Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[BorisDK1]

That isn't what good faith means.

And if they are negotiating in good faith, it's only now after the players have started to feel financial pain from the lockout. Which, is not negotiating in good faith.

Sure it is. It's using a natural advantage to the best of your ability: that's the whole purpose of a lockout. It's not like the NBA went into the last round of negotiations trying not to come to any agreement: they just wanted the right one for them. There's a huge difference between obstinence and bad faith.

[Ponchos]

That isn't what good faith means.

And if they are negotiating in good faith, it's only now after the players have started to feel financial pain from the lockout. Which, is not negotiating in good faith.

Sure it is. It's using a natural advantage to the best of your ability: that's the whole purpose of a lockout. It's not like the NBA went into the last round of negotiations trying not to come to any agreement: they just wanted the right one for them. There's a huge difference between obstinence and bad faith.

A few weeks ago when they were making "progress" and supposedly it was all KG's fault they didn't keep talking (yeah right). Talks derailed.

After that came the agree to 50% BRI first "Paul Allen" ultimatum . Talks derailed.

Last week, most progress made, then the owners suddenly walk back ALL the movement towards 50% BRI and say 47% if you want the system compromises. Talks went nuclear.

At pre-determined points, the owners have blown the talks up. They had absolutely no interest in getting a deal before the players missed paycheques. All the owners have done is stall, and they have been very successful at it.

They had no real interest in making a deal the last few weeks, therefore they were not negotiating in good faith.

[BorisDK1]

A few weeks ago when they were making "progress" and supposedly it was all KG's fault they didn't keep talking (yeah right). Talks derailed.

After that came the agree to 50% BRI first "Paul Allen" ultimatum . Talks derailed.

Last week, most progress made, then the owners suddenly walk back ALL the movement towards 50% BRI and say 47% if you want the system compromises. Talks went nuclear.

At pre-determined points, the owners have blown the talks up. They had absolutely no interest in getting a deal before the players missed paycheques. All the owners have done is stall, and they have been very successful at it.

They had no real interest in making a deal the last few weeks, therefore they were not negotiating in good faith.

I think you're confusing "not signing a deal they don't want" with "negotiating in bad faith". If your opposing party is being obstinate and you're not getting what you want, you have every right to walk away from the table when talks aren't going anywhere. Remember: the problem is negotiating in bad faith, not not negotiating in good faith. It's not like they extended an offer, the players said, "Oh, alright" and then the owners yanked it back and said, "Nah, we changed our minds".

They don't have any interest in making the players miss paycheques: they will use that circumstance to help get what they want, if need be, but their real agenda is signing the right CBA for them. Last time at it, they signed a bad one and they've presumably learned their lessons from that experience.

[Ponchos]

No, I'm not confusing it. You just view the facts differently than I do.

Remember: the problem is negotiating in bad faith, not not negotiating in good faith. It's not like they extended an offer, the players said, "Oh, alright" and then the owners yanked it back and said, "Nah, we changed our minds".

That's essentially exactly what happened last week. They were very very close to the deal, then suddenly the owners took back their 50% BRI deal and made it 47%.

[knickerbocker2k2]

They don't have any interest in making the players miss paycheques: they will use that circumstance to help get what they want, if need be, but their real agenda is signing the right CBA for them. Last time at it, they signed a bad one and they've presumably learned their lessons from that experience.

I don't know if negotiating in bad faith is the right terminology, but I know the owners strategy was not good for the players, fans or the league. Their whole strategy is based on the players missing pay cheques and maximizing owners leverage. They were not trying to avoid missing games, but rather this was their goal. Their thinking is we can get the best deal when players miss few pay cheques and the threat of missing the whole season is over their heads.

I'm not going to argue if this is great strategy for them or not (it may work and players cave), but all I know is as fan this is jerk move because it requires missing games for it to work.

[BorisDK1]

No, I'm not confusing it. You just view the facts differently than I do.

That's essentially exactly what happened last week. They were very very close to the deal, then suddenly the owners took back their 50% BRI deal and made it 47%.

They haven't "made it 47%", you know better than that. They're threatening to do that if the lockout drags on longer, but they haven't done it yet. They just negotiated for 9 hours yesterday with a conversation running around a banded 49-50.2% and the players said "thanks, but no thanks". (Probably wisely, too. I think somewhere within a percentage point or so of 51.0 - like, 50.75-51.25 - is a good, balanced number.)

[BorisDK1]

I don't know if negotiating in bad faith is the right terminology, but I know the owners strategy was not good for the players, fans or the league. Their whole strategy is based on the players missing pay cheques and maximizing owners leverage. They were not trying to avoid missing games, but rather this was their goal. Their thinking is we can get the best deal when players miss few pay cheques and the threat of missing the whole season is over their heads.

I'm not going to argue if this is great strategy for them or not (it may work and players cave), but all I know is as fan this is jerk move because it requires missing games for it to work.

