Most important meeting?

[melo mvp 15]

So I think today's expanded meeting with more reps from each side is definitely the biggest/most important meeting of the lockout. That is why I'm so nervous because I feel the reason we were able to make so much progress the last 2 weeks is because we had less egos in the room. When you add more owners and players, you add more egos. This makes me very nervous because I think this meeting will make or break wether we have a season on time. Hopefully everything is positive and the sides exchange offers that show some compromise. I just hope that nothing goes wrong because if one player or one owner doesn't like what he hears and ruins the whole meeting I think we'd be setback pretty far (like back to where we were before the meetings the last weeks). Also with more ppl there I expect more leaks (even tho they have agreed not to, we've been hearing reports of whats going on in the last 3 meetings) because of the more people.

[DBoys]

Problem is, despite the glowing media reports, no actual "progress" was made the last two weeks ... other than, a lot of jibber jabber that left both sides now thinking the other one wants to make a deal because "Hey, those guys on the other side listened to me!" But we've seen neither side hinting that THEY are ready to move off of their demands.

I'd say, Be ready for a big pile of disappointment - or even worse.

[MillaBucs5]

Problem is, despite the glowing media reports, no actual "progress" was made the last two weeks ... other than, a lot of jibber jabber that left both sides now thinking the other one wants to make a deal because "Hey, those guys on the other side listened to me!" But we've seen neither side hinting that THEY are ready to move off of their demands.

I'd say, Be ready for a big pile of disappointment - or even worse.

Good call.

The meeting between the players and owners on Tuesday didn't go well, as the owners are sticking to their original position, leaving the two sides very far apart.
"We're not marching towards a deal at this time or at any time we can predict," Derek Fisher said afterwards. No new meetings have been scheduled and it appears that the owners have little interest in negotiating, and that several of them have no qualms with losing the season. There is still some time to work this out, but today's meeting appears to signal that at least part of the regular season will be lost. In fact, union head Billy Hunter added that he's now advised the players they may have to sit out half the season before a deal will be reached.

[ranger001]

Billy Hunter thinks the owners are going to move off their demands for a hard cap. He is wrong. I can see the whole season being lost.

[melo mvp 15]

I'd estimate about 10 or so owners really wanting a hard cap enough to warrant losing a whole season (especially considering there are teams that lose money during the season, missing a season they'd avoid that again). Then I'd say around 6-8 owners (mostly big markets, big spenders) don't want a hard cap and wouldn't want to miss the season. It's the other like half of the owners that are the mid level teams that should end up deciding how long the owners can keep demanding a hard cap.

[DBoys]

I'd wager "hard cap" and "revenue sharing" are two sides of the same coin, for the owners. If they have equal player payroll limits (which would also include REQUIRED spending, given cap GUARANTEES to players) then money from revenue sharing will come with requirements to improve the product, and can't simply be dumped in an owner's back pocket (see Pirates, Pittsburgh). Otherwise, you'll have a hard time getting Dolan, Buss and others to literally take $50M or so out of their own pocket (perhaps even taking away the bulk of their own profits each year) to enrich other franchises.

[shrink]

I'd estimate about 10 or so owners really wanting a hard cap enough to warrant losing a whole season (especially considering there are teams that lose money during the season, missing a season they'd avoid that again). Then I'd say around 6-8 owners (mostly big markets, big spenders) don't want a hard cap and wouldn't want to miss the season. It's the other like half of the owners that are the mid level teams that should end up deciding how long the owners can keep demanding a hard cap.

I agree and I can understand the optimism that the players union might have felt going into that meeting. They may have thought that if they would change the percent of the BRI, they may be able to convince some of the more cost-conscious owners (like Sarver) to give on a hard cap, and break up the majority that wants it.

However, I agree with DBoys that for many owners, just getting a little bigger slice of the pie isn't as important as making sure the pie keeps growing, and for that, they may feel they need competitive balance to improve the overall product, and their mechanism of choice is the hard cap. It still surprised me the players couldn't buy off enough owners.

[shrink]

And while I don't know how much validity to put into it, did you catch Henry Abbott's article speculating on each owner's CBA position (Hawk or Dove)?

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/31683/nba-owners-bargaining-positions

[I_Like_Dirt]

However, I agree with DBoys that for many owners, just getting a little bigger slice of the pie isn't as important as making sure the pie keeps growing, and for that, they may feel they need competitive balance to improve the overall product, and their mechanism of choice is the hard cap. It still surprised me the players couldn't buy off enough owners.

If this was really about competitive balance, then there would already be more revenue-sharing and owners of the more prosperous teams wouldn't be signing TV deals which appear to have the idea in mind that as little of the revenue as possible will be counted towards revenue-sharing. If that were in place, the players would also probably be a lot less suspicious of the owners' motives. Competitive balance is really just another word for $$$$. The owners, like the players, want as much of it as they can get. Owners of the more prosperous teams aren't speaking out because they've come to the conclusion that they'll be better off accepting the profits they're about to get and making moves to help themselves as much as they can (like the Celtics TV deal) to ensure they continue making as much money as they can that they don't have to share. If they speak out, they're likely outnumbered anyway, and the players take them to the cleaners meaning they take a smaller slice of a smaller pie. They aren't stupid. They'll take what as much as they can get and not get burned overreaching. It's actually the smaller market teams that appear willing to burn themselves and everyone else for a deal that likely won't make smaller markets more competitive financially (see the NHL).

[DBoys]

However, I agree with DBoys that for many owners, just getting a little bigger slice of the pie isn't as important as making sure the pie keeps growing, and for that, they may feel they need competitive balance to improve the overall product, and their mechanism of choice is the hard cap. It still surprised me the players couldn't buy off enough owners.

If this was really about competitive balance, then there would already be more revenue-sharing and owners of the more prosperous teams wouldn't be signing TV deals which appear to have the idea in mind that as little of the revenue as possible will be counted towards revenue-sharing. If that were in place, the players would also probably be a lot less suspicious of the owners' motives. Competitive balance is really just another word for $$$$. The owners, like the players, want as much of it as they can get. Owners of the more prosperous teams aren't speaking out because they've come to the conclusion that they'll be better off accepting the profits they're about to get and making moves to help themselves as much as they can (like the Celtics TV deal) to ensure they continue making as much money as they can that they don't have to share. If they speak out, they're likely outnumbered anyway, and the players take them to the cleaners meaning they take a smaller slice of a smaller pie. They aren't stupid. They'll take what as much as they can get and not get burned overreaching. It's actually the smaller market teams that appear willing to burn themselves and everyone else for a deal that likely won't make smaller markets more competitive financially (see the NHL).

Ummmm.....no.

100% off base, on just about every point.