proposed mid-level exception in a new labor agreement, one of the biggest areas of contention on the players' side.

The players continue to push for the full mid-level exception to be made available to all teams -- not just teams under the luxury-tax threshold -- and sources say league officials have discussed whether to make that concession in their next proposal to the players.

Based on the league's most recent proposal rejected by the union on Nov. 13, teams that stay out of luxury-tax territory would be able to offer free agents the full mid-level exception, worth $5 million annually for a maximum of four years. But tax teams would be restricted to offer a so-called "mini" mid-level worth a maximum of $3 million annually over three seasons.

It is believed the league's next proposal to the players will contain tweaks to some of the "system" issues that the players have strongly objected to in recent negotiations. The players have long insisted -- in exchange for accepting a 50/50 split of annual basketball-related income after earning a 57-percent share of BRI in the final year of the previous labor deal -- that the league's proposed restrictions against luxury-tax teams must be relaxed.

The Times reported that the two sides have essentially resumed talks from where they were Nov. 10, working from a league-issued proposal that features a 50-50 split of revenues, shorter contracts and various restrictions on the league's biggest spenders.

Neither side, according to The Times, has yet attempted to back away from previously negotiated "system" specifics, keeping alive hope that the owners and players can reach an agreement on the five or so system issues that prompted the players -- complaining that the rules would too severely restrict player movement -- to reject the NBA's offer and dissolve the union.

David Boies, one of the attorneys representing the players, has repeatedly said he hopes that the NBA will be moved to settle out of court rather than risk a potentially lengthy trial that could end with players being awarded roughly $6 billion in damages.

[coin24]

This shit needs to end, hopefully they come to there senses and wrap this up..

Have to agree, a Miami vs LA finals would be epic, even after a shortened season that would be an all time ratings high..

[Rowe]

This shit needs to end, hopefully they come to there senses and wrap this up..

Have to agree, a Miami vs LA finals would be epic, even after a shortened season that would be an all time ratings high..

Same for Insidehoops.

1. Every thread would be devoted to Kobe or LeBron bringing in loads of traffic.

2. ISH servers would be down throughout each game resulting in people constantly refreshing their browser to connect.

3. The drama behind which Kobe or LeBron homer decides to kill themselves in shame.

4. Every answer to a LeBron/Kobe thread would finally be solved. No more Kobe/LeBron debates, we finally will know the truth.

[Rowe]

This shit needs to end, hopefully they come to there senses and wrap this up..

Have to agree, a Miami vs LA finals would be epic, even after a shortened season that would be an all time ratings high..

Same for Insidehoops.

1. Every thread would be devoted to Kobe or LeBron bringing in loads of traffic.

2. ISH servers would be down throughout each game resulting in people constantly refreshing their browser to connect.

3. The drama behind which Kobe or LeBron homer decides to kill themselves in shame.

4. Every answer to a LeBron/Kobe thread would finally be solved. No more Kobe/LeBron debates, we finally will know the truth.

[Sarcastic]

ISH can't handle a Lebron vs Kobe finals.

[bdreason]

:blah :blah :blah

[Deuce Bigalow]

Same for Insidehoops.

1. Every thread would be devoted to Kobe or LeBron bringing in loads of traffic.

2. ISH servers would be down throughout each game resulting in people constantly refreshing their browser to connect.

3. The drama behind which Kobe or LeBron homer decides to kill themselves in shame.

4. Every answer to a LeBron/Kobe thread would finally be solved. No more Kobe/LeBron debates, we finally will know the truth.

If LA wins the Lebron homers will claim that it's just a useless TEAM achievement award
and if Miami beats LA, Lebron homers will think that Peak Lebron beating a 16th season Kobe means something

[Shadynasty's]

ISH can't handle a Lebron vs Kobe finals.

a Kobe vs. LeBron finals would be like the shootout scene between Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in the movie Heat (no pun intended) :D

http://i.imgur.com/EMrTJ.jpg

but who would be the bad guy and who'd be the good guy? Both Kobe and LeBron catch negative stuff... hmm

[tomtucker]

He was lucky Hansbrough only played like 12 minutes, Hansbrough woulda ripped one of his arms off with 30 mins.
:lol :cheers:

[Kurosawa0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

[tomtucker]

a Kobe vs. LeBron finals would be like the shootout scene between Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in the movie Heat (no pun intended) :D

http://i.imgur.com/EMrTJ.jpg

but who would be the bad guy and who'd be the good guy? Both Kobe and LeBron catch negative stuff... hmm

noone is...one guy is losing his hair, the other is a rapist...it

[9512]

Keeping my fingers crossed !

[kentatm]

right now I have more faith in a Mayweather/Pacquiao fight getting set up

[Fiasco]

He was lucky Hansbrough only played like 12 minutes, Hansbrough woulda ripped one of his arms off with 30 mins.

:roll:

[hammer2010]

Me on Christmas morning if it's season opener.

http://www.bachmanssparrow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/birthday.gif

[Lebowski]

ISH can't handle a Lebron vs Kobe finals.

Haha yeah, this place would be worse then it is now!

Still, if the Celtics cant "leprecon" their way into the finals, I would not mind a Lakers/Heat finals.

[Fiasco]

clippers/bulls finals

BOOK IT

[pegasus]

As I said yesterday, this is called Santa Clause. You are not supposed to miss Christmas games as long as that's in the CBA.

[iDunk]

Knicks make the finals again during a shortened season.

Imagine its Spurs-Knicks again?

I'm praying for a Melo vs Durant finals. It would also be interesting to see how Amare would do against Perkins and Ibaka. Westbrook would go apeshit on us though ..

Nah, its probably gonna be Miami-LA. Kobe's last ring.

[tomtucker]

Knicks make the finals again during a shortened season.

Imagine its Spurs-Knicks again?

I'm praying for a Melo vs Durant finals. It would also be interesting to see how Amare would do against Perkins and Ibaka. Westbrook would go apeshit on us though ..

Nah, its probably gonna be Miami-LA. Kobe's last ring.
has melo even been working out since the lockout started ?

[Rnbizzle]

has melo even been working out since the lockout started ?
Yeah I remember a while back he was looking really good.. (no homo)

[Blue&Orange]

The players gave them everything except the kitchen sink.

