NLRB ready to rule on Union's claim against NBA

[turk3d]

I don't see where the players are asking for any equity appreciation as far as the franchise is concerned (as stated, that would be ridiculous). The reason that it's being brought up is in response to the NBA saying that the team is losing money and should be taken into consideration in the valuation. Keep in mind that this is the major "straw-man" argument the the league is using in order to justify all the changes in the CBA to make in their favor (including the massive shift in the BRI that they're asking for).

For purposes of the IRS, this works great. However, keep in mind it's like any asset (say house as an example), while you keep it (assuming you have equity which most franchises do) it may not be generating cash flow, but it's building value and you can leverage this value for a number of things, such as acquire low-interest and favorable loans among other things.

And until you sell, depending on how your run it, you can use it to offset your other earnings as a tax write-off, all the while building up the value for when you sell and turning a nice profit for yourself. So it's not that cut and dried, especially when you consider the special status that NBA franchises enjoy with the IRS and the government overall. The NLRB is going to (one way or the other) force both sides to put all their cards on the table and as a result get to the meat of it which is what's needed.

Anyone who's sandbagging (which I believe they are) will be forced to reveal whatever it is they are hiding now that the government has been brought into the picture. Hopefully this will help them arrive at a settlement (which is the role that I think that government will want to play a [art of in all this). So I'm keeping my fingers crossed and my mind open as to what the results will be when the NLRB releases their findings. This might be the final hope for any chance for a season.

[SacKingZZZ]

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.

Then why did Fisher basically say that they went for this instead of decertification in one of his press conferences? He was pretty confident that this was the best step for the union.

[DBoys]

The NLRB is going to (one way or the other) force both sides to put all their cards on the table and as a result get to the meat of it which is what's needed.

Totally doubt the NLRB will (a) go that far, or anywhere close to it, and (b) have any effect at all.

The NLRB's one and only role at this point is to have the parties trying for a deal. They don't otherwise want to be involved. And it's going to be virtually impossible to decide that the sides aren't trying to get the deal they want.

[SacKingZZZ]

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.

I think the players SHOULD get a cut of that revenue. But! On the other side the owners should get the majority share of whatever a player makes through endorsements and other areas related to them capitalizing on fame they only achieved thanks to the NBA.

[turk3d]

The NLRB is going to (one way or the other) force both sides to put all their cards on the table and as a result get to the meat of it which is what's needed.

Totally doubt the NLRB will (a) go that far, or anywhere close to it, and (b) have any effect at all.

The NLRB's one and only role at this point is to have the parties trying for a deal. They don't otherwise want to be involved. And it's going to be virtually impossible to decide that the sides aren't trying to get the deal they want.

There's going to be a ruling (either for or against), they have to since the union filed with them. That determination (whatever it is) will cause both sides to re-evaluate their stances since that ruling now becomes official record should this eventually make it into court. Sure they are not going to force anyone to do anything, but they certainly can make recommendations. What's funny I find with the NLRB ruling now pending how we're seeing the union now starting to reveal what they really want, lol (see today's Realgm headlines).

[DBoys]

There's going to be a ruling (either for or against), they have to since the union filed with them.

Actually they are a ways away from a definitive ruling of any kind. They have had a "charge" filed by the players that the NBA has failed to bargain in good faith. The possible response to that charge is not a ruling of a violation of some kind.

Instead, the NLRB has two options: they dismiss the charge, or they file it as a "complaint." A complaint doesn't mean there's been a violation of the law, it just means they'll dig a little more and have a private court-like hearing on it, where facts are presented, argued, and assertions can be challenged.

Only after all of that could there be a ruling, and if the NBA lost on the ruling they'd still have the right to have it tried in a court.

That determination (whatever it is) will cause both sides to re-evaluate their stances since that ruling now becomes official record should this eventually make it into court. Sure they are not going to force anyone to do anything, but they certainly can make recommendations.

