NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[turk3d]

The players (although for less, at least most of them) will be able to find other sources of basketball related income (as proven by the fact that some already have) but what about owners who have essentially shut down their businesses? Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

I think 75% of them find viable work that makes about 1/3rd of what they average overall in the NBA. That may be generous at best. Then, one has to think about insurance also.

There's no question that both sides lose, it's just who really stands to lose the most overall. Somehow, we know that there will be professional basketball in this country, whether it's a new league or overseas. It's too lucrative for it to be let go and someone with money will jump in once it's been determined that all is lost (it wouldn't surprise me if the rich agents would get involved, especially since they've been saying all along that they want the players to decertify). Seems so far (since they have yet to cave) that maybe the players were prepared for this, maybe a little more than expected by most.

[The Rebel]

The players (although for less, at least most of them) will be able to find other sources of basketball related income (as proven by the fact that some already have) but what about owners who have essentially shut down their businesses? Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

I don't think most owners are worried about losing the year... to semi-quote/paraphrase Chris Rock, the players may be rich but the owners are wealthy. The owners make their money in other businesses.

Then why should they be sweating this even? And I'm not sure it's all owners. I don't care how wealthy you are, you don't just shutdown your business unless you're bankrupt and if they are, what are they waiting for?

Something just doesn't jibe as far as the owners go, it doesn't compute. I'm sure a lot of the players have other businesses/investments as well. It's just hard to establish who. what and how much. There sure has been a lot of activity by the players outside of the NBA, especially recently. This claim that the players are the ones who'll be hurt more just doesn't ring true.

Yes, they both will be hurting but I tend to think it will be worse for the owners, since some of the players (not sure how many, conflicting reports) are still receiving paychecks and although I've heard that the Owners have some kind of a deal where they're still getting TV revenue from the networks I'm not exactly sure what that is and how long it might last. If true, I'm sure the networks are just thrilled with that.

Bankrupt? You can reorganize/restructure your company before you go bankrupt, companies do it all the time. This whole lockout is the owners attempt to reorganize their company and cut expenses before they end up having to worry about bankrupting their companies.

As for the players having the ability to outlast the owners, how do you conclude that? Sure a few players have other investments and companies that may provide an income, but I doubt it is near the income provided by their job. Endorsements start to go south the longer you are out of the spotlight, each month that goes by the less those companies run those adds that pay the residuals. the players main source of income is their contract in the NBA.

for the most part the owners on the other hand have businesses that provided enough income to actually pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a team, and lose money on that team over the last few years. While Buss and a couple of the other owners may feel a pinch in their pocketbook, most owners main source of income is in another business that allows them the ability to pay for their NBA teams.

[BadMofoPimp]

It has been said that if the NBA loses one season, the owners will make their money back from that lost season in 7-10 years.

But, players will never ever recouperate the lost money from a lost season.

Case in point, players have no choice but to play hardball up and until mid November at the latest. Then, they have no choice but to sign and salvage a 50 game season.

You heard it from BadMofoPimp. Book it.

[ThreeYearPlan]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/07 ... g-records/

But the players dispute that, according to the charging document in the unfair labor practices case it filed against the league with the National Labor Relations Board. They accuse the NBA of failing to bargain in good faith (something the league has denied), and “failing and refusing to provide relevant financial information … needed by the union to understand, test and analyze the NBA’s bargaining proposals as well as its asserted justification, based on financial weakness, for its grossly regressive contract demands.”

In other words: Stuff is missing, according to the union. But what stuff?

I don't know where the idea that the NBA turned over everything that the Union asked for started, it's a myth.

[thelead]

It has been said that if the NBA loses one season, the owners will make their money back from that lost season in 7-10 years.

But, players will never ever recouperate the lost money from a lost season.

Case in point, players have no choice but to play hardball up and until mid November at the latest. Then, they have no choice but to sign and salvage a 50 game season.

You heard it from BadMofoPimp. Book it.

Just when you consider that the average NBA career last for ~4 years, this is the only way to look at the situation. Some of the players that are on their rookie deals (and that will never be resigned) will ever make the money back if they miss the full season. Older players on their last big paychecks will never make up what they are facing to lose. They will cave.

