Hunter was right io call bluff on Owners 53%-47% threat

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #41 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:03 am

prophet_of_rage wrote:He was absolutely right. Remember the owners threw the lockout, the owners thought that the union would break. It didn't. And now they are trying to save Christmas and future profits. He beat their siege. And they are back to negotiating. If he gets the system issues in his favour and a 50-50 split the players won the negotiation.

No no no....it was not owners who wanted the lockout. You can't look at it like that. They both did and had this all planned. The owners wanted change not a lockout.

The players botched this up because they could have decertified or done this ploy in July. I think what this comes down to is the MLB making them look stupid and the fact that they want our holiday money and attention...

That is the bottomline.

carrottop12 · Post #42 » by **carrottop12** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:21 pm

He absolutely called their bluff about the 47% offer deadlines. If they got some leverage on the system issues is yet to be seen, however he looks less incompetent than he did last week.

With all that said, the players are missing a few pay checks that they'll never see again.

Norm2953 · Post #43 » by **Norm2953** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:07 pm

All it took to get a deal done was to lock union attorney Jeffrey Kessler out of
the room

BH8 · Post #44 » by **BH8** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:13 pm

Bat wrote:He absolutely called their bluff about the 47% offer deadlines. If they got some leverage on the system issues is yet to be seen, however he looks less incompetent than he did last week.

With all that said, the players are missing a few pay checks that they'll never see again.

LOL. The players lost 20% out of their annual salaries ($400M). That's the equivalent of 1% of BRI and they basically gained nothing they couldn't have gotten two weeks ago. How is hunter less incompetent again?

carrottop12 · Post #45 » by **carrottop12** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:20 pm

He did call the bluff of Stern and the owners, Stern seems less powerful than he was at the beginning of the lockout.

Again, like I said, the players still lost paychecks that they will never see again, but at least he got a deal done.

Courtside · Post #46 » by **Courtside** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:11 pm

BH8 wrote:The players lost 20% out of their annual salaries ($400M). That's the equivalent of 1% of BRI and they basically gained nothing they couldn't have gotten two weeks ago.

We don't know this yet, but it's looking like players stayed more or less where they were when they rejected the last offer. If the deal they agreed to isn't appreciably different from the owner's last offer, then the who disclaimer maneuver fail as a method to gain leverage towards something better.

They may have called the bluff on 47%, but they could have done that without the disclaimer and putting money into the pockets of the lawyers. The player's in essence called the bluff and bluff raised themselves. The owners saw they bluff and now we end up in the same place - more or less - that we were 2 weeks ago, with something very closely resembling the owners last offer.

finnegan · Post #47 » by **finnegan** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:37 pm

Courtside wrote:
BH8 wrote:The players lost 20% out of their annual salaries ($400M). That's the equivalent of 1% of BRI and they basically gained nothing they couldn't have gotten two weeks ago.

They may have called the bluff on 47%, but they could have done that without the disclaimer and putting money into the pockets of the lawyers. The player's in essence called the bluff and bluff raised themselves. The owners saw they bluff and now we end up in the same place - more or less - that we were 2 weeks ago, with something very closely resembling the owners last offer.

The players clearly shouldn't have had blind faith in Hunter and Fisher. However; this empty threat by the owners proved to be a crack in their armor. I wasn't commenting about the players, only that Hunter finally got one thing right. Regardless, Hunter should still be fired immediately for all of his other blunders.

1. Not decertifying in July
2. Walking out on Fisher
3. Continuing his salary which doomed the players anti-trust case
4. etc.

Pharmcat · Post #48 » by **Pharmcat** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:48 pm

hunter got the win on system issues

thats all he couldve done since bri was gonna go down anyways

hunter is a winner in this, great job in the end

BH8 · Post #49 » by **BH8** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:53 pm

Pharmcat wrote:hunter got the win on system issues

thats all he couldve done since bri was gonna go down anyways

hunter is a winner in this, great job in the end

The owners already gave up on most system issues two weeks ago. Why did we need to lose two weeks of basketball so Hunter can get his money?

Hunter is definitely the winner (along with his legal team). Fans, players and owners are the losers.