The players gave jack shit, they don't own nothing on this negotiations, so what did they gave?
First, you're talking about money that isn't theirs, so basically you're saying they gave up money that isn't theirs :wtf:
Second, the CBA EXPIRED!! Go see what expired means. :rolleyes:

If they don't like what the owners are offering, they can keep playing on the awesome euroleague with their awesome paychecks.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Just read about this right now. Really made my Thanksgiving day! :rockon:

[ConanRulesNBC]

The players gave jack shit, they don't own nothing on this negotiations, so what did they gave?
First, you're talking about money that isn't theirs, so basically you're saying they gave up money that isn't theirs :wtf:
Second, the CBA EXPIRED!! Go see what expired means. :rolleyes:

If they don't like what the owners are offering, they can keep playing on the awesome euroleague with their awesome paychecks.

Totally agree.

[Fiasco]

The players gave jack shit, they don't own nothing on this negotiations, so what did they gave?
First, you're talking about money that isn't theirs, so basically you're saying they gave up money that isn't theirs :wtf:
Second, the CBA EXPIRED!! Go see what expired means. :rolleyes:

If they don't like what the owners are offering, they can keep playing on the awesome euroleague with their awesome paychecks.

This has to be a joke.

[Sarcastic]

Totally agree.

Not surprised one iota.

[G-Funk]

TommyBeer: If the players reject this final offer, then Stern and the owners will move towards cancellation of the entire 20110-2012 season
4 hours ago

[G-Funk]

TommyBeer: ESPN's Ric Bucher reporting this mroning that Stern will make one last offer - purportedly better than their previous "final offer."

[Doranku]

The NBA lockout ending and having it's first games on Christmas Day would be the best Christmas present I could ever ask for. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Clutch]

The NBA lockout ending and having it's first games on Christmas Day would be the best Christmas present I could ever ask for. :cry: :cry: :cry:
this :applause:

[iDunk]

has melo even been working out since the lockout started ?
There were pictures of him tire lifting. Videos of him working on his shot using both hands, etc.

[Sarcastic]

has melo even been working out since the lockout started ?

He's been working out with Wade and Lebron

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/308593_10150381251376309_5941596308_8514861_799450 921_n.jpg

[Clutch]

He's been working out with Wade and Lebron


I can already see Melo flopping like bitch and going to the free throw line 15 times a game next season.
He learned from the best :lol

[Sarcastic]

I can already see Melo flopping like bitch and going to the free throw line 15 times a game next season.
He learned from the best :lol

Chris Paul has been there training with them too at the Nike Headquarters :lol
They're all buddies.

Here they all are at the Oregon/USC game

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381651_10150415220023944_64637653943_8652794_16460 32963_n.jpg

[LBJ 23]

I feel sorry for Bosh, always an outsider :(

[Fiasco]

Chris Paul has been there training with them too at the Nike Headquarters :lol
They're all buddies.

Here they all are at the Oregon/USC game

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381651_10150415220023944_64637653943_8652794_16460 32963_n.jpg

"All right, now I need everyone who's not going to win the championship in the near foreseeable future to give me a big smile..."

[LBJ 23]

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381651_10150415220023944_64637653943_8652794_16460 32963_n.jpg


Those jaws :eek:

[JohnnyWall]

Chris Paul has been there training with them too at the Nike Headquarters :lol
They're all buddies.

Here they all are at the Oregon/USC game

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381651_10150415220023944_64637653943_8652794_16460 32963_n.jpg

They look like ex-gang members.

[tomtucker]

All 3 got the same jacket on ?...guess they are like brothers now.

and Carlton is not in the family


.

[tomtucker]

He's been working out with Wade and Lebron

]

okay, thanks ...he should be good then

[Kblaze8855]

They look like ex-gang members.

Why is that?

Having on hats and coats and smiling?

[nathanjizzle]

Why is that?

Having on hats and coats and smiling?

because there black guys in a group picture

[Mr Know It All]

because there black guys in a group picture

:roll:

[StacksOnDeck]

"All right, now I need everyone who's not going to win the championship in the near foreseeable future to give me a big smile..."

I laughed. :oldlol:

[chips93]

i hate to get suckered into caring about this stupid lock out, but this tweet from adrian wojo of YahooSports, gave me some optimism


Derek Fisher will attend Friday's labor settlement meeting, source tells Y! Given legal complications, it suggests a deal is within reach.


As president of NBPA, Fisher and players have to protect selves from league charge that disbanding of union was a "sham" negotiating tactic.

http://twitter.com/#!/WojYahooNBA

[ConanRulesNBC]

Not surprised one iota.

It's true though. The players are the employees. The owners are the ones who are paying them. Not saying the owners are all great here but that is the fact.

[Sarcastic]

It's true though. The players are the employees. The owners are the ones who are paying them. Not saying the owners are all great here but that is the fact.

The money doesn't belong to either side outright. They both need each other to make the NBA happen. The owners aren't just paying them out of pocket. They are paying them out of the revenue that BASKETBALL generates.

[JohnnyWall]

The money doesn't belong to either side outright. They both need each other to make the NBA happen. The owners aren't just paying them out of pocket. They are paying them out of the revenue that BASKETBALL generates.

And the owners are the ones taking the entirety of the risk and costs of running the teams and ultimately keeping the league afloat.

[Jimmy2k8]

"All right, now I need everyone who's not going to win the championship in the near foreseeable future to give me a big smile..."


Okay. I chuckled a bit. :oldlol:

[Sarcastic]

And the owners are the ones taking the entirety of the risk and costs of running the teams and ultimately keeping the league afloat.

It's funny how MLB, NFL, and NHL all seem to be able to turn profit while running much larger leagues. Only in the NBA, which only has 450 players, do the owners run at a loss.

[longtime lurker]

And the owners are the ones taking the entirety of the risk and costs of running the teams and ultimately keeping the league afloat.

Well judging from where things stand now the owners are doing a poor job of that.

[senelcoolidge]

He was lucky Hansbrough only played like 12 minutes, Hansbrough woulda ripped one of his arms off with 30 mins.
Yeah, Hansbrough had 4 fouls in the first 7 minutes.

[RazorBaLade]

It's funny how MLB, NFL, and NHL all seem to be able to turn profit while running much larger leagues. Only in the NBA, which only has 450 players, do the owners run at a loss.

Higher average salary + less people in stands.

[Lebron23]

I hope someone kick the asses of Fisher and Hunter.

[The_Yearning]

So the players are finally caving and crawling back to the owners for the deal? Like I said players are too afraid to lose anymore money.