In the most EXTREME outcome possible, they aren't going to be ruling on "stances." They'll simply be ruling on whether the NBA was trying to make a deal. They don't care what the NBA is asking for, as long as they really were trying to make that deal, and would have accepted it if the NBAPA had agreed.

In the goofy event that a judge in a court would really say the NBA didn't want a deal, that most likely would lead to nothing but a slap on the wrist or less, and it would happen next summer or later. While it might offer some PR angle for one side or the other right now, there is no conceivable way the NBA is worried about it in the least when it's at this point.

[HartfordWhalers]

You've misread.

Regarding the GS books, they would (a) not be available to the public, and (b) would not be relevant to your question. Notice that what is under discussion is specific numbers, not all the numbers - we really are only concerned with the numbers that are on the table in these negotiations, substantiating the >$300 million in losses.

There is indeed "interest" (aka debt servicing) in those financials.

But, it is not interest related to team purchases. That was a mistaken connection (of why a team would be paying interest) made by media - perhaps a misconception slyly contrived by Hunter - that was completely refuted by the NBA in writing. They said that the numbers presented to the players had been completely scrubbed (ie adjusted) to removed what would be purchase-related. The NBA's response was very outspoken, and not disputed by the union, who certainly would have made a big case if the NBA had been telling a lie. Both Coon (ESPN) and Silver (NYT), who had written articles assuming the losses included things purchase-related, issued retractions for the mistaken assertions.

Actually, I'm thinking you have misread.

The NBA release clearly stated that it didn't include "purchase price amortization from when a team is sold or under any circumstances in any of our reported losses."
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/06/nba. ... index.html

While the statement claims this negates the impact of team purchases, it only addresses the depreciation which is entirely different from washing out the debt service related to the purchasing a business, which the NBA has never once claimed to do. If you want to find anything where they say otherwise, feel to but considering the NBA says it uses GAAP and GAAP allows that, I don't expect much.

[turk3d]

There's going to be a ruling (either for or against), they have to since the union filed with them.

Actually they are a ways away from a definitive ruling of any kind. They have had a "charge" filed by the players that the NBA has failed to bargain in good faith. The possible response to that charge is not a ruling of a violation of some kind.

Instead, the NLRB has two options: they dismiss the charge, or they file it as a "complaint." A complaint doesn't mean there's been a violation of the law, it just means they'll dig a little more and have a private court-like hearing on it, where facts are presented, argued, and assertions can be challenged.

Only after all of that could there be a ruling, and if the NBA lost on the ruling they'd still have the right to have it tried in a court.

That determination (whatever it is) will cause both sides to re-evaluate their stances since that ruling now becomes official record should this eventually make it into court. Sure they are not going to force anyone to do anything, but they certainly can make recommendations.

In the most EXTREME outcome possible, they aren't going to be ruling on "stances." They'll simply be ruling on whether the NBA was trying to make a deal. They don't care what the NBA is asking for, as long as they really were trying to make that deal, and would have accepted it if the NBAPA had agreed.

In the goofy event that a judge in a court would really say the NBA didn't want a deal, that most likely would lead to nothing but a slap on the wrist or less, and it would happen next summer or later. While it might offer some PR angle for one side or the other right now, there is no conceivable way the NBA is worried about it in the least when it's at this point.

They're going to say something and even if it's just that it merits further investigation, that's going to be enough to get some wheels churning. Even if they come back and say there's nothing that they see done in "bad faith" by the owners, that's going to be enough to have an impact and determine (I believe) in which directions both sides decide to go in from here on out (hopefully bringing one or both sides to their senses) and get an agreement.

People can say what they want regarding who's being hurt the most but I say both sides are taking a huge hit and losing a heckuva amount of money the longer this thing goes on. To say that it's ok because he may be losing more than I do is foolish imo and totally non-productive.

I think that what they say could (and probably will) have a significant impact. The fact that one of the acknowledged best mediators in the business was unable to get anything accomplished in almost an entire day of sit downs tells me that someone who carries a little more weight needs to get involved in order to get over this impasse. The NLRB is a step up. We'll see happens and to what extent it affects each side if any.