The league hemorrhaged about $300 million last year: of course this lockout is good for the league, such as it is. How long it drags out and what the ultimate endgame looks like will determine how that goes down, but there's no doubt in the mind of anybody who's paying attention that the league needed a far more balanced CBA and a labour stoppage was unavoidable. It would have been grossly derelict of the owners to carry on with the status quo ante bellum.

Don't forget: as much as we are fans of the game and the finances don't concern us directly, financial health assures that the league will keep running down the road. That is in our interest as fans: we don't want to see an unbalanced CBA where the players will come back going for the owners' jugulars in 6 years, but we probably don't want to see franchises folding all over the place, either.

[Ponchos]

No, I'm not confusing it. You just view the facts differently than I do.

That's essentially exactly what happened last week. They were very very close to the deal, then suddenly the owners took back their 50% BRI deal and made it 47%.

They haven't "made it 47%", you know better than that. They're threatening to do that if the lockout drags on longer, but they haven't done it yet. They just negotiated for 9 hours yesterday with a conversation running around a banded 49-50.2% and the players said "thanks, but no thanks". (Probably wisely, too. I think somewhere within a percentage point or so of 51.0 - like, 50.75-51.25 - is a good, balanced number.)

47% was the deal offered a week ago, I'm not talking about the Wednesday deadline.

I'm trying to find a link for it, but last week when talks were looking good the owners derailed it when they said the deal was 47% if the players wanted the system compromises, or 50% with the system the owners wanted.

[BorisDK1]

47% was the deal offered a week ago, I'm not talking about the Wednesday deadline.

I'm trying to find a link for it, but last week when talks were looking good the owners derailed it when they said the deal was 47% if they wanted the system compromises, 50% with the system the owners wanted.

The link you're looking for is here.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that that was a negotiation position at a punctiliar instant: these things change. The players aren't even going for 50-50, though, let alone 47-53 so why you're bringing this up is a bit beyond me. It's not like the players were gung ho for 50-50 and the owners decided to pull back: they were still negotiating, and the players don't want anything to do with what the league is offering. That's "hard negotiation", not "bad faith": there's a big difference.

[Ponchos]

I think the players would go for something close to 50-50 with the agreements on system issues they made.

The owners sensed that, and pulled the plug.

As I said, you're just reading the facts differently than me. It's "hard negotiation" if they were willing to make a deal, it's "bad faith" if they made moves to stall progress and meet without ever truly wanting a deal. It's impossible to truly know since we're not mind readers. As I said, it's my opinion based on how I read the facts. You've come to a different conclusion and that's fine.

[knickerbocker2k2]

The league hemorrhaged about $300 million last year: of course this lockout is good for the league, such as it is. How long it drags out and what the ultimate endgame looks like will determine how that goes down, but there's no doubt in the mind of anybody who's paying attention that the league needed a far more balanced CBA and a labour stoppage was unavoidable. It would have been grossly derelict of the owners to carry on with the status quo ante bellum.

Don't forget: as much as we are fans of the game and the finances don't concern us directly, financial health assures that the league will keep running down the road. That is in our interest as fans: we don't want to see an unbalanced CBA where the players will come back going for the owners' jugulars in 6 years, but we probably don't want to see franchises folding all over the place, either.

We won't argue if those figures are true or not. But it would be my guess that we haven't seen the best offer from owners. Their strategy would tell them wait until the last minute to get every single concession they can get. This doesn't align with the fans who want the season to start ASAP. Players have moved lot more than owners. My thinking is with slight tweaks in system/bri, players would agree. However owners are bait/switching at all these talks. If they are losing money, why do they insist on recovering all that in this agreement? Why not take shorter deal? Why not allow exist provision within couple of years if it is not working?

Again my point is all about how owners strategy involves missing lots of games. This was their game plan for day 1.

[BorisDK1]

I think the players would go for something close to 50-50 with the agreements on system issues they made.

That's a great theory, and I'd readily accept it except the players are saying "no can do" and threatening decertification if that's the option that's left for them. So obviously they're not ready to make that deal yet. They might be after a few more missed paycheques - and that's okay. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

[Ponchos]

I think the players would go for something close to 50-50 with the agreements on system issues they made.

That's a great theory, and I'd readily accept it except the players are saying "no can do" and threatening decertification if that's the option that's left for them. So obviously they're not ready to make that deal yet. They might be after a few more missed paycheques - and that's okay. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

There's now evidence that they would go to 51%, and last week they supposedly would never ever budge from 52.5%. What they say for posturing purposes is not reality.

When there was the "Paul Allen" ultimatum, Hunter said he couldn't accept 50% without knowing what the system was. That's a pretty clear indication that 50% is on the table for the players if the other issues are acceptable.

[BorisDK1]

We won't argue if those figures are true or not. But it would be my guess that we haven't seen the best offer from owners. Their strategy would tell them wait until the last minute to get every single concession they can get. This doesn't align with the fans who want the season to start ASAP. Players have moved lot more than owners. My thinking is with slight tweaks in system/bri, players would agree. However owners are bait/switching at all these talks. If they are losing money, why do they insist on recovering all that in this agreement? Why not take shorter deal? Why not allow exist provision within couple of years if it is not working?