[tomtucker]

So the players are finally caving and crawling back to the owners for the deal? Like I said players are too afraid to lose anymore money.
for sure....have you seen the prices for the 2012 Mercedes S class .....uh, i mean..............these poor guys gotta feed their children

[nathanjizzle]

dont ask me how i know, but there is a private meeting today

[Clutch]

dont ask me how i know, but there is a private meeting today
ESPN said they are going to meet today :facepalm

[Kobr]

ESPN said they are going to meet today :facepalm

he has a secret contact at ESPN.. i won't say who, but it rhymes with forts mentor

[StacksOnDeck]

So the players are finally caving and crawling back to the owners for the deal? Like I said players are too afraid to lose anymore money.

Actually you're wrong idiot. Billy said the owners have to make the first move a week ago then Stern had a conference meeting with owners and suddenly they have meetings. Also, Stern looks like a fool for taking off that final offer again.

[bigdog13]

The money doesn't belong to either side outright. They both need each other to make the NBA happen. The owners aren't just paying them out of pocket. They are paying them out of the revenue that BASKETBALL generates.

your boss is paying you from the money you generate, yet they are only giving you 28-30% of what you are worth. we did the math last week.


NFL players get 48% and they make money because of the 3 television deals.
NHL players get 54% and there are 5 teams on the brink of the need to relocate to Canada to make any money
MLB players get 52% and only 8 teams compete each year. Milwalkee must be dismantled due to the fact that they will no longer be able to afford their players.
NBA is going to get 50%, right in the middle seems fair. What I want to see is the structural changes. Give them 55% of the BPI but stop allowing the Lakers spend $91,000,000. We need a hard cap.
Sarcastic's firm's employees get 30% of revenue.

[jbryan1984]

If they get a deal done, I hope they sign it for like 20 years.

[bigdog13]

in the last final proposal from the NBA there was actually an exceleration clause to get out after 6 or 7 years i beleive for both sides. NO 20 years here.

[Sarcastic]

your boss is paying you from the money you generate, yet they are only giving you 28-30% of what you are worth. we did the math last week.


NFL players get 48% and they make money because of the 3 television deals.
NHL players get 54% and there are 5 teams on the brink of the need to relocate to Canada to make any money
MLB players get 52% and only 8 teams compete each year. Milwalkee must be dismantled due to the fact that they will no longer be able to afford their players.
NBA is going to get 50%, right in the middle seems fair. What I want to see is the structural changes. Give them 55% of the BPI but stop allowing the Lakers spend $91,000,000. We need a hard cap.
Sarcastic's firm's employees get 30% of revenue.


NFL gets 48%, but they get the best pension and health benefits.

NHL gets between 54 and 57 percent, depending on the leagues revenues. This year it will be 57% because the league did so well last year. The salary cap for the NHL this year is $64 million for the 30 teams. The NBA's salary cap last year was $58 million for the 30 teams. The NHL does $3 billion in revenue. The NBA did $4.1 billion last year. When the NHL locked out its players in 2004, they were paying 76% of revenues to their players.

MLB does not have a salary cap, so I don't know where the 52% comes from. Each team in MLB can potentially spend $300 million if they wanted. Maybe the 52% is a minimum or something.


The NBA's 57% was not too far out of line with the other sports. The players have already said they will take less money. I think 52% is more than fair. Going down to 52% gives the owners $300 million per year or $3 billion over 10 years.

[DirkNowitzki41]

so wait, is there a meeting going on at this moment?

[Yung D-Will]

NFL gets 48%, but they get the best pension and health benefits.

NHL gets between 54 and 57 percent, depending on the leagues revenues. This year it will be 57% because the league did so well last year. The salary cap for the NHL this year is $64 million for the 30 teams. The NBA's salary cap last year was $58 million for the 30 teams. The NHL does $3 billion in revenue. The NBA did $4.1 billion last year. When the NHL locked out its players in 2004, they were paying 76% of revenues to their players.

MLB does not have a salary cap, so I don't know where the 52% comes from. Each team in MLB can potentially spend $300 million if they wanted. Maybe the 52% is a minimum or something.


The NBA's 57% was not too far out of line with the other sports. The players have already said they will take less money. I think 52% is more than fair. Going down to 52% gives the owners $300 million per year or $3 billion over 10 years.
I would have never guessed

[Sarcastic]

I would have never guessed

What's fair to you then?

[knickswin]

he has a secret contact at ESPN.. i won't say who, but it rhymes with forts mentor

lol

[Clutch]

so wait, is there a meeting going on at this moment?
Yes.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Given the scheduled start time of noon, #NBA settlement talks seem to have hit the four-hour mark. No word from any parties involved.
1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[AMISTILLILL]

dont ask me how i know, but there is a private meeting today

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

What's fair to you then?

It's really not about "fair".....once again, the players (and you) can't seem to grasp this.

Also, the players have "nothing" to give up....right now there is no agreement and neither side has anything. So these "concessions" don't even exist. This is a new negotiation for a new CBA.

What is fair? What is fair is that the NBA players continue to have the highest average salary with guaranteed contracts. Two things that the owners have already given them...including yearly raises.

What is fair is that players should have to earn their contracts more often. No more...have half a good year and sign a 6 year deal that teams can't get out of. No more throwing in the towel after you sign that contract because you know you are getting your money no matter what. No more superstars holding teams hostage and forcing trades. More penalties for teams like the Mavs going way over the cap each year.

Stuff like that all sounds fair to me. Especially given the current economic climate and future predictions of attendance in the NBA going forward.

I also think its "fair"...or "right"...to contract 4 teams. Average salary would go up and so would the profit margins of the NBA. But somehow I doubt the players would willingly give up 60 jobs....even though it would make for a better league.

This isn't about "fair"....its about winning a negotiation given power and leverage. The players hopefully have some now with the pending litigation....hopefully its enough to get the few things they want and get the season going. But once Christmas is gone, I doubt a deal gets done. That has always been the day that the casual fan will either be lost with no games...or won't care about the lockout if they wake up Christmas morning for 3 NBA games.

Nobody other than die hard NBA fans care about the NBA until Christmas day anyway.

The players should take the best deal they can get this weekend and then opt out after year 6 or whatever if the climate changes. Because then they will have more power and leverage. If the owners are making a ton of money 5 years from now....the players can go on strike and get more. Just the way this stuff works. For now though....time to take the best deal available right now. Its the smartest thing to do business wise....but I fear the players don't have much business sense.

[Kblaze8855]

Also, the players have "nothing" to give up....right now there is no agreement and neither side has anything. So these "concessions" don't even exist. This is a new negotiation for a new CBA.