[LakerLegend]

So if they're "ready" are they actually ever going to rule on the damn thing?

[DBoys]

Hartford, Besides what you cited, I'd add

1 "Put simply, none of the league losses are related to team purchase or sale accounting."

2 "The league lost money every year of the just expiring CBA. During these years, the league has never had positive Net Income, EBITDA or Operating Income."
....notice that EBITDA is by definition pre-interest

3 There are only two parties that have seen the numbers, the union and the league. While the union said "we don't want to count interest", from what I've seen they never gave any actual assertion that the interest came from team purchases. Media jumped to that conclusion, and my sense is that the union enjoyed the misperception while knowing it wasn't accurate.

Are you making assertions that the players didn't actually make?

4 I notice that when the firestorm over financials was raging, and the NBA issued its refutations, there were some things that we got from the NBAPA and some we didn't.

a We did NOT get the NBAPA coming back and saying, "There is too a smoking gun in there. The NBA lied to you. There is interest from purchases. Or, there is depreciation from team purchases. Or, there is purchase price amortization."
....They reiterated vague claims of interest (in general) or depreciation (in general), but not a peep about the numbers containing anything purchase related, which was the cause of the firestorm by the media. We can rest assured that if it had been in there, they would have mentioned it loudly and often.

b Their response was instead a vague sniping at the NBA for not accurately predicting future revenues the prior year, when they under-estimated it in advance by about 3.5%, and saying that because of that, can you really believe those numbers? It was an odd semi-admission that they didn't see anything wrong, but they wanted you to still believe the NBA is unreliable.

[HartfordWhalers]

Hartford, Besides what you cited, I'd add

1 "Put simply, none of the league losses are related to team purchase or sale accounting."

2 "The league lost money every year of the just expiring CBA. During these years, the league has never had positive Net Income, EBITDA or Operating Income."
....notice that EBITDA is by definition pre-interest

3 There are only two parties that have seen the numbers, the union and the league. While the union said "we don't want to count interest", from what I've seen they never gave any actual assertion that the interest came from team purchases. Media jumped to that conclusion, and my sense is that the union enjoyed the misperception while knowing it wasn't accurate.

Are you making assertions that the players didn't actually make?

4 I notice that when the firestorm over financials was raging, and the NBA issued its refutations, there were some things that we got from the NBAPA and some we didn't.

a We did NOT get the NBAPA coming back and saying, "There is too a smoking gun in there. The NBA lied to you. There is interest from purchases. Or, there is depreciation from team purchases. Or, there is purchase price amortization."
....They reiterated vague claims of interest (in general) or depreciation (in general), but not a peep about the numbers containing anything purchase related, which was the cause of the firestorm by the media. We can rest assured that if it had been in there, they would have mentioned it loudly and often.

b Their response was instead a vague sniping at the NBA for not accurately predicting future revenues the prior year, when they under-estimated it in advance by about 3.5%, and saying that because of that, can you really believe those numbers? It was an odd semi-admission that they didn't see anything wrong, but they wanted you to still believe the NBA is unreliable.

Sorry, but you still haven't supplied any source of anything to possibly support you.

In terms of above:
1) Addressed as the NBA said this directly in terms of Purchase price amortization, which I told you.
2) Agreed. EBITA is negative. Including interest makes it more negative. The league has been reporting the bigger number when heralding the size of losses, which includes the debt. In other news, the sky is blue.
3) They did indeed. The union has said that interest related to purchasing is in there.

If you decide you don't count interest and depreciation, you already lop off 250 [million] of the 370 million dollars.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... als-110630
4) See above about interest being in. Again, it doesn't include RDA or purchase amortization (which at first some people thought it did), although it would have been nice of teh union to issue a statement saying yes, that was true the owners are being honest there.

I'm not sure where you see what I'm saying as seeing the nba as unreliable. I'm taking them at face value that they use GAAP. I'm taking the union at face value that interest is included in the 1.5 billion loss figure. You on the other hand or telling other people they are wrong with no source whatsoever, so imo you lack credibility.