[Wizenheimer]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/07/15/union-lawyer-talks-nbas-missing-records/

But the players dispute that, according to the charging document in the unfair labor practices case it filed against the league with the National Labor Relations Board. They accuse the NBA of failing to bargain in good faith (something the league has denied), and “failing and refusing to provide relevant financial information … needed by the union to understand, test and analyze the NBA’s bargaining proposals as well as its asserted justification, based on financial weakness, for its grossly regressive contract demands.”

In other words: Stuff is missing, according to the union. But what stuff?

I don't know where the idea that the NBA turned over everything that the Union asked for started, it's a myth.

and exactly where does it say that the NBA is legally obligated to produce everything the union has asked for?

I believe the NBA is claiming the union has asked for records they aren't required by law to produce

[Hunter103]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/07/15/union-lawyer-talks-nbas-missing-records/

But the players dispute that, according to the charging document in the unfair labor practices case it filed against the league with the National Labor Relations Board. They accuse the NBA of failing to bargain in good faith (something the league has denied), and “failing and refusing to provide relevant financial information … needed by the union to understand, test and analyze the NBA’s bargaining proposals as well as its asserted justification, based on financial weakness, for its grossly regressive contract demands.”

In other words: Stuff is missing, according to the union. But what stuff?

I don't know where the idea that the NBA turned over everything that the Union asked for started, it's a myth.

and exactly where does it say that the NBA is legally obligated to produce everything the union has asked for?

I believe the NBA is claiming the union has asked for records they aren't required by law to produce

Well if the records are relevant, and the owners didn't provide them, then the union has a case. What we as a bunch of posters on the internet believe is ultimately irrelevant, but what is relevant will come out at the NLRB hearing, whichever way it goes. Until then it's useless to speculate.

[SacKingZZZ]

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918087

Good podcast here about the NLRB ruling. Summary:

The players have filed a charge which the NLRB is reviewing. If the NLRB sides with the players they will then issue a complaint, which will have to be reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge. This would mean a new process of fact gathering and review. If the ALJ finds a violation by the owners, then the owner's will have a chance to appeal. Subject to appeal, the case will be sent to a federal judge who can then decide to issue an injunction. That whole process will definitely take a full season (with basically a tiny chance, if any, of making it through all the layers).

Doesn't sound like the players have much leverage here, even if the NLRB came back this week and issued a complaint against the owners.

F***! Wow, definitely right about that losing 2 seasons stuff then.

Isn't there something where they can still go back to work during that time? I would imagine that the first ruling would lift the lockout so people can go back to work in the meantime.

[thelead]

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918087

Good podcast here about the NLRB ruling. Summary:

The players have filed a charge which the NLRB is reviewing. If the NLRB sides with the players they will then issue a complaint, which will have to be reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge. This would mean a new process of fact gathering and review. If the ALJ finds a violation by the owners, then the owner's will have a chance to appeal. Subject to appeal, the case will be sent to a federal judge who can then decide to issue an injunction. That whole process will definitely take a full season (with basically a tiny chance, if any, of making it through all the layers).

Doesn't sound like the players have much leverage here, even if the NLRB came back this week and issued a complaint against the owners.

F***! Wow, definitely right about that losing 2 seasons stuff then.

Isn't there something where they can still go back to work during that time? I would imagine that the first ruling would lift the lockout so people can go back to work in the meantime.

Honestly, we're all guessing here but I would be willing to bet money that the players would cave if the owners were willing to lose 2 seasons. There is NO way the players could sustain not having a paycheck for 2 years while the legal system worked its way out.

[trins]

Even the NLRB representative sides with the owners.

He even said about the NFL. Saying that in the NFL the owners were not struggling, they were all making a profit thus it was the owners best interest to start the season, while in the NBA the owners are losing money losing 300 million a year.

He also highlighted saying currently he does not believe both are negotiating in bad faith and that the Players Union scream of negotiating bad faith. The owners could scream it too. He also said that he believes currently both sides are taking the hardline stance and it is perfectly legal.

Seems like the NLRB is leaning towards the owners.

