Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread

[dagger]

interesting clip, here

The basketball world is learning we're a large market, at least economically.

This also recasts the hard cap issue along slightly different lines.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... n-hard-cap

[DG88]

There's one thing that I think a lot of people having even looked at is that almost none of the star players in the league haven't really gotten engaged in the talks with the owners. Guys like LeBron, Dwyane Wade, Deron Williams etc haven't shown their faces at all to these meetings. They say that the lockout will end but they're sitting on their butts doing nothing to speed up that process. It's the middle class players like Fisher, Mo Evans and Roger Mason Jr that are spear heading the talks. I think it looks bad on them and the players as a whole.

yeah, why would the players let the elected player reps (and professional negotiators) handle the negotiations? That's just crazy!

LeBron, Wade, et all have no place in the negotiations, and would slow them down, not speed them up.

What I am saying is that they need to be more involved in the process. They are the ones that drive the league. They are the players that people come to see on a regular basis.

[from24ft]

The demand by the owners is strategic.


Fisher should not be running the show, too much money, he does not have the experience, and no one would ask a lawyer to play point guard for the Lakers, just as no one should expect Fisher to turn this tide. I think its a bad move by the PA.


A little investment, in a Clinton would be money well spent. He will speak at bowling allies if you pay enough. Politicians love to be in the spotlight, and the NBA is a developed brand that can attract such a negotiator and it would help to put the players position into the media, which in my opinion is very lacking.

There are a lot of holes in the NBA's position and I am not satisfied with the job the union has done so far. They could be put in their place with a sharp tongue. Stern has them where he wants them.

[Too Late Crew]

What I am saying is that they need to be more involved in the process. They are the ones that drive the league. They are the players that people come to see on a regular basis.

The Lebron's and Wades of the world are the ones who benifit the least from the Union. The last time they tried to decertify it was the Jordan's and Ewinings that led the charge.

Stars are actually being held BACK in their compensation by the union. They would be better off if it was simply a free market with no maximum salaries etc. Basically by keeping their mouth shut and staying out of the way they are doing the union the biggest favour they can expect. Otherwise its really in their interest to act in a manner that FORCES decertification.

Its the low level mid level guys who need and want the union. not the stars,

[Consequence]

Tim from http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/ has done a lot of work discussing the CBA and lockout. I think his latest proposal is a good starting point for a system.
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2 ... -the-baby/

The Cap System

The system will include both a soft cap – more accurately described as a “threshold” – and a hard cap. Structurally, it is similar to the “flex” cap system previously proposed by the owners, but it is not the same. The mechanics would be:

The “soft cap” or “threshold” would be set by reducing BRI by $100 million to cover benefits, then taking 47% of the remainder and dividing by 30 (or total number of teams). Teams may spend above the threshold using an exception system that will be largely the same as the previous system – with changes to be outlined below.
A hard cap – which no team will be allowed to exceed at any point during the season – will be established by reducing the BRI by $100 million, then taking 65% of the remainder and dividing by 30 (or total number of teams).
A salary “floor” will be established at 75% of the salary cap. Any team who fails to meet or exceed this baseline in payroll will be ineligible for participation in the supplemental revenue sharing program.* (* This is assumed to be the new program, which is expected deal with currently unshared revenue streams. The team will still receive their share of the national revenues – including television – as they do now.)
The luxury tax will be abolished. It will be unnecessary with the hard cap, and it’s revenue sharing function will be replaced in any new revenue sharing program the league implements.

Under this proposal, with the actual BRI of $3.817 billion, the 2011 hard cap would have been about $80.2 million. According to Shamsports, only three teams exceeded that amount – the Lakers, the Mavericks, and the Magic. Using Patricia Bender’s info to go back to 2006, you’ll find eight in 2006, four in 2007, and seven each in 2008 through 2010. It’s a number that will be difficult to reach, even without the luxury tax as an additional curb on spending.

However, it is also a number that virtually any market could live with to field a contender, particularly given an improved revenue sharing system. People often point out that spending doesn’t guarantee success. That’s true, but not spending clearly restricts the number of ways you can be successful. Look through the teams that went deep in the playoffs with small payrolls, and most will be getting a lot of mileage out of one or two rookie deals. If you roll those teams out a couple years, you’ll find their payrolls often skyrocket.

These quotes really don't detail the proposal properly. Click the link above to get your read on.

[Vorticity]

There's one thing that I think a lot of people having even looked at is that almost none of the star players in the league haven't really gotten engaged in the talks with the owners. Guys like LeBron, Dwyane Wade, Deron Williams etc haven't shown their faces at all to these meetings. They say that the lockout will end but they're sitting on their butts doing nothing to speed up that process. It's the middle class players like Fisher, Mo Evans and Roger Mason Jr that are spear heading the talks. I think it looks bad on them and the players as a whole.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215638/Kobe_Could_Offer_Loans_To_Fellow_Players

Kobe Bryant has reportedly offered to loan money to other players if the NBA lockout is prolonged.