[Wizenheimer]

You've misread.

Regarding the GS books, they would (a) not be available to the public, and (b) would not be relevant to your question. Notice that what is under discussion is specific numbers, not all the numbers - we really are only concerned with the numbers that are on the table in these negotiations, substantiating the >$300 million in losses.

There is indeed "interest" (aka debt servicing) in those financials.

But, it is not interest related to team purchases. That was a mistaken connection (of why a team would be paying interest) made by media - perhaps a misconception slyly contrived by Hunter - that was completely refuted by the NBA in writing. They said that the numbers presented to the players had been completely scrubbed (ie adjusted) to removed what would be purchase-related. The NBA's response was very outspoken, and not disputed by the union, who certainly would have made a big case if the NBA had been telling a lie. Both Coon (ESPN) and Silver (NYT), who had written articles assuming the losses included things purchase-related, issued retractions for the mistaken assertions.

Actually, I'm thinking you have misread.

The NBA release clearly stated that it didn't include "purchase price amortization from when a team is sold or under any circumstances in any of our reported losses."
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/06/nba. ... index.html

While the statement claims this negates the impact of team purchases, it only addresses the depreciation which is entirely different from washing out the debt service related to the purchasing a business, which the NBA has never once claimed to do. If you want to find anything where they say otherwise, feel to but considering the NBA says it uses GAAP and GAAP allows that, I don't expect much.

and so it comes down to interest expense, since RDA is not a factor

there is no business in the country that doesn't count interest expense as an expense. I've never understood why the Union thinks the NBA shout be exempt from that practice. Teams are borrowing money all the time, and when a team is purchased, usually for anywhere from 300-500 million dollars, some part of that purchase price will be financed. And the interest payments on those loans have to be paid from revenue.

basic business 101

[DBoys]

Hartford, please show me where the union has claimed that the "interest" is for debt incurred to make the purchase of the franchise. You asserted that they said it, but I've seen no quote to that effect, and you haven't supplied one.

From what I'm seeing, they are claiming interest is included, but you (not them) are applying the reason for that interest to team-purchase-related debt.

Oh, and while you're looking, please be consistent in the way you look at quotes. If you want to try to limit the meaning of words said by the league to the most narrow interpretation possible, you should do the same in regards to those from the union.

[HartfordWhalers]

You've misread.

Regarding the GS books, they would (a) not be available to the public, and (b) would not be relevant to your question. Notice that what is under discussion is specific numbers, not all the numbers - we really are only concerned with the numbers that are on the table in these negotiations, substantiating the >$300 million in losses.

There is indeed "interest" (aka debt servicing) in those financials.

But, it is not interest related to team purchases. That was a mistaken connection (of why a team would be paying interest) made by media - perhaps a misconception slyly contrived by Hunter - that was completely refuted by the NBA in writing. They said that the numbers presented to the players had been completely scrubbed (ie adjusted) to removed what would be purchase-related. The NBA's response was very outspoken, and not disputed by the union, who certainly would have made a big case if the NBA had been telling a lie. Both Coon (ESPN) and Silver (NYT), who had written articles assuming the losses included things purchase-related, issued retractions for the mistaken assertions.

Actually, I'm thinking you have misread.

The NBA release clearly stated that it didn't include "purchase price amortization from when a team is sold or under any circumstances in any of our reported losses."
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/07/06/nba. ... index.html

While the statement claims this negates the impact of team purchases, it only addresses the depreciation which is entirely different from washing out the debt service related to the purchasing a business, which the NBA has never once claimed to do. If you want to find anything where they say otherwise, feel to but considering the NBA says it uses GAAP and GAAP allows that, I don't expect much.

and so it comes down to interest expense, since RDA is not a factor

there is no business in the country that doesn't count interest expense as an expense. I've never understood why the Union thinks the NBA shout be exempt from that practice. Teams are borrowing money all the time, and when a team is purchased, usually for anywhere from 300-500 million dollars, some part of that purchase price will be financed. And the interest payments on those loans have to be paid from revenue.

basic business 101

Absolutely true for business. And accounting.

But the fundamentals of the business, as reflected in measures such as EBITA aren't changed and it feels in some ways intellectually dishonest to assert that a business is less profitable solely because its capital structure unnecessarily changed (dramatically). After all, this isn't intel building a big new microchip factory or even Dan Gilbert building an expensive practice facility but rather an old owner cashing out big at a level that the new owner wants leverage.

To put the scope in, the warriors had 150 in purchase debt. A little over 100 came from the league facility that was at 5.19% and adjusting when the Hornets financials came out and the rest was at a rate presumably higher (they maxed the league fund out). So your talking about somewhere between 8 and 10+(?) in less profits then before the purchase solely as the result of that purchase.

Economically, it is the same business, but by GAAP it looks way way worse then if Ellison bought it for only 400 million (or even 600 million and paid all cash).

Financially, as long as you can avoid bankruptcy it makes sense to lever a franchise to the point that the interest tax shield is maximized, which is when net profits are zero. (Most businesses don't have a wealthy owner that will just bankroll possible losses if the team is over levered and so stay far away from the possibility of bankruptcy inducing losses. This is the static theory of capital structure which and along with the peking order theory is the modern response to Miller and Modigliani's theory.)

That the league is losing money before interest is still true. That the underlying league profitability doesn't actually matter for negotiations is also true imo. But, levering the business when switching owners doesn't change the underlying enterprise value, it just switches the gains from the business from the equity owner to the debt lender. (Which is significant when discussing the businesses profitability and only looking at one category.) I would be much happier if the owners made their argument solely on EBITA (although including operating debt would be better still, but then again, I would be happy if both sides would agree to anything and they would just stop canceling games.

[HartfordWhalers]

Hartford, please show me where the union has claimed that the "interest" is for debt incurred to make the purchase of the franchise. You asserted that they said it, but I've seen no quote to that effect, and you haven't supplied one.

From what I'm seeing, they are claiming interest is included, but you (not them) are applying the reason for that interest to team-purchase-related debt.

Oh, and while you're looking, please be consistent in the way you look at quotes. If you want to try to limit the meaning of words said by the league to the most narrow interpretation possible, you should do the same in regards to those from the union.

I really can't help you if you are too lazy or dumb to read the links I supply, while supplying ZERO to the contrary. But again, in case it might help this time.
1) The league said it uses GAAP which includes purchase debt.
2) The union did say it included Purchase costs. See my previous links:

Hunter was referring to the accounting practice of amortizing certain assets related to the purchase of the teams themselves.

Sure, I could ignore the union and the owners and believe you without your single link or source... but I'm not going to.

[Wizenheimer]

Absolutely true for business. And accounting.

But the fundamentals of the business, as reflected in measures such as EBITA aren't changed and it feels in some ways intellectually dishonest to assert that a business is less profitable solely because its capital structure unnecessarily changed (dramatically). After all, this isn't intel building a big new microchip factory or even Dan Gilbert building an expensive practice facility but rather an old owner cashing out big at a level that the new owner wants leverage.

To put the scope in, the warriors had 150 in purchase debt. A little over 100 came from the league facility that was at 5.19% and adjusting when the Hornets financials came out and the rest was at a rate presumably higher (they maxed the league fund out). So your talking about somewhere between 8 and 10+(?) in less profits then before the purchase solely as the result of that purchase.

Economically, it is the same business, but by GAAP it looks way way worse then if Ellison bought it for only 400 million (or even 600 million and paid all cash).

Financially, as long as you can avoid bankruptcy it makes sense to lever a franchise to the point that the interest tax shield is maximized, which is when net profits are zero. (Most businesses don't have a wealthy owner that will just bankroll possible losses if the team is over levered and so stay far away from the possibility of bankruptcy inducing losses. This is the static theory of capital structure which and along with the peking order theory is the modern response to Miller and Modigliani's theory.)

That the league is losing money before interest is still true. That the underlying league profitability doesn't actually matter for negotiations is also true imo. But, levering the business when switching owners doesn't change the underlying enterprise value, it just switches the gains from the business from the equity owner to the debt lender. (Which is significant when discussing the businesses profitability and only looking at one category.) I would be much happier if the owners made their argument solely on EBITA (although including operating debt would be better still, but then again, I would be happy if both sides would agree to anything and they would just stop canceling games.

what you're saying is not unreasonable at all, but it seems to be fairly abstract.

it would seem then that only people who have a half billion dollars in their checking account can afford to buy teams. Or, if you borrow a couple hundred million you'll have to find another source to pay the interest because you're not allowed to pay interest out of revenue generated by the business you just bought

But even that isn't really the point is it? Everybody knows that those interest payments are legitimate. And everybody knows that almost every purchase is going to have some level of financing. What the union wants is for people to disregard that legitimate business expense for the purposes of judging which side has the stronger case. In my view, this is the union making a PR argument, not a legal one, or even a practical one.

[HartfordWhalers]

what you're saying is not unreasonable at all, but it seems to be fairly abstract.

it would seem then that only people who have a half billion dollars in their checking account can afford to buy teams. Or, if you borrow a couple hundred million you'll have to find another source to pay the interest because you're not allowed to pay interest out of revenue generated by the business you just bought

But even that isn't really the point is it? Everybody knows that those interest payments are legitimate. And everybody knows that almost every purchase is going to have some level of financing. What the union wants is for people to disregard that legitimate business expense for the purposes of judging which side has the stronger case. In my view, this is the union making a PR argument, not a legal one, or even a practical one.

Oh it is entirely an abstract distinction (but one I will cling to). Which really shows just how awfully badly the league has lost the PR war, doesn't it?

[Wizenheimer]

what you're saying is not unreasonable at all, but it seems to be fairly abstract.

it would seem then that only people who have a half billion dollars in their checking account can afford to buy teams. Or, if you borrow a couple hundred million you'll have to find another source to pay the interest because you're not allowed to pay interest out of revenue generated by the business you just bought

But even that isn't really the point is it? Everybody knows that those interest payments are legitimate. And everybody knows that almost every purchase is going to have some level of financing. What the union wants is for people to disregard that legitimate business expense for the purposes of judging which side has the stronger case. In my view, this is the union making a PR argument, not a legal one, or even a practical one.

Oh it is entirely an abstract distinction (but one I will cling to). Which really shows just how awfully badly the league has lost the PR war, doesn't it?

well, with Hunter's quote being discussed from the other thread, just losing the war would be an improvement.

[HartfordWhalers]

Touche. I really don't see this ending well for players the longer it goes.

[Mik317]

what you're saying is not unreasonable at all, but it seems to be fairly abstract.

it would seem then that only people who have a half billion dollars in their checking account can afford to buy teams. Or, if you borrow a couple hundred million you'll have to find another source to pay the interest because you're not allowed to pay interest out of revenue generated by the business you just bought

But even that isn't really the point is it? Everybody knows that those interest payments are legitimate. And everybody knows that almost every purchase is going to have some level of financing. What the union wants is for people to disregard that legitimate business expense for the purposes of judging which side has the stronger case. In my view, this is the union making a PR argument, not a legal one, or even a practical one.

Oh it is entirely an abstract distinction (but one I will cling to). Which really shows just how awfully badly the league has lost the PR war, doesn't it?

well, with Hunter's quote being discussed from the other thread, just losing the war would be an improvement.

That's putting it lightly...

The player have been destroyed in the "war" pretty badly. I guess KG didn't bring his rocketlaunchers and grenades. But I never understood why they would even try to gain advantage in that field.

Is the owners really going to say "oh ****..the people are behind the player...I guess we got give them their deal now.."

Lolno. Many of the owners got there by the Conan the Barbarian rules. They don't care if they come off as the bad guy...they're rich....bitch.