Edit: He also says that even if they decide against the owners. The owners will shrug it off.... It will not bother the owners stance. Since the NLRB/ALJ cannot grant an injunction to the players it has to go to the federal court and even then its hard to convince the federal judge of an injunction.

[floppymoose]

FWIW, I don't think the owners can go two seasons. If the players can tough it out for one full season and stick to their guns, they can get 53%. I doubt we ever get to find out if I'm right on that, though.

[thelead]

FWIW, I don't think the owners can go two seasons. If the players can tough it out for one full season and stick to their guns, they can get 53%. I doubt we ever get to find out if I'm right on that, though.

If you are losing money while in operation, you are better off not operating, right?

Now, who knows if its true that 22 teams are losing money, but if it is true, why would they want to lose money?

[thelead]

Even the NLRB representative sides with the owners.

He even said about the NFL. Saying that in the NFL the owners were not struggling, they were all making a profit thus it was the owners best interest to start the season, while in the NBA the owners are losing money losing 300 million a year.

He also highlighted saying currently he does not believe both are negotiating in bad faith and that the Players Union scream of negotiating bad faith. The owners could scream it too. He also said that he believes currently both sides are taking the hardline stance and it is perfectly legal.

Seems like the NLRB is leaning towards the owners.

Edit: He also says that even if they decide against the owners. The owners will shrug it off.... It will not bother the owners stance. Since the NLRB/ALJ cannot grant an injunction to the players it has to go to the federal court and even then its hard to convince the federal judge of an injunction.

good info, source?

[trins]

Even the NLRB representative sides with the owners.

He even said about the NFL. Saying that in the NFL the owners were not struggling, they were all making a profit thus it was the owners best interest to start the season, while in the NBA the owners are losing money losing 300 million a year.

He also highlighted saying currently he does not believe both are negotiating in bad faith and that the Players Union scream of negotiating bad faith. The owners could scream it too. He also said that he believes currently both sides are taking the hardline stance and it is perfectly legal.

Seems like the NLRB is leaning towards the owners.

Edit: He also says that even if they decide against the owners. The owners will shrug it off.... It will not bother the owners stance. Since the NLRB/ALJ cannot grant an injunction to the players it has to go to the federal court and even then its hard to convince the federal judge of an injunction.

good info, source?

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssport ... 4/32918087

Listen to the podcast

[SacKingZZZ]

I'm pretty sure if the players win this the owners will realize maybe their case isn't as strong as they thought. My opinion from day one is that the players were waiting to hear from the NLRB since day one and they never really had much of a reason to negotiate past a certain level because of that. Unfortunately for the fans I think the owners were waiting for the same thing.

This NLRB ruling has to be the players trump card, in fact, I'm positive it is. I'm pretty sure Fisher has even alluded to that being the case in the past and has used it as a reason behind not opting for decertification to the players themselves. Now, if they weren't "really" negotiating and simply waiting for this that would be a violation right there, once again as is the case with most law, hard to impossible to prove though. Whatever this ruling is it will establish how this entire thing proceeds from here. If the players lose, they will literally have no other options because if I remember correctly it is going to pretty much preclude them from being able to decertify all.

As I've said in the past, the players are simply gambling right now. There is a date where the potential concessions the owners are asking for them to commit to and the loss of games will cross over with the potential earnings they would recoup with the unions bottom offer. That's probably a few weeks out, maybe a month. They're just hoping that ruling comes down before that I'm sure.

Heck, it makes sense, but problem is, if they lose, and I think they will, they've just given up a months worth of salary and damaged the leagues image in the interim. Them thinking some promise of an 82 game schedule is also fuel for their fire because if true, that means they will make back that salary. Problem is, they're still playing with fire here and might end up burning themselves out of all that money while getting nothing in return except concessions AND a lost month or two. Sounds to me like they're relying on a lot of rumors and rumblings.

[Wizenheimer]

and exactly where does it say that the NBA is legally obligated to produce everything the union has asked for?