Again my point is all about how owners strategy involves missing lots of games. This was their game plan for day 1.

I don't think the owners were out to play a blood sport just to get concessions for the sake of getting concessions: they showed in the last CBA that they're content enough to sign a terrible CBA for them just to play, when they think they can afford it. I think they're just at the point now where they absolutely need to redress the losses they've sustained. They haven't historically been terribly inclined to go putting horseheads into people's beds just on a whim. Historically, the owners have tolerated minor running losses just for the fun of owning a team, perhaps getting the occasional auxilliary benefit here and there and then recouping whatever losses when they started to pile up on the sale of the team. Now, being of Scottish stock, I could never do business that way, personally: that's not the way I'm wired. They certainly seem to believe that the losses are at such a point where their ability to function has been compromised, and from the numbers which have made their way into the public eye, it certainly seems they have good reason to be very concerned.

[BorisDK1]

There's now evidence that they would go to 51%, and last week they supposedly would never ever budge from 52.5%. What they say for posturing purposes is not reality.

When there was the "Paul Allen" ultimatum, Hunter said he couldn't accept 50% without knowing what the system was. That's a pretty clear indication that 50% is on the table for the players if the other issues are acceptable.

51% is still not 50%. And we don't know that the players were actually willing to do 51%, just that they were willing to talk about it. There's a big difference between the two.

And yes, I suppose the players might be willing to go to 50% if they get absolutely everything else they want on the system end. That's not going to happen, though - nor should it.

[mademan]

Man, the way some of you talk, you'd think the players owe you something. Did these guys rape your wives or something? They're just trying to get a good deal, for themselves, and future workers.

[Indeed]

The owners are serious and the players should realize this. Many hardliners are more than willing to blow up the season to get what they really want a hard cap and BRI at 47% and a more more sharing from the have teams.e of you that think this is just about money are crazy. If I was the owner of OKC I would want the hard cap and all of the exemptions gone or face losing a competitive team.

Think 90% of the owners want to win a title while making a profit is important ego of being a winner is more important.

Its quite obvious Stern no longer has control just like Hunter.

You are crazy, it is clear that they only care about money.
1) You have no proof saying it is not about money
2) Evidence says they only care about money, RBI is the major priority, and system comes after (September)


When have you ever made a intelligent statement NEVER

Think 10% of the owners want to win a title.
Besides, improve on RBI won't help parity, hard cap won't help parity. Wade/Rose/Howard won't sign in Toronto in hard cap, that's the fact!

I suppose this is a personal insult.
You are not arguing with facts nor information regarding the topic.

[ronleroy]

Man, the way some of you talk, you'd think the players owe you something. Did these guys rape your wives or something? They're just trying to get a good deal, for themselves, and future workers.

why is your opinion so in favor of the players? did the owners ancestor use your ancestors as slaves? The owners need to make money. Ok, so I don't give crap about either side. I do give a crap about toronto losing every year to this stupid system. No hard cap means toronto will never be able to compete. I'm tired of seeing western teams dominate cause they have more cash. All this talk about being fair from the players is b.s. Like a restaurant not making money, and the chef keeps on demanding a raise. Quit complaining, go to Europe and die in a plane crash.

[BorisDK1]

why is your opinion so in favor of the players? did the owners ancestor use your ancestors as slaves? The owners need to make money. Ok, so I don't give crap about either side. I do give a crap about toronto losing every year to this stupid system. No hard cap means toronto will never be able to compete. I'm tired of seeing western teams dominate cause they have more cash. All this talk about being fair from the players is b.s. Like a restaurant not making money, and the chef keeps on demanding a raise. Quit complaining, go to Europe and die in a plane crash.

You know what? I'm not so sure a purely hard cap improves Toronto's odds any. Just due to geographical disadvantage to the Miamis and L.A.s and New Yorks, we will always have to pay more than they will to attract talent, and while the odds aren't impossible, it's not likely that any top-tier free agent will ever come to Toronto without it already having a strong, contending team. Having to overpay free agents or to retain players to stay means that a hard cap already puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think the most advantageous system to Toronto is the one being proposed: limiting the use of exceptions to teams over the luxury tax, and penalizing the hell out of teams who go deep into the luxury tax. Toronto has the cash to spend; what we don't have is the winning program to attract players here. I'm guessing that we've got a good step towards that with some of our young pieces we have and the ones we will have soon. I don't think having a system where someday we'll just have to jettison one of our previous draft picks who's become a pretty good player just to get under a hard salary cap limit is in our best interests at all, honestly. I think what we all want is a system that allows teams to build themselves through drafts and trades, but somewhat neutralizes the inherent advantages that geography provide for a few select teams.

[Homer Jay]

Man, the way some of you talk, you'd think the players owe you something. Did these guys rape your wives or something? They're just trying to get a good deal, for themselves, and future workers.

Not really anti-player. But if any owners are losing money while trying to remain within the area of the salary cap (If you go into tax and lost money I got no sympathy for you), then that system needs to change, and the players have to realize that. The league should not exist solely for the players to make money at the expense of the owners. I think the owners have the right to make money as well.