Pharmcat · Post #50 » by **Pharmcat** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:54 pm

BH8 wrote:
Pharmcat wrote:hunter got the win on system issues

thats all he couldve done since bri was gonna go down anyways

hunter is a winner in this, great job in the end

The owners already gave up on most system issues two weeks ago. Why did we need to lose two weeks of basketball so Hunter can get his money?

Hunter is definitely the winner (along with his legal team). Fans, players and owners are the losers.

they have the better mle back if im reading correct, so thats a win from 2 weeks ago

Post #51 » by **Thugger HBC** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:56 pm

Pharmcat wrote:
BH8 wrote:
Pharmcat wrote:hunter got the win on system issues

thats all he couldve done since bri was gonna go down anyways

hunter is a winner in this, great job in the end

The owners already gave up on most system issues two weeks ago. Why did we need to lose two weeks of basketball so Hunter can get his money?

Hunter is definitely the winner (along with his legal team). Fans, players and owners are the losers.

they have the better mle back if im reading correct, so thats a win from 2 weeks ago

And they still have the extend and trade, something they DIDN'T have two weeks ago.

Post #52 » by **DuckIII** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:00 pm

Pharmcat wrote:hunter got the win on system issues

Please explain.

BH8 · Post #53 » by **BH8** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:00 pm

Pharmcat wrote:they have the better mle back if im reading correct, so thats a win from 2 weeks ago

The MLE was there two weeks ago - it was the MLE for tax payers that was restricted. Don't know the details about that.

_SRV_ · Post #54 » by **_SRV_** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:04 pm

Did anyone really believe that if the players came back and agreed to the deal after the deadline the owners would refuse? It was an empty threat from the start, once you give the owners something to lose they will think hard before refusing to it.
Despite all the critics he received the last few months, if I was a union member, I'd want Hunter to manage my negotiations.

demcanes26 · Post #55 » by **demcanes26** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:11 pm

BH8 wrote:
Pharmcat wrote:they have the better mle back if im reading correct, so thats a win from 2 weeks ago

The MLE was there two weeks ago - it was the MLE for tax payers that was restricted. Don't know the details about that.

These are the things the players got back from two week ago.

The agreement is also said to include a relaxation of many of the system issues from the league's Nov. 10 proposal -- issues that led to the union's disclaimer and subsequent lawsuit. The league sought to control spending and improve competitive balance through a highly punitive luxury tax and further spending restrictions to be imposed on taxpaying teams, which the union considered unacceptable. Friday's compromise included the elimination of the smaller mid-level exception for taxpayers, the restoration of sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade transactions, and the removal of the harsher tax penalties for teams that are taxpayers four times in a five-year span.

"It's not the system we sought out to get in terms of a harder cap," Silver said, "but the luxury tax is harsher than it was in the past deal, and we hope it's effective."

This is from Larry Coon on ESPN. So again, how did they have this deal two weeks ago?

Pharmcat · Post #56 » by **Pharmcat** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:16 pm

in fact considering the owners had all leverage

anything better than hard cap + 47% for players is a win for them

Post #57 » by **Thugger HBC** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:24 pm

So much for the deal getting worse.

Seems both sides got things that they can live with, exactly how a TA should be.

MaliBrah · Post #58 » by **MaliBrah** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:21 pm

s/o to everyone that called the players fools! didnt support anyside but the guys bashing the players every 3 seconds here feel just a little bit dumb. i know it

freshtrinity46 · Post #59 » by **freshtrinity46** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:22 pm

nmabdi28 wrote:s/o to everyone that called the players fools! didnt support anyside but the guys bashing the players every 3 seconds here feel just a little bit dumb. i know it

?? Sounds like a pretty good deal for the owners to me. Title should be changed to 'Stern right to call bluff on players legal and decert threat'

Courtside · Post #60 » by **Courtside** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:46 pm

Pharmcat wrote:in fact considering the owners had all leverage

anything better than hard cap + 47% for players is a win for them

Your 47% claim is a dishonest shifting of the goalposts, but people here have been claiming that the disclaimer put a lot of leverage back in the players hands - refuting your claim about the owners have all the leverage - and implying that it would have shifted things in the players favor from the last 50/50 offer. Both sides compromised a little here, but the shift from the previous 50/50 is marginal - hardly a sign of any leverage won by the disclaimer.

The 2 additional lost weeks was a bigger incentive to both sides than any of the legal tactics.