What is the point of that? Just arguing words? I saw some other guy saying something similar.

When its said the owners or players are going up or down...its clearly in reference to the deal that has been in place...is it really worth arguing if going up or down from the previous deal is a concession or not?

Even for me that seems overly argumentative.

The owners go in with one number...the players with another....the players bring theirs down closer to what the owners asked...and you take issue with calling that a concession?

[DMAVS41]

What is the point of that? Just arguing words? I saw some other guy saying something similar.

When its said the owners or players are going up or down...its clearly in reference to the deal that has been in place...is it really worth arguing if going up or down from the previous deal is a concession or not?

Even for me that seems overly argumentative.

The owners go in with one number...the players with another....the players bring theirs down closer to what the owners asked...and you take issue with calling that a concession?

Actually it is important....because people are using it as a reason why the deal isn't "fair"....that the players are giving more up.

But that isn't reality. They don't have anything. There is a reason why the players are willingly starting negotiations at the numbers they did. They didn't even try to get 57 again because the new it just doesn't make sense given the economic climate and the fact that the NBA as a whole just isn't making money right now.

The reason the players are going to bring their numbers down closer to the what the owners are asking for is simply because the owners have the power and leverage in the discussion. Now the players actually have a bit of leverage with the pending litigation (even though its somewhat of a ruse)....so the owners are currently making their offer better. That is how negotiations in the real world work. Power and leverage determine the outcome....not "fair"...or "right"

So when somebody says:

"the players have given up so much more"....its really just not true. they don't have anything to begin with. both sides have nothing. the old deal is gone. the players could have been getting 90% of BRI last time and this deal would still end up at 50/50 and see some system changes. why? because that is what the climate and power/leverage of the owners dictate at this time.

in 7 years if the owners are making a ton of money and the BRI is way up....the players will have cause to seek more. again, just the way this stuff works.

[tomtucker]

Yes.

KBergCBS Ken Berger
Given the scheduled start time of noon, #NBA settlement talks seem to have hit the four-hour mark. No word from any parties involved.
1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

that is where the foreplay is over and the bukake starts

[Clutch]

HowardBeckNYT Howard Beck
NBPA lineup: Hunter, Fisher, MoEvans, plus attorney Ron Klempner, economist Kevin Murphy.
7 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

HowardBeckNYT Howard Beck
NBA lineup: Stern, Silver, Holt, attorneys Rube and Buchanan.
8 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

HowardBeckNYT Howard Beck
Break in NBA talks, which will resume shortly. Could be another long one
9 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[greensborohill]

It would be fricken epic if the season started on 12/25 and the Mavs got to raise the banner in front of those smug bastard Heat.

[RRR3]

It would be fricken epic if the season started on 12/25 and the Mavs got to raise the banner in front of those smug bastard Heat.
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq229/vonsmittle/irony.jpg

[The Macho Man]

It would be fricken epic if the season started on 12/25 and the Mavs got to raise the banner in front of those smug bastard Heat.

Do we know what the schedule would be if they start on the 25th?

[chips93]

Actually it is important....because people are using it as a reason why the deal isn't "fair"....that the players are giving more up.

But that isn't reality. They don't have anything. There is a reason why the players are willingly starting negotiations at the numbers they did. They didn't even try to get 57 again because the new it just doesn't make sense given the economic climate and the fact that the NBA as a whole just isn't making money right now.

The reason the players are going to bring their numbers down closer to the what the owners are asking for is simply because the owners have the power and leverage in the discussion. Now the players actually have a bit of leverage with the pending litigation (even though its somewhat of a ruse)....so the owners are currently making their offer better. That is how negotiations in the real world work. Power and leverage determine the outcome....not "fair"...or "right"

So when somebody says:

"the players have given up so much more"....its really just not true. they don't have anything to begin with. both sides have nothing. the old deal is gone. the players could have been getting 90% of BRI last time and this deal would still end up at 50/50 and see some system changes. why? because that is what the climate and power/leverage of the owners dictate at this time.

in 7 years if the owners are making a ton of money and the BRI is way up....the players will have cause to seek more. again, just the way this stuff works.

great post :applause:

[B]

Actually it is important....because people are using it as a reason why the deal isn't "fair"....that the players are giving more up.

But that isn't reality. They don't have anything. There is a reason why the players are willingly starting negotiations at the numbers they did. They didn't even try to get 57 again because the new it just doesn't make sense given the economic climate and the fact that the NBA as a whole just isn't making money right now.

The reason the players are going to bring their numbers down closer to the what the owners are asking for is simply because the owners have the power and leverage in the discussion. Now the players actually have a bit of leverage with the pending litigation (even though its somewhat of a ruse)....so the owners are currently making their offer better. That is how negotiations in the real world work. Power and leverage determine the outcome....not "fair"...or "right"

So when somebody says:

"the players have given up so much more"....its really just not true. they don't have anything to begin with. both sides have nothing. the old deal is gone. the players could have been getting 90% of BRI last time and this deal would still end up at 50/50 and see some system changes. why? because that is what the climate and power/leverage of the owners dictate at this time.

in 7 years if the owners are making a ton of money and the BRI is way up....the players will have cause to seek more. again, just the way this stuff works.So true and well said. People tend to listen to the player reps and don't look beyond the rhetoric.

Players went to 50% because they knew that was what was the proper rate. They have been monitoring the owners books for the last 10 years. That's why the BRI split was never much of a battle, why the players opening offer was 54% and with to no prodding ended up agreeing to 50%, because they knew 50% was more inline with where it should be given the current economic climate. We know this all to be true because the players made their stand on system issues not the BRI split.

[coin24]

Any updates??:confusedshrug:


Or just waiting for the standard sides still far apart BS...:oldlol:

[Lucifer]

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq229/vonsmittle/irony.jpg

hows that irony?

[Kblaze8855]

Actually it is important....because people are using it as a reason why the deal isn't "fair"....that the players are giving more up.

But that isn't reality. They don't have anything. There is a reason why the players are willingly starting negotiations at the numbers they did. They didn't even try to get 57 again because the new it just doesn't make sense given the economic climate and the fact that the NBA as a whole just isn't making money right now.