I believe the NBA is claiming the union has asked for records they aren't required by law to produce

Well if the records are relevant, and the owners didn't provide them, then the union has a case. What we as a bunch of posters on the internet believe is ultimately irrelevant, but what is relevant will come out at the NLRB hearing, whichever way it goes. Until then it's useless to speculate.

are you sure there's even a law saying the owners have to provide "relevant" records over and above those records necessary to confirm the actual BRI so the split can be confirmed?

The players have already received their share of the split and their representatives have examined the books and audit reports

other then that, what else are the owners required to produce? I don't know the answer to that and I'm not sure anybody here does either

Is it possible Billy Hunter is just throwing stuff at the wall? Or is it possible the NBA league office, filled with attorneys, knows exactly what they are required by law to provide?

[Wizenheimer]

I'm pretty sure if the players win this the owners will realize maybe their case isn't as strong as they thought. My opinion from day one is that the players were waiting to hear from the NLRB since day one and they never really had much of a reason to negotiate past a certain level because of that. Unfortunately for the fans I think the owners were waiting for the same thing.

I don't think that's anywhere close to the reality after listening to the podcast linked in the post above yours. National labor relations expert Jay Krupin of EpsteinBeckerGreen spoke to the issues in front of the NLRB and what the process is. His take is that the owners probably aren't worried much at all about the NLRB ruling, nor even about the next step in the process should the NLRB rule in favor of the players

frankly, after listening to that podcast, my sense is if the union is gambling on the NLRB ruling to change the game in any significant fashion, they are fools

listen to the podcast:

http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/32918087

[ThreeYearPlan]

The Union has said they don't expect anything out of the NLRB ruling multiple times. It's nothing more than a hail mary but not something they're pinning their hopes on.

[killbuckner]

Here is an article with 3 legal experts saying that they don't think the NLRB will side with the players.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsjazzn ... a.html.csp

""The [NBPA's] unfair labor practice complaint is extremely weak and lacks legal basis. … Labor law is absolutely 100-percent clear that strikes and lockouts are allowed without [an] impasse being reached. Players could have struck the day the [collective bargaining agreement] expired and the league exercised its right to lock out the players. And the union's argument that the owners somehow failed to bargain in good faith because they made extreme demands also flies in the face of clear labor law."

[The Rebel]

and exactly where does it say that the NBA is legally obligated to produce everything the union has asked for?

I believe the NBA is claiming the union has asked for records they aren't required by law to produce

Well if the records are relevant, and the owners didn't provide them, then the union has a case. What we as a bunch of posters on the internet believe is ultimately irrelevant, but what is relevant will come out at the NLRB hearing, whichever way it goes. Until then it's useless to speculate.

That is a nice couple of ifs there. If the records are relevant, and if the owners did not provide them, but yet the owners are automatically guilty? Having thought about it for a little bit I seem to remember that the players also wanted the owners personal financials, here is a link I found from Berger.

The key to the NBPA's current strategy will be how the NLRB rules on the union's request for further financial information from the NBA to prove its stated $300 million in annual losses, said Jon Axelrod of Beins, Axelrod, P.C., in Washington, D.C., who has represented unions in labor disputes for 37 years. Larry Katz, the union's outside counsel, has requested additional financial documents from the owners, including those detailing third-party transactions -- where the money goes when a single entity owns the NBA team, the arena and an NHL team -- and franchise valuations.

"In my experience as a union lawyer, that stuff would be very valuable to the union in preparing its negotiating position," Axelrod said.

The NBA has furnished voluminous financial data to the union, including audited financial statements and tax returns. But Katz said the owners have not turned over accounting of third-party transactions or franchise valuations, for which the NLRB could cite the league for bad-faith bargaining.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1537 ... -legal-war

So the union wants to check the owners personal books, what they do outside of the league, the revenues and where they go from the NHL teams and arenas, and a valuation on what the team may be worth if it were sold. In other words they want a cut of what someone guesses the teams are worth, they want a cut of the money the arenas make outside of the NBA, they want a cut of the owners personal businesses, and they want a cut off of an appraised value of a team. That must be where Hunter is getting his 600-700 million from.

I know the players are acting as entitled brats, but really they think they get the right to get a cut off of everything the owner does, even outside of the league and business of basketball? I would tell them to pound sand as well.