"They've been deeply involved in the meetings we've had," said Billy Hunter in reference to Bryant and LeBron James. "I know Kobe is intimately involved in interfacing with colleagues and sharing in a pool of revenue to help the others get through this. Kobe has volunteered to do that in the event others need, he and others are prepared to loan money if necessary."

[I_Like_Dirt]

A little investment, in a Clinton would be money well spent. He will speak at bowling allies if you pay enough. Politicians love to be in the spotlight, and the NBA is a developed brand that can attract such a negotiator and it would help to put the players position into the media, which in my opinion is very lacking.

I agree that the players haven't done a very good job maneuvering the PR battle, but I'm not so sure politicizing the negotiations would be a smart move. Even if they could get a few guys like Clinton on their side, the owners would be able to get a boatload of republicans on their side, and no way Obama is touching that one. I don't think that kind of move has the type of potential for a positive impact you imply.

[whoknows]

A little investment, in a Clinton would be money well spent. He will speak at bowling allies if you pay enough. Politicians love to be in the spotlight, and the NBA is a developed brand that can attract such a negotiator and it would help to put the players position into the media, which in my opinion is very lacking.

I agree that the players haven't done a very good job maneuvering the PR battle, but I'm not so sure politicizing the negotiations would be a smart move. Even if they could get a few guys like Clinton on their side, the owners would be able to get a boatload of republicans on their side, and no way Obama is touching that one. I don't think that kind of move has the type of potential for a positive impact you imply.

Politicians have no place in negotiations. Professional negotiators on the other hand are badly missed by the union. When one county negotiates with another, they don't send politicians - they would still be negotiating today the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Sure politicians are the face that makes the news, but behind the scenes, the real negotiators are professionals.

Also, what makes some here think that the superstars have the negotiation skills to be running the show?
If anything, the union is limiting the earning potential of superstars. Same as in life, It is the less talented/less skilled/lazy that need union representation.

[S.W.A.N]

Professional negotiators on the other hand are badly missed by the union.

Actually not true at all. Billy Hunter is an experienced negotiator who had put a lot of time in with the union and did very well by them in the past.


Perception of negotiations is dictated by the media, and in the current world of bloggerists, twitter and immediate news we are seeing a snapshot of an ongoing process which does not to justice to the likes of Hunter who are in it for the long haul and should be judged by the results not the process.

If we get to the point where we are playing ball this winter and the players haven't had to give back everything they gained in previous negotiations then Hunter has done an excellent job.

[sewerfrosh]

Fisher, Bonner and others of that ilk are what you want representing the playerrs. They are intelligent and worldly enough to understand the lawyers and their lawyer talk that are doing the negotiating on behalf of the players. Negotiators are lawyers even in the civil service and auto unions. The presidents and other reps are the go betweens eplaining to the lawyers what their reps want. The best basketball players on the team arent likely the most intelligent and usually have too many other things on the go to bother with the tiring negotiating process. Fisher has done a great job so far and keeping the lid on things has been his number one accomplishment. Kudos to him.

[dagger]

Professional negotiators on the other hand are badly missed by the union.

Actually not true at all. Billy Hunter is an experienced negotiator who had put a lot of time in with the union and did very well by them in the past.


Perception of negotiations is dictated by the media, and in the current world of bloggerists, twitter and immediate news we are seeing a snapshot of an ongoing process which does not to justice to the likes of Hunter who are in it for the long haul and should be judged by the results not the process.

If we get to the point where we are playing ball this winter and the players haven't had to give back everything they gained in previous negotiations then Hunter has done an excellent job.

Jeffrey Kessler, the union's legal counsel, is an experienced, smart negotiator. But smarts rarely determine situations like this. It's about who has the power and are they determined to use it.

[S.W.A.N]

But smarts rarely determine situations like this. It's about who has the power and are they determined to use it.

Obviously carrying a big stick helps in negotiations, and in this case the owners will always carry the biggest stick.

But it is not totally one sided. The players have the threat of de-certification on their side. Its kinda like bringing a nuclear bomb to a gun fight. Everyone gets hurt by it, but you are going to hurt the other guy...

In this case I wonder if all the recent talk about the agents going rogue and starting the de-certification without Billy Hunter is not just a real threat (I think some want to do it now) but a well timed negotiating tactic. After last weeks solidarity rah rah meeting Billy and Derrick get to go back to the owners and say

"Okay, we got everything under control and we are willing to move to make a deal happen but you got to give us something or those damn agents are going to take over this situation and we going to spend at least a year with no basketball and two years in court figuring this mess out"

[DG88]

But smarts rarely determine situations like this. It's about who has the power and are they determined to use it.