The reason the players are going to bring their numbers down closer to the what the owners are asking for is simply because the owners have the power and leverage in the discussion. Now the players actually have a bit of leverage with the pending litigation (even though its somewhat of a ruse)....so the owners are currently making their offer better. That is how negotiations in the real world work. Power and leverage determine the outcome....not "fair"...or "right"

So when somebody says:

"the players have given up so much more"....its really just not true. they don't have anything to begin with. both sides have nothing. the old deal is gone. the players could have been getting 90% of BRI last time and this deal would still end up at 50/50 and see some system changes. why? because that is what the climate and power/leverage of the owners dictate at this time.

in 7 years if the owners are making a ton of money and the BRI is way up....the players will have cause to seek more. again, just the way this stuff works.

I didnt intend to make this a "did not read" type post but when I copied it to quote it in here I only saw the end....which does enough to explain why I asked what I did.

You said next time the players could ask for more if the league is doing better.

But now you act like the past cant even be used as a reference. You say ask for more next time...but act like there is no way to say they are taking less now? Or that the owners are asking for more....as if there is nothing to raise or lower because there is no CBA.

If in 7 years the players ask for more....it will be the same as them giving up something now.

Deal in place or not....if you go up from the deal you had you are getting more. If you accept less you are giving back.

Acting like there is no more or less for the sake of arguing just doesnt make sense to me. And it seems you understand...because you said ask for more next time.

If you dont acknowledge a starting point from which people give back or ask for more....where does them asking for more in 7 years come from?

[Skywalker]

did the players accept the offer

[Sarcastic]

https://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard/status/140276144611139584


One league owner not on the Labor Relations committee told one of his team's executives he's optimistic about deal getting done this weekend

[Rose]

https://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Broussard/status/140276144611139584
Haven't heard that one before:rolleyes:


I hate Broussard. But this is the best weekend we're gonna have for negotiations till early january.

[Sarcastic]

Haven't heard that one before:rolleyes:


I hate Broussard. But this is the best weekend we're gonna have for negotiations till early january.

Eventually a deal will get done, so it won't just be hot air.

[blacknapalm]

if a deal won't be had on black friday, a season is not meant to be

[Rose]

Eventually a deal will get done, so it won't just be hot air.
I hope so. I'm itching to have Boozer off the team. If for no other reason I need an NBA season.:rockon:

[DMAVS41]

I didnt intend to make this a "did not read" type post but when I copied it to quote it in here I only saw the end....which does enough to explain why I asked what I did.

You said next time the players could ask for more if the league is doing better.

But now you act like the past cant even be used as a reference. You say ask for more next time...but act like there is no way to say they are taking less now? Or that the owners are asking for more....as if there is nothing to raise or lower because there is no CBA.

If in 7 years the players ask for more....it will be the same as them giving up something now.

Deal in place or not....if you go up from the deal you had you are getting more. If you accept less you are giving back.

Acting like there is no more or less for the sake of arguing just doesnt make sense to me. And it seems you understand...because you said ask for more next time.

If you dont acknowledge a starting point from which people give back or ask for more....where does them asking for more in 7 years come from?


I can't agree with that line of thinking.....especially when one side is using rhetoric of "concessions" to imply that they are giving things up...but they don't have them

Here is the point. The deal is negotiated each time based on what makes sense given the current climate and future potential/problems/etc...

Of course the old deal can be referenced and used as a framework for certain things, but having something in the past does not mean you earn points or something by giving it up this time. That is not how these things work.

I actually use to own a lease negotiating firm....nobody enters into a negotiation using the:

"well, we had it last time...therefore we deserve it this time"

Its about what the market dictates. What the details are. What the numbers are.

Lets say you are renting office space at $100 a square foot...you've been renting that for the last decade. But the current market dictates that it should be between 200 and 250. Nobody using any business sense would expect to continue to pay 100 dollars. Nobody would start the negotiation there. They would do their research and expect to pay between the going market rate.

This is exactly what is going on with the players. They have accepted 50/50 and will end up accepting some system changes because they know the market conditions and there lack of power/leverage dictates they should.

Its not conceding anything. They could have had 99% of BRI and everything they wanted the last 10 years. The deal would still be the same deal that they will end up with.

You can't concede something you don't have. I'm not saying you are doing this, but many players and pro player people think that because they are taking 50% they are entitled to perks elsewhere or the owners giving them something else. No, they are taking 50% because of all the reasons above and don't deserve any bonus points or something for taking an offer that quite frankly is generous considering the owners position and power.

Not sure why people can't think of this like the new deal it is. I guess its just hard for people to comprehend that things change. And just because you had something....doesn't give you the right to it in the future. And certainly doesn't mean you earn points by artificially conceding something you don't even have.

Saw it all the time in my old business. Funny how those tenants never wanted to keep the rent the same when the market dictated a reduction when their lease was up.

And if the players opt out....a new deal will be struck based on all the things i've listed. The owners won't be conceding anything. I'm not sure you understand my point because you still seem to missing it.

Meh....its not just semantics. This stuff actually matters....people try to frame negotiations. Throwing out the word "concessions"....its just rhetoric. Both sides are using it.....its artificial.

[IGOTGAME]

I can't agree with that line of thinking.....especially when one side is using rhetoric of "concessions" to imply that they are giving things up...but they don't have them

Here is the point. The deal is negotiated each time based on what makes sense given the current climate and future potential/problems/etc...

Of course the old deal can be referenced and used as a framework for certain things, but having something in the past does not mean you earn points or something by giving it up this time. That is not how these things work.

I actually use to own a lease negotiating firm....nobody enters into a negotiation using the:

"well, we had it last time...therefore we deserve it this time"

Its about what the market dictates. What the details are. What the numbers are.

Lets say you are renting office space at $100 a square foot...you've been renting that for the last decade. But the current market dictates that it should be between 200 and 250. Nobody using any business sense would expect to continue to pay 100 dollars. Nobody would start the negotiation there. They would do their research and expect to pay between the going market rate.

This is exactly what is going on with the players. They have accepted 50/50 and will end up accepting some system changes because they know the market conditions and there lack of power/leverage dictates they should.

Its not conceding anything. They could have had 99% of BRI and everything they wanted the last 10 years. The deal would still be the same deal that they will end up with.

You can't concede something you don't have. I'm not saying you are doing this, but many players and pro player people think that because they are taking 50% they are entitled to perks elsewhere or the owners giving them something else. No, they are taking 50% because of all the reasons above and don't deserve any bonus points or something for taking an offer that quite frankly is generous considering the owners position and power.

Not sure why people can't think of this like the new deal it is. I guess its just hard for people to comprehend that things change. And just because you had something....doesn't give you the right to it in the future. And certainly doesn't mean you earn points by artificially conceding something you don't even have.

Saw it all the time in my old business. Funny how those tenants never wanted to keep the rent the same when the market dictated a reduction when their lease was up.

And if the players opt out....a new deal will be struck based on all the things i've listed. The owners won't be conceding anything. I'm not sure you understand my point because you still seem to missing it.

Meh....its not just semantics. This stuff actually matters....people try to frame negotiations. Throwing out the word "concessions"....its just rhetoric. Both sides are using it.....its artificial.

you are typing a lot and not really saying much.

Wow, players are trying to frame the discussions to the public and to their adversaries.... Who would have thought?:confusedshrug:

And btw...the anti-trust law suit might be a joke to you but the threat of triple damages(even if it may only be a small chance) is a lot of risk to take. That is a multi billion dollar settlement for the players. I don't think that the offer is "generous," as I don't think the NBA is about being "generous." I believe the offer is what the NBA believes is in its best interest all things considered.

No one is being generous here. There are coming to a deal for a valuable commodity.

[Kblaze8855]

Again I must ask


If you dont acknowledge a starting point from which people give back or ask for more....where does them asking for more in 7 years come from?

I just dont see how you can say they can ask for more next time and not see why people say they are accepting less or giving back this time.

Its just wordplay saying the same thing.

[nathanjizzle]

ESPN said they are going to meet today :facepalm

holy shit i was right...i just had a gut feeling there was a meeting...and i dont even have espn.

[DMAVS41]

Again I must ask



I just dont see how you can say they can ask for more next time and not see why people say they are accepting less or giving back this time.

Its just wordplay saying the same thing.

No its not....because players and pro player people are talking about giving things up they don't have....and are using it artificially.

Ask for more may have been the wrong choice of words....

Put it this way. If the current market dictates that the players take 50/50....and that market improves....then when the players can negotiate from a stronger point the next time.

You see the difference? Its about all the details dictating what the deal will be. Not..."we had it last time"...etc.

That is the difference. When I said they can ask for more...I simply meant based on the conditions that determine this stuff.

You are acting like these negotiations aren't based on facts, power, and leverage. That is what determines the end point. This whole "we are giving up more" notion being played by the players is laughable. Has no bearing at all....


You posted earlier that each side has a stance and that the players will ultimately come closer to the what the owners want. Right?

Ok...well, there are sound business reasons for that. They aren't just doing it to be nice or be more fair. They are doing it because of the evidence the owners have. If you want to call that a concession, then we have different views of the meaning of the word. You can't ignore the reasons for this stuff.

[DMAVS41]

you are typing a lot and not really saying much.

Wow, players are trying to frame the discussions to the public and to their adversaries.... Who would have thought?:confusedshrug:

And btw...the anti-trust law suit might be a joke to you but the threat of triple damages(even if it may only be a small chance) is a lot of risk to take. That is a multi billion dollar settlement for the players. I don't think that the offer is "generous," as I don't think the NBA is about being "generous." I believe the offer is what the NBA believes is in its best interest all things considered.

No one is being generous here. There are coming to a deal for a valuable commodity.

And your point?

This is about both sides. Both sides are using the word "concessions" to frame the discussion. As I said.

What I hate hearing is how the "players are giving up more"....they don't have anything to give up. There is no deal. The players are using that word to act like they are being more fair or something. That just isn't true. The owners are asking for reasonable things dictated by their negotiating leverage and market conditions.

The players aren't giving up 57%...because they don't have that. The climate would never yield the players getting 57% this time around.

This is exactly why both sides use rhetoric so often. It seems to work with people that don't quite understand what a real business negotiation looks like. And clearly a lot of the NBA players have no clue. Saying things like:

"we've given up so much"..."they have to meet us half way"....LOL...the owners must be getting so frustrated dealing with people that view business negotiations concerning a 4 billion dollar revenue earning entity that way

[IGOTGAME]

And your point?

This is about both sides. Both sides are using the word "concessions" to frame the discussion. As I said.

What I hate hearing is how the "players are giving up more"....they don't have anything to give up. There is no deal. The players are using that word to act like they are being more fair or something. That just isn't true. The owners are asking for reasonable things dictated by their negotiating leverage and market conditions.

The players aren't giving up 57%...because they don't have that. The climate would never yield the players getting 57% this time around.

This is exactly why both sides use rhetoric so often. It seems to work with people that don't quite understand what a real business negotiation looks like. And clearly a lot of the NBA players have no clue. Saying things like:

"we've given up so much"..."they have to meet us half way"....LOL...the owners must be getting so frustrated dealing with people that view business negotiations concerning a 4 billion dollar revenue earning entity that way

My point is that every attorney worth anything tries to frame negotiations in their best light(I have done some negotiations and I do the same thing). As soon as someone ran to the media, IT BECAME BOTH SIDES DUTY TO PUT THEIR CLIENTS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. NOT DOING SO WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. The fact that you have millions of people using the terms you despise is evidence that it worked on some level.

All you are saying is that you saw through a negotiating tactic aimed at the masses. An attempt to get the public on the players side. Good for you. Still doesn't mean it was the wrong move to be made. I would actually say it is the right card to be played. Good call by the NBAPA to attempt to frame the debate in that fashion.

And if I knew the details of the abc television deal, I might say the timing of this lawsuit was excellent as well.

All in all. The players are playing the hand they were given. Can't get made at them for that. That is how negotiating works.

[DMAVS41]

My point is that every attorney worth anything tries to frame negotiations in their best light(I have done some negotiations and I do the same thing). As soon as someone ran to the media, IT BECAME BOTH SIDES DUTY TO PUT THEIR CLIENTS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. NOT DOING SO WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. The fact that you have millions of people using the terms you despise is evidence that it worked on some level.

All you are saying is that you saw through a negotiating tactic aimed at the masses. An attempt to get the public on the players side. Good for you. Still doesn't mean it was the wrong move to be made. I would actually say it is the right card to be played. Good call by the NBAPA to attempt to frame the debate in that fashion.

And if I knew the details of the abc television deal, I might say the timing of this lawsuit was excellent as well.

All in all. The players are playing the hand they were given. Can't get made at them for that. That is how negotiating works.

I don't have an issue with any of that. You are debating something entirely different than me.

I have no issue with them framing the discussion....I'm just saying both sides are not actually conceding anything because they don't have anything.

That is all. If I buy a house for 500k and then a similar house in the same neighborhood goes for 300k two years later.....my house is now worth around that 300k. My purchase price doesn't mean much...its all about the market conditions.

Same thing here in a sense...although leverage also plays a huge role in any negotiation.

[Sarcastic]

It sounds like you are trying to say there is no such thing as a concession. Is that what you are saying?

[InspiredLebowski]

Ken Berger makes a good, and rather obvious when you think about it, point. Max deals stay the same, MLE stays the same, rookie scale and minimum deals stay the same, no salary rollbacks; then where the hell does a 7% BRI difference come from?

Actually digesting the talking points makes one realize that this thing's nto going to happen.

[SourGrapes]

I don't have an issue with any of that. You are debating something entirely different than me.

I have no issue with them framing the discussion....I'm just saying both sides are not actually conceding anything because they don't have anything.

That is all. If I buy a house for 500k and then a similar house in the same neighborhood goes for 300k two years later.....my house is now worth around that 300k. My purchase price doesn't mean much...its all about the market conditions.

Same thing here in a sense...although leverage also plays a huge role in any negotiation.

except the analogy fails. there, the only concern is market forces. here, because the league is exempt from antitrust lawsuits, it must negotiate with a union

[DMAVS41]

It sounds like you are trying to say there is no such thing as a concession. Is that what you are saying?

Not in the way you and other pro player people want there to be.

Here is an example of a real concession. The players want 51% of BRI....if they concede and agree to 50%...that is actually something that can be viewed as a legit concession because there is actually evidence that 51% makes sense.

Concessions are based on what is driving negotiations....not the past.

Doesn't really matter anymore. Just heard the players are demanding 51% now. No way a deal gets done at that number after they agreed to 50 earlier. I have no idea why the players are hell bent on not having games starting for Christmas. Its huge....they are giving the owners every reason to cancel the season. If the players don't win in court....or at least win something to tip the scales...this could be a disaster.

[SourGrapes]

Not in the way you and other pro player people want there to be.

Here is an example of a real concession. The players want 51% of BRI....if they concede and agree to 50%...that is actually something that can be viewed as a legit concession because there is actually evidence that 51% makes sense.

Concessions are based on what is driving negotiations....not the past.

Doesn't really matter anymore. Just heard the players are demanding 51% now. No way a deal gets done at that number after they agreed to 50 earlier. I have no idea why the players are hell bent on not having games starting for Christmas. Its huge....they are giving the owners every reason to cancel the season. If the players don't win in court....or at least win something to tip the scales...this could be a disaster.

in reality, this is wrong

[DMAVS41]

except the analogy fails. there, the only concern is market forces. here, because the league is exempt from antitrust lawsuits, it must negotiate with a union

that is why i said "in a sense"

the other driving factor in these negotiations is leverage...until now, the owners have had it all. which makes their position even stronger.

but that really wasn't the point of the example. its about having things in the past not matter much.

the example is that the players could have had 75% of BRI last time and it wouldn't impact the negotiations because that number isn't driving the talks. its the market forces and leverage that is. just like a house. its not about what you pay for a house....its about what its worth based on market conditions. nobody is going to pay more for a house just because the previous owner paid a lot.

[SourGrapes]

that is why i said "in a sense"

the other driving factor in these negotiations is leverage...until now, the owners have had it all. which makes their position even stronger.

but that really wasn't the point of the example. its about having things in the past not matter much.

the example is that the players could have had 75% of BRI last time and it wouldn't impact the negotiations because that number isn't driving the talks. its the market forces and leverage that is. just like a house. its not about what you pay for a house....its about what its worth based on market conditions. nobody is going to pay more for a house just because the previous owner paid a lot.

we disagree here. because based on the numbers already floated by the players, the owners would make up their discrepancies. and what is being negotiated is the extent to which owners should be helped in making up lost money.

that extent isn't based on market forces alone. that extent is in some part based on the history of labor compensation in the nba, and recent labor compensation

[DMAVS41]

in reality, this is wrong

no its not. its a total logic fail to think a side of a negotiation can concede something they don't have or don't have evidence for.

you are falling for rhetoric and negotiation framing. LOL

so you really think the players would be getting a better deal right now if they had 70% of BRI the last decade?

[SourGrapes]

no its not. its a total logic fail to think a side of a negotiation can concede something they don't have or don't have evidence for.

you are falling for rhetoric and negotiation framing. LOL

so you really think the players would be getting a better deal right now if they had 70% of BRI the last decade?

please

and i can't comment on something that has no basis in reality... but perhaps, yes

[DMAVS41]

we disagree here. because based on the numbers already floated by the players, the owners would make up their discrepancies. and what is being negotiated is the extent to which owners should be helped in making up lost money.

that extent isn't based on market forces alone. that extent is in some part based on the history of labor compensation in the nba, the recent labor compensation

don't ignore the leverage and power part. if it was just about market conditions....then making up the money would be enough. but the owners are in a position of great power. they have staying power and can potentially get a better deal by canceling more games.

thats the point. its not just about the money. so much of a negotiation is determined by leverage. this pending litigation could change it, but until now the owners have had all the leverage and power....and that is worth a lot in a negotiation like this because the players don't have anywhere else to go as a whole.

ultimately a deal will get done between these players and the owners. the owners know this and are using it to their advantage...as they should.

[SourGrapes]

don't ignore the leverage and power part. if it was just about market conditions....then making up the money would be enough. but the owners are in a position of great power. they have staying power and can potentially get a better deal by canceling more games.

thats the point. its not just about the money. so much of a negotiation is determined by leverage. this pending litigation could change it, but until now the owners have had all the leverage and power....and that is worth a lot in a negotiation like this because the players don't have anywhere else to go as a whole.

ultimately a deal will get done between these players and the owners. the owners know this and are using it to their advantage...as they should.

and whatever the owners end up getting will in part be constrained by where the recent division of bri has been

[DMAVS41]

please

and i can't comment on something that has no basis in reality... but perhaps, yes

then why didn't the players start at 57%? Why did they so easily come down on every front if the past plays such a big role?

That is not what is driving these negotiations. Its market conditions and leverage. Just like every business negotiation.

It does not matter what they had last time. Its a new deal for a new time.....

[SourGrapes]

then why didn't the players start at 57%? Why did they so easily come down on every front if the past plays such a big role?

That is not what is driving these negotiations. Its market conditions and leverage. Just like every business negotiation.

It does not matter what they had last time. Its a new deal for a new time.....

because the owners hold so much leverage...

[Sarcastic]

What leverage do the owners have? "Take our number or die"?

[DMAVS41]

and whatever the owners end up getting will in part be constrained by where the recent division of bri has been

it will be constrained by what the current market dictates along with how ruthless each side intends to be.

the logical place for the split is somewhere close to 50/50....both sides have known this the whole time.

if the players had 65% last time....it would not change that. it wouldn't be 57/43 or something. because if they had 65% last time...that would just mean the owners would have evidence of losing more money and those details would end up leading both sides close to 50/50 in the end.

[DMAVS41]

because the owners hold so much leverage...

exactly. that is part of this as well.

[SourGrapes]

exactly. that is part of this as well.

yes. market realities, previous bri history, and leverage paint the picture

[DMAVS41]

yes. market realities, previous bri history, and leverage paint the picture

disagree on the previous bri mattering much.

[SourGrapes]

it will be constrained by what the current market dictates along with how ruthless each side intends to be.

the logical place for the split is somewhere close to 50/50....both sides have known this the whole time.

if the players had 65% last time....it would not change that. it wouldn't be 57/43 or something. because if they had 65% last time...that would just mean the owners would have evidence of losing more money and those details would end up leading both sides close to 50/50 in the end.

wrong. if it was 65% last time the players might not go to as low a number

[DMAVS41]

wrong. if it was 65% last time the players might not go to as low a number

and how would they support that? there would be no evidence other than:

"we had it last time"

and that doesn't fly in a real negotiation like this. you have to provide real evidence as to why you deserve something. that is my exact point.

between the market conditions and leverage.....the bri split for this cba is going to be right around 50/50. every bit of evidence points to that. doesn't matter what the previous number was. if it was 65%, it would just mean the owners could show that they were losing even more money and the players would have to come down or there would never be an agreement.

that is why the previous bri just doesn't mean anything. only in the players minds really.

[SourGrapes]

and how would they support that? there would be no evidence other than:

"we had it last time"

and that doesn't fly in a real negotiation like this. you have to provide real evidence as to why you deserve something. that is my exact point.

between the market conditions and leverage.....the bri split for this cba is going to be right around 50/50. every bit of evidence points to that. doesn't matter what the previous number was. if it was 65%, it would just mean the owners could show that they were losing even more money and the players would have to come down or there would never be an agreement.

that is why the previous bri just doesn't mean anything. only in the players minds really.

the evidence would look like this: "with the concessions we've given from the previous bri split, the owners can cover the losses they've realized. because that has happened, we don't feel the need to change the reality of the nba landscape any more."

and that presupposes the concession the players have made that it is up to them to subsidize owner loss

[DMAVS41]

the evidence would look like this: "with the concessions we've given from the previous bri split, the owners can cover the losses they've realized. because that has happened, we don't feel the need to change the reality of the nba landscape any more."

and that presupposes the concession the players have made that it is up to them to subsidize owner loss

in order to do that, the 65% would have to come down to around 50%.

and the owners would still have all that leverage.

if that was your reason and i was negotiating for the owners....

I'd say that things have changed since we previously negotiated that number and in this climate you actually aren't conceding anything because that deal expired.

you aren't providing evidence at all. you are just saying you've come down off something you had in a previous deal....that is exactly why the two sides can't get anywhere. the players can't give any tangible evidence as to why they should have the BRI split they want. all you and they keep saying is:

"we had it last time"...and that means nothing.

oh, and the owners have all the leverage....as you have pointed out.

you can "feel" all you want. without the evidence and leverage in a negotiation...you are just ****ed.

[SourGrapes]

in order to do that, the 65% would have to come down to around 50%.

and the owners would still have all that leverage.

if that was your reason and i was negotiating for the owners....

I'd say that things have changed since we previously negotiated that number and in this climate you actually aren't conceding anything because that deal expired.

you aren't providing evidence at all. you are just saying you've come down off something you had in a previous deal....that is exactly why the two sides can't get anywhere. the players can't give any tangible evidence as to why they should have the BRI split they want. all you and they keep saying is:

"we had it last time"...and that means nothing.

oh, and the owners have all the leverage....as you have pointed out.

you can "feel" all you want. without the evidence and leverage in a negotiation...you are just ****ed.

given the losses the owners reported, the players covered most or all, i forget, with a 53% reduction. add revenue sharing and it's a nonissue.

this is where the concessions from previous bri come in. and that presupposes the players agree that it is in part up to them to subsidize owner loss. which they did

[IGOTGAME]

in order to do that, the 65% would have to come down to around 50%.

and the owners would still have all that leverage.

if that was your reason and i was negotiating for the owners....

I'd say that things have changed since we previously negotiated that number and in this climate you actually aren't conceding anything because that deal expired.

you aren't providing evidence at all. you are just saying you've come down off something you had in a previous deal....that is exactly why the two sides can't get anywhere. the players can't give any tangible evidence as to why they should have the BRI split they want. all you and they keep saying is:

"we had it last time"...and that means nothing.

oh, and the owners have all the leverage....as you have pointed out.

you can "feel" all you want. without the evidence and leverage in a negotiation...you are just ****ed.

you seem like you identify with the owners due to your experience negotiating from a similar side(although very different in critical ways). This is shown in the bolded part.

Honestly, you seem to think they should accept anything that the owners throw at them. There is never going to be "tangible evidence" in a negotiation of this kind for why the players "should" be given a certain split. The only thing you can look toward is industry standard coupled with the differences that make the NBA players worth more or less than other athletes. Even that may not be persuasive. But with the accuracy of the books being questioned, there is never going to be a tangible reason why a certain number should be reached. THIS NEVER HAPPENS. That is why each side hires their own economists to put forth reasons why there proposals are fair.


You really seem to lack perspective on this one.

[Jacks3]

KBergCBS Ken Berger
BREAKING: Tentative agreement reached, according to one of the negotiators. #NBA #lockout
2 minutes ago:eek:

[Kblaze8855]

So instead of 50/50 it swings from 49% to 51% either way depending on a few factors.

Sounds fair enough.

[Fiasco]

So instead of 50/50 it swings from 49% to 51% either way depending on a few factors.

Sounds fair enough.

This deal was already on the table, though. Which is weird, but I seriously DGAF.

[Sarcastic]

Haven't heard that one before:rolleyes:


I hate Broussard. But this is the best weekend we're gonna have for negotiations till early january.

Booya. Booya. Booya.
M'FER!!!!

[bigdog13]

Worst news ever. I was looking forward to a year off and broken union. Terrible news.