Obviously carrying a big stick helps in negotiations, and in this case the owners will always carry the biggest stick.

But it is not totally one sided. The players have the threat of de-certification on their side. Its kinda like bringing a nuclear bomb to a gun fight. Everyone gets hurt by it, but you are going to hurt the other guy...

In this case I wonder if all the recent talk about the agents going rogue and starting the de-certification without Billy Hunter is not just a real threat (I think some want to do it now) but a well timed negotiating tactic. After last weeks solidarity rah rah meeting Billy and Derrick get to go back to the owners and say

"Okay, we got everything under control and we are willing to move to make a deal happen but you got to give us something or those damn agents are going to take over this situation and we going to spend at least a year with no basketball and two years in court figuring this mess out"

But decertification is a double edged sword. If the NLRB does not see where a lawsuit should be mandated against the owners than the players lose big time. All the benefits that they've worked hard for for years goes down the drain. It's definitely a last resort option but not one that they should employ unless they know that they can win the lawsuit.

[Parataxis]

Silly question, but if decertification does happen, are the Raptors obligated to follow Canadian or US labour law?

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

IF NBPA certificated, would current contracts still be valid. How do you have valid contracts if the other party of Collective Bargaining no longer exists?

[tecumseh18]

Silly question, but if decertification does happen, are the Raptors obligated to follow Canadian or US labour law?

Not a silly question, and Canadian [edit: Ontario] labour law. That's part of the complexity of the situation.

IF NBPA certificated, would current contracts still be valid. How do you have valid contracts if the other party of Collective Bargaining no longer exists?

You mean decertified? No, contracts would no longer be valid. This is called the "Kevin Durant gets paid" scenario.

[dhackett1565]

IF NBPA certificated, would current contracts still be valid. How do you have valid contracts if the other party of Collective Bargaining no longer exists?

That would be determined in court when/if the owners or players present an anti-trust lawsuit. And it could be case-by-case, or a global ruling - it is totally unpredictable what will happen once the players throw out the rule book by decertifying.

[tecumseh18]

IF NBPA certificated, would current contracts still be valid. How do you have valid contracts if the other party of Collective Bargaining no longer exists?

That would be determined in court when/if the owners or players present an anti-trust lawsuit. And it could be case-by-case, or a global ruling - it is totally unpredictable what will happen once the players throw out the rule book by decertifying.

How do you see that? An anti-trust suit would only happen at the instance of the players if the owners tried to impose some limits on the ability of Durant to sign anywhere for any amount of money. I may be wrong, but I think the starting point with decertification is that the player contracts are at least voidable, especially in those cases (first contracts for draftees, max contracts) where they are almost 100% determined by the CBA.

[dhackett1565]

IF NBPA certificated, would current contracts still be valid. How do you have valid contracts if the other party of Collective Bargaining no longer exists?

That would be determined in court when/if the owners or players present an anti-trust lawsuit. And it could be case-by-case, or a global ruling - it is totally unpredictable what will happen once the players throw out the rule book by decertifying.

How do you see that? An anti-trust suit would only happen at the instance of the players if the owners tried to impose some limits on the ability of Durant to sign anywhere for any amount of money. I may be wrong, but I think the starting point with decertification is that the player contracts are at least voidable, especially in those cases (first contracts for draftees, max contracts) where they are almost 100% determined by the CBA.

Yeah, but any player could probably find a legal way to sue their contract holder, since the CBA that defines their contract is no longer valid, since the union is gone. Anti-trust laws would come into play. For example, Lebron James would almost certainly want to cancel his contract and sign somewhere for 30 million a year. And the only thing preventing that is his current contract, which was defined under an agreement with a non-existent union.

The NBA has filed a lawsuit against the NBPA about a month and a half ago to (among other things) assert their right to nullify contracts if the union decertifies. As such, it is only reasonable to assume that until that suit is settled, the league does NOT have the cut and dry ability to nullify contracts.

[tecumseh18]

The NBA has filed a lawsuit against the NBPA about a month and a half ago to (among other things) assert their right to nullify contracts if the union decertifies. As such, it is only reasonable to assume that until that suit is settled, the league does NOT have the cut and dry ability to nullify contracts.

Well, it's often helpful to obtain a declaration of entitlement from a court, if only for negotiation purposes, but it's not always legally necessary. I thought this was merely a symbolic step by the league to make it perfectly clear to the players what the stakes are here. It may depend on the wording, of course, but I would be surprised if the standard NBA player contracts had much if any legal existence outside the confines of a collective bargaining relationship between the owners and the players as a certified union.

And when I said the contracts are "voidable" after decertification, I meant at the instance of both the player and the team. Orlando would obviously like to treat Hedo's contract as void, just as Durant (and Westbrook and Rose et al.) would like to